06 PeCu Heritagescapes - Cul Sys BK, 2 Oct 10 PDF

Heritagescapes
and Cultural Landscapes

PLANET EARTH & CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING SERIES
Celebrating ‘learning to live together sustainably’ under the aegis of United
Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), and
understanding the interdependency and fragility of planetary life support systems,
and making better global citizenship that promote more humane and peaceful life,
and develop mass awakening for universal brotherhood, this Series will publish the
innovative and interdisciplinary works that enhance better understanding and
reverentially preserving those values of the past that help the humanity in
achieving the basic goals of the UNDESD, and also mark the celebration of United
Nations International Year of Planet Earth, 2009-2010, and United Nations
International Year of Astronomy, 2009, IYA-2009. This is in corroboration with the
IGU Kyoto Regional Congress in 2013 that focuses on ‘Traditional Wisdom and
Modern Knowledge for the Earth’s Future.’ Think universally, see globally,
behave regionally, and act locally but insightfully. This is an appeal for cosmic
vision, global humanism, and Self-realization. ……
The Series is sponsored by the ‘Society of Heritage Planning & Environmental Health’.
Series editor:
Rana P.B. Singh (Professor of Cultural Geography, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, India). Email: ranapbs@gmail.com
1. Uprooting Geographic Thoughts in India: Toward Ecology and

Culture in 21st Century.
Rana P.B. Singh.
Foreword: Prof. David Simon (Royal Holloway, London, U.K.)
This book is the first of its kind highlighting the roots of ancient geographical
thought that gives a new vision and perspective for scientific vision and
global understanding, together with examining the issues of India, Indianness
and ecological cosmology. With its interdisciplinary nature and contents, this
book will serve as lead reference and also textbook in the courses on
geographical thought, Gandhian ideology, ecological history and philosophy,
nature theology, environmental history, and cultural studies.
1 June 2009, 22 x 15cm, xvi + 325pp., 7 tables, 15 figures.
ISBN: 978-1-4438-0580-3. ISBN: 978-1-4438-0579-7.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne U.K.
2. Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Vision for the

21st Century.
Rana P.B. Singh.
Foreword: Prof. Martin J. Haigh (Oxford Brooke University, U.K.)
This book deals with the contributions of emerging geographical thought from
India that has historical and cultural roots emphasising man-nature
interrelationships and interactions, which helped to form a distinct culture
iii
enriched with metaphysics, literature, lifeworld, village life, landscape,

heritage, belief systems, and even the contemporary worldviews. This is a
pioneering works from insider’s perspective.
1 August 2009, 22 x 15cm, xvi + 429 pp., 16 tables, 58 figures.
ISBN: 978-1-4438-1119-X. ISBN: 978-1-4438-1119-4.
3. Banaras: Making of India’s Heritage City.

Rana P.B. Singh.
Foreword: Prof. Dr. Neils Gutschow (Heidelberg University, Germany)
Narrating the making of the Hindus’ most sacred and heritage city of India
(Banaras) this book will serve as lead reference and insightful reading for
understanding the cultural complexities, archetypal connotations, ritualscapes
and vivid heritagescapes that maintain India’s pride of history and culture.
1 October 2009, 29 x 21cm, xvi + 409pp., 60 tables, 123 figures.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-1321-4, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1321-1.
Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon (India)
4. Cosmic Order and Cultural Astronomy: Sacred Cities of India.

Rana P.B. Singh.
Foreword: Prof. John McKim Malville (University of Colorado, U.S.A.)
This book deals with the critical appraisal of studying cultural astronomy and
cosmic order and its implications in India, illustrated with studies of
heritagescape of Khajuraho; manescape of Gaya; Deviscape of Vindhyachal
goddess; Shivascape of Kashi, where Shiva dances; Shaktiscape of Kashi; and
Naturescape of Chitrakut, where mother earth blesses.
1 November 2009, 22 x 15cm, xiv + 250pp., 15 tables, 72 figures.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-1417-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1417-1.
5. Sacred Geography of Goddesses in South Asia.

Essays in Memory of David Kinsley.
Rana P.B. Singh (editor).
This anthology deals with the sacred geography of goddesses in South Asia
that manifested and maintained tradition of goddess worship, and possesses
the spatial and archetypal symbolism ― the continuity of the scenarios,
lifeways and performances that evolved in the past and continued today in
spite of superimposition and layering upon layers of various cultures and
traditions.
1 April 2010, 22 x 15cm, xviii + 396pp., 34 tables, 69 figures.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-1865-8, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1865-0
iv
6. Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes.

Foreword: Prof. William Logan
(UNESCO Chair of Heritage, Deakin University, Australia)
This anthology deals with the current debate in heritage studies and planning
that implied theoretical constructs, and cites case studies from different parts
of the world, like Cambodia, India, Japan, Jordon, México, and USA. On the
lines of the perspectives of UNESCO World Heritage Committee the
prospective features and in-depth local structures are portrayed with field
experiences, thus the dimension of heritage studies is broadened. This
anthology paves the path of multidisciplinary approaches to the newly
emerging discipline of heritage ecology.
1 October 2010, 22 x 15cm, xvi + 344pp, 16 tables, 50 figures
ISBN (10): 81-8290-226-6, ISBN (13): 978-81-8290-226-8.
Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi
7. Sacredscapes and Pilgrimage Systems.

Foreword: Prof. Dallen J. Timothy (Arizona State University, U.S.A.)
These essays deal with current debate in pilgrimage studies and spirit of place
that helps to understand the deeper relationship between human psyche and
sacred environment, citing illustrations from different parts of the world, like
Canada, China, India, Israel, Nepal, Pakistan, Romania, Spain, Tibet, and the
Buddhist places, representing many religions. On the lines of thought linking
locality with universality the prospective features and in-depth local structures
are portrayed with field experiences. These studies will pave the path of to the
newly emerging discipline, pilgrimage studies.
1 October 2010, 22 x 15cm, xiv + 344pp., 18 tables, 51 figures.
ISBN (10): 81-8290-227-4, ISBN (13): 978-81-8290-227-5.
8. Holy Places and Pilgrimages: Essays on India

Foreword: Prof. Robert H. Stoddard (University of Nebraska, U.S.A.)
This anthology deals with the issues of sacred places and pilgrimages in India,
illustrated with case studies representing different regional traditions and
emphasising themes like Hindu textual traditions, Varakari tradition of
pilgrimages, sacred space and planning, city of ancestral worship, religious
tourism and place of sainthood, pilgrimage-tourism, Buddhist practices, and
archetypal symbolism. This will open new directions of understanding in
pilgrimage studies, and will be used as major text in this field.
1 Nov. 2010, 22x 15cm, ca. xvi + 344pp. ; 30 tables, 46 figs.
ISBN (10): 81-8290-228-2, ISBN (13): 978-81-8290-228-2.
Heritagescapes
and
Cultural Landscapes
_______________________________
Editor
Rana P. B. Singh
Banaras Hindu University, India
Foreword
William Logan
Unesco Chair of Heritage & Urbanism, Deakin University, Australia
Shubhi Publications
New Delhi
Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 6.
Cataloguing Data:
(Editor) Singh, Rana P.B. (b. 1950)
Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes
Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi (India).
A5 : xvi + 344pp., 16 tables, 50 figures.
1. Heritage studies, 2. Heritage tourism, 3. Cultural studies,
4. Landscape studies, 5. Cultural anthropology.
Proceedings of the Panel 20 on ‘Heritagescapes and Sacredscapes’, of the
16th World Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and
Ethnological Studies (IUAES) held at Kunming, China: 27-31 July 2009.
Sponsored by the ‘Society of Heritage Planning & Environmental Health’

ISBN (10): 81-8290-226-6, ISBN (13): 978-81-8290-226-8.
Copyright © 2010 by Rana P.B. Singh, and the contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the copyright owner.
The Publisher does not necessarily endorse the ideas held, or views expressed by
the Editors or Authors of the material contained in its publications.
This book first published on 2 October 2010

by
Shubhi Publications
240, II Floor, City Centre, Gurgaon, HR 122002, India.
Phone: +91-124-4088499, Mob: +91-0-8800104955.
Web: www.subhiindia.com ; Email: publisher@shubhiindia.com
Cover image: Taj Mahal at the dawn

Photograph © Prashant S. Rana.
Printed in India by Aegean offset Printer, Noida, UP

VIEWS ON THE BOOK
“I would like to congratulate the editor for the book and for other
contributions. I have rarely seen so much insight coupled with so great an
erudition on a site. This work is really exemplary of the integrated
approach to site interpretation and site management that UNESCO is
supporting as the only meaningful way to preserve values.”
― Dr. Francesco Bandarin,
Assistant Director-General for Culture, UNESCO, Paris, &
former Director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre, 2000-10
“These [essays] promise to make a valuable contribution to the evolution

of theory and practice and to protecting the world’s heritage and creating a
more sustainable world.”
― Prof. William Logan,
UNESCO Chair of Heritage & Urbanism, Deakin University, Australia
“Professor Rana P. B. Singh accompanies us on an intriguing tour of case-

studies redefining the limits of cultural geography. The essays portray a
wide range of issues highlighting the differences in interpretation based on
diverse traditions restating their relevance to cultural continuity. The
debate on meaning is extended with examples on spiritual identity and
how these values as perceived by professionals, decision-makers and local
communities might be evaluated. With almost twenty years of Cultural
Landscape experiences in the World Heritage Convention, this is a timely
contribution to the debate on new interpretations and applications of
Cultural Landscapes and Heritagescapes.”
― Prof. Michael Turner,
UNESCO Chair in Urban Design and Conservation Studies
Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem, Israel
“This is a valuable and timely collection. It includes a range of case

studies from a variety of cultural contexts and makes a significant
contribution to the field of heritage studies.”
― Prof. Roy Jones,
Co-Director, Curtin Sustainable Tourism Centre,
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
viii Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes
“This well-selected collection of essays is an important contribution to

thinking about human ecology. A series of renowned authors write here on
the connection between cultural heritage and landscape, with examples
from many parts of the world. As the UNESCO is identifying and
designating World Heritage Sites, and interest in them is generating
heritage tourism, it is important to have careful consideration of the
resources and issues involved, and that is exactly what this elegant
anthology offers.”
― Prof. J. Donald Hughes,
John Evans Distinguished Professor of History,
University of Denver, U.S.A.
“As the twenty-first century develops, the business of defining

heritage increasingly escapes the elite grasp of scholars and curators.
Instead, peoples’ pasts are gradually being celebrated and contested by
multiple groups from all social sectors and, in some locations, the
articulation of history is being gradually democratized. This collection
provides contemporary perspectives on these issues from leading commen-
tators. Notably they are international in their origins and their case-studies
likewise encompass a range of countries including India, Japan, Jordan,
Cambodia, México and U.K. This book therefore broadens our
appreciation of the impacts and inflections of the heritage business and its
attendant landscapes throughout our modernizing world.”
― Dr. David Atkinson,
Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.
“This collection of ten essays draws together a range of interesting

international case studies written by authors from at least seven different
countries to introduce key issues in heritage studies. Interrogating the way
we deal with heritage landscapes from a range of perspectives, it provides
an empirically informative overview of landscape interpretation, appraisal,
conservation and preservation. It also highlights the significant tensions
embedded within the cultural landscape and the contested relationships
between heritage and planning. One of the most valuable contributions
that this book makes is the inclusion of ways of life as important, although
less-tangible, elements of the heritagescape, a perspective that is to be
warmly welcomed.”
― Dr. Niamh Moore,
School of Geography, University College of Dublin, Ireland.
Views on the Book ix
“This collection of essays is a most welcome addition to the burgeoning

literature on heritage, landscape and identity. The focus on India is
particularly appropriate given Professor Rana Singh’s specific area of
expertise and long term association with heritage identification and
conservation within the subcontinent. These themes are suitably extended
by additional perspectives on Japan, Cambodia, Jordan, México and U.K.
This volume will appeal to both academics and heritage practitioners; in
particular it will foster the connections between geography, history,
sociology and planning.”
― Dr. Brian J. Shaw,
Assoc. Professor of Human Geography, School of Earth & Environment,
The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia
“Under the editorship of Professor Rana P.B. Singh, a passionate and

indefatigable force in the field of heritage studies, Heritagescape and
Cultural Landscapes provides a both an encompassing overview as well as
meticulously detailed accounts of significant sites in the world facing
myriad challenges and evolving definitions of historic preservation and
tourism in the 21st century. This book offers new insights on how to best to
preserve and make our worlds “tangible and intangible” histories
assessable and relevant to people from diverse communities, as well as
accounts of continued neglect and corruption leading to the destruction of
our heritage.”
― Prof. Kathryn Myers,
Professor of Art, The University of Connecticut-Storrs, U.S.A.
“This is a challenging and helpful collection of papers which collectively

link heritage studies to wider questions about sustainability and ecology.
The case studies ensure arguments are empirically based and the
predominance of Asian examples bring a welcomed focus on sacred
landscapes. This volume offers ‘food for thoughts’ and will be stimulating
reading for anyone interested in the conditions for and potentials of
heritage in the modern worlds.”
― Dr. Marie Louise Stig Sørensen,
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge , U.K.
~~~
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VIEWS ON THE BOOK ....................................................................vii

List of Tables ................................................................................ xiii
List of Figures .............................................................................. xiii
Preface & Acknowledgements ....................................................... xv
FOREWORD ...................................................................................... 1
─ WILLIAM LOGAN
(Unesco Chair of Heritage & Urbanism, Deakin University, Australia)
Chapter 1 ......................................................................................... 7
Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes: An Appraisal
─ Rana P.B. Singh (Banaras Hindu University, India)
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................... 57
UNESCO’s Heritage-scape: A Global Endeavour to Produce
‘Peace in the Minds of Men’ through Tourism and Preservation
─ Michael A. Di Giovine (University of Chicago, USA)
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................ 87
Heritagescapes of India: Appraising Heritage Ecology
─ Rana P.B. Singh & Pravin S. Rana (Banaras Hindu University, India)
Chapter 4 ...................................................................................... 129

The World Heritage Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama,
Japan: Continuing Culture and Meeting Modernity
─ Rana P.B. Singh (Banaras Hindu University, India) &
Masaaki Fukunaga (Gifu Women’s University, Japan)
Chapter 5 ...................................................................................... 151

Conservation of cultural landscape in Shirakawa-go
─ Nobu Kuroda (University of Tsukuba, Japan)
xii Contents
Chapter 6 ..................................................................................... 173

Preservation of Cultural Heritage and Revitalizing a Mining
Town in Mexico. The Case of Cerro de San Pedro
─ Josè G. Vargas-Hernàndez (Universidad de Guadalajara, México)
Chapter 7 ...................................................................................... 205

Varanasi, India’s Cultural Heritage City: Contestation,
Conservation & Planning
─ Rana P.B. Singh (Banaras Hindu University, India)
Chapter 8 ..................................................................................... 255

Bodh Gaya, a World Heritage Site: Tourists and Native’s
Perceptions of Heritage and its Conservation
─ Rana P.B. Singh and Devesh Kumar
(Banaras Hindu University, India)
Chapter 9 ..................................................................................... 287

Revaluation and Restoration of Sacred Sites: The Case of
Jordan
─ Sara Mondini (Ca’Foscari University, Italy)
Chapter 10 ................................................................................... 303

People with Learning Difficulties and their inclusion within
Cultural and Heritage Sites
─ Jonathan Rix (Open University, U.K.)
Appendix 1 ................................................................................... 329

UNESCO World Heritage Cities, List, September 2010: 227 Cities
Appendix 2 ................................................................................... 333

UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
The CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................................... 335

INDEX ........................................................................................... 337
The EDITOR ................................................................................. 343
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
3.1. UNESCO World Heritage Properties; January 2010 ........................ 94

3.2. India: Heritage Properties as in UNESCO WHL, January 2010 ....... 95
3.3. India: Properties on the Tentative List, January 2010 ...................... 97
4.1. Shirakawa-Mura: Distribution of Cultural Heritage areas ............... 136
8.1. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Basic information .................................. 266

8.2. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Age group, and Educational status ........ 267
8.3. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Duration of stay ..................................... 267
8.4. Heritage Valuation: Respondents’ view (multiple choices) ............. 269
8.5. Bodh Gaya. Respondent’s perception of the heritage ...................... 269
8.6. Buddha’s related Sites: Respondents’ awareness ........................... 270
8.7. Status of Sites: Respondents’ view (multiple answers) ................... 271
8.8. Respondents’ awareness about dating of heritage objects ............... 274
8.9. Respondents’ awareness to Renovations undertaken....................... 275
8.10. Respondents’ Perceptions of the problems: multiple choices ........ 279
10.1a. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum ............... 315

10.1b. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum ............... 316
10.2. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum ................. 320
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1. Referring the Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH, UNESCO 2003..... 14

1.2. Heritage Planning, its Intrinsic Nature: Past, History, Heritage ....... 21
1.3. Users of the Historic City: A Complex Network System .................. 23
1.4. Natural landscape and Cultural landscape ......................................... 26
1.5. Transcendental interactions in conservation management ................ 40
1.6. Main constituent values of Sacred Natural Sites, SNS ...................... 41
2.1. Scale model of Angkor Wat in Bangkok .......................................... 64

2.2. The Bayon: A product of “restoration” ............................................. 75
2.3. Ta Prohm: A product of “preservation” ............................................ 76
2.4. Artist’s rendering of the heritage-scape ............................................ 80
3.1. India: Unesco World Heritage sites, January 2010 ........................... 96

3.2. Heritage, Place Identity and Tourism: Components of Triangle ..... 109
3.3. Khajuraho: Spatial view of monuments .......................................... 115
3.4. Konark: the temple complex ............................................................ 117
4.1. Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama Heritage sites, Japan ...................... 130

4.2. Ogimachi, the nucleus of heritage sites of Shirakawa-gō, Japan ..... 131
4.3. The structure of the Gassho-style house .......................................... 132
5.1. Ogimachi Village in 1976 ............................................................... 154

5.2. Ogimachi Village in 2009 ............................................................... 154
5.3. Kanda House: a small museum runs by a family ............................. 155
5.4. Cultivation in paddy fields in the 1940s ......................................... 158
5.5. A rice planting show ....................................................................... 158
5.6. A transition in the number of houses in the Shirakawa-mura .......... 161
5.7. A Gassho-style house with a plastic snow shade ............................ 164
5.8. A Gassho-style house with a traditional snow shade ....................... 164
5.9. Impact of World Heritage status: negative or positive? ................... 165
5.10. Shifts in the number of tourists to visit Ogimachi Village ............. 167
6.1. Location of Cerro de San Pedro, México ........................................ 175

6.2. Landscape of Cerro de San Pedro region, México ......................... 176
6.3. Compañía Patriótica in Cerro de San Pedro region, México ........... 178
List of Figures xv
6.4. Proposed Mine in Cerro de San Pedro region, México ................... 183
6.5. Settlements in Cerro de San Pedro region, México ........................ 185
6.6. Protestors’ movement in Cerro de San Pedro region, México ......... 199
7.1. Varanasi, Development Region: Development Plan, 2011-2021 .... 207

7.2. Varanasi, Development Plan 2011................................................... 208
7.3. Riverfront Varanasi, World Heritage Site ...................................... 210
7.4. Riverfront Varanasi: a scene of the Ahilyabai to Shitala Ghats ...... 211
7.5. Sarnath: Places of attraction ........................................................... 212
8.1. Bodh Gaya: Sacred Landscapes – Temples and Monasteries ......... 257
8.2. The Buddha in bhumisparsha mudra (Mahabodhi temple) ............. 258
8.3. Mahabodhi temple, Bodh Gaya: the present scene ......................... 262
8.4. Mahabodhi temple, Bodh Gaya (after A. Cunningham, 1892) ........ 263
8.5. Mahabodhi temple and surroundings, the contemporary scene ....... 264
8.6. Giant Buddha (Daijokyo), representing Kamakura’s image ............ 273
9.1. Complex dedicated to Mu’adh b. Jabal ........................................... 294

9.2. Shrine attributed to Prophet Noah .................................................. 295
9.3. Shrine attributed to Prophet Aaron ................................................. 296
9.4. Supposed tomb of Prophet Joshua .................................................. 297
10.1. The background to the access to heritage project ......................... 306

10.2. Post-tour questionnaire ................................................................. 311
10.3. Visual notes taken during a debrief session ................................... 312
10.4. Accessible, easy-to-read presentation of findings ......................... 314
10.5. Presentation of findings being accessible and easy read ............... 321
PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We live in a world that once links the self (microcosm, mind) and the
terrestrial earth (macrocosm, universe). All these linkages are represented,
memorised, structures, monumentalised, iconized, performed and
continued to inspire us for making the present precious through which we
understand our journey from the past, and also envisioning our future. One
of such processes, representations and possessions is ‘heritage’ (may be
out under the label of tangible, intangible, cultural landscape or any
associated attributes). By imposing value, interpreting the symbols
associated or imposed therein, understanding aesthetics and beauties, and
getting ourselves attached with heritage will serve the good cause of our
inherited and inherent humankindness.
When any visual or appearing object that has possessed the senses of
history and traditions and be accepted as part of life ― may it be memory,
performances, uses or functions ― to be labelled as heritage; when no
human concern it may be an artefact or non-heritage. ‘Heritage’ is
therefore ultimately a cultural practice inherited in the evolutionary
process of mankind, and involved in the construction and regulation of a
range of values, aesthetics, visuality, resourcefulness, meanings, and
above all deeper understanding. The uses and contexts of heritage is a
subject of individual concerns, varying from person to person, or from one
culture to another, or even one class to other. Nevertheless there also
appears some commonality, mutuality and co-sharedness that altogether
make heritage comprehensive, holistic and wholesomeness.
The idea of this volume was originated in one of the sessions of Panel
20 on ‘Heritagescapes and Sacredscapes’, organised under the ages of the
Ethnological Studies (IUAES) held in Kunming, China: 27-31 July 2009.
It was decided to invite lead papers from established scholars as additional
representatives of the theme. The result is in the form of three volumes of
anthologies, all published in the “Planet Earth and Cultural Understanding
Series” from Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi (India). The
present one, publication vol. 6 in the series, consists of ten essays from
scholars belonging to different countries, representing their studies from
Cambodia, India, Japan, Jordan, Australia, México, U.K. and USA.
Prof. William S. Logan (Deakin University, Australia), a leading
authority in heritage studies, has been kind enough to go through major
parts of the book and gracefully wrote the ‘foreword’. A heartfelt sense of
obligation is to you Bill. With all due appreciation I acknowledge the
kindness of all the contributors who shown their trust in this project and
xviii Preface & Acknowledgements
supported me by following editorial instructions and making changes in

their essays as suggested at different stages.
I record a personal thanks to Francesco Bandarin (Assistant Director-
General for Culture, UNESCO, and former Director of UNESCO’s World
Heritage Centre, Paris), who has always supported me for promoting the
issues of heritage. Some of the distinguished and established scholars and
professors working in the field of heritage studies from different countries
have spared time to go through substantive parts of this anthology and
have encouraged and supported this project by sending their views. I thank
them and personally acknowledge their kindness, viz. Michael Turner
(UNESCO Chair BAAD Jerusalem, Israel), Roy Jones (Curtin University,
Australia), J. Donald Hughes (University of Denver, USA), David
Atkinson (University of Hull, UK), Niamh Moore (University College of
Dublin, Ireland), Brian Shaw (University of Western Australia), Kathryn
Myers (University of Connecticut-Storrs, USA), and Marie Louise Stig
Sørensen (University of Cambridge, UK).
As always, I keep on records name of my wife Manju (Usha), who
suffered and tolerated consistently negligence and carelessness from my
end, however always encouraged me to see this project the final light of
release. The working environment was made pleasant by all sorts of
innocent and childish disturbances created by my two grandsons: 10½-
years old Abhisth and 2¾-years old ‘Vishnu’. My son Prashant S. Rana
(M.C.A.) has made the cover, setting his photograph; it is thankless to
thank him. Two of my doctoral students Ram Kumar Chaturvedi and
Pankaj Prakash Singh have been helpful in re-drawing some of the figures.
At the Shubhi Publications, New Delhi (India) Mr. Sanjay Arya has
been of immense help at different stages, while the other member
associates there also helped me to get the volumes printed in a very short
period, while taking care of the quality. I am thankful to all of them, but
especially to my friend Rakesh Singh (Harmony Bookshop, Varanasi) for
all sorts of help and support, and also to other friends for promoting this
Series.
― RANA P. B. SINGH
# New F- 7 Jodhpur Colony, B.H.U., Vārānasi: 23 September 2010.
Bhādrapada Shukla 15th Purnimā, Mahālayā starts, Vikrama Samvata 2067.
FOREWORD
HERITAGESCAPES & CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
William S. Logan
Heritage takes many forms and serves many functions. The tangible
heritage of cultural monuments and sites and of significant natural
environments has long been the subject of systematic conservation efforts
in many countries as well as globally under the 1972 World Heritage
Convention. Programmes designed to help maintain the intangible heritage
of skills, practices, representations, expressions and knowledge have come
more recently, culminating in the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the
Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage. Meanwhile the UNESCO Memory
of the World has focused attention since 1992 on protecting significant
documents and other records of the past.
These various forms of heritage come together in ‘heritagescapes’,
giving a distinctive character to a tract of countryside or city. The terms
used in the UNESCO heritage system are ‘Cultural landscape’ and
‘Historic urban landscape’ (HUL). Despite the lively discussions that have
followed UNESCO’s adoption of the Vienna Memorandum (World
Heritage Centre 2005), there remains considerable confusion about the
meaning of these terms, especially the HUL, and how they intersect.
Cultural landscapes are cultural properties that ‘represent the combined
works of nature and of man’ (World Heritage Centre 2008, Paragraph 47).
They are dominated by natural elements that are the result of human
actions. Historic urban landscapes are ensembles of buildings, structures
and open spaces, in their natural and ecological context, but where the
man-made elements dominate.
In both cultural landscapes and historic urban landscapes the idea of
integration is essential. With the HUL the focus is placed on finding an
‘integrated approach linking contemporary architecture, sustainable urban
development and landscape integrity based on existing historic patterns,
building stock and context’ (ICOMOS 2006). Frequently the emphasis is
on the tangible elements and intangible features – the ways people live in
their environmental settings – is neglected.
The discussion of cultural landscapes on the other hand has man’s
actions at the centre. By integrating the tangible and intangible, the
2 Foreword
cultural landscape concept reflects ways of seeing the world and our
existence in it that are more holistic than is usual in Western societies. The
cultural landscape concept is particularly relevant in identifying, managing
and interpreting the Asia, Africa, the Pacific and among Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islanders in Australia and the First Peoples of the Americas.
In such societies, physical places have social and religious meaning.
These are what Professor Rana P.B. Singh refers to as ‘sacredscapes’ –
mystic-religious sites, including built structures and monuments, natural
settings and perceived cultural landscapes, and the intangible heritage of
traditional religious rituals and artistic practices. When the UNESCO’s
World Heritage system recognized cultural landscape in 1992 the first
such inscriptions were New Zealand’s Tongariro (1993) and Australia’s
Uluru-Kata Djuta (1994). Both were sacred places – sacredscapes.
Cultural landscapes came into the World Heritage system as part of the
Global Strategy to rebalance the World Heritage List, to ensure its
credibility as a globally representative list. This was the culmination of
extensive discussions over the period 1987-1993 involving the World
Heritage Committee, Member States, the Advisory Groups (ICOMOS,
IUCN, ICCROM) and other experts. In particular there was a concern that
the List was Eurocentric and that major world regions such as Africa and
the Pacific and large parts of Asia were not adequately represented.
A number of new themes were suggested that would facilitate
nominations from underrepresented parts of the world. They were more
anthropologically based and included concepts such as ‘human
coexistence with the land’, ‘cultural coexistence’ and ‘spirituality and
creative expression’.
The broad themes of the Global Strategy (1994)
HUMAN COEXISTENCE WITH THE LAND
• Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)
• Settlement
• Modes of subsistence
• Technological evolution
HUMAN BEINGS IN SOCIETY
• Human interaction
• Cultural coexistence
• Spirituality and creative expression
This strategy has not been entirely successful as can be seen by

inspecting the list of 66 cultural landscapes now inscribed on the World
Foreword 3
Heritage List. European countries have been quick to nominate cultural

landscapes, often of the artificially designed garden or parkland form.
These are secular rather than sacred landscapes. Nevertheless the World
Heritage List now includes a range of sacred sites, such as Mount Wutai, a
Buddhist sacred mountain in China, the Kii mountain range in Japan and
the Sulaiman sacred mountain in Kyrgyzstan, as well as Tongariro and
Uluru-Kata Djuta.
Some World Heritage sites are case studies in this book – Japan’s
Shirakawa-go and Gokayama villages and the Mahabodhi Temple
complex at Bodh Gaya in India. Like Angkor in Cambodia, Hue in
Vietnam, Luang Prabang in Laos and Borobudur in Indonesia, they are not
inscribed as cultural landscapes. But they could be. Both Tongariro and
Uluru-Kata Djuta had been inscribed as natural sites previously but were
re-inscribed as cultural landscapes. According to the coordinator of World
Heritage evaluations at ICOMOS in 2003, Peter Fowler, there were at least
105 other World Heritage properties at that date that would be eligible for
re-inscription on the basis of their cultural landscape values.
It becomes a question of how the heritage is understood and
interpreted. Rather than focusing on the piece or one heritage element, the
heritagescape, cultural landscape, sacredscape and historic urban
landscape focus on whole complexes of heritage elements. The
cosmological heritage of urban settlements in India and Southeast Asian
countries that came under India’s cultural influence demands such an
approach. Space within the city was designed to mimic the geometry of
the larger cosmos (Malville 2009). Natural environmental features have
significant meaning in such cosmological schemes. The Phousi hill in
Luang Prabang is that city’s Mount Meru.
The design of citadels, palaces, temples and other buildings in China
and in societies that came under Chinese cultural influence are based on a
different kind of geomantic principles referred to most commonly as feng
shui. They, too, are sacredscapes, based on the ancient Chinese religion,
Taoism. Cities designed according to feng shui are surrounded by
mountains that protect and rivers that nourish – in both the physical and
spiritual senses (Logan 2000: 31-34).
However, while heritage professionals and activists and probably the
general public appreciate such holistic approaches to understanding
heritage, government policy makers may not always see their virtue.
National, provincial and local governments and their planning agencies
may not be attracted to arguments about protecting traditional lifestyles
and forms of production, especially over the broad swathes of land implied
4 Foreword
by the terms heritagescape, cultural landscape, sacredscape and historic

urban landscape, because this promises simply to widen the range of
difficulties already confronting them. It would lead to greater stakeholder
conflict and make vastly more difficult their effort to satisfy approved
economic and social goals.
It is true that cultural landscapes are typically extensive places, larger
in area than the monuments and sites the World Heritage and national
systems focused on before the 1990s. It is true, too, that the context for
planning in the Asia-Pacific region, as with Africa and parts of Latin
America, is one of rapid development fuelled by exploding birth rates and
an unquenchable desire by the local population to achieve higher standards
of living than the poverty they have know for so long. In such a context it
is difficult enough to argue for the protection of individual monuments and
small historic neighbourhoods; the ambition of conserving larger, more
complex cultural landscapes is even more challenging, perhaps even too
challenging.
While heritage is central to community identity and has a role in ‘mass
awakening, understanding and appreciation of time, place and human
creation’ as Uzzell (2009) recently argues, unfortunately it has always
been true that political regimes and social elites control official heritage
interpretations and programmes. Governments look to see how they can
exploit heritage for nation-building (the way they want it). Where heritage
does not fit the ideological and political purposes, governments cut back
their protection efforts or may even actively seek to destroy heritage.
Governments also seek to use heritage for economic advantage,
especially through tourism. This is perhaps a way to convince
development-orientated governments that they should take action to
protect heritage. For cultural landscapes there is also a strong argument
that the concept is useful as a planning and management tool. In situations
where heritage towns or cities are currently suffering because of too many
tourists, the concept allows for tourism to be increased by dispersing it
more widely across the cultural landscape.
In the case of the historic urban landscape, the arguments are probably
more difficult, especially since developers control the debate and
governments and planning agencies are afraid that heritage controls will
make developers take their investments elsewhere. The only way forward
for advocates of HUL protection, as it is also for cultural landscape
protection under such circumstances, is to make clear that the objective is
not to freeze people and places in the past but rather to ensure that the key
landscape values are protected while allowing other aspects to change.
Foreword 5
In other words, through careful management, cultural landscape

conservation can be entirely consistent with modernization and improved
standards of living. The HUL concept recognizes that cities are dynamic
and they need to continue to change into the future if the inhabitants are to
improve their standards of living. Mostly, it is argued, the key decisions
that policy makers need to make is where new development can be placed
in historic urban landscapes without damaging the significant heritage
elements.
These debates about heritage and development are commonplace
across Asia and, indeed, most parts of the world. Cities are becoming
increasingly dependent on resource-extravagant air conditioning systems
and motor vehicles. As a species humans seem unable or unwilling to live
together in a sustainable way. We have yet to fully understand the fragility
of our existence on the planet. Instead we are diverted into the acquisition
of more and more material possessions.
There is a great need to explain the critically important ecological role
of heritage, whether this be in making the most of the energy embedded in
the existing stock of buildings or of learning from traditional practices and
ways of knowing. If no action is taken we will be giving the green light to
the creation of unpleasant and ultimately unsustainable cities and of
communities that have no roots and only serve the needs of commerce and
industry. This is no heritage to bequeath to the generations that follow us.
We are now half-way through the UN Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014), time for greater action by
university scholars. The ten essays in this book are at the Interface
between heritage studies and environmental planning. Originating in the
Ethnological Studies (IUAES) held in Kunming, China, July 2009, they
offer theoretical discussion grounded in case studies. They promise to
make a valuable contribution to the evolution of theory and practice and to
protecting the world’s heritage and creating a more sustainable world.
― Prof. WILLIAM S. LOGAN

UNESCO Chair of Heritage and Urbanism and Alfred Deakin Professor,
School of History, Heritage and Society, Faculty of Arts and Education
Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood VC 3125. Australia.
His recent research publications focus on World Heritage, the heritage of
places of pain and shame, and the links between cultural diversity, heritage and
human rights.
6 Foreword
References
Fowler, Peter 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002.
World Heritage Papers 6, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris.
ICOMOS 2006. Conserving Historic Urban Landscapes: Work towards
new recommendation for the World Heritage Committee. Initial Brief
http://www.icomos.fi/initial_brief.pdf, <accessed 13 May 2010>.
Logan, William S. 2000. Hanoi: Biography of a City. UNSW Press,
Sydney; University of Washington Press, Seattle; Select Publishing,
Singapore.
Malville, John McKim 2009. Foreword to Rana P.B. Singh: Cosmic Order
and Cultural Astronomy (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle
u. Tyne UK) http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-1417-1-sample.
pdf, <accessed 13 May 2010>.
Uzzell, David L. 2009. Where is the discipline in heritage studies? A view
from environmental psychology; in, Sørensen, Marie L. Stig and
Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches.
Routledge, London: 326 - 333.
World Heritage Centre 2005. Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage
and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban
Landscape. UNESCO WHC, Paris.
World Heritage Centre 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implemen-
tation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO WHC, Paris.
1
Heritagescapes & Cultural Landscapes:

An Appraisal
Rana P.B. Singh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. The concept of heritage refers to the sensibility and common
acceptability of the symbol or tradition, both natural and cultural.
Etymologically the word has its root in the historical past with respect to
root and identity associated with the earth or the human craftsmanship.
The use and preservation of such heritage are recently promoted under the
umbrella of sustainable heritage tourism, conceiving heritage as
commodity and to preserve and conserve it for the long future as resource.
The UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has recommended a common
background and norm for identifying heritage and heritage sites and their
maintenance. Of course, there appear many important heritage properties
and cultural landscape in every countries those not enlisted in the WHL,
mainly due to national priority, political support and lack of common
willingness in making the proposal; several examples from India may be
cited, and similarly from other countries too. Recently introduced concept
of ‘intangible heritage’ has aim to portrait that preserves the master pieces
of oral traditions. Concept of cultural landscape has root in geographical
thought and commonly accepted as one of the best strategies to understand
and project the vividness and commonality of landscape and culture.
Keywords: contestation, cultural landscape, heritagescapes, historic city,
holy city, human right, intangible heritage, sustainability.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Introduction
The continuity of structure or tradition in time (existence-maintenance-
continuance) with respect to natural and cultural milieu refereed as
heritage is more an issue of sensibility and common acceptability.
Heritage is what we inherit from our past and pass it to our next
generation. The idea of heritage can be conceptualise through the idea of
representation. Hall (1977: 3) argues that culture is essentially concerned
8 1. Rana P.B. Singh
with the production and exchange of meaning and their real, practical
effects; he says, “It is by our use of things, and what we say, think and feel
about them – how we represent them – that we give them a meaning”.
Like language as a way of expression, heritage too is a symbolic
mechanism possessing inherent meaning as layered upon in the passage of
time by the lineaments of culture. However, the meanings and milieus are
given, changed, produced and re-produced in different spaces and different
times, nevertheless the basic essence of existence and continuity has
always been maintained. The entrusted meanings regulate and organise our
conduct and cultural traditions by forming set rules, norms and
conventions. In course of time the heritage is taken as an economic
commodity and thus its marketing started. Heritage tourism is one of the
most popular marketing processes for heritage. Says Graham, et al. (2000:
3), “It is capable of being interpreted differently within any one culture at
any one time, as well as between cultures and through time. Heritage
fulfils several inherently opposing uses and carries conflicting meanings
simultaneously. It is this intrinsic dissonance, or lack of agreement as to
what constitutes a heritage defined by meaning”.
Heritage is a cultural identity to be reflected in the purview of
individual, unique and multiple layers of pluralism, especially with respect
to religion, at least in old cultures that maintained their traditions and
continuity. In the span of time the layering of various cultures put their
marks, which in the sequence of time turn to be the issue of conflicts due
to claims by the different groups. As a consequence, issues of represent-
ation, belongingness, control and power, dissonance and contestation (cf.
Singh 2008). In the background of UNESCO WHC a concept of heritage-
scape is recently introduced by Di Giovine (2009: 6), who expresses that it
“is not simply a mosaic of aggregate individual sites, a network of
specially-delineated destinations with their own local social relations, but
rather, it is a unique place with its own social context that is constantly
evolving and expanding UNESCO continues its activities, integrating
increasing more places, objects and now even intangible customs within
its nebulous boundaries” (ibid.: 41-42). The concept of heritage-scape is
thus to explain interrelated social systems to convey both the totalisation
of temporal, spatial and cultural forces that the UNESCO wishes to foster
(ibid.: 399).
In Indian tradition, heritage is defined as “dharohara”, which is
derived from ‘the mother earth’ (dharā-), and ‘endeavour of identity
through time’ (-ihara). That is how it is explained in terms of the “root”
(‘shrota’) and “identity” (‘asmitā’) – a framework of continuity of
interconnectedness and a personality of culture (cf. Singh and Rana 2010
Heritagescapes & Cultural Landscapes 9
a: 86-87). As a representation of the memories and glories of the past a

concept of heritage is a way of viewing the past and its association with
places (Ashworth 1996: 1).
2. Towards Conceptualising Heritage: UNESCO

Perspective
Heritage is not an old concept; it appeared in recent years with respect
to cultural tourism. The ancient sites, monuments and antiques, the ancient
places of learning, all of which give knowledge about the past, fall under
the heritage categories. The main principle behind declaring a place as
‘heritage site’ is to understand our past better and to maintain a
relationship between the memories of past, the existence of present and the
prospects of future ― “outstanding value to humanity”.
In 1959, UNESCO launched an international campaign to save the Abu
Simbel temples in the Nile Valley. But already in the 1920s the League of
Nations became aware of the growing threat to the cultural and natural
heritage of the planet. However, nothing concrete emerged despite many
years of intensive discussions and drafting of reports. In November 1972
the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention concerning
the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage at its 17th session
in Paris with the intention to foster “preservation and restoration of
outstanding culture and natural areas of the world”; thus was formed the
World Heritage Trust Convention. It came into force in 1977 when it was
ratified by 20 nations. By the end of January 1992, the WHL (World
Heritage List of the UNESCO) counts 360 sites in 80 countries, with more
being added annually from widely separated geographical regions of the
world. By September 2010 the WHL enlisted 911 properties (704 cultural,
180 natural and 27 mixed) from 177 countries as heritage (see Singh &
Rana 2010: 94). On the occasion of Habitat II, 1996, the World Heritage
Centre (UNESCO) had launched its Programme for the Safeguarding and
Development of the Cities of Asia for the 21st Century. This aims to
promote cultural heritage conservation as part of an integrated, sustainable
urban development strategy in each participating city. Presently thirty
countries of Asia are co-operating in this programme.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention has since been ratified by
186 states/ countries (Frey and Pamini 2010: 2), out of which still 9
countries have not get enlisted any site in the World Heritage List. At
other end about half of the sites are in Europe and North America, and
together with Latin America & Caribbean it reached to 64 per cent of
occupancy. This is a clear sign of Eurocentric-Americocentric dominancy.
It is realised that taking in view of population pressure, cultural historical

representation and level of development, there does not appear “balanced”
distributions of World Heritage Sites; moreover the goals of a “balanced
and representative” selection as mentioned in the UNESCO Guidelines for
selection and the above all their vision of identification, protection and
preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered
to be of “outstanding value to humanity” have not been achieved (cf. Frey
and Pamini 2010: 16).
In April 1991, the World Heritage Committee had laid down specific
criterions for the selection of cultural monuments, sites and natural
heritage, and operated since 1992. In general, a cultural monument
possesses a great architectural influence and aesthetics, and a natural site
exemplifies a stage of the earth’s evolutionary process (cf. UNESCO-
IUCN 1992: 12). Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected
on the basis of six cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of
the revised Operational Guidelines (2005, revalidated in 2008) for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, only one set of ten
criteria exists [web: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ ], viz.:
i. to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
ii. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
landscape design;
iii. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
disappeared;
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;
v. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially
when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible
change;
vi. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee
considers that this criterion should preferably be used in
conjunction with other criteria);
vii. to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s

history, including the record of life, significant on-going
geological processes in the development of landforms, or
significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
ix. to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
ecological and biological processes in the evolution and
development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine
ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-
situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from
the point of view of science or conservation.
The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties
are also important considerations, together with the above defined
characteristics. In the above context three basic meanings, in historical
context, to the understanding of heritage sites proposed by Arpin (1993:
553) are:
• a political meaning – to assure responsibility for the decisions;
• a cultural meaning – to save culture rootedness and sense of
continuity; and
• a didactic meaning – to promote citizen’s participation.
These meanings are associated with deconstructing the cultural value
of heritage into its component parts identifying the following six value
elements (Throsby 2009: 21):
• aesthetic value: the visual beauty of the building, site, and so on;
• spiritual value: the significance of the asset in providing
understanding or enlightenment or in representing a particular
religion or religious tradition;
• social value: the role of the site in forming cultural identity or a
sense of connection with others;
• historical value: connections with the past;
• symbolic value: objects or sites as repositories or conveyors of
meaning, and
• authenticity value: the uniqueness of visiting ‘the real thing’.
The enlisting of a ‘property’ as defined above, in UNESCO’s World

Heritage List (regulated by World Heritage Committee) is largely
nationally determined after passing through three/four channels of
complicated procedures, mostly controlled by the political forces,
administration and bureaucratic structure. The UNESCO-WHC is such a
body that supposedly, establishes a supranational structure to govern a
system of selecting and managing sites; that is why it is considered the

whole scene of enlisting and managing is a Western concept (cf. Aa 2005:
22-23). Therefore the countries of ancient cultures (e.g. India, China,
Egypt, etc.), in spite of their rich and diversified heritage resources, suffer
from not getting several of their properties enlisted there. An
internationally recognised and powerful NGO, IUCN, plays a vital role in
assessment, recommendation and finally to get the property enlisted, again
with the support and collaboration of government and its associated
institutions at national level. To date, 184 countries have adhered to the
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, making it one of the most universal international legal
instruments for the protection of cultural and natural heritage.
Nomination of potential world heritage sites which is initiated by the
country itself has to pass at least three critical stages: (i) countries must be
willing to participate in the convention, (ii) be willing to nominate sites,
and (iii) be able to nominate sites (cf. Aa 2005: 22-26). India has ratified
the UNESCO Convention in 1977, but the first of its four sites (Ajanta
caves, Ellora caves, Agra fort and Taj Mahal) inscribed in the List was in
1983. Since then procedures and processing of UNESCO-WHC is
operated under the joint venture of permanent ambassador to the UNO and
Indian National Commission for Co-operation with UNESCO (under the
presidentship of minister of human resources), with the support of
Archaeological Survey of India, ASI.
The right to nominate a site for the world heritage list is exclusively in
the hands of the one national government/state organisation that is
appointed as UNESCO’s official affiliated partner. This leads to three
problems: many important sites be overlooked, the heritage of minorities
be excluded, and sites that hold extractable resources be not nominated.
Let me cite case of ‘Riverfront Ghats and Old City heritagescape of
Varanasi’, which is an example that has not yet enlisted in the tentative list
even after nine years of tremendous feedback from several NGOs and
local administration, mainly due to negligence, lack of interest and
international understanding from the governmental side. In a vast country
like India, all such possibilities can be observed (cf. Singh, 2010a).
The process of nominating a certain site/property/monument or
tradition in the WHL (UNESCO) can be seen as dialectic of the local and
the global intensions, choices and political dominancy. A localized
monument, building, cultural landscape or tradition (intangible) becomes
globalized through the inclusion into the list of world heritage. Thus, it
acquires a new status as being of ‘outstanding universal value’. The aim of
this global cultural policy as formulated by UNESCO is to enhance the
pride of the local population in their own culture, foster efforts to its
preservation as well as to enrich the whole of humanity in creating a
cultural memory on a worldwide scale (Scholze 2008: 215). But it is
debated that UNESCO stresses the importance of culture as a national
property, thus neglecting the often conflicting diversity within nation
states (Nas 2002). “Furthermore, this rather naïve perspective obscures the
cultural, economical and most of all political implications of heritage.
Questions of identity politics are left out of UNESCO’s consideration.
Indeed many of the publications on cultural heritage deal exactly with its
political appropriation” (Scholze 2008: 216).
3. Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH: the perspective

In addition with World Heritage Properties, by 2009 the list for
“intangible cultural heritage”, ICH, already comprised of 166 such
representative listings, including 90 ‘Masterpieces of the Oral and
Intangible Heritage of Humanity’, located in 77 state parties, of course
predominantly in developing countries. The 2003 UNESCO ‘Convention
for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (ICHC), defines
ICH means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills –
as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated
therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals
recognize as part of their cultural heritage (cf. Aikawa-Faure 2009). This
intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is
constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their
environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides
them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for
cultural diversity and human creativity. Safeguarding ICH has its history
of academic discourses in USA ― in May 1990 a conference entitled
‘Cultural Conservation’ was held at Library of Congress that had assessed
and evaluated the status and policy preserving ICH on the line of
amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act 1980, and finally
re-affirmed this concept as an integrated process for resource planning (cf.
Hufford 1994). However the implementation started in 2001 by proclaim-
ming ‘oral history of humanity’, i.e. Marrakech root (cf. Schmitt 2008).
According to the UNESCO ICH Convention 2003, the intangible
cultural heritage (ICH), or living heritage, is the mainspring of our cultural
diversity and its maintenance a guarantee for continuing creativity that are
part of a network and interlinking system (Fig. 1.1).
For the purposes of this Convention (ICHC), consideration will be
given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with
existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the

requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and
individuals, and of sustainable development. This departure is mainly as a
result of the character of its subject matter ‒ one that is primarily without
material form and whose expressions and physical manifestations are, in
fact, secondary. In this sense, it is the mirror image of the previous cultural
heritage Conventions where the material heritage (movable cultural
property, monuments and sites) was the central subject of protection and
any intangible values contingent on these (Blake 2009: 45).
Fig. 1.1. Referring the Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH, UNESCO 2003.
• oral traditions &

as manifested in
expressions
• traditional music, dance,
Practices theatre
Expressions • social practices, rituals,
festive events
Representations • knowledge & practices
regarding nature & the
universe
with associated
• traditional craftsmanship
that
• skills & • objects

knowledge & spaces
• communities & groups recognize as belonging to their

cultural heritage
• are transmitted from generation to generation
• are constantly recreated
• provide
The UNESCO Convention states that the ICH is manifested, among

others, in the following domains (see the Web: http://www.unesco.org/
culture/ich/index.php?pg=00002):
(i) Oral traditions and expressions

His group also includes language as a vehicle of the intangible
cultural heritage. The domain of oral traditions and expressions
encompasses an enormous variety of forms including proverbs, riddles,
tales, nursery rhymes, legends, myths, epic songs and poems, charms,
prayers, chants, songs, dramatic performances and so on. They transmit
knowledge, values and collective memory and play an essential role in
cultural vitality; many forms have always been a popular pastime.
(ii) Performing arts (such as traditional music, dance and theatre).

The expressions central to the performing arts include especially vocal or
instrumental music, dance, and theatre, but there are indeed many other
traditional forms such as pantomime, sung verse, and certain forms of
storytelling. Performing arts include a diversity of cultural expressions that
together testify to human creativity and that are also found in different
degree in many other domains of intangible heritage.
Music is of course the most often encountered of the performing arts,
found in every society and in most cases an integral part of other
performing art forms and other domains of ICH such as rituals, festive
events, or oral traditions. We find it in the most diverse contexts: profane
or sacred, classical or popular, closely connected to work, entertainment,
even politics and economics that may call upon music to recount a
people’s past, sing the praises of a powerful person, or accompany or
facilitate commercial transactions.
Dance may be described simply as ordered bodily expression, often
with musical accompaniment, sung or instrumental. Apart from its
physical aspect, the rhythmic movements, steps, or gestures of dance often
serve to express a sentiment or mood or to illustrate a specific event or
daily act, such as religious dances or those depicting hunting, warfare, or
even sexual activities. Traditional theatre performances often combine
acting, singing, dance and music, dialogue, narration or recitation, but also
include puppetry of all kinds as well as pantomime. These arts should
perhaps not only be thought of as “performances” like those on a stage. In
fact, many traditional music practices are not carried out for an external
audience, such as songs accompanying agricultural work or music that is
part of a ritual.
In its definition of intangible heritage, the Convention includes the
instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces that are associated with
intangible expressions and practices. In the performing arts, this includes
for example musical instruments, masks, costumes and other body
ornaments used in dance, and the scenery and props of theatre. Performing
arts are often performed in specific places; when such spaces, built or
natural, are closely linked to those expressions, we may speak of cultural
spaces in the Convention’s terms.
(iii) Social practices, rituals and festive events.

Social practices, rituals and festive events are habitual activities that
structure the lives of communities and groups and that are shared by and
relevant for large parts of them. They take their meaning from the fact that
they reaffirm the identity of practitioners as a group or community.
Performed in public or private, these social, ritual and festive practices
may be linked to the life cycle of individuals and groups, the agricultural
calendar, the succession of seasons or other temporal systems. They are
conditioned by views of the world and by perceived histories and
memories. They vary from simple gatherings to large-scale celebratory
and commemorative occasions. While each of these sub-domains is vast in
and of itself, there is also a great deal of overlap between them. Rituals
and festive events, which usually take place at special times and places,
often call a community’s attention to worldviews and features of past
experience. Access may be limited in the case of certain rituals; many
communities know initiation rites or burial ceremonies of this sort. Festive
events often take place in public space without limitations on access —
carnivals are a well-known example, and festivities marking New Year,
the beginning of Spring or the end of harvest are common in all regions of
the world. Social practices shape everyday life and are known, if not
shared, by all members of a community. In the framework of the
Convention, attention would be paid to social practices that have a special
relevance for a community and that are distinctive for them, providing
them with a sense of identity and continuity. For instance, in many
communities greeting ceremonies are casual, but they are quite elaborate
in others, serving as a marker of identity. Similarly, practices of giving and
receiving gifts may vary from casual events to important markers of
authority, dependence or allegiance. Social practices, rituals and festive
events involve a dazzling variety of forms: worship rites; rites of passage;
birth, wedding and funeral rituals; oaths of allegiance; traditional legal
systems; traditional games and sports; kinship and ritual kinship
ceremonies; settlement patterns; culinary traditions; designation of status
and prestige ceremonies; seasonal ceremonies; gender-specific social
practices; hunting, fishing and gathering practices; among others. They
also encompass a wide variety of expressions and material elements:
special gestures and words, recitations, songs or dances, special clothing,
processions, animal sacrifice, special foods.
(iv) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe.

“Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe”
include knowledge, know-how, skills, practices and representations
developed and perpetuated by communities in interaction with their
natural environment. These cognitive systems are expressed through
language, oral traditions, attachment to a place, memories, spirituality, and
worldview, and they are displayed in a broad complex of values and
beliefs, ceremonies, healing practices, social practices or institutions, and
social organisation. Such expressions and practices are as diverse and
variegated as the sociocultural and ecological contexts from which they
originate, and they often underlie other domains of ICH as described by
the Convention.
This domain encompasses numerous areas such as traditional
ecological wisdom, indigenous knowledge, ethnobiology, ethnobotany,
ethnozoology, traditional healing systems and pharmacopeia, rituals,
foodways, beliefs, esoteric sciences, initiatory rites, divinations, cosmo-
logies, cosmogonies, shamanism, possession rites, social organisations,
festivals, languages, as well as visual arts.
(v) Traditional craftsmanship.

“Traditional craftsmanship” seems in many ways to be the most
tangible of domains in which intangible heritage is expressed, but the
focus of the Convention is not on craft products as such, but rather on the
skills and knowledge crucial for their ongoing production. Any efforts to
safeguard traditional craftsmanship must focus not on preserving craft
objects—no matter how beautiful, precious, rare or important they might
be — but on creating conditions that will encourage artisans to continue to
produce crafts of all kinds, and to transmit their skills and knowledge to
others, especially younger members of their own communities.
Traditional craftsmanship is expressed in many forms: clothing and
jewellery to protect or adorn the body; costumes and props required for
festivals or performing arts; objects used for storage, transport, and shelter;
decorative arts and ritual objects; musical instruments and household
utensils; toys meant to amuse or educate, and tools vital to subsistence or
survival. Many such objects are ephemeral, intended to last only as long as
the community festival or family rite for which they are made. Others
become keepsakes, handed down as precious heirlooms and used as
models for ongoing creativity. The skills and knowledge required for
artisanry to continue are sometimes as delicate as a paper votive or sand
drawing, but often as robust and resilient as a sturdy basket or thick

blanket.
The definition also indicates that the ICH to be safeguarded by this
Convention:
• is transmitted from generation to generation;

• is constantly recreated by communities and groups, in response to their
environment, their interaction with nature, and their history;
• provides communities and groups with a sense of identity and continuity;
• promotes respect for cultural diversity and human creativity;
• is compatible with international human rights instruments;
• complies with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, and
of sustainable development.
The ICH is traditional and living at the same time. It is constantly

recreated and mainly transmitted orally. It is difficult to use the term
authentic in relation to ICH; some experts advise against its use in relation
to living heritage. The depository of this heritage is the human mind, the
human body being the main instrument for its enactment, or – literally –
embodiment. The knowledge and skills are often shared within a
community, and manifestations of ICH often are performed collectively.
Many elements of the ICH are endangered, due to effects of
globalization, uniformization policies, and lack of means, appreciation and
understanding which – taken together – may lead to the erosion of
functions and values of such elements and to lack of interest among the
younger generations.
The Convention speaks about communities and groups of tradition
bearers, without specifying them. Time and again it was stressed by the
governmental experts who prepared the draft of the Convention that such
communities have an open character, that they can be dominant or non
dominant, that they are not necessarily linked to specific territories and
that one person can very well belong to different communities and switch
communities.
The Convention introduces, by establishing the Representative List,
the idea of “representativeness”. “Representative” might mean, at the same
time, representative for the creativity of humanity, for the cultural heritage
of States, as well as for the cultural heritage of communities who are the
bearers of the traditions in question.
In UNESCO ICH Convention 2007 at Tokyo it has been noticed that
the principle of community participation is extremely difficult to
implement because of its wide-ranging implications. Even in the local
meetings of stakeholders and activists there appear contradiction of ideas
and lack of common consensus of priority or project formations. At other

end in the international level in the governmental and non-governmental
meeting hardly one finds representation from all the notable corners and
interiors of the world. Rarely one finds presence of representatives from
communities, practitioners or grass root NGOs as observers. In almost all
the international meets due to financial constraints and scarcity it becomes
impossible for local NGOs or voluntary organisations to attend; moreover,
the medium of language is another problem. Such meets consume a good
sum of money and mostly organised in developed countries and their
metropolitan cities. It is rightly remarked that “the ICHC, of which the
first inscription took place in 2009, might not to be developed in the same
manner as WHC” (Aikawa-Faure 2009: 40); one can see the Preamble 6
paragraph of ICHC that reads as “the universal will and the common
concern to safeguard the ICH of humanity”.
Since adoption of UNESCO 2003 ICHC, scholars and preservationists
have struggled with how to best approach intangible heritage, specifically
focusing on embodied intangible heritage, or the human body as a vehicle
for memory, movement, and sound. In a recent anthology the contributors
have examined ritual and artistic movement, theatre, music, oral literature,
as well as the role of the internet in cultural transmission. Obviously
globalization and particularly the internet, has a complex effect on the
transmission of intangible heritage: while music, dance, and other
expressions are now shared easily, the performances often lack context
and may be shared with a group that does not fully understand what they
are seeing or hearing. There always exist problems and possibilities for
understanding and implementation of ICHC for sustainable heritage
development that suits to the region but also serve as nexus for the whole
world (Silverman and Ruggles 2009).
The Convention (ICHC), which entered into force on 20 April 2006,
following its ratification by 30 member states, provides a more detailed
text on the nature and legal parameters of ICH (UNESCO 2003).
However, the extent to which criticisms of the earlier Recommendation
have been tackled and resolved remains unclear, particularly in regard to
control over management and benefits derived from safeguarding ICH
(Kearney 2009: 214). While proponents of the Convention praise it, others,
such as Brown (2005: 48) have identified a ‘salvage’ undertone and
remain unconvinced that the Convention necessarily offers a better
alternative, stating that:
The policy [Convention] is oddly reminiscent of early anthropology, which was

driven by the conviction that primitive cultures should be documented in their
entirety ... because their extinction was inevitable. The discipline long ago
concluded that documentation has only a modest role in the preservation of

culture.
Kearney (2009: 222) suggests that “international heritage instruments
would benefit from a return to localised interests, in which the lives and
intangible cultural expressions of Indigenous peoples are safeguarded for
the direct and primary benefit of those peoples. This requires policy
changes and an epistemological rethink of the manner in which human
heritage is defined and required to fit within state-defined categories that
ultimately express themselves through heritage legislation”.
4. The Linkages and Use of the Past

In case of India, in lack of common concern for heritage and
willingness to make their pride and glories projected internationally, and at
other end all the procedures and processing to be passed through
complicated and intense bureaucratic systems, it is hardly possible to make
priority of selection and preparation of document for submission.
Additionally the involvement and procedures followed by the leading
institution, i.e. Archaeological Survey of India, are again a system of
hierarchically controlled bureaucratic networking where the administrative
authorities in concurrence with politicians take decisions. This results to
negligence of several universally important sites and cultural landscapes.
In India too, similar to the case of Agadez (Niger), there are many reasons
for the failure of the nomination of a viable and important site, including
the struggle for economic and political resources, regionalism and
collective memories, the hierarchical organization of the process, a weak
cultural policy, lack of awakening and political support and misuse of
heritage resources for the personalised political gain and cheap popularity
(cf. Scholze 2008: 229).
Both history and heritage use a selective use and connotation of the
past. In most of the cases, the symbolic representation or the visual
artefacts deliberately transformed into commodity for the satisfaction of
the contemporary consumption is commonly referred as ‘heritage
resource’. This ‘commodification’ process and its marketing are the basic
reality of heritage tourism. To preserve, conserve and maintain the
continuity of the essence of heritage are related to the intrinsic nature of
heritage planning. This leads to the concept of ‘place-making’ that refers
to ‘the art and practice of building communities in which all human beings
transform the places they find themselves into the places where they live’.
Historic buildings, monuments and associated landscapes are of enormous
value in creating places of character ― in place-making. Their value
stretches at least in three contexts, viz. aesthetic value, community value,

and economic value. The three layers (time, city, planning) within the triad
nature of their components, ultimately reached to the end process of
heritage planning where place-making exists as pivot.
The three layers (time, city, planning) within the triad nature of their
components, ultimately reached to the end process of heritage planning.
This is explained with a help of model (cf. Fig. 1.2). Conservation refers to
care and maintenance of the artefacts, monuments, or in a more compre-
hensive way the whole town and environs. Following objectively defined
criteria for intrinsic qualities, preservation is processed by legislative
instruments. Of course, conservation includes preservation but it is more
wider and follows the distinct ways, especially the zonal (e.g. heritage
zone) or regional perspective is the prime criteria (cf. Allchin et al, 1989).
Fig. 1.2. Heritage Planning, its Intrinsic Nature: Past, History, Heritage
(after Ashworth, 1993: 29)
Approach to time Cities Management
Preservation
The Past Old Cities Planning
History Historic Cities Conservation

Planning
Heritage Heritage Cities Heritage

Planning
Finally, the heritage planning assumes both, preservation and

conservation and emphasises demand-related approach associated with the
network of consumers and market chain (cf. Ashworth 1993: 28-30). If the
intrinsic nature at a particular heritage site is revived by its nature of
sacralisation and additionally by enshrinement, it results to attract a
great mass of people and also help to make the site more alive. This can be
exemplified at many old and sacred sites in India, like Allahabad, Gaya,
Puri, Varanasi, Kanchipuram, Chidambaram, etc. Of course, the issue of
intrinsic value is not a subject of valuation and definition.
The growing pressure of tourism and consequential development of

built structures are a testimony to consumerism and to current economic
gain which ignores the sustainable approach. All these institutions have
their own agendas for promoting for promoting sustainable development
in their own ways, obviously there appears a week co-ordination among
various organisations (private and public) dealing with tourist and heritage
industry. Lack of mass awakening and active involvement of public hurdle
the progress of “civic culture: civic sense”, while this is the vital aspect of
conservation and preservation programme. ‘A thing is right when it tends
to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the heritagescape as living
organism of our culture’. The resources that are poured into heritage mean
to the question of identity and sharing; thus, heritage is also used
politically and commercially in shaping the ways people represent
themselves and are represented in diverse and hybrid cultures (Ashworth,
Tunbridge and Graham 2007). Commonly ‘identity’ is “fundamental to
politics and contestation at global scale, as understanding the means of
articulating often vague feelings and senses of belonging becomes quite
crucial. Heritage in its broadest sense is among the most important of
those means”, in fact heritage and identity, interact and build upon each
other (Graham and Howard 2008: 1).
The conceptual and managerial links, which allow the conservation of
the built environment and its derivative idea of heritage, have to play a
substantial role in the contemporary sustainable heritage and environ-
mental tourism and its management too. Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996:
18-19) have suggested three main ways to which sustainability to be
linked to heritage:
(1) Philosophical links. The natural and built environmental resources both use
resources that are external to the production-consumption system, and both
confront similar problems of establishing selection criteria.
(2) Organisational links. Given the similar motivation for the conservation of
both natural and man-made features, it is obvious that there is an overlap
in popular support. Many of the voluntary agencies cover both types of
phenomena.
(3) Linking Management Concepts. If the issues and basic dilemmas are
philosophically similar, despite the different nature of the processes
powering them, then the concepts governing their sustainable management
should be equally similar. Moreover, there is a complementarity between
natural and built environmental sites.
The concept of complementary on the demand by the ‘users’ and
functional characteristics of the historic-heritage site converges to a more
complex taxonomy. This divides users into those ‘intentionally’ drawn to
the historic city by its distinctive attributes and those only ‘incidentally’,
i.e. by chance, in it, compared with the spatial dimensions of origin
‘inside’ or ‘outside’. Finally it results to a series of combinations of users
according to aspects of their use (cf. Ashworth 1991: 70-71; Fig. 1.3).
Fig. 1.3. Users of the Historic City: A Complex Network System

(after Ashworth 1991: 70)
Users
(chance) (distinction)
Incidental Intentional
Nv Tr
Ts Nr
Inside Region Outside Region

(Residents) (Visitors)
Nv, Non-man use visitors; Nr, Non-man use residents; Ts, Tourists; Tr, Trippers.
Ultimately, the integration of cultural with natural heritage in a

process of environmental management brings us to a deeper meaning of
the contemporary idea of sustainability, which bears directly upon the
basement of sustainable heritage tourism. Sustainability is not only a
question of physical maintenance of the heritage resource but also of the
comprehensive social and cultural meaning as interlinked into the past,
hence political sustainability, of this exercise. Nelson (1991) has rightly
asked, ‘how do we know what to sustain if we do not understand what
natural and human heritage has come to us from the past?’ Heritage as
economic resource is an object of promoting tourism, of course through
exploitation. Yet the development and government agencies at most levels
fail to plough back tourism profits into conservation.
Over-promotion of tourism has led to unthinking commercialisation

which had has disastrous effects on natural beauty and on the centuries-old
rhythm of community life. Rising prices of souvenir items and land, and
deterioration of priceless heritage sites, are also major threats. Mass
tourism is now killing the goose that has laid the golden egg. The impact
of tourism had led to a situation where tourists are cheated, harassed, and
robbed. Rarely is any portion of revenue earned from tourism applied to
the benefit of preservation and conservation of cultural heritage. The
greatest share of the money goes to hotel chains and souvenir shops.
Tourism should have been carefully developed and promoted in the
light of a spiritual perspective, where tourists become pilgrims, and issues
like heritage preservation, religion, and sustainability are emphasised as
part of the pilgrim’s visit. In his keynote speech at the 1993 First
International Symposium on World Heritage Cities, Bernard Feilden
(1993a: 33) rightly warns us: “What we do today will be the history of
tomorrow and ultimately it is by history that we are judged. Civilising the
city is now a cultural question. ‘Where there is no vision the people
perish’.”
We need to experience the vision of the spirit of sustainability.
However, issues like this are primarily concerned with moral under-
standing and self-realisation. Alas! Increasing pace of ethical and moral
pollution is slowly threatening the sense of culture and even the identity of
humankind (cf. Singh 1996: 103). There is an urgent need for the holistic
approach to our heritage on the basis of cultural pluralism, diversity and
multiplicity (cf. Feilden 1993b: 9). In this context sustainable heritage
planning requires the ability and process to observe, analyse, integrate,
synthesise and finally accepted by the local residents, people involved in
marketing it and the visitors who try to learn from them.
Dealing with monumental and performative dimensions of memory,
and illustrated with examples from Europe and USA, it is noted that
construction of identity narrates the power and its interpretation is a
common concern to all. Multidimensionality promotes politics and
contestation for power that also changes the perception, images and
utilisation of heritage, which further get changed through the process of
construction, reconstruction and deconstruction of identities. This later
aspect has been a popular theme in historical and social geographies,
especially dealing with landscape transformations. The age-long and
traditional identity of heritage sites or monuments is the function of time
and the changing nature of the groups associated with (Moore and Whelan
2007). The issue of meeting and interaction between tangible and
intangible heritages help to make the landscape alive, functional and

economic too.
5. Cultural Landscapes: envisioning the heritage

Virtually all landscapes have cultural associations, because virtually
all landscapes have been affected in some way by human action or
perception. Therefore, the phrase “cultural landscape” does not mean a
special type of landscape; instead, it reflects upon a way of seeing
landscapes and associated attributes that emphasizes the interaction
between human beings and nature over time ― maintaining existence-
continuity-transformation and transferability ― that makes the heritage.
The cultural landscape is an object of change either by the development of
a culture or by a replacement of cultures. The datum line from which
changes are measured is the natural condition of the landscape. As
resultant cultural landscape shows influences worked on people by their
institutions, taboos, design preferences, builtup architecture, and system
and spatial order, assemblages of cultural features which comprise their
cultural landscape, and which support and embrace their civilisation ―
that is how cultural landscape is conceived as an integral part of
heritagescapes.
Cultural landscape is conventionally a principal object of study in
cultural geography and still the subject of intense debate among cultural
geographers, and with special consideration of UNESCO Cultural
Heritage (tangible and intangible) the frame, scope and networks of
cultural landscape becomes comprehensive, intensive and valid in heritage
studies.
The German geographer Otto Schlüter (1872-1959) is credited with
having first formally used “cultural landscape” as an academic term in the
early twentieth century (Martin 2005: 175). In 1906, Schlüter argued that
by defining geography as a Landschaftskunde (landscape science) this
would give geography a logical subject matter shared by no other
discipline (Elkins 1989: 27). He defined two forms of landscape: the
Urlandschaft (translated as original landscape) or landscape that existed
before major human induced changes and the Kulturlandschaft (translated
as ‘cultural landscape’) ― a landscape created by human culture. The
major task of geography was to trace the changes in these two landscapes
(Martin 2005: 176).
Since Schlüter’s first formal use of the term, and Sauer’s effective
promotion of the idea, the concept of ‘cultural landscapes’ has been
variously used, applied, debated, developed and refined within academia;
and when, in 1992, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee elected to

convene a meeting of the ‘specialists’ to advise and assist redraft the
Committee’s Operational Guidelines to include ‘cultural landscapes’ as an
option for heritage listing properties that were neither purely natural nor
purely cultural in form (i.e. ‘mixed’ heritage) (cf. Fowler 2003).
It was Carl O. Sauer, a human geographer, who was probably the
most influential in promoting and developing the idea of cultural
landscapes (for critique see Mitchell 2000: 27-28). Sauer was determined
to stress the agency of culture as a force in shaping the visible features of
the Earth’s surface in delimited areas. Within his definition, the physical
environment retains a central significance, as the medium with and
through which human cultures act (Sauer 1925/ 1963). The masterly and
classic definition of ‘cultural landscape’ is given by its great progenitor
Carl Sauer (1925/ 1963: 343; see the Fig. 1.4):
Fig. 1.4. Natural landscape and Cultural landscape

(after Sauer 1925/ 1963: 337, 343).
FACTORS time FORMS RESULT
Geogonastic Climate, Land

Climatic surface, NATURAL
Vegetational soil, drainage, LANDSCAPE
xxxx mineral resource
Sea and coast,
Vegetation
FACTOR MEDIUM FORMS RESULT

[agent] [time] [attributes]
Natural Landscape
Population:
TIME
Culture
density,
mobility CULTURAL
Housing plan, LANDSCAPE
structure
Production;
Communication
xxxxx
The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural

group. Culture is the agent, the natural area the medium, the cultural
landscape is the result. Under the influence of a given culture, itself changing
through time, the landscape undergoes development, passing through phases,
and probably reaching ultimately the end of its cycle of development. With
the introduction of a different ― that is, alien ― culture, a rejuvenation of the
cultural landscape sets in, or a new landscape is superimposed on remnants of
an older one”.
Several aspects of this frequently quoted passage are worth

examining, for they reflect not only the intellectual context in which Sauer
was working and his own scholarly concerns, but also theoretical issues
which have remained critical to discussions of cultural landscape to the
present.
There is a clear parallel in conceptual language between Sauer’s
description of cultural landscape as subject to evolutionary change over
time, and W.M. Davis’s normal cycle of natural landscape evolution as
both took chorology and succession as the process of evolution and
changes (Livingstone 1992). Sauer was determined to stress the agency of
culture as a force in shaping the visible features of the Earth’s surface in
delimited areas, and his own landscape studies and methods. Yet the
physical environment retains within his definition a central significance, as
the medium with and through which human cultures act. Thus, elements of
the physical environment, such as topography, soils, watercourses, plants
and animals are to be incorporated into studies of the cultural landscape
insofar as they evoke human responses and adaptations, or have
themselves been altered by human activity, for example forest clearance,
hydrological management or plant and animal domestication (cf. Fig. 1.4).
Sauer’s definition is grounded in a neat distinction between NATURE
and CULTURE, reflected in the structure of his diagram, a distinction which
few cultural geographers would be so willing to uphold or defend today.
Not only is there broad acceptance that the tabula rasa of ‘natural
landscape’ upon which ‘culture’ inscribes itself has probably never
existed, since its own features are subject to constant change through
geophysical, climatic, hydrological and other processes of change, but
‘nature’ itself and the boundaries which separate it from the human are
culturally contrived in radically different ways by different groups in
different historical contexts (Cronon 1995). Thus, both nature and culture
are best regarded together, as co-productions. All LANDSCAPES are thus
equally natural landscapes and cultural landscapes, according to the
contexts of questions and the processes chosen to examine in relation to
understanding evolution. It is clear also from this stereo model that Sauer
laid greatest emphasis on the visible forms of cultural landscape as the
principal features for geographic study, as implied also by the term

‘morphology’ in the title of his essay.
Sauer’s reference to the introduction into a cultural landscape of a
different – ‘alien’ – culture is more than a mere reflection of the Davisian
idea of erosional rejuvenation with uplift of physical landscapes, but
reflects Sauer’s interest in the cultural impacts of colonisation and
modernisation on pre-Columbian cultural landscapes in Hispanic America
which manifested visibly the imposition of colonial cultures upon pre-
existing cultures, and which many American cultural geographers in the
Sauerian tradition have sought to reconstruct. More recent studies in
cultural ecology over the past half millennium have deepened our
understanding of the complexities of cultural landscape change (cf. Butzer
1992), while post-colonial theory has prompted significant re-evaluation
of those ‘alien’ introductions into the existing cultural landscapes. In both
these revisions, greater attention is given to ‘political ecology’, so that
Sauer’s idea of a climax cultural landscape swept away by a rejuvenated
one and remaining only in relict or remnant form has been replaced by
notions of a more mediated, hybrid and trans-cultural landscape.
Such studies of cultural landscape may be genealogically related to
the Sauerian concept, but they demonstrate also the impact of theoretical
criticisms made of the Sauerian model. Cosgrove and Daniels (1988: 1)
claimed that, “a landscape is a cultural image, a pictorial way of
representing, structuring or symbolising surroundings. This is not to say
that landscapes are immaterial. They may be represented in a variety of
materials and on many surfaces – in paint on canvas, in writing on paper,
in earth, stone, water and vegetation on the ground”. But, here the
emphasis remains on the visual character of landscapes, but is not
restricted to morphological consideration and visible features: all aspects
of landscape are regarded as representational, thus cultural signifiers, the
interpretation of which reveals social attitudes and material processes. This
approach to cultural landscape draws upon British and European social
and cultural theory with minor concern for ecological and environmental
considerations. It also bears comparison with the approach to vernacular
cultural landscapes in the United States pioneered by Jackson (1984) and
discussed by Meinig (1979), which also emphasised the communicative
and representational rather than the ecological aspects of cultural
landscapes. A semiotic approach to cultural landscape finds its most
extreme expression in the treatment of cultural landscapes as texts and
their discursive consideration through the language and methods of literary
analysis (Duncan 1990).
Schein (1997), while seeking to retain the identification of cultural

landscape with the ‘tangible, visible scene’ draws upon Massey’s (1991)
idea of places as ‘moments’ in a continuing networked process of social
relations that stretch across space: ‘Landscapes are always in the process
of “becoming”, no longer reified or concretised ‒ inert and there ‒ but
continually under scrutiny, at once manipulable, always subject to change,
and everywhere implicated in the ongoing formulation of social life’
(Schein 1997: 662). With the introduction of UNESCO’s framework of
intangible cultural heritage, the notion of cultural landscape has been
changed into more comprehensive way.
In the aftermath of often heated debate over the definition and
methods for studying cultural landscape within geography, “the concept
itself has been rejuvenated; a wealth of substantive cultural landscape
studies are appearing, and while the genealogy of the Sauerian concept
remains fertile, the usage of the term cultural landscape within cultural
geography no longer implies” in a sense what was once prevalent at
Berkeley School (Cosgrove 2000: 141). Shackley describes a cultural
landscape as “an integrated complex of cultural and natural resources,
whose values derive from their physical quality, as well as from associated
human endeavours and traditions” (2001: 139).
6. UNESCO Views on Cultural Landscape

According to UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1992, the first
international legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes,
the term “cultural landscape” embraces a diversity of manifestations of the
interaction between humankind and its natural environment. Cultural
landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use,
considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they
are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of
cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable
land-use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The
continued existence of traditional forms of land-use supports biological
diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional
cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity.
The WH Committee at its 16th session adopted guidelines concerning their
inclusion in the World Heritage List. The Committee acknowledged that
cultural landscapes represent the “combined works of nature and of man”
designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the
evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence
of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural
environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both

external and internal.
Certain sites reflect specific techniques of land use that guarantee and
sustain biological diversity, while others, associated in the minds of the
communities with powerful beliefs and artistic and traditional customs,
embody an exceptional spiritual relationship of people with nature. To
reveal and sustain the great diversity of the interactions between humans
and their environment, to protect living traditional cultures and preserve
the traces of those which have disappeared, these sites, called cultural
landscapes, have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List.
Cultural landscapes ― ranging from cultivated terraces on lofty
mountains, gardens, to sacred places ― testify to the creative genius,
social development and the imaginative and spiritual vitality of humanity.
They are part of our collective identity. They are the combined works of
nature and humankind, thus express a long and intimate relationship
between peoples and their natural environment.
According to UNESCO WHC (Operational Guidelines 2008, Annex
3) the cultural landscapes fall into three main categories, viz.:
(1) The most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape
designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and
parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but
not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and
ensembles.
(2) The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This
results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious
imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in
response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of
evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-
categories:
(a) a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process
came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period.
Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material
form.
(b) continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in
contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life,
and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time
it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.
(3) The final category is the associative cultural landscape. The

inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by
virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the
natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be

insignificant or even absent.
The report also mentions that the existence of a category of “cultural
landscape”, included on the World Heritage List on the basis of the criteria
set out in Paragraph 77 of the Operational Guidelines, does not exclude
the possibility of properties of exceptional importance in relation to both
cultural and natural criteria continuing to be inscribed (see definition of
mixed properties as set out in Paragraph 46). In such cases, their
outstanding universal value must be justified under both sets of criteria. By
January 2010, 66 properties on the World Heritage List have been
included as cultural landscapes.
The World Heritage Committee tried to capture that concept with its
own definition of cultural landscape as the ‘combined works of nature and
of man [which are] illustrative of the evolution of human society and
settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or
opportunities presented by the natural environment and of successive
social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal’. ‘Cultural’
is no longer the opposite of ‘natural’, nor is it synonymous with ‘human-
made’ (cf. Fowler 2007: 3).
In practice, the distinction between the two types of Category 2
landscapes (a relict or fossil landscape, or a continuing landscape) has
proved to be significant but otherwise, after fifty-five cases, this
categorization remains pragmatically firm. Almost certainly this is because
it is conceptual rather than functional, dealing with the nature of
landscapes rather than the uses to which they have been put. Of course,
many landscapes have elements of more than one category, but it is
seldom difficult to identify the main one.
The first eleven years of inscription of World Heritage cultural
landscapes set trends which have continued. Category 2b, for example, the
‘continuing organically evolved landscape’, had already emerged as the
most popular sort of landscape by 2003: its eighteen examples provided
50 per cent of the total then (Fowler 2003). ‘Associative landscapes’
provided 25 per cent, and those ratios have remained about the same
through the 50 per cent increase (thirty-six to fifty-five) in landscape
inscriptions in 2004–06.
It is obviously noted that most inscriptions are made on the basis of
only two or three criteria – and it could be argued that the ‘best’ need only
one – and these criteria tend to include numbers (iv), (iii) or (v) in that
order of frequency of use (cf. Fowler 2007: 5; see pp. 10-11 of this essay).
Another early trend has also continued. With all their rich diversity in
location, appearance, vegetation and human influence, World Heritage
cultural landscapes, ranging from the most formal of parks to virtually

untouched landscape, soon fairly clearly, albeit unconsciously, defined
themselves in practice as a notably homogeneous conceptual genre.
Practically all these special landscapes possess some six to nine
characteristics of a ‘personality’ defined by thirteen traits: significant
aesthetic quality; buildings, often large; continuity of lifeways/land-use;
farming/agriculture as major land-use; ornamental garden(s)/park(s);
primarily industrial; significant for group identity; integral mountain(s);
significant locally resident population; important dimension of religiosity/
sanctity/holiness; significant survival factor, physically and/or socially;
towns, and/or villages; integral or at least significant water in the
landscape. These traits were not imposed and they have little to do with
official requirements; they simply emerged as common characteristics
among the first couple of dozen examples of World Heritage cultural
landscapes, and have remained constant as the number has increased year
by year (cf. Fowler 2007: 5).
A life-long practitioner of the cause of heritage Lowenthal (1999: 7)
has rightly provoked that:
Perhaps the cause of heritage has been too successful. Its realm has been
enlarged to include not only all of the world’s architectural structures and
historic sites but also traditions and crafts and modes of celebrating heroes and
commemorating sorrows. Heritage so proliferated becomes a burden, too
encompassing to be meaningful, too various to look after properly. Bewildered
by the glut of diverse legacies, the general public stereotypes heritage
professionals - in APT and other organizations - as “museumizers” and
conservers as advocates for preserving anything in sight.
Above all, however, in contemplating and caring for our cultural

landscapes we would do well to remember the wise words of two men
close to the Earth, albeit thousands of miles and 146 years apart: ‘The
Earth does not belong to man. Man belongs to the Earth’, said Chief
Seattle in 1851, echoed by Paramount Chief Tuwharetoa in 1997, of
Tongariro but widely applicable, ‘these sacred mountains are to be owned
by no-one and yet are for everyone.’ That is what World Heritage cultural
landscapes are about (ibid.: 8).
As established notion “cultural landscapes” inspired by the belief that
preservation and protection of globally, nationally, regionally and locally
significant cultural landscapes, both designed and vernacular, are critical
to sustaining the continuum of land use and history across generations.
Therefore protection of these cultural resources offers inspirational values
and an appreciation of past and present ingenuity, accomplishments,
hardships, and hopes, as well as insight into future land use, design
solutions and maintenance of heritagescapes. It is believed that

interpretation, public use and appreciation of cultural landscape resources
both in public and private domain should be viewed as an integral part of
their preservation and sustainability. Nevertheless, Lowenthal (1999: 9)
has rightly warns us:
Finally, don’t leave it to the experts. Stewardship is too important. Without
public support, I have suggested, heritage atrophies. It is only when it is
populist that it has vital, as distinct from mercenary, value or mere antiquarian
interest. Where heritage is defined or run simply by an elite, or where too few
people have a symbolic stake in it, stewardship remains precarious, beset by
the kind of conflicts I spoke of, fragmented by rivalry. In impoverished
countries looting is widespread because few feel such heritage belongs to them
in a meaningful way, except to buy bread for their children.
Of course preservation of cultural landscape is a new perspective;

however it can be an essential underpinning for all historic preservation
(Longstreth 2008). Australia’s ICOMOS Burra Charter, 1999 (Article 13),
emphasises co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected
and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict. In this article, the
term cultural values refers to those beliefs which are important to a
cultural group, including but not limited to political, religious, spiritual
and moral beliefs. In Asian context the five categories of the Burra
Chapter ― aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, and spiritual ― are
reduced into less categories, for example in China social and spiritual
values are neglected under their political agenda (Logan 2004: 6-7;
Waterton et al. 2006). Certainly we need a very comprehensive vision of
cultural landscape that integrates the harmony of ethical-religious values
and intangible cultural heritage.
7. Context, Religion and Heritage Contestation

Despite all theoretic constructs and human concerns for peace and
harmony the issue of dissonance dominates, especially with reference to
ethnicities and religion. The religious built environments are the pitiful
sufferers in such happenings of turmoil recorded every parts of the world
(cf. Singh 2008). Globalization, democratization, international and local
cultural preservation initiatives, the penetration of the market economy,
the commoditization of culture, and the politics of religious and ethnic
identity impinge upon and shape many of the monumental religious sites
in the world today, Lumbini, Borobodur, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, the
great pyramids of Giza, the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, the Buddhist
images at Bamiyan, the mosques and Churches in Bosnia are some of the
examples (Owens 2002: 271; cf. Singh 2008). The concern of cultural
heritage, especially religious built forms, had played an active role in the
past, but attention for value, use and conservation are said to have emerged
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from the rubrics of ‘modernity’
(Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000: 55-57). With the ‘cultural turn’
in geography and the parallel ‘turn to place’ in sociology, during the
1990s, writers began mapping social relations and heritage constructs,
including some issues of contestation (Dicks 2003: 33). The issue of
cultural governance has also becomes important in the rising conflicts
between politics and science (Schmitt 2009).
Religious beliefs and practices have shaped the local geographies
through the built forms and associated rituals and performances. In course
of time such symbolic forms considered as symbol of political control,
identity, hegemony and social security (see Harvey 1979). Bevan (2006: 7-
8) notes that, “the levelling of buildings and cities has always been an
inevitable part of conducting hostilities and has worsened as weaponry has
become heavier and more destructive, from the slings and arrows of the
past to the daisy-cutters of today”. Religion and political conflicts go side-
by-side in maintenance and destruction of those heritagescapes that played
a symbolic role of identity.
The ancient monuments and the built structure of the past have literally
been invented and reinvented by many people over successive generations,
each one with their own ideas and many times religious connotations
(Harvey 2005: 124). This results to a multiplicity of readings, which often
compete for legitimacy and dominance (Harvey 2003: 475). A particular
site with its perception as possessing inherent power of healing makes
‘sacred’ that later converges into a sacred place (see Brace, Baily and
Harvey 2006: 29). Considering space as a point of cultural and religious
contact, exchange, and sometimes conflict attracted scholars to understand
the reflections and reproductions of religious and social desires and
anxieties (De Rogatis 2003: 9). These structures are, symbolically, the
repositories of knowledge about former understanding of our planet and
our relationship with it. In a broad sense such heritage refers to the places
where the spirit of nature and culture meet, and are additionally
symbolised and maintained by people’s attachment to rituals performed
there (Singh 1997).
Sacrosanct built forms possess at least four attributes: externals (e.g.
architecture), internal (e.g. images), eternal (e.g. universal message), and
manifestive (e.g. adherents’ believes). But the transferability from one to
another always turns to be a painful contestation. There are, however,
composed of signs, words and symbols associated with built heritage and
related inherent values that may differ to those of non-believers of tourists

(Vukonić 2006: 244). The four basic issues for understanding
representations and discursive construction of heritage include are: (i)
understanding cultural significance, (ii) information on the value of
heritage, (iii) conservation in response to spiritual, and (iv) cultural
responsibility (Waterton, Smith and Campbell 2006: 350). The issue of
‘visuality’ has long played a crucial role in forming experiences,
associations, expectations and understandings of heritage, especially
representation and conveying meaning within a range of practices,
including tourism, identity construction, the popularization of the past
through a variety of media, and the memorialization of events; however
this view has received serious attention recently (Waterton and Watson
2010).
In a recent cross-cultural anthology studies are made of the sites that
represent painful and/or shameful episodes in a national or local
community’s history, and the ways that government agencies, heritage
professionals and the communities themselves seek to remember,
commemorate and conserve these cases – or, conversely, choose to forget
them. These sites bring shame upon us now for the cruelty and futility of
the events that occurred within them and the ideologies they represented.
They are however increasingly being regarded as ‘heritage sites’, a far cry
from the view of heritage that prevailed a generation ago when we were
almost entirely concerned with protecting the great and beautiful creations
of the past, reflections of the creative genius of humanity rather than the
reverse – the destructive and cruel side of history (Logan and Reeves
2008). The essays consider the way in which these historic sites and their
significant heritage values can be and are being interpreted and conserved
through planning and management interventions. It is important to
determine what aspects of the past are being ignored or poorly represented
in the interpretation of heritage sites. But sometimes while sites may be
missing from the public consciousness and hence from heritage registers
because the public in question does not want to remember the values
associated with such places (ibid.: 2). At country level China has been
studied in the context of cultural heritage management, keeping in mind
aspects of involvement and multifaceted attributes (Cros and Lee 2007).
The experience of war and its destructive effects has been fundamental
to the formation and sustenance of identities, and also as nexus linking
cultural heritage. The key themes concerns in this perspective are the
disputes over, and management of, the destruction, preservation,
reconstruction and interpretation of cultural heritage sites whose
significance is attributable to the events of war. Cultural heritage, as a
series of objects, places, practices, and indeed memories, is fundamental to

sustaining those identities over time, and allowing them to adapt to new
conditions, new histories, and new conceptions of person and community
(Gegner and Ziino 2011). Heritage is also an arena in which variety of
private and public actors and stakeholders compete for the right to benefit,
economically and otherwise, from controlling cultural patrimony that
varies from local to state and international organisations in the form of
beneficiaries and claims for legitimate “heirs”; the result is “monumental
ambivalence” leading to a threat to nation’s heritage (Breglia 2006).
Contesting heritage and Religion

The subject of contesting heritage and related enduring role of religion
could be visualized at various scales, like global, national, regional, local
and bodily, and at various degrees of shared sense of religious belonging
(Kong 2001: 226). It seems that some of the heritage practices (and also
religio-ritual traditions) commonly associated with the ancient time were
alive and later passed on to the later generations. Lowenthal (1998: 226)
argues that “heritage, far from being fatally predetermined or God-given,
is in large measure our own marvellously malleable creation”. Of course,
heritage is not an innate or primordial phenomenon; people created or
converted it into symbolic form, and in many cases associated it with
religion. The understanding of natural heritage as an expression of culture
is largely a local understanding. This promotes to conflicts and
contestation mainly due to clash among various groups claiming for the
same root/control (Olwig 2005). Contestation between regional and
national also emerges with reference to the values perceived regionally
and projected nationally, as in the case of Skåne’s landscape heritage in
Sweden (Germundsson 2005). It also turns sometimes that regional/
provincial landscape challenges the national. This condition is more
prevalent in case of built religious heritage landscape in South Asia, which
is historically old and culturally and visually rich, especially in its
architecture and associated symbols and legends (cf. Singh 2008).
In Asia, it is an issue of open debate whether the elements cultural
traditions to be reinforced should include heritage environments. Some
would say that the maintenance of the intangible heritage (religion,
language, literature, dance, music) is sufficient. Others, however, insists
that a people’s history is written on the ground, that cultural traditions are
reflected in the built environments people have created for themselves, and
that, because of this, heritage areas and buildings merit protection (Howe
and Logan 2002: 247). Religious traditions and customs have become
common through the people being habituated to them, which in fact are a
quite informal process (Eiter 2004: 173). Statutory law, in contrast, applies
to a community consisting of any members who may have the same
interests but do not necessarily have common roots or heritage. In many
areas of heritagescape, conflicts occur due to divergent practices in
recording individual’s claims.
Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) have suggested that heritage is
inherently “dissonant.” It is open to multiple interpretations and uses as
people seek to fulfil competing interests. Although all heritages are
contestable, the interpretation and representation of human suffering and
past injustices can create significant dissonance or disagreement, as
evident at many sacred places all over the world, especially with reference
to contesting religious identities. This dissonance derives, first, from
remembering uncomfortable historical truths within a process of making
religious identity, and then determining how the meaning of the religious
identity will be represented and communicated to the public. Increasing
numbers of studies have addressed heritage sites as nodes where the
competing histories – or ‘dissonant heritages’ (Tunbridge and Ashworth
1996) – of different social groups collide. Accommodating ‘dissonance’
means recognising the complicated histories of our communities and their
places, while simultaneously accepting parallel and competing accounts of
this past. For some, this promises a more inclusive, plural heritage for our
multicultural societies (Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000).
The contradiction between symbolic systems and economic values,
especially to religious buildings creates a problem when under compre-
hensive development plan such built forms require demolishment or
change of location, like in case of Singapore where under pragmatic
planning principles, and active public participation the shifting issue of
buildings are solved and vested sacred meanings and values therein are re-
established (Kong 2000: 348). The values that are central to religious
individuals suggest the importance of self-identities rooted in more
symbolic and spiritual dimensions. To realise these self-identities requires
that certain built forms, namely, religious buildings, exist, following
particular symbolic principles of existence. These tensions are constantly
negotiated through the cultural landscape, as the state and people
renegotiate the centrality of urban forms in their spiritual identities (see
Kong 2000: 353).
The use of heritage becomes controversial by the context of
commercialisation of spirituality (Timothy and Conover 2006: 151). In
some areas of the world many cases exist where government policies
influence visitors and interpretation of religious sites. A classic example is
the Buddhist shrines in Myanmar that are taken over by the reigning
government, which in turn reinterprets the shrines for tourists in a

sanitized manner, focusing more on reinforcing political and economic
claims than on presenting the Buddhist views of site sacrality (Philip and
Mercer: 1999). The conflicts between natural and cultural landscapes are
noticeable in different area; in fact, in many cases association with a
particular sect or religious group turns to promote contestation. Under the
ethical and rational senses of sustainable planning the issue of contestation
can be transformed into harmonious integrity (see Slaiby and Mitchell
2003: 18). Long-standing conflicts of interest between cities/ local site and
state/central and between districts themselves were exacerbated by the
competitive and motivated concerns of development policy in South Asia,
similar to that was in Wales in the 1980s (Dicks 2003: 38). Even though
all the religious sites are part of a heritage environment, not all the heritage
sites are religious sites. Nevertheless, in Oriental world the religious sites
dominate the heritage scene. The built heritage gives visual appearance a
value in its own right and has the effect that the necessary interdependence
of its very existence with other processes (economic, political or social)
can be complex (Duncan and Duncan 2001). At a site or place the
religious (cultural) symbolic value is manifested in a variety of ways.
Of all the Earth’s sacred places, in the city of Jerusalem, the world’s
three major monotheistic faiths – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all
claim inextricable sacred ties. There is much that these three religions of
Abraham have in common, but shared belief has not translated easily into
shared space, nevertheless this also creates conflict and contestation that
create and maintain its heritagescapes (cf. (Mayer and Mourad 2007).
8. Sacred Natural Sites: Spatiality to Spirituality

Since the turning of the 21st century, cultural and spiritual values have
come to be recognised as crucial elements in nature conservation,
emphasising sacrality with respect to space, time, function, and human
psyche with place-attachment. This led the major nature conservation
agencies ― all work with representatives of faiths and spiritualities. The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is at the forefront
of these developments, with several commissions working on the cultural
and spiritual values attributed to nature, and collaborating with local and
indigenous peoples on conservation issues (Verschuuren 2007a: 299). This
work is gradually getting ‘endogenous development’ onto the conservation
agenda where geography can play a major role. The IUCN defines sacred
natural sites as ‘areas of land or water having special spiritual significance
to peoples and communities’. Examples include mountains, groves of
trees, springs and caves. In addition, sacred natural sites are often safe
havens for biological and cultural diversity, and represent long-standing
relationships between human beings and nature. They offer examples of
how people connect to nature in meaningful and often spiritual ways.
Sacred natural sites are found all over the world; but India even being
more richer in terms of diversity, distinctiveness and mosaicness, not yet
studied systematically in this context (cf. Singh 2010b).
Sacred Natural Sites are the world's oldest protected places and of
trajectory of ancient heritage values. Some of the most prominent
examples include Uluru (Ayer's Rock, Australia), Mount Fuji (Japan),
Sagarmatha/Chomolongma (Mt. Everest, Nepal, Tibet, and China), the
River Ganga/[Ganges in anglicised form] (India), the Sacred Groves of
India, Lake Titicaca (Bolivia and Peru) and Mount Kilimanjaro
(Tanzania). Sacred natural sites are shown to contain remarkable
biodiversity and therefore can make a significant contribution to halting
the catastrophic extinction of wild species of plants and animals as well as
the decline and damage of habitats and ecosystems. They also display a
broad array of cultural diversity, languages, rituals, traditional knowledge,
art, song, story, dance and identity and therefore appear of universal
heritage value. Often cared for by their traditional custodian community,
sacred natural sites represent a wide diversity of socio-ecological models
that can help find approaches for more sustainable lifestyles and human-
nature relationships for the world at large. In a recent anthology these
issues are exemplified with case studies from different parts of the world,
including the Holy Hills (China), the Golden Mountains of Altai (Russia),
Holy Island of Lindisfarne (UK) (Verschuuren, et al. 2010). This
anthology concludes that conservation efforts are likely to be successful
only if the cultural and spiritual values are taken into account together with
the socio-economic interests of the custodian communities and other
relevant stakeholders using heritage sites or heritage resources.
It is noted obviously that “The way people perceive nature depends on
culturally defined value and belief systems that form an important, often
intergenerational, source of information. Some of this valuable inform-
ation, relating in particular to its spiritual dimensions, may not yet be
considered in current ecosystem management. Part of the reason for this
may be that such knowledge is inaccessible and difficult to be understood
by outsiders such as western-trained conservationists and conventional
ecosystem managers. Hence, accounting for the various worldviews and
their corresponding cultural and spiritual values in the practice of
ecosystem management forms a challenge for managers, policy-makers
and local people alike” (Verschuuren 2007a: 299).
An important characteristic of the new epistemologies (also referred to

as the Cartesian or Scientific paradigms), is the lack of critical spiritual
connectiveness that persists in the links between people, nature and
landscapes. Many examples exist of local and indigenous people’s
custodianship where this connectiveness is evident. Also in western
culture, such connectiveness exists through the concepts of “sense of
place” and “genus loci”. In relation to sacred natural sites, it may be
referred to as the “sacer loci”. The later is the root for the word “sacred”
in Latin which mean is “restricted by belonging to the Gods” (cf. Shackley
2001).
In the context of the present discourse, the critical spiritual
connectiveness refers to the transcendental aspects as described earlier in
the text (see Fig. 1.5) when conceptualising transcendental interactions in
conservation management. Emphasising and restoring the linkages
between biological and cultural diversity has shown that in many cultures
the spiritual relations of local people are a vital source not only for human
wellbeing but also for the well-being of nature and ecosystems. These
culturally determined spiritual human-ecosystem relationships therefore
form a great potential for enhancing conservation management and policy
targets such as for example the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).
Fig. 1.5. Transcendental interactions in conservation management
(after Verschuuren 2007b: 20).
Cosmovision
Spiritual
World
Transcendental Interactions
Worldview
Institutional
relations
Management
system
Natural
World Local
knowledge
The most common view shared by institutionalised and indigenous

spiritual traditions alike is that the world is a ‘multiple level hierarchic
reality’, similar to that of Mircea Eliade’s hierophany. These relationships
may be represented with a simplified model showing three different planes
that overlap (cf. Fig. 1.5). It is a way of showing that management of
sacred sites should consider all values and stakeholders involved.
Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge that in this world where many
different worldviews coexist, each worldview may have its own hierarchy
of values. Within these worldviews, different traditional cosmological
sciences have evolved over time ― often in harmony with nature ― and
many of which are still alive in different regions around the world (cf.
Verschuuren 2007a: 308).
Fig. 1.6. Main constituent values of Sacred Natural Sites, SNS.

(after Verschuuren 2007a: 308).
Spiritual World
Religious Symbolic
value value
SNS
Human Natural
Conser-
World vation World
value
Concurrently this would require the inclusion of cultural criteria in

ecosystem management and adoption of the concept of bio-cultural
diversity, which would inevitably lead to the broadening of management
objectives and the enhancement of related and facilitating policies.

Simultaneously the concept of SNSs gains recognition because it enables
managers and policy-makers to conceptualize and communicate complex
spiritual-ecosystem relationships through intercultural learning and local
environmental education, while at the same time developing conservation
objectives (see Fig. 1.6, Verschuuren 2007a: 308).
Embracing the concept of SNSs, it is evident that focal areas of
spiritual values and cultural significance exist. However, it is of critical
importance to recognize that in many cultures and traditional worldviews
their importance generally extends to the wider landscape. Hence, the
whole landscape can be permeated with spiritual significance
(Verschuuren 2007a: 308). This has immense scope in Indian landscape
study, as already exemplified with getting enlisted 28 sites in the
UNESCO World Heritage Sites (see Singh and Rana 2010, in this book).
9. Heritage and Human Right

With a preamble that when multiple identities, uses and controls start
functioning there also converges conflicts and results to consider the issue
of human right, this collection provides examples from different parts of
the world, illustrated with the locales and the local theorising constructs
that further extended to their universal values in the contemporary world
of contemplative cultural vales and cross-cultural implications. For such
march naturally interdisciplinary approaches are more viable, as illustrated
by the contributors from different backgrounds like cultural studies,
anthropology, sociology, geography, urban and regional planning, archa-
eology, gender studies, landscape architecture, heritage and museum
studies, political economy and legal studies (Silverman and Ruggles
2007).
The issue of human right adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly resolution on 10 December 1948 (cf. ibid.: 23-29), has
encouraged the scholars and states for using its framework in various
contexts. Human right itself is a power for safeguarding and maintaining
the heritage properties. It is obviously noted that the power relations
necessarily impact the ideology of universalism under writing current
cultural heritage discourses. Human right also should be realised as
tantamount to achieving global justice that to be contextualised and
maintained by the people from different parts of the world. While
maintaining the relationship between human rights and cultural heritage
UNESCO faces challenges in prioritising and maintenance. This also
sometimes turns into contestation between state and UNESCO, or local
and international (cf. Schmitt and Schweitzer 2007). Especially in state of

ancient culture, like many parts of Asia, such issues are also concerned
with political involvement, governmental priority and policies where other
issues are more important for the care of the masses.
Cultural heritage and human rights are entangled with relations of
power, and power relations necessarily impact the ideology of
universalism underwriting current cultural heritage discourse, which
should be inclined to the roots and their cultural setting (Silverman and
Ruggles 2007: 17). With the focus shifting from tangible to intangible
form of heritage – ‘living heritage embodied in people’ – the paradigm has
shifted with emphasis on ‘cultural rights’ as a part of ‘human right’ (Logan
2008: 449). The problematic linkages between conserving cultural
heritage, maintaining cultural diversity, defining and establishing
citizenship and enforcing human rights are the historical realities and bases
for human’s rich cultural diversity; this is recently advocated that the ways
in which the protection and preservation of cultural heritage is especially
linked to ‘cultural rights’ are an integral form of human rights (Langfield,
Logan and Craith 2009).
The status identification and prioritisation while resolving minority/
majority conflicts are yet to be taken seriously. But above all what
hierarchy, degree of intensity and coverage of area and other related issues
should also be taken while such issues are serious taken in historical
context and peoples’ involvement: locally, regionally, nationally and
ultimately internationally. However, there is no any case studies from
Japan, the country which has passed its heritage law in 1920s and since
then has maintained the three tier hierarchy of heritage documentation,
management and planning programmes. Art and Cultural Heritage are
appropriately, not solely, about the law ‒ national and international ‒
respecting cultural heritage, but also is a bubbling cauldron of law mixed
with ethics, philosophy, politics and working principles about how cultural
heritage law, policy and practice should be sculpted from the past as the
present becomes the future and also critically evaluating the extent to
which these international law (e.g. in the purview of UNESCO), principles
and rules provide an effective and coherent international law framework
for the protection of cultural heritage (Hoffman 2006; Forrest 2010;
Gerstenblith 2010).
10. Epilogue: Emergence and March

A strong relationship between the resources of the preserved past and
their uses as commodity and place identity can be depicted in a linked
system related to three units. They are: (a) heritage contributing towards
cultural-political identity, (b) heritage supporting eco-tourism, and (c)
tourism in general, and heritage tourism in particular, all contributing
towards the educational and socialisation function of a place (Ashworth,
1995: 68). It is obvious that effective public support for sustainable
heritage tourism is lacking and decisions are inevitably made on the basis
of short-term political expediency. A mass awakening in the context of old
cultural values would promote a new spirit of sustainability. For such an
awakening, a sense of attachment is a prerequisite since it provides
emotional and spiritual sustainability to individuals, the community and
also the visitors. However, such a revival need not turn into
fundamentalism and damage social harmony (cf. Rana and Singh 2000:
155).
Realising that WHS are of high profile as designated by the WH
Committee and ICOMOS, they are of universal significance, it becomes
duty of the state parties and any civilised person to take care of WHS by
protecting them under the state laws, public awareness and political
consciousness. Since they are crucial to heritage and cultural tourism, their
sustainability to be taken seriously with the help and active participation of
the stakeholders within their management structure (cf. Mitchell et al.
2009). In a study by Leask and Fyall (2006) nine issues summarised under
‘conclusions’ (pp. 286-287) are ‒ increase of tourism importance,
consideration of visitors’ views, realising that inscription as the WHS
provides external force that can work only with the internal forces, danger
for branding heritage would lead to saturation in the competitive market
economy, branding encourages misuse and misinterpretation that further
lead to contestation, minimising stakeholders conflict and non-coopera-
tion, promoting more benefit to the local community in place of outsiders’
exploitation, managing security and peace at heritage sites, and constantly
use of innovative measures for effective packing and new visions for
making visitors always encouraged. Unfortunately, no studies or even
discussion with reference to South Asia has been considered even
marginally!
The science of archaeology together with museum studies and cultural
analysis can support heritage studies for wider applicability in resource
management. That is how Smith (2006) has attempted to propose an
alternative conception of heritage that establishes and develops themes
like memory, performance, identity, intangibility, dissonance and
placemaking; exemplified with cases from the UK, Australia and the
United States. In a way she has been successful in re-theorising the idea of
heritage as identity, cultural symbol, the ‘manoeuvred past and making
past’, making the fossils alive and communicate, performance as

maintaining continuity, memories and repositories of the past, power of
control and politics behind super-imposition, of course in a more
Eurocentric way. She has been successful in creating mass consciousness
to reflect upon that European culture as the only civilise and civil culture
since past! Of course, her case studies tried to establish link between
material culture and identity, based on qualitative and ethnographic
research (Smith 2006). Heritage is also a process that promotes place-
making, further leading to place-marketing ― attempt to replicate the
characteristics traditionally found in urban spaces that are memorably
viewed, presently used and futuristically envisioned (Castello 2010).
There has been much academic interest in the role of museums as
places where understanding of the past is shaped as heritage and
legitimised for a wide and increasingly diverse public, e.g. a recent study
that focuses on the museum representations of the Highland Clearances in
modern Scottish history (Gouriévidis 2010).
Using monuments and ruins by way of illustration, a study of Greece
examines the symbolic, ideological, geographical and aesthetic importance
of Greek classical iconography for the Western world, and shows the ways
in which archaeology and monumentality affect modern life, the modern
aesthetic, our notions of nationhood, of place, of self – and the limits to
and possibilities for national development imposed by the need to ensure
ruins are kept ‘alive’ (Loukaki 2008). The premise that heritage values are
culturally and historically constructed, preservation of historic environ-
ments is conceived in the pluralist frameworks, as exemplified in a recent
anthology that recognises the value of the multiple constructed meanings
(Gibson and Pendlebury 2010). The development of recent approaches in
archaeology as a reflexive, self-critical discipline in the modern world,
paves the path of archaeology relate to changing conceptions of risk,
heritage, culture, identity, and conflict – altogether that help to synthesise
the dialectics of past and present, object and culture, and discoverer,
audience and analyst (Koerner and Russell 2010).
There exists a line of thought that heritage preservation with an aim to
promote sustainable heritage tourism, particularly the archaic wisdom
contained with heritagescapes, is an expendable luxury in rapidly
modernising societies, such as India. But modernisation and the messages
contained in ancient wisdom should be allowed to co-exist in order to help
realise humanity’s link with nature. In our heritagescapes the history,
possibilities and future prospects of our existence and continuity are
contained. Heritage is the mirror of human growth and development, and
in this context it must be preserved in sustainable way. One may also hope
for a revival of the sense of belonging in the light of ‘eco-ethics’, a

preservation of the age-old intangible spirit of sustainability, and
recognition of our identity in the context of heritage sites. The idea of
cultural heritage has become widespread in many countries, justifying
government regulation and providing the background to disputes over
valuable works of art and architecture; that should be envisioned in a way
of political philosophy as it offers a liberal approach to moral claims and
government regulation (Gillman 2010).
After passing a decade in the 21st century issues like the politics,
policy and practice of cultural heritage at the global level substantially
identify the major directions in which international heritage practice is
moving, and also explore the key issues that likely to shape the cultural
heritage field well into the twenty-first century. The recent debates have
examined the tensions between the universal claims of much heritage
practice, particularly that associated with the World Heritage system, and
national and local perspectives. Also the international legal framework
developed since World War II to protect heritage, particularly at times of
war, and from theft, showing how contemporary global problems of
conflict and illicit trade continue to challenge the international legal
system has drawn recent attention. The incorporation of heritage in the
world economy through the policies of international development
organisations and the global tourism trade has another perspective that
recently emerged. Heritage as resource and means may also be approached
from seldom-considered perspectives, as a form of aid, as a development
paradigm, and as a form of sustainable practice (Labadi and Long 2010).
In any settler and/or postcolonial society, heritage is a complex and
contested topic that involves indigenous, imperial and other migrant
components; this is exemplified with Australia, a former settler-colony
with a problematic history of encounter with its indigenous population and
adjustment to the expectations of new Australians in a transnational world,
where this situation is compounded by the unique characteristics of the
country’s natural environment, the considerable diversity of its migrant
intake and the demographic and technological imbalances between its
indigenous and settler populations (Jones and Shaw 2007). Southeast Asia
has in recent years become a crossroads of cultures with high levels of
ethnic pluralism, where the forces of ‘post-colonialism’ demonstrates how
in their various manifestations are accelerating social change and creating
new and ‘imagined’ communities, some of which are potentially disruptive
and which may well threaten the longer term sustainability of the region
on the line of comprehensive view of heritage, culture and identity (Ismail,
Shaw and Ling 2010). Using both visual and material culture, examining
the value of ‘landscape and memory’ for postcolonial migrants living in

Britain has recently researched where new spaces of memory are presented
as mobile and as politically charged with meaning as the more formal
spaces of memorialisation (Tolia-Kelly 2010). Many heritage sites in
South Asia are threatened because of a lack of pride or ownership in them
by the community living adjacent to these sites. While the role of
government and international agencies is important, linking residents to
these places is equally important (Nyaupane and Megha 2009: 141).
In contemporary intellectual arena heritage studies exists as a distinct
set of academic practices ― expanding in all the possible corner across the
limits of boundary. What would be the legitimate and viable boundary,
from local to global, of such studies is not yet got preciseness and
precision. But the field is attractive, accommodative, open and supportive
to awareness, awakening and actions (Carman and Sørensen 2009).
However, there exist range of sources and methods that can be used to
investigate identity formation of heritage in a historical perspective; it is
expected that these interdisciplinary and integrated frames will help to
understand the creative forces, visions of maintenance, ways of
preservation, their uses as resources, and their roles in sustainable
development of the region or nation (cf. Sommer 2009; McCarty et al.
2009). Uzzell (2009: 334) rightly opines that “one of the reasons why we
undertake interdisciplinary research is to communicate and engage with
others in order to develop and employ methodologies in an imaginative
and informed way in order to understand the heritage, whether it is ‘out
there’ or ‘in here’ …..”.
In spite of equally important in a reciprocal interaction between
tangible (built environment) and intangible (performance, practices and
thoughts) heritages, still some disciplines are scared and suspicious about
practicing heritage studies. Geography is still lagging behind even after
publication of a popular and rich text book that attempted to establish the
field called ‘Geography of Heritage’, which rationally concludes that “the
economic commodification of place through heritage will help ensure that
it remains firmly fixed in representation of place, faithfully reflecting the
enduring cultural and economic boundaries of societies” (cf. Graham,
Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000: 260).
Let us take insight for deeper feeling with the words of David
Lowenthal (1999: 9):
“Care for the past requires a care for the present. If you disjoin heritage from
ongoing life, you cannot enlist popular support for it. It is not enough just to
adore the past and things that have come from it; good care-taking involves
continual creation as well. Heritage gets revitalized not by being simply
original but by including all our forebears’ alterations and additions. We
treasure it by transforming it in our own way and reshaping it in the faith that
our successors also will want to be both creative and retentive stewards. But
such stewardship is not innate. It has to be learned and promoted”.
Certainly we need a good and balanced combination and synthesis

between insider and outsider, the Eastern and the Western, inter-
disciplinary and intra-disciplinary, experiential and reverential, rational
and relational, … and so on, thus we would have a sustainable, happy and
habitable-humane-heritage. Let us hope for the good through the truth in a
beautiful way!
11. References
Aa, Baret J.M. van der 2005. Preserving the Heritage of Humanity?
Obtaining World Heritage Status and the impacts of Listing. Spatial
Sciences, State University of Groningen, Groningen.
Aikawa-Faure, Noriko 2009. From the Proclamation of Masterpieces to
the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage;
in, Smith, Laurajane and Akagawa, Natsuko (eds.) Intangible Heritage.
Routledge, London and New York: 13-44.
Allchin, Bridget; Allchin, F.R. and Thapar, B.K. (eds.) 1989. Conserv-
ation of the Indian Heritage. Cosmo Publishers, New Delhi.
Arpin, Roland 1993. Building concordance among World Heritage Towns:
a synopsis. Safeguarding Historic Urban Ensembles in a Time of
Change. Proceedings of the International Symposium on World
Heritage Towns, Quebec City, Canada, July 1991: 551-572.
Ashworth, Gregory J. 1991. Heritage Planning. Conservation as the
Management of Urban Change. Geo Pers, Groningen, NL.
―. 1993. Heritage Planning: an approach to managing historic cities; in,
Zuriak, Zbigniew (ed.) Managing Historic Cities. International
Cultural Centre, Cracow: 27-47.
―. 1995. Heritage, tourism and Europe: a European future for European
past?; in, Herbert, David T. (ed.) Heritage Tourism and Society.
Mansell, London: 68-84.
―. 1996. Realisable potential but hidden problems: a heritage tale from
central European Cities. Paper presented to the International Cultural
Centre Conference, Krakow, 14pp.
―. 2000. The Tourist-Historic City. Retrospect and Prospect of Managing
the Heritage City. Pergamon (Elsevier Science), Oxford.
Ashworth, Gregory J. and Hartmann, Rudy 2005. Horror and Human
Tragedy Revisited: The Management of Sites of Atrocities for Tourism.
Cognizant Communication, New York.
Ashworth, Gregory; Tunbridge, John and Graham, Brian 2007. Pluralising

Pasts. Heritages, Societies, Place, Identities. Pluto Press, London.
Bevan, Robert 2006. The Destruction of Memory. Architecture at War.
Reaktion Books, London.
Blake, Janet 2009. UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural
Heritage: the implications of community involvement ‘safeguarding’;
in, Smith, Laurajane and Akagawa, Natsuko (eds.) Intangible Heritage.
Routledge, London and New York: 45-73.
Brace, Catherine; Bailey, Adrian and Harvey, David C. 2006. Religion,
place and space: a framework for investigating historical geographies
of religious identities and communities. Progress in Human
Geography, 30 (1): 28- 43.
Breglia, Lisa C. 2006. Monumental Ambivalence. The Politics of Heritage.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Butzer, Karl (ed.) 1992 The Americas before and after 1492: current
geographical research. Annals, Association of American Geographers,
82 (3-4): 343-565.
Carman, John and Sørensen, Marie L. Stig 2009. Heritage Studies: an
outline; in, Sørensen, Marie L. Stig and Carman, John (eds.) Heritage
Studies: Methods and Approaches. Routledge, London: 11 - 28.
Castello, Lineu 2010. Rethinking the Meaning of Place. Conceiving Place
in Architecture-Urbanism. Ashgate Publs., Aldershot.
Cosgrove, Denis 2000. Cultural landscape; in, Johnston, Ron J. et al. (eds.)
The Dictionary of Human Geography. Blackwell, Oxford: 138-141.
Cosgrove, Denis and Daniels, Stephen (eds.) 1988. The Iconography of
Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and use
of Past Environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cronon, William (ed.) 1995. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing
Nature. Norton Pub. Co., New York.
Cros, Hilary du and Lee, Yok-shiu F. (eds.) 2007. Cultural Heritage
Management in China. Routledge, London.
De Rogatis, A. 2003. Moral Geography: Maps, Missionaries and the
American Frontier. Columbia University Press, Ithaca NY.
Devereux, Paul 1990. Places of Power. Blandford, London.
Dicks, Bella 2003. Heritage, Governance and Marketization: a Case-study
from Wales. Museum and Society, 1 (1): 30-44.
Di Giovine, Michael A. 2009. Heritage-scape: UNESCO, World Heritage,
and Tourism. Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield Publs. Inc.),
Lanham USA.
Duncan, James 1990. The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape

Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Duncan, James S. and Duncan, Nancy G. 2001. The authenticization of the
politics of landscape preservation. Annals, Association of American
Geographers, 91 (2): 387-409.
Eiter, Sebastian 2004. Protected areas in the Norwegian mountains:
Cultural landscape conservation- whose landscape? Norsk Geografisk
Tidsskrif - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 58 (4): 171-182.
Elkins, T. H. 1989. Human and Regional Geography in the German-
speaking lands in the first forty years of the Twentieth Century; in,
Entrikin, J. Nicholas and Brunn, Stanley D. (eds.) Reflections on
Richard Hartshorne’s The Nature of Geography. Occasional
publications of the Association of the American Geographers,
Washington DC: 17-34.
Feilden, Bernard M. 1993 a. Management of World Heritage Cities. In,
Safeguarding Historic Urban Ensembles in a Time of Change. Quebec,
Canada: 19-33.
―. 1993 b. Is conservation of cultural heritage relevant to South Asia.
South Asian Studies, 9: 1-10.
Forrest, Craig 2010. International Law and the Protection of Cultural
Heritage. Routledge, London.
Fowler Peter J. 2003. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992–2002.
UNESCO, Paris. (World Heritage Papers 6).
―. 2007. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. World Heritage Review,
no. 44: 1-9.
Frey, Bruno S. and Pamini, Paolo 2010. World Heritage: Where are We?
An Empirical Analysis. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics,
University of Zurich, Working Paper Series: WP No. 462.
Gegner, Martin and Ziino, Bart (eds.) 2011. The Heritage of War.
Routledge, London & New York.
Germundsson, Tomas 2005. Regional cultural heritage versus national
heritage in Scania’s disputed national landscape. International Journal
of Heritage Studies, 11 (1): 21-37.
Gerstenblith, Patty 2010. Art, Cultural Heritage, and the Law: Cases and
Materials. Carolina Academic Press, Durham.
Gibson, Lisanne and Pendlebury, John (eds.) 2010. Valuing Historic
Environments. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot and London.
Gillman, Derek 2010. The Idea of Cultural Heritage. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Gouriévidis, Laurence 2010. The Dynamics of Heritage. History, Memory

and the Highland Clearances. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot and London.
Graham, Brian; Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. 2000. A Geography
of Heritage. Arnold, a Hodder Headline Group, London.
Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (eds.) 2008. Ashgate Research
Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate, Aldershot and London.
Hall, C. Michael and Page, Stephen J. 1999. The Geography of Tourism
and Recreation. Routledge, London & New York.
Hall, Stuart (ed.) 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and
Signifying Practices. Sage/Open University, London.
Harvey, David 1979. Monument and myth. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 69 (3): 362-381.
Harvey, David C. 2003. “National” identities and the politics of ancient
heritage: continuity and change at ancient monuments in Britain and
Ireland, c. 1675-1850. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 28 (4): 473-487.
―. 2005. Newgrange, heritage and the Irish nation: two moments of
transformation; in, McCarthy, M. (ed.) Ireland’s Heritages: Critical
Perspectives on Memory and Identity. Ashgate Pub., London: 123-137.
Hoffman, Barbara T. (ed.) 2006. Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy
and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pbk ed. 2009.
Howe, Renate and Logan, William S. 2002. Conclusion. Protecting Asia’s
Urban Heritage: The Way Forward; in, Howe, Renate and Logan,
William (eds.) The Disappearing ‘Asian’ City - Protecting Asia’s
Urban Heritage in a Globalizing World. Oxford University Press
China, Hong Kong: 245-256, notes 279.
Hufford, Mary (ed.) 1994. Conserving Culture. A New Discourse on
Heritage. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.
Ismail, Rahil; Shaw, Brian and Ling, Ooi Giok (eds.) 2010. Southeast
Asian Culture and Heritage in a Globalising World: Diverging
Identities in a Dynamic Region. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot.
Jackson, J.B. 1984. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
Jones, Roy and Shaw, Brian J. (eds.) 2007. Geographies of Australian
Heritages: Loving a Sunburnt Country? Ashgate Publ., Aldershot.
Kearney, Amanda 2009. Intangible Cultural Heritage: Global awareness
and local interest; in, Smith, Laurajane and Akagawa, Natsuko (eds.)
Intangible Heritage. Routledge, London and New York: 209-225.
Koerner, Stephanie and Russell, Ian (eds.) 2010. Unquiet Pasts: Risk
Society, Lived Cultural Heritage, Re-designing Reflexivity. Ashgate
Publ., Aldershot and London.
Kong, Lily 2000. Value conflicts, identity construction and urban change;
in, Bridge, G. and Watson, S. (eds.) A Companion to the City.
Blackwell, Oxford: 354-65.
―. 2001. Mapping ‘new’ geographies of religion: politics and poetics in
modernity. Progress in Human Geography, 25 (2): 211–233.
Labadi, Sophia and Long, Colin (eds.) 2010. Heritage and Globalisation.
Routledge, London & New York.
Langfield, Michele; Logan, William and Craith, Mairead Nic (eds.) 2009.
Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in
Theory and Practice. Routledge, London & New York.
Leask, Anna and Fyall, Alan (eds.) 2006. Managing World Heritage Sites.
Elsevier & Butterworth-Heinemann Publ., Oxford.
Livingstone, David 1992. The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in the
History of a Contested Enterprise. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Logan, William S. 2004. Introduction: Voices from the periphery: the
Burra Charter in context. Historic Environment [Council for the
Historic Environment, Australia], 18 (1): 2-8.
―. 2008. Cultural diversity, heritage and human rights; in, Graham, Brian
and Howard, Peter (eds.) Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage &
Identity. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot and London: 439-449
Logan, William and Reeves, Keir (eds.) 2008. Places of Pain and Shame:
Dealing with ‘Difficult Heritage’. Routledge, London and New York.
Longstreth, Richard (ed.) 2008. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature
and Heritage in Preservation Practice. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Loukaki, Argyro 2008. Living Ruins, Value Conflicts. Ashgate Publ.,
Aldershot and London.
Lowenthal, David 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
―. 1999. Heritage Stewardship and the Amateur Tradition. APT Bulletin
[Association for Preservation Technology International], 30 (2/3): 7-9.
Massey, Dorren 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism Today, June: 24-
29.
Martin, Geoffrey J. 2005. All Possible Worlds, A History of Geographical
Ideas. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 4th Ed.
Mayer, Tamar and Mourad, Sulieman A. 2007. Jerusalem. History,
Religion and Geography. Routledge, London.
McCarty, Kim; Gregory, Britteny and Abel, Mickey 2009. Geography,
Archaeology, Art History: A Case Study for a Multidisciplinary
Approach to Mapping Architectural Heritage. Peregrinations. Inter-
national Society for the Study of Pilgrimage Art, 2 (3): 130-151.
Meinig, Donald (ed.) 1979. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes.

Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
Mitchell, Don 2000. Cultural Geography, A Critical Introduction.
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Mitchell, Nora; Rössler, Mechtild and Tricaud, Pierre-Marie (eds.) 2009
(December). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for
Conservation and Management. UNESCO WHC, Paris. web: http://
whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_26_en.pdf
Moore, Niamh and Whelan, Yvonne (eds.) 2007. Heritage, Memory and
the Politics of Identity. Ashgate, Aldershot UK.
Nas, Peter 2002. Masterpieces of Oral and Immaterial Culture. Current
Anthropology, 43 (1): 139–143.
Nyaupane, Gyan P. and Budruk, Megha 2009. South Asian heritage
tourism: Conflict, colonialism, and cooperation; in, Timothy, Dallen J.
and Nyaupane, Gyan P. (eds.) Cultural Heritage of Tourism in the
Developing World. Routledge, London: 127-145.
Nelson, J.G. 1991. Heritage in Canada: towards a more holistic and
pluralist perspective. The Operational Geographer, 9 (2): 10-12.
Olwig, Kenneth 2005. Introduction: the nature of cultural heritage, and
the culture of natural heritage – northern perspectives on a contested
patrimony. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11 (1): 3-7.
Owens, Bruce M. 2002. Monumentality, Identity, and the State: Local
Practice, World Heritage, and Heterotopia at Swayambhu, Nepal.
Anthropological Quarterly, 75 (2): 269-316.
Philip, J. and Mercer, D. 1999. Commodification of Buddhism in
contemporary Burma. Annals of Tourism Research, 26: 31–54.
Rana, Pravin S. and Singh, Rana P.B. 2000. Sustainable Heritage Tourism:
Framework, Perspective and Prospect. National Geographical Journal
of India (NGSI Varanasi), 46 (1-4): 141- 158.
Sauer, Carl O. 1925/ 1963. The Morphology of Landscape University of
California Publications in Geography, 22: 19-53; ; reprinted in his
(1963) Land and Life, A Selection from the Writings of Carl O. Sauer
[ed. John Leighly]. University of California Press, Berkeley: 315-350.
Schein, R. 1997. The place of landscape: a conceptual framework the
American scene. Annals, Assoc. of Amr. Geographers, 87 (4): 660-680.
Scholze, Marko 2008. Arrested Heritage. The Politics of Inscription into
the UNESCO World Heritage List: The Case of Agadez in Niger.
Journal of Material Culture, 13 (2): 215-231.
Schmitt, Thomas M. 2008. The UNESCO concept of safeguarding
intangible cultural heritage: its background and Marrrakchi roots. The
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14 (2): 95–111.
―. 2009. Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning

World Heritage between Politics and Science. Erdkunde, 63 (2), June:
103-121.
Schmitt, Thomas M. and Schweitzer, A. 2007. Welterbe oder Stadtent-
wicklung in Gefahr? Zu deutschen Debatten und zur global-lokalen
Governanz von UNESCO-Welterbestätten am Beispiel des Kölner
Doms. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 81 (4): 329–352.
Shackley, Myra 2001. Managing Sacred Sites: Service Provision and
Visitor Experience. Continuum, London.
Silverman, Helaine and Ruggles, D. Fairchild (eds.) 2007. Cultural
Heritage and Human Rights. Springer, New York.
―. 2009. Intangible Heritage Embodied. Springer, New York.
Singh, Rana P.B. 1995. Heritage ecology and caring for the Earth: A
search for preserving harmony and ethical values. National
Geographical Jl. of India (Varanasi), 41 (2), June: 191-218.
―. 1996. The Ganga River and the spirit of sustainability in Hinduism; in,
Swan, James and Swan, Roberta Swan (eds.) Dialogues with the Living
Earth. New Ideas on the Spirit of Place. Quest Books, Wheaton, IL,
USA: pp. 86-107.
―. 1997. Sacredscape and urban heritage in India: Contestation and
perspective; in, Shaw, Brian J. and Jones, Roy (eds.) Contested Urban
Heritage: Voices from the Periphery. Ashgate Publs., Aldershot, UK:
101-131.
―. 2008. The Contestation of Heritage: The enduring importance of
Religion; in, Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (eds.) Ashgate
Research Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot
and London: 125-141.
―. 2010a. Varanasi, India’s Cultural Heritage City: Contestation,
Conservation & Planning; in, Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescape &
Cultural Landscapes. Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series,
no. 6. Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi: 205-254.
―. 2010b. Think of Research in Indian Geography: Some Reflections; in,
Sharma, P.R. et al. (eds.) Research in Geography: Concepts,
Methodology and Studies. R.K. Publishers, New Delhi; (in press).
Singh, Rana P.B. and Rana, Pravin S. 2002/2009. Banaras Region: A
Spiritual & Cultural Guide. Pilgrimage & Cosmology Series: 1. Indica
Books, Varanasi.
―. 2010. Heritagescapes of India: Appraising Heritage Ecology; in,
Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes.
Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi: 87-128.
Singh, Rana P.B. and Singh, Ravi S. 1997. Urban heritage in India:
Towards orientation to planning; in, Singh, A.K., et el. (eds.) Strategies
in Development Planning. Deep & Deep Publs., New Delhi: 289 -304.
Slaiby, Barbara E., and Mitchell Nora J. 2003. A Handbook for Managers
of Cultural Landscapes with Natural Resource Values. Conservation
Study Institute, Woodstock, Vermont.
Smith, Laurajane 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.
Sommer, Ulrike 2009. Methods used to investigate the use of the past in
the formation of regional identities; in, Sørensen, Marie L. Stig and
Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies. Routledge, London: 103- 120.
Swan, James A. 1992. Nature as Healer and Teacher. Villard-Random
House, New York.
Throsby, David 2009. Tourism, heritage and cultural sustainability: three
‘golden rules’; in, Girard, Luigi F. and Nijkamp, Peter (eds.) Cultural
Tourism and Sustainable Local Development. Ashgate Pub. Ltd.,
Farnham, Surrey, UK: 13-29.
Timothy, Dallen J. and Conover, Paul J. 2006. Nature religion, self-
spirituality and New Age tourism; in Timothy, Dallen J. and Olsen,
Daniel H. (eds.) Tourism, Religion, and Spiritual Journeys.
Routledge, London & New York: 139-155.
Tolia-Kelly, Divya Praful 2010. Landscape, Race and Memory: Material
Ecologies of Citizenship. Ashgate Publ., Aldershot and London.
Tunbridge, John E. and Ashworth, Gregory J. 1996. Dissonant Heritage.
The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, UK.
UNESCO 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention. Revised edition. UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, Paris. (WHC.05/2, 2 February 2005).
UNESCO-IUCN [eds.] 1992. Masterworks of Man and Nature. Managing
Editor: Mark Swadling. Harper-MacRae, Patonga, Australia.
Uzzell, David L. 2009. Where is the discipline in heritage studies?; in,
Sørensen, Marie L. Stig and Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies:
Methods and Approaches. Routledge, London: 326 - 333.
Verschuuren, Bas 2007a. An overview of cultural and spiritual values in
ecosystem management and conservation strategies; in, Haverkort, B.
and Rist, S. (eds.) Endogenous Development and Bio-cultural
Diversity, The Interplay of Worldviews, Globalisation and Locality.
Compas/CDE, series on Worldviews and Sciences, No. 6, Leusden,
The Netherlands: 299-325.
―. 2007b. Believing is Seeing, Integrating cultural and spiritual values in
conservation management. Foundation for Sustainable Development,
the Netherlands and the International Union for Conservation and

Natural Resources IUCN, Gland Switzerland.
Verschuuren, Bas; Wild, Robert; McNeely, Jeffrey A. and Oviedo,
Gonzalo (eds.) 2010. Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and
Culture. Earthscan Publications, London.
Vukonić, Boris 2006. Sacred places and tourism in Roman Catholic
tradition; in, Timothy, Dallen J. and Olsen, Daniel H. (eds.) Tourism,
Religion, and Spiritual Journeys. Routledge, London: 237-253.
Waterton, Emma; Smith, Laurajane and Campbell, G. 2006. The Utility of
Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social
Inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (4): 339-355.
Waterton, Emma and Watson, Steve (eds.) 2010. Culture, Heritage and
Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past. Ashgate Publ.,
Aldershot and London.
World Heritage Centre 2003. Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of
Conservation. UNESCO, Paris (World Heritage Papers 7).
-----------------------------
Prof. Rana P.B. Singh
Professor of Cultural Geography & Heritage Studies, Banaras Hindu University,
New F - 7 Jodhpur Colony, Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.
Email: ranapbs@gmail.com
§ Rana is researching in the fields of heritage planning, pilgrimages and settlement

systems in Varanasi region since over last three decades as promoter, collaborator
and organiser. On these topics he lectured at centres in all parts of the world. His
publications include over 190 papers and 38 books on these subjects, including
Banaras, the Heritage City of India: Geography, History, and Bibliography (IB
2009), and the eight books under ‘Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series’:
‒ five from Cambridge Scholars Publishing UK: Uprooting Geographic Thoughts
in India (2009), Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Vision for the 21st
Century (2009), Cosmic Order & Cultural Astronomy (2009), Banaras, Making of
India’s Heritage City (2009), Sacred Geography of Goddesses in South Asia
(2010), and ‒ three from Shubhi Publications (New Delhi, India): Heritagescapes
and Cultural Landscapes (2010), Sacredscapes and Pilgrimage Systems (2010),
and Holy Places and Pilgrimages: Essays on India (2010).
2
UNESCO’s Heritage-scape: A Global

Endeavour to Produce ‘Peace in the Minds
of Men’ through Tourism and Preservation
Michael A. Di Giovine
University of Chicago, USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. Many studies have examined the significance of World Heritage
sites. Considering these mediatory places as actors themselves, this
chapter explores the relationship between sites, linking it to UNESCO’s
broader social goal of fostering “peace in the men” through the formation
of the heritage-scape, an alternative to the world’s present geopolitical
arrangement. The author uses Cambodia’s Angkor Archaeological Park to
explain how UNESCO ritually appropriates, valorises and juxtaposes
tangible monuments to create the amorphous heritage-scape, which exudes
a meta-narrative of “unity in diversity” that is individually apprehended
through sites’ touristic consumption. But because these universalized
places are products of negotiation among diverse stakeholders who operate
within a Bourdieuian field of production, unintended consequences often
arise in the ways through which the meta-narrative is translated into the
site’s material re-presentation and maintenance, impacting the immaterial
processes of conservation and touristic interaction. Providing theoretical
grounding to the term “heritage-scape”, this chapter argues for greater
awareness of this social phenomenon among researchers and practitioners
alike.
Keywords. Heritage-scape, UNESCO, world heritage, tourism, historic
preservation, globalisation, mediation, field of production.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Harnessing Globalisation and Tourism to Produce

“Peace in the Minds of Men”
Globalisation, the strengthening of worldwide social relations that
link distant localities and compress notions of time and space (Giddens
1991; Harvey 1989, 1996) is often regarded as a contentious phenomenon
58 2. Michael A. Di Giovine
that deepens wealth and power discrepancies, exacerbates geopolitical

tensions, or causes a frightening loss of authenticity in local cultures. Yet
these arguments neglect a key understanding of globalisation as an
intensification of the consciousness of the world as a more cohesive,
interrelated whole (Robertson 1992: 8). Building on Anderson’s notion
that communities are formed through the collective consumption of mass-
mediated images and information (Anderson 2003), Appadurai contends
that in this era of transnational mediascapes (1996: 33), individual
imagination becomes the central social fact of a community; imagination
itself becomes an organized set of practices that negotiates between
individuals and “globally defined fields of possibility” (Appadurai 1966:
31). Individual agency, as opposed to the agency of sovereign nation-
states, is a key component in this theory; no longer are people bound to
traditional territorial conceptions of themselves, whereby their identities
are defined through material relationships, but rather it elevates the
individual consciousness above and beyond geopolitical boundaries to
allow for an understanding of a more global self.
On the practical level, these definitions of globalisation rest on the
idea of movement, of “flows” (Csikszentmihalyi 1990) often envisioned as
passing through networks and pipes (Mol and Law 1994; Castells 1996,
2001; Sassen 2002; Urry 2003; Knorr-Cetina 2003, 2004). Such
movement can be ephemerally informational, such as the conveyance of
information across “epistemic communities” (Haas 1992) — international
groups of experts who explicitly or implicitly identify themselves through
their shared commercial, academic or scientific knowledge (Knorr-Cetina
1999). This movement can also be physical and embodied, such as
tourism. While individuals travelled as “tourists” in a diversity of places
and epochs (cf. Di Giovine 2009a: 48-58), tourism is perhaps the
quintessential modern illustration of globalisation for its capacity to
mobilize high volumes of individuals across great distances relatively
quickly, largely irrespective of their geo-cultural affinities. Tourism is a
global industry; it possesses a set of global touristic infrastructures —
normative structures and practices that are embedded uniformly across the
world, standardizing diversity (Di Giovine 2009a: 55-56).
The conceptualization of tourism as a global industry catering to the
middle-class has its roots in the post-World War II era of international
development, communication and transportation initiatives (Di Giovine
2009b: 213-218) — in short, in the same era that birthed the concept of
globalisation (McLuhan 1960; cf. Parsons 1978: 300-324, Robertson
1992: 9). Viewing the increase in overseas movement of people for non-
business-related activities, during its seminal United Nations Conference
UNESCO’s Heritage-scape: A Global Endeavour to Peace 59
on International Travel and Tourism, held in Rome in 1963, the United

Nations first defined “tourists” as:
temporary visitors staying at least 24 hours in the country visited and

the purpose of whose journey can be classified under one of the
following headings: (i) leisure (recreation, holiday, health, study,
religion, sport); (ii) business, family, mission, meeting. (qtd. Noronha
1979: 2; cf. UNWTO 1975: 237-238).
This definition posits that the central characteristics of “tourism” are its
voluntary and temporary nature — distinguishing it from permanent or
semi-permanent movements, such as migrations or diasporic translocation,
and from those undertaken under environmental, political or religious
pressure.
Though tourism is considered the largest and fastest-growing industry
in the world today — surpassing even that of the oil trade (UNWTO 2007)
— I have contended that it should not be viewed merely through its
material effects, but rather should be considered a global cultural form of
its own (Di Giovine 2009a: 42-43, 56-57, 409-410). Tourism possesses a
particular set of social structures; it espouses a particular worldview; it
spins a particular Geertzian “web of meanings” (2000:429) that compels
people to voluntarily move great distances — often at extreme expense
and against all seemingly “rational” judgment — to temporarily commune
with monuments, landforms, or cultural sites. I am reminded of Sally
Ness’ ambivalent contention: “Tourism is both more and less than an
industry, more and less than a cultural phenomenon, more and less than a
form of leisure. Its character is as quintessentially human as the faculty of
language” (2003: 9). And Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett implicitly
conveyed the draw of monuments within this global cultural form when
she pointed out the fundamental paradox when considering tourism as an
industry:
Heritage is an export industry and one of the world’s largest. Unlike

other export industries, however, tourism does not export goods for
consumption elsewhere. Rather, it imports visitors to consume goods
and services locally. (1998:153)
Part of this attraction lies in the very phenomenology of tourism itself.

At its core, tourism is always a voluntary, temporary, and perspectival
interaction with place (Di Giovine 2009a: 10-11, and 145-146). Nelson
Graburn (1977, and 1983) in particular drew on Victor Turner’s
understanding of pilgrimage and ritual (1974) to point out that tourism is
undertaken to experience a formative change from the everyday. Based on
the Latin word tornos, a circle or lathe (Boorstin 1968: 85), tourism’s
circular, return-oriented movement gives tourism a particular ritual
structure; it can be considered not only a rite of passage but a rite of
intensification — “periodic or cyclical rites that renew the social or natural
order” (Graburn 1983: 12; cf. Chapple and Coon 1942: 398-426). Tourism
is also perspectival—that is, it creates meaning by putting a site under the
pressure of a particular way of seeing. John Urry’s theory of the “tourist
gaze” best encapsulates this notion; it is a socially organized process of
seeing a place (2002: 1) which decontextualises a site from its social-
spatial milieu, and imposes a narrative claim upon it, much like a museum
does to the objects it displays (cf. Berger 1977, Alpers 1991). Such a gaze
is variable; it differs between social groups, cultures, and historical
periods. Like linguistic signs, the tourist gaze is defined by its contrast to
other things — that is, in contrast to what it is not. Furthermore, the same
object can also be framed by different gazes at the same moment in time,
or by different groups of social actors (Urry 2002: 1-2).
Rituals are structured in three main phases: separation, liminality, and
re-aggregation. Formative change occurs in the liminal period — a
“betwixt and between” period where space and time seem to be conflated
(Turner 1967: 45); the participant is stripped of his former social markers,
but is not yet a changed social being. In Turner’s words, liminality is “the
liberation of human capacities of cognition, affect, volition, creativity, etc.,
from the normative constraints incumbent upon occupying a sequence of
social statuses” (ibid.: 44). Graburn pointed out that achieving the
markedly unique sensation of liminality is tourism’s main goal, the way in
which the site — sacred or religious — is imbued with the “sacred” (1983:
12). The touristic ritual’s repetitive nature may also create a sense of
equality among travellers from diverse cultures and social statuses.
Indeed, Turner has called this sensation communitas, “a spontaneously
generated relationship between levelled and equal total and individuated
human beings, stripped of their structural attributes” (Turner 1974: 202). It
is a temporary, “universalistic” sensation of oneness with each participant,
a feeling of universal membership in the human race, despite diversity
(ibid.: 217). At the same time, social structure never passes away; Turner
recognizes that “seeking oneness is not…to withdraw from multiplicity; it
is to eliminate divisiveness, to realize nonduality” (ibid.: 217). In short, it
is the creation of unity in diversity (Di Giovine 2009a: 155).
Monuments’ conduciveness to voluntary, temporary, transnational
travel is of course not a new phenomenon; Turner and Turner (1978: 6)
point out that medieval European “pilgrim trails cut across the boundaries
of provinces, realms and even empires”, just as these trails did for ancient
Greeks practicing their civic pilgrimage called theoria, or South Asians

venerating their faiths’ respective axes mundi at Varanasi, Gaya,
Ranakpur, Ayodhya or Allahabad (cf. Coleman and Elsner 1995,
Rutherford 2000, Elsner and Rutherford 2005). But in the modern context
of globalisation — which decouples individuals from their geo-social
situatedness, allowing for the formation of global selves — the draw of
monumentality is exponentially multiplied. It is for this reason that
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (1972) wishes to harness the
movement-inducing power of monuments for an immensely impressive
goal: to produce “peace in the minds of men,” through the designation of
World Heritage sites:
For this specialized UN agency, it is not enough to build classrooms in

devastated countries or to publish scientific breakthroughs. Education,
science, culture and communication are the means to a far more
ambitious goal: to build peace in the minds of men (UNESCO 1972: 2).
2. Monuments and Mediation

Touristic culture espouses a particular understanding of natural and
manmade structures as “monuments”. Etymologically stemming from the
Latin verb monere (to remind), the term monument can be defined as
“places, structures or objects deliberately designed, or later agreed, to
provoke memories” (Alcock 2002: 26). These objects are thus not passive
and inanimate symbols, but active forms of mediation, a process “by
which a given social dispensation produces and reproduces itself”
(Mazzarella 2004: 346). Through the medium of monumentality, society
renders itself concretely “imaginable and intelligible” to its individual
members in a communicative procedure that is simultaneously constitutive
(ibid.: 345) and representative of the society’s cultural values and belief
systems (Spitulnik 1993: 293), consequently binding its individual
adherents together in a discrete “imagined community” (Anderson 1983).
Since a monumental structure is often fixed in its spatiality and
therefore marks the very landscape within which it is found, it is often
integral to a community’s placemaking strategy, a social and material
process itself mediated by memory, which in turn fosters “deep
attachments … [and] profound emotional legitimacy” for those who see
themselves as a part of its environment (Anderson 1983: 13). That is, a
collectively comprehendible narrative claim is created that links the
individual with society through the selective employment of the
monument’s own life story — a claim often built around arbitrary yet
clearly demarcated boundaries that gain precision when defined in binary
opposition to each other. These narratives are not “historical” fact,

however, but rather ideological claims about the community and its
connection with the site, conceptions often built around arbitrary yet
clearly demarcated boundaries that gain precision when defined in binary
opposition to each other. As Henri LeFebvre states, “Monumentality …
always embodies and imposes a clearly intelligible message. Monumental
buildings mask the power and the arbitrariness of power beneath signs and
surfaces which claim to express collective will and collective thought”
(1991: 143). The monument thus becomes a pivotal mediator between
those who can claim physical, historical or cultural ownership over the site
and those who cannot — often setting into motion protracted conflicts as
disparate groups vie for physical and ideological possession of the place.
The issue of the site’s material authenticity, therefore, features
prominently into monumental placemaking. Authenticity is ultimately
determined by one’s perception of a site’s singular and ineffable life
history, its “presence in time and space,” as Walter Benjamin describes
(1969: 220). In addition to its physical presence, it is also conceptual, a
disembodied discourse about the monument that moves between the minds
of men. “Authenticity” animates objects, conveying the sense that the
monument not only has a life history, but a life — a life which follows a
biological conception of linear time, and is subject to the same
constructive and destructive forces of history and society (ibid.: 220). It
thus moves through time, if not space as well, impacting and interacting
with other objects, human or otherwise. And in that auratic interaction
(ibid.: 221), both life histories will contextualise the event; they will be
called upon, indexed, and experienced by both parties with durable
longevity.
3. One Angkor, Many Mediatory Encounters

One particularly notable example is the complex of monuments in the
Angkor Archaeological Park, a sprawling four hundred-square kilometre
UNESCO-designated World Heritage site containing the archaeological
remains of roughly six hundred years of the Khmer empire at its height (c.
CE 800–1400). Articulating claims that his capital was the cosmological
centre of the Hindu world, the twelfth century Khmer king Suryavarman II
created the great Angkor Wat as a metonym for the sacred Mount Meru.
Adorning the temple with images of Narayana, Kurma, and Rama —
avatars of Vishnu — the Vaishnavite king posited himself as a new
incarnation of the panentheistic god.
Attempting to destroy Khmer authority in greater Southeast Asia, the

rival Hindu kingdom of Champa (in present-day central Việt Nam) staged
a daring attack on Angkor shortly thereafter. Sailing his fleet through the
Mekong Delta and up the Tonle Sap River — an unprecedented military
feat — he slew the Khmer king and sacked Angkor, burning its mostly
wooden structures to the ground. Fifteen years later, Jayavarman VII,
arguably the most powerful ruler in Khmer history, pushed out the Chams,
sacked their capital of Vijaya and undertook a remarkably ambitious
religious and urban revitalization program to assert his power by
commissioning monumental Buddhist monasteries, the earliest known
hospitals and rest-houses in Southeast Asia, and an impressive network of
laterite roadways that stretched from present-day Thailand to Viet Nam.
Thanks, supposedly, to his devoted wife, Jayavarman VII had converted to
Mahāyāna Buddhism during an exile in Champa, and when he regained
the throne, utilized these immense constructions to position himself not as
the god Vishnu, but as a bodhisattva-king — that is, a compassionate king
who has achieved enlightenment but has deferred his own liberation to
help his people on earth. He materially performed this claim by
constructing over 100 hospitals, as well as important Buddhist centres of
worship at Ta Prohm and Preah Khan. And at the Bayon he sculpturally
replicated Angkor Wat’s bas relief (cf. Fig. 2.1) of the Hindu creation
myth, the Churning of the Milky Sea, but instead of positioning Vishnu at
the centre, he erected four immense busts of the Bodhisattva — in his own
likeness, of course.
Seen in relation to each other, Jayavarman’s three greatest
constructions — Ta Prohm, Preah Khan and the Bayon — served to frame
his personal claims to legitimacy in a religious and mythological light by
mapping his kinship onto a sacred geography of his own creation. Ta
Prohm was dedicated to his mother, who traced her lineage to the
mythological founders of the Khmer race; in addition, she is depicted as
Prajnaparamita, the mother of Buddha. Likewise, Preah Khan was
dedicated to Jayavarman VII’s father, the ineffective king that succeeded
Suryavarman II. But here, the central statue depicts him as a bodhisattva
Lokshivara himself.
But such an exposition of Jayavarman’s power was regarded as
menacing, both by his Hindu subjects and for other emergent political
entities in the area. After his death, a great social backlash saw the
defacement of many Buddhist tropes on Jayavarman’s monuments, and in
the fifteenth century Thai armies at Ayutthaya captured the Khmer capital
for the exposition of their own political and material claims as the pre-
eminent force in Southeast Asia. Performing their annexation of Khmer
power, the Thais brought back to their capital a number of linga, symbols
of Shiva and fertility, which Jayavarman VII himself had pillaged from
Vijaya. Building on Durkheim’s concept of the “subdivision of the sacred”
(Durkheim 1995: 230-231), I have called these artefactual types of objects
fragmentary re-presentations, parts of the authentic monument which
nevertheless have the same capacity to re-present at home these
placemaking claims with the same level of authority as the original places
simultaneously does in situ (Di Giovine 2009a: 13-14, and 369-376). The
movement of these pieces to Ayutthaya was important, for not only did
they provide concrete evidence of their conquest, but they transferred the
legitimacy of Khmer power to the Thai. By the 17th century, the Thai rulers
erected replicas of Angkor Wat in Thailand (Tarling 1999: 98-99; cf.
Vickery 1979), and constructed a new political narrative claiming Angkor
was a creation of the first Ayutthayan king — one that still generates great
controversy today (Di Giovine 2009a: 111-112, and 404-405).
Fig. 2.1. Scale model of Angkor Wat in Bangkok, Thailand’s Royal Palace
complex.
Hearing piecemeal accounts of a mysterious “lost” city in the

Kampuchean jungles that seemed as unbelievable as “Plato’s Atlantis or of
his Republic” (Dagens 1995: 23), the French naturalist Henri Mouhot
‘discovered’ the temples two centuries later, in 1860. “There are few
things that can stir such melancholy feelings as the sight of places that
were once the scene of some glorious or pleasurable event, but which are
now deserted,” Mouhot wrote of these collapsed constructions strangled
by thick, twisting trunks of banyan trees (qtd. Dagens 1995: 35). While the
Khmer and Thai relied heavily on the monuments’ abilities to resonate
with pre-existing religious and political narratives of the region, the
French relied on the sensation of wonder these structures evoked to make
their colonial placemaking relevant to society in Europe. The thrill of
discovery, the foreignness of the built structural forms, the unique
performance of natural power, and the surprising vestigial display of
‘civilisation’ in a place previously thought to be primitive and barbaric, all
contributed to the formation of Orientalist narrative claims that saw
Western Europeans as heirs to — and protectors of — the luminous torch
of ‘civilisation.’ Lux ex Oriente, as the narrative goes; the “light from the
East” had been extinguished there in Kampuchea, but through the colonial
efforts of the French, it could once again be brought back to the
descendents of the Khmer.
And they moved Angkor to France, too. Just as Jayavarman VII
“carried home all the linga” from the Chams he defeated, so too did
French explorers carry off lintels, kingly statues and devotional images.
Exhibited alongside plaster reproductions during the numerous Universal
Expositions in Paris and Marseilles, they were able to not only provide
concrete evidence to the French people of the fruits of the colonial
endeavour, but as physical objects from a different place and time, they
were able to mediate between individuals in France and the colonial
experience in the faraway Kampuchean jungles. Juxtaposed in the
museum space with artefacts from the Vietnamese and Laotian
protectorates that composed French Indochina, these fragmentary re-
presentations bestowed conceptual coherence to the very idea of a unified
Indochine.
They also revealed France’s claim as heirs to, and protectors of,
civilization. While these objects had been left to rot in the oppressive
elements by the barbaric descendents of their own constructors, they were
now rescued by the praiseworthy École Française d’Extrème Orient
(EFEO), founded in 1901, whose well-intentioned experts cut these
monuments free from the stranglehold of nature and the neglect of their
own people to be systematically cleaned, preserved, studied, documented,
displayed and celebrated in buildings and fairground pavilions designated
explicitly for them.
In less than a decade, a notable tourist culture within these regions
was already developing in which many of the most prominent figures in
colonial Angkorian history were involved. When Angkor was ‘repatriated’

to Cambodia in the still-contested Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1907, the
EFEO quickly proposed to “improve access and accommodation for
visitors” and to “ensure conservation and upkeep of the buildings”
(Dagens 1995: 86). Motivated “by neither profit nor politics, but by a
romantic and often deeply personal fascination with Angkor” (Edwards
2007: 137) — certainly touristic attributes — the Société d’Angkor pour la
conservation des monuments anciens d’Indochine, or The Angkor Society
for the Conservation of Ancient Monuments of Indochina, was founded in
1907 by a group of archaeologists in Paris who themselves had previously
toured Angkor. By October of the same year, this society was recognized
by both the EFEO and the French Ministry of Public Education “as a
potential catalyst for a flow of tourists towards Angkor” (ibid.: 137). That
year saw some two hundred colonial tourists in the span of three months
who came from Saigon or Phnom Penh to Angkor in an arduous land-and-
river journey up the Mekong (Dagens 1995: 84) — many, such as Pierre
Loti (1912), would publish their secular “pilgrimage texts” in France.
To manage such a flow of tourists and archaeologists, the EFEO
appointed Jean Commaille as its first curator in Angkor in 1908 — a
member of the French Foreign Legion who had first come to Angkor as a
tourist in 1893 to paint the ruins (Dagens 1995: 86). In 1908 he drew up a
map of the Angkorian complex that identified the major known buildings,
and most likely served as a preliminary tourist itinerary to the
archaeological remains; Commaille would subsequently publish a tourist
guidebook to these sites based on this map, selectively identifying in a
“sketch plan of the Angkor complex” (88), an attraction consisting
primarily of Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Ta Prohm and Preah Khan —
the same blockbuster sites included on touristic itineraries today. As Dean
MacCannell famously pointed out, an “attraction,” is constituted through
the dialectic of “person-place-marker” (1976: 41), where a “marker”
would be either a fragmentary re-presentation or, more often, what I have
termed a reproducible re-presentation — a sensory form that exists
completely apart from the site itself and, owing to its ability to be copied
in this Age of Mechanical Reproduction, can circulate quickly and
efficiently across the world (Di Giovine 2009a: 13-14, and 376-397). As
reproducible re-presentations, this initial itinerary and map solidified the
typical tourist route. By the 1920s, travel companies were promoting
“excursions to Angkor’s ruins;” a direct road from Saigon and Phnom
Penh was also in the process of being built, and visitors participating in an
Asian Grand Tour came by flat-bottom boat, car, elephant, horse, “or the
incommodious cart, whose comfort had not improved with the roads”
(Dagens 1995: 98, and 100). And in 1925, Angkor was officially opened
as a “park”— a touristic categorization that remains in the site’s World
Heritage title today.
4. Defining the Heritage-scape

In today’s rapidly globalizing world, the imperative to harness this
often ideologically charged, movement-inducing medium for peaceful
cultural coexistence is most pronounced in UNESCO’s World Heritage
programme, a unique global placemaking endeavour fostering “peace in
the minds of men” through a ritual re-appropriation of tangible
monuments, which are juxtaposed against one another to create a
worldwide imagined community that I have called the heritage-scape.
The notion of a –scape has been used, and abused, by many inside
and outside of the heritage industry who wish to convey a sense of
magnitude, endless expansion, or even timelessness to their site. A forest
becomes a “tree-scape” (National Parks Singapore 2010), a beclouded sky
becomes a “cloudscape” (United States Postal Service 2004), an evocative
piano composition becomes a “pianoscape” (Jones 1985), a landfill-
turned-park has even been termed a “lifescape” (Field Operations Design
Firm 2001:3). And historic centres, streets and monuments are
unproblematically described as “heritage-scapes” (cf. Bendigo Bank
2010). In the theoretical literature, Mary-Catherine Garden has been one
of the only analysts to define her notion of a heritage-scape. While
unfortunately conflating the term “heritage-scape” and “landscape”, she
uses this neologism as both a descriptor and a methodology for parsing the
living processes that circulate at these historic places:
In thinking of heritage sites as heritagescapes— i.e. as landscapes— it

draws attention to their qualities as dynamic, changing spaces. It also
offers the opportunity to locate sites in the context of their larger
environment and draws attention to the importance of the setting. …
Accepting the heritage site as a landscape locates these places in their
rightful place as a fluid, changing space with which people regularly
interact (Garden 2006: 407).
While it may seem confusing to coin a term only as a substitution for

another, the point is well-made: a heritage site, whether it is a vast cultural
landscape or a solitary monument, has an ineffable life history that extends
through time; its significance is always variable; and it is always under the
pressures of change.
Taking an Eastern perspective (by way of Carl Jung), Rana Singh

recently explains his conceptualization of a heritage-scape, arguing that
the term most frequently used in India to denote “heritage”, dharohara,
“should be better translated as ‘heritagescapes’ and to be explained in the
purview of ‘heritage ecology’ in corroboration with ‘deep [and spiritual]
geography’” (cf. Singh 1995: 197): The conjunction of dharā (“mother
Earth” to use an easily accessible idiom), with the suffix, -ihara,
“endeavour of identity throughout time” (Singh and Rana 2010: 88-89;
also, Singh 2010: 8) paints a very clear linguistic picture of an expansive
concurrence of being-and-becoming, spatially and temporally conceived.
This simultaneity of being-and-becoming is the hallmark of many Indian
religions, particularly in the theological concept of daivī-māyā, the
timeless and ineffable Brahman’s act of manifesting itself into apparent
forms (Bowker 1997). Dharohara, then, conveys the sense that a site is in
perpetual liminality; conjoining worlds or states of being, it is thus an axis
mundi where time and space conflate for visitors who interact with it.
Rather than being translated as “heritage” or “patrimony”, which is often
wrongly conceived of as a stagnant and unchangeable thing, a fixed point
in time, dharohara literally means a manifestation of mother earth’s
continually changing identity — or, “heritage-scape”.
The contributions of both Singh and Garden have been to emphasize
the dynamic, ever-changing, socially mediated aspects of a heritage site —
or any place for that matter (Di Giovine 2009a: 70; cf. Pearson and
Richards 1997: 5, Wagoner 2000: 311) — through the idiom of a –scape.
This is significant, for the literature is inordinately rife with talk of
“heritage” (or, often, “the heritage”) as a monolithic and unchangeable
thing. While sometimes the use of the article “the” is an error in
translation, since the term had entered the popular lexicon in the
nineteenth century colonial period (cf. Edwards 2006: 27), “heritage” has
been employed, and deployed, to stake claim to a particular group’s
narrative in a way that discourages contestation or alternative
interpretations, thereby valorising their ideological assertion. “[T]he idea
of “heritage” involves an interpretative endeavour to ascertain (or, better,
to create) a site’s meaning, and then to selectively deploy that newly
meaning-laden monument in society,” I wrote in a review essay of an
edited volume by practitioners who bordered on positing a monolithic
conception of “heritage” (Di Giovine 2008: 329). The case of Angkor
clearly illustrates the fact that heritage is anything but monolithic, inherent
or fixed; it is variable, socially mediated, and changeable. Detailing the
“inherently contextual nature of the term,” I argued that its
significance changes according to the broader social milieu in which it

is invoked; it can be understood as a conceptual memorialization of a
specific ideological claim about the past, and a group’s particular
relationship to it in the present and the future. Heritage fits into
UNESCO’s embrace of globalization precisely for this reason: though
it clearly refers to past time, it knows no definitive spatial or temporal
bounds, but rather can be applied across a wide variety of social
contexts with equal ease (Di Giovine 2009a: 91).
I have provided a more restricted stance in my definition of “heritage-

scape,” grounding it in anthropological theories of globalisation and
placemaking. In particular, I build on Arjun Appadurai’s model of
globalisation, which takes the form of a –scape: “a complex, overlapping,
disjunctive order that can no longer be understood in terms of existing
center-periphery models” (1996: 32). He posits five types of –scapes
which overlap and exist simultaneously (Appadurai 1996: 33-35).
Although critics of these neologisms argue that they are too theoretically
imprecise, the -scape paradigm is quite compelling for those who agree
with Anderson’s notion of an “imagined community” and Robertson’s
idea of globalisation as imagined and centred on individual agency above
that of nation-states. Appadurai’s -scape refers to a social space wherein
power structures are markedly de-localized. In such a place, there is no
one capital, no one focus or bounded central area from which those inside
can dictate policy to the rest of the public, or can define themselves in
opposition to those outside (Di Giovine 2009a: 93-94). Evoking notions of
expansiveness, idealisation and amorphism, the suffix –scape conveys this
sense of a deterritorialised, or, at the least, a loosely demarcated, area
where notions of “insiders” and “outsiders” are blurred (ibid.: 95).
Harnessing globalisation’s capacity to create affinities above and beyond
traditional geo-political conceptions, tourism’s tendency to foster
communitas — a temporary state of universal fellow-feeling that
supersedes divisive social structures — and preservation’s power to
valorise and recontextualise oft-contentious mediatory heritage sites
around which tourists converge: this is UNESCO’s endeavour, and it takes
form in the heritage-scape.
5. UNESCO’s Heritage-scape: “Unity in Diversity”

Noting that throughout history, wars have always originated in some
part through local suspicions or ignorance of other peoples at the
individual level, UNESCO’s Constitution posits that people’s identities are
problematically based on traditional territorial conceptions that are
constructed and diffused through these highly emotionally charged

monuments:
The Governments of the States Parties to this Constitution on behalf of

their peoples declare:
• That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men
that the defences of peace must be constructed;
• That ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common
cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and
mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their
differences have all too often broken into war; …
• That the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for
justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man
and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a
spirit of mutual assistance and concern;
• That a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic
arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could
secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of
the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to
fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind (UNESCO
1945: 1).
UNESCO’s goal of creating lasting peace in the world, then, includes

a fundamental reworking of the international geopolitical system, but in a
way that is not achieved through physical conquest. Rather, it is
accomplished by reordering individuals’ sense of place the world over —
so that no longer do they base their identities on collective antagonism
towards difference, but on the celebration and internalization of diversity
at the individual level.
While following in the imperial tradition of re-appropriating
monumentality, UNESCO’s claim is not predicated on territoriality but on
the common recognition and identification with the world’s shared cultural
heritage. Heritage is a specific narrative claim about the object’s ability to
temporally mediate between an individual’s lineage and the society’s
history as a whole. If society is, as Durkheim states, sui generis, wherein
individuals are born into it and die out of it (1984: 204), heritage is a type
of narrative that allows an individual to transcend his immediate past and
present to connect with his predecessors, whom he often feels to be
unknown yet intimately a part of. An authentic object of cultural heritage,
therefore, not only indexes the link between an individual and his culture,
but constructively conjoins the two. If a heritage object temporally
connects an individual with the socio-spatial milieu from which he came,
UNESCO’s World Heritage objects are intended to transcend the temporal
and spatial situatedness of one culture’s heritage claims, ensuring that

everyone equally possesses each World Heritage site:
What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal

application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world,
irrespective of the territory on which they are located. … How does a
World Heritage site differ from a site of national heritage? The key lies
in the words ‘outstanding universal value’ … Sites selected for World
Heritage listing are approved on the basis of their merits as the best
possible examples of the [world’s] cultural and natural heritage. The
World Heritage List draws attention to the wealth and diversity of
Earth’s cultural and natural heritage (UNESCO 2002: 2).
The concept of World Heritage thus underscores a seemingly

incompatible dualism: On one hand, it clearly recognizes the multiplicity
of distinct cultural and natural forms, and therefore of the very differences
that often lead to the worlds’ conflicts. On the other hand, it purports that
there exists some sort of universal cultural form that can be empirically
located, and unanimously recognized. Taken together, it seems that
UNESCO is defining a world system based on the structural unity of
difference, a “culture of cultures” as Marshall Sahlins famously remarked
(2000: 488).
“Unity in diversity” is thus UNESCO’s rallying cry, the meta-
narrative claim behind the heritage-scape. Unity lies in the collective
understanding that diversity exists outside one’s known social and natural
environment. The understanding that an individual inhabits a universe that
exists beyond known boundaries is an ancient and pan-cultural
phenomenon, nearly a truism in anthropological sciences; and most
religions posit some world beyond one’s immediate lifetime and lifespace.
Furthermore, the concept of an oikoumene, a “culture of cultures” or meta-
society composed of different groups comprising the known civilized
world, has existed in the West from the time of Aristotle to the 1800s
(Luhmann 1982: 295). As Sahlins puts it,
Every society known to history is a global society, every culture is a

cosmological order; and in thus including the universe within its own
cultural scheme . . . the people accord beings and things beyond their
immediate community a definite place in its reproduction.” (2000: 489).
This is not to say that the group and the Other conceptualize themselves in
the same way, or even are aware of how the Other thinks of them. Nor
does it assert that a group believes that it has complete knowledge of the
greater world. Rather, Sahlens contends, all act with the understanding that
there is a continuation of a world outside their conceptual and material

boundaries that may impact them.
For UNESCO, as for Sahlins, “Culture” can thus be perceived as a
process of totalizing differences. UNESCO’s Director-General remarked:
Diversity and culture are fundamentally interrelated: culture is diversity,

an infinite tapestry of distinctions, nuance and change; a relentless return
to all that exists in order to render it both new and the same, to understand
it and bring it to life. Culture is, by nature, diversity. Yet, for that same
reason, it gives diversity a dimension that surpasses and envelops it.
Diversity per se does not exist; it is even, in the absence of culture,
incomprehensible, and everything looks the same to anyone lacking
cultural depth. Diversity is constructed by culture. Culture is what shapes
it, gives it scope and meaning. Diversity is essentially cultural, just as
culture is diversity (Matsura 2002: 3).
UNESCO’s project of tangibly totalizing differences, therefore, is not

merely translating a cacophony of seemingly chaotic and unintelligible
forms into one group’s cultural language, but integrating it into an ever-
deepening, over-arching structure that is never fixed, always moving. This
structure is the heritage-scape, the social space of an imagined community
linked together by its members’ common appreciation and identification
with cultural diversity. Like other communities, that of the heritage-scape
gains materiality through the juxtaposition of cultural monuments, which
dialectically work off of each other to index and perform this new meta-
narrative claim.
6. The Ritual Process and the Importance of Narrative

Local places are converted into World Heritage sites through a
lengthy ritual process that involves a great number of stakeholders from
the local, national, international and nongovernmental levels engaged in a
Bourdieuian struggle of position-taking that marks a field of production
(Bourdieu 1993: 34). It is a protracted and institutionalized (ibid.: 43)
series of interactions between objective sets of social relations with their
own historical trajectories, expertise, and realms of authority, who struggle
within and amongst themselves to define the place’s narrative. Although
the heritage-scape is innately subversive to the authority of nation-states,
participating State-Parties do not recognize UNESCO’s long-term and
idyllic goal. Rather, actively engaged with the process from the very
beginning, they recognize the dual “benefits” of the Programme, which
ritually perform international communitas while simultaneously raising the

social capital of their country on the world stage.
After economically contributing to the World Heritage Centre, a
State-party may nominate a place in its territory for consideration—a place
that often is a product of a much longer, socially and historically situated
process of contested monumental mediation. Thus separated from the
social-spatial milieu from which it came, the site then enters its liminal
period; it is “betwixt and between” statuses (1967: 45) — thoroughly
decoupled from its original context, poked and prodded by expert
“Advisory Bodies” who attempt to locate its kernel of authentic “universal
value,” and then evaluated on its representative qualities — but not yet
designated as a World Heritage site.
The property is also idealized by comparing it against UNESCO’s
predetermined set of typologies, whose conceptual amorphism allows for
its applicability in a variety of settings across the world. The typologies
are as follows:
(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or

(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
landscape design; or
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition
or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant
stage(s) in human history; or
(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-
use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when
it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or
(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions,
with ideas, or with outstanding universal significance (a criterion
applied only in exceptional circumstances, and together with other
criteria) (UNESCO 2005: 5).
As the typologies show, a place is inscribed as a World Heritage site

not because it is something, but rather because it represents or is tangibly
associated with something that can be understood, in part, through
touristic interactions with the place. With nearly one thousand properties
currently comprising the heritage-scape, there are equally as many
distinctly different interpretations of what that “something” is. Yet as the
nominating field determines how the site fits into the above typologies, it
really redefines the place, producing a quintessential material embodiment

of those virtues the World Heritage Convention identifies.
Finally, the Committee votes to inscribe, reject or withhold judgment
on the site. Along with this vote is its classification as a natural or cultural
site, and the confirmation of the textual wording of the site’s designation;
often it is a slight modification of the Advisory Body’s summary of the
site’s “outstanding universal value,” but not always. Representing the
authorized discourse about the monument, the site’s classification and
designation wording is exceptionally important, and thus often subject to
politicking as all parties involved struggle to determine the site’s specific
discourse, often producing unintended consequences.
For example, the World Heritage Committee designated Angkor in
1992 on the basis of the following reasoning:
Criterion i: The Angkor complex represents the entire range of Khmer art
from the 9th to the 14th centuries, and includes a number of
indisputable artistic masterpieces (e.g. Angkor Vat, the Bayon,
Banteay Srei).
Criterion ii: The influence of Khmer art, as developed at Angkor was a
profound one over much of south-east Asia and played a fundamental
role in its distinctive evolution.
Criterion iii: The Khmer Empire of the 9th-14th centuries encompassed
much of south-east Asia and played a formative role in the political
and cultural development of the region. All that remains of that
civilization is its rich heritage of cult structures in brick and stone.
Criterion iv: Khmer architecture evolved largely from that of the Indian
sub-continent, from which it soon became clearly distinct as it
developed its own special characteristics, some independently
evolved and others acquired from neighbouring cultural traditions.
The result was a new artistic horizon in oriental art and architecture
(ICOMOS 1992: 8).
Such wording is telling, for it constructs competing, politically charged

narratives that oscillate between one valorising the Khmer empire as
profoundly influential producers of cultural masterpieces (criteria i and
ii), and another espousing more Orientalist claims of a civilization that
moved from East to West, leaving only “remains of … cult structures in
brick and stone” (criteria iii and iv). UNESCO further defined this
complex as “a geographical region, an archaeological site and a cultural
concept” (UNESCO 1996: 165, qtd. Winter 2002: 324) highlighting both
Khmer culture and the strength of nature over primitivity as co-
contributors to the site’s “universal value.” Designated as Angkor
Archaeological Park, its title also reveals this discursive oscillation
between the historical focus of archaeology and the leisure-oriented

activities of a park, a natural playground. In so doing, it valorises the
traditional Orientalist process of making meaning by defining the West in
opposition to Angkor, “as its contrasting image, idea, personality
experience” (Said 1994: 1-2).
Fig. 2.2: The Bayon: A product of “restoration” it re-exudes the power

of its creator, Jayavarman VII, whose smiling likenesses (in the
form of a compassionate bodhisattva) grace each tower.
These narratives are not simply conceptual, but materially manifest

themselves in the manner in which the site is subsequently conserved and
packaged for touristic consumption. In Angkor’s case, edifices are
alternatively “restored” or “preserved.” While these two terms are utilized
somewhat interchangeably in historic preservation, instantiated within the
Angkor Archaeological Park, they produce the same two conflicting

narratives, which the visitor to Angkor must problematically negotiate.
Sites such as Angkor Wat and the Bayon (cf. Fig. 2.2) can be considered
“restored”—that is, they were cleared of the jungle’s stranglehold and
partially reconstructed as they are imagined to have appeared for its
intended use by the host society—thereby espousing a narrative that
valorises Khmer culture. However, other sites such as Ta Prohm (cf. Fig.
2.3) and Preah Khan have been “preserved” in the true sense of the
term—they have been cleaned and reinforced, but have been left largely
as the French discovered them, vestiges of cultural forms suffocated by
the tendrils of nature.
Fig. 2.3. Ta Prohm: A product of “preservation,” Jayavarman VII’s

monastic complex, which was conserved as the French explorers first
found it, famously reveals the colonial powers’ (& heritage industry’s)
fundamental concern with transience, the destructive forces of time.
Ethnographic research conducted through group tours from 2002-2006

reveal that the methods of preservation implicitly inform the manner in
which tourists interact with these structures. For sites such as Angkor Wat
and the Bayon, tours are structured by the monument’s original architecture
and architectonics. As a consequence, guides pause before cleaned bas
reliefs and statuary to discuss the history, artistry and mythology of the
Khmer people, pointing out depictions of deities and daily life processes,
and answering cultural questions elicited from these experiences. This
process stands in marked differentiation to the same groups’ excursions to
the “preserved” sites of Ta Prohm or Preah Khan, where guides often allow
their visitors to wander at leisure over, under and through the disarray of
collapsed ceilings, crumbled walls and cluttered causeways (Di Giovine
2009a: 301-340). Scrambling atop the jumbled stones of these temples,
visitors literally are able to “walk all over” Khmer culture. Like the pop
icons Indiana Jones and Lara Croft, one can easily re-experience the
colonials’ power over primitivity, and travelogues from the 1920s to today
have extolled the wonder of discovery, the freedom of control over the
ruins, and the liberation of communing with nature and primitivism (cf.
Ponder 1936). One popular guidebook exclaims:
From that point, visiting Ta Prohm is really going wherever your

instincts lead you, to enjoy the wonder of making new discoveries, of
finding hidden passages or obstructed reliefs, of climbing over fallen
stones, and of experiencing the harmony between man and nature.
There are many pleasant spots to simply sit and enjoy the tranquil
surroundings (Rooney 2003: 224).
7. The Juxtapositional Nature of the Heritage-scape:

Universalizing Meaning
However, a greater change in meaning occurs in the next, final stage
of the ritual, one that has possibly greater consequences in the longue
durée: its inscription on the World Heritage List. This action integrates a
site into the new world system called the heritage-scape. The heritage-
scape can be considered a map of the List, its primary geographic features
not national boundaries or political capitals, but World Heritage properties
equal in their associations and value. Like the objects in a museum, each
site gains complexity in meaning through their juxtaposition with the
greater collection of disparate sites across the heritage-scape. In this way,
the heritage-scape is not simply a network of specially-delineated
destinations with their own local social relations, but a unique place with
its own social context that is constantly evolving and expanding as
UNESCO continues to juxtapose increasingly more places within its
nebulous bounds.
It is the juxtapositional nature of UNESCO’s field of heritage
production that ultimately bestows each World Heritage site its narrative
of “unity in diversity,” its authoritative air of universality. A local place
simply cannot be made into a World Heritage site without global consent
— that is, the unifying coming-together of diversity. Member-states who
have no national claim to the monument are made to actively deliberate
and agree upon a property’s universal value. This protracted process of
positioning and position-taking during the often years-long nomination
period actively performs the narrative of “unity in diversity” in its most
basic sense: there is a physical confluence of locals, governmental
representatives, NGOs, and UNESCO representatives, whose specific aim
and ultimate outcome is the creation (rather than mere identification) of a
monument of universal value. These properties, therefore, are direct
products of negotiation, and hence, of cross-cultural dialogue. They
become universalized monumental media, mediating now between a
grand, unified social body composed of smaller societies, and individuals
who will come into contact with it.
Juxtaposition also adds meaning to each individual site. As newer,
more diverse places are added to the heritage-scape, each pre-existent site
gains complexity, gains deeper meaning of its unique exposition of “unity
in diversity.” It is this juxtapositional quality that creates total meaning at
Angkor. For tourists following the same itinerary since 1908, the meaning
of Suryavarman II’s Angkor Wat is not intrinsic, but is constituted through
re-presentations of Ta Prohm as seen in guide books, artistic photographs,
and even the film Tomb Raider (cf. Winter 2002) — as well as embodied
interactions with each temple in situ. Likewise, the meaning of Angkor
Wat the World Heritage site is deepened through its juxtaposition with re-
presentations of other, dissimilar World Heritage sites throughout the
global heritage-scape. This juxtaposition occurs, for example, through
embodied touristic experiences in a typical two- to three-week itinerary to
Southeast Asia, which frequently include World Heritage sites such as
Thailand’s Ayutthaya, Laos’ Luang Prabang, or Viet Nam’s ‘traditional’
port city of Hoi An (Di Giovine 2009a: 20, 2009b: 221-223); or when
Angkor’s image is included in reproducible re-presentations that aggregate
disparate World Heritage sites across the world, such as UNESCO’s
annually published World Heritage Map, various “Wonders of the World”
lists (cf. New Seven Wonders of the World Foundation 2007, Conlin
2007), or books on World Heritage in Danger, such as those published by
the World Monuments Fund (Amery 2001) or the Global Heritage Fund
(2004).
In 2007, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee designated perhaps
its widest variety of sites ever in one meeting, both from a spatial and a
temporal point of view; publicizing it in their newsletter, the Courier, they
boasted that “six thousand years separate the Sydney Opera House from
Twyfelfontein. These two sites just inscribed on the World Heritage List
add to its extraordinary richness” (Šopova 2007:1). While some have
questioned the validity of modern sites such as Sydney’s Opera House, I
replied that it was an “extraordinary example” of how UNESCO
“conflates — even inverts — heritage time to create a ‘useful’ narrative
that conjoins peoples of differing cultures and cosmologies”:
James Wertsch argues that “what constitutes a usable past in one

sociocultural setting is often quite different from what is needed in
another” (2002:45). In juxtaposing sites of such temporally disparate
magnitudes as Twyfelfontein’s 6,000-year-old petroglyphs and the late
twentieth-century Sydney Opera House, UNESCO makes it clear that
any past—remote or recent, is usable. And in many ways, it well
should be. The World Heritage Convention is ultimately concerned
with creating monumental mediators that can bridge boundaries and
fuse categories, properties that conflate space and time; what is
important is not that a monumental complex preexists in a society’s
mythos—as Angkor or the Acropolis may have—but that it can be
integrated into the ever-expanding cosmology of the heritage-scape
(2009a: 428).
In the end, then, “peace in the minds of men” is not created through a
single World Heritage site, but through the juxtaposition of diverse World
Heritage sites in the heritage-scape (cf. Fig. 2.4). Though historically and
even physically embedded firmly in indigenous contexts, World Heritage
sites are more than merely local; playing on individuals’ memories and
senses, they are able to move the world. Within a system that totalizes
even aesthetic differences, each individual place is systematically
impacted by, and assumes qualities of, other places that are removed from
it in space and time. These differences are ultimately what define us as
individuals, too; and these differences are ultimately what we all share.
These differences make us part of a “human society.”
It is this search for difference, for diversity outside of the everyday,
that defines our experiences as tourists, and reorients ourselves as
members of the human race. Tourism is based on difference (Liete and
Graburn 2009: 37; cf. MacCannell 1976, Graburn 1977, Urry 2002,
Bruner 2004); it is based on the juxtaposition of disparate places within
our minds, which all contribute to our overall life histories. And especially
if we understand tourism as a perspectival interaction with place — one
that is not necessarily predicated on expendable time or resources — few
of us have only been a tourist once in our lives. Rather, most continue to
seek out new and diverse experiences with place in a ceaseless, and
necessary, practice of intensification. Touristic individuals may come from
far and wide, espousing different beliefs and practices, but when travelling
across the heritage-scape — interacting with its diversity of forms and
imbibing its meta-narrative of “unity in diversity” — they too become one
with the heritage-scape’s sociality and form a uniquely universalized
identity. It is this identity, constructed and continually revised in a
dialectical fashion as they amass ever-the-more interactive experiences
within the heritage-scape, which can create world peace.
Fig. 2.4. Artist’s rendering of the heritage-scape [Design: Cynthia De Ieso].

8. References
Alcock, Susan 2002. Archaeologies of Greek Past. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Alpers, Svetlana 1991. The Museum as a Way of Seeing; in, Karp, Ivan
and Lavine, Steven D. (eds.) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and
Politics of Museum Display. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC: 25–32.
Amery, Colin 2001. Vanishing Histories: 100 Endangered Sites from the
World Monuments Watch. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.
Anderson, Benedict 1983. Imagined Communities. Verso, New York.
Appadurai, Arjun 1996. Modernity at Large. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis.
Becker, Howard 1976. Art Worlds and Social Types. American
Behavioral Scientists, 19 (6): 703-719.
Bendigo Bank 2010. Community Bank – Branch History. Website.
www.bendigobank.com.au/public/community_bank/branch_history.as
p?community=163 <accessed: 21 April 2010>
Benjamin, Walter 1969. Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. Translated
by Harry Zohn. Schocken Books, New York.
Bennett, Tony 1995. The Birth of the Museum. London: Routledge.
Berger, John 1977. Ways of Seeing. Penguin, New York.
Boorstin, Daniel J. 1994. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in
America. Vintage Books, New York.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Colombia
University Press, New York.
Bowker, John 1997. Daiva. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World
Religions. www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Daiva.html <accessed:
21 April 2010>
Bruner, Edward M. 2004. Culture on Tour: Ethnographies on Travel.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Castells, Manuel 1996. The Space of Flows; in, Castells, Manuel: The Rise
of the Network Society. Blackwell, Oxford: 376-428.
—. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and
Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chapple, Eliot D. and Coon, Carlton S. 1942. Principles of Anthropology.
Holt, New York.
Coleman, Simon and Elsner, John 1995. Pilgrimage Past and Present in
the World Religions. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Conlin, Jennifer 2007. Newest Wonders of the World Prompt More than
Wonder. In Transit section. The New York Times, New York, 22 July
2007.
www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/travel/22transwonders.html?_r=1
&scp=3&sq=Newest%20Wonders%20of%20the%20World%20Conli
n&st=cse <accessed: 26 July 2007>
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly 1990. Flow: the Psychology of Optimal
Experience. Harper & Row, New York.
Dagens, Bruno 1995. Angkor: Heart of an Asian Empire. Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., New York.
Di Giovine, Michael A. 2008. Review Essay: Cultural Heritage (Smith,
ed.) and Heritage Interpretation (Hems and Blockley, eds.). Curator:
The Museum Journal, 51 (3): 329-338.
—. 2009a. The Heritage-scape: UNESCO, World Heritage, and Tourism.
Lexington Books (Rowman and Littlefield), Lanham.
—. 2009b. Revitalization and Counter-Revitalization: Tourism, Heritage,
and the Lantern Festival as Catalysts for Regeneration in Hoi An, Viet
Nam. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1
(3): 208- 230.
Durkheim, Emile 1984. The Division of Labour in Society. Translated by
W. D. Halls. The Free Press, New York.
—.1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Karen E.
Fields. The Free Press, New York.
Edwards, Penny 2007. Camboge: The Cultivation of a Nation, 1860–1945.
University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.
Elsner, Jas’ and Rutherford, Ian (eds.) 2005. Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman
and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Field Operations Design Firm 2001. Lifescape: Fresh Kills Landfill to
Landscape Design Competition. Pamphlet. Field Operations Design
Firm, New York.
Garden, Mary-Catherine E. 2006. The Heritagescape: Looking at
Landscapes of the Past. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12
(5): 394–411.
Geertz, Clifford 2000. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New
York.
Giddens, Anthony 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Global Heritage Fund 2004. Saving our Global Heritage. Global Heritage
Fund, Palo Alto.
Graburn, Nelson 1977. Tourism: The Sacred Journey; in, Smith, Valene
(ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. The University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia: 21-36.
—. 1983. The Anthropology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 10:

9–33.
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and
International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46 (1),
Winter: 1-35.
Harvey, David 1990. The Condition of Post-Modernity. Blackwell
Publishers, Malden, MA.
—.1996. Justice, Nature, & the Geography of Difference. Blackwell,
Oxford.
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 1992. World
Heritage List No. 667. September 22. World Heritage Centre, Paris.
Jones, Michael.1985. Pianoscapes. (Audio cassette). Narada Productions,
New York.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 1998. Destination Culture. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make
Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
—. 2003. From Pipes to Scopes: The Flow Architecture of Financial
Markets. Distinktion, 7: 7-23.
—. 2004. How Are Global Markets Global? The Architecture of a Flow
World; in, Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Preda, Alex (eds.) The Sociology
of Financial Markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 38-61.
LeFebvre, Henri 1991. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. The
Production of Space. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge.
Liete, Naomi and Nelson Graburn 2009. Anthropological Interventions in
Tourism Studies. The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies. Sage,
London.
Loti, Pierre 1912. Un Pèlerin d'Angkor. Calmann Levy, Paris.
Luhmann, Niklas 1982. The World Society as a Social System.
International Journal of General Systems, 8: 131- 138.
MacCannell, Dean 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Mannikka, Eleanor 1996. Angkor Wat: Time, Space, and Kingship.
University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.
Matsura, Koïchiro 2002. Preface; in, UNESCO. Cultural Diversity:
Common Heritage, Plural Identities. UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, Paris.
Mazzarella, William 2004. Culture, Globalisation, Mediation. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 33: 345-367.
McLuhan, Marshall 1960. Explorations in Communication. Beacon Press,
Boston.
Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas and Francisco O. Ramirez
1997. World Society and the Nation State. American Journal of
Sociology, 103: 144-81.
Mol, Annemarie and John Law 1994. Regions, Networks and Fluids:
Anaemia and Social Typology. Social Studies of Science, 24: 641-
671.
National Parks Singapore 2010. Unique Tree-scapes Along Singapore
Roads. ww.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view
=article&id=75&Itemid=65 <accessed: 21 April 2010>
Ness, Sally 2003. Where Asia Smiles: An Ethnography of Philippine
Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
New Seven Wonders of the World Foundation 2007. “New 7 Wonders.”
Website. www.new7wonders.com <accessed: 24 April 2010>
Norohona, Raymond 1979. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Tourism.
Staff Working Paper No. 326. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Parsons, Talcott 1978. Action Theory and the Human Condition. Free
Press, New York.
Pearson, Michael Parker and Colin Richards 1997. Architecture and
Order: Approaches to Social Space. Routledge, New York.
Ponder, H. W. 1936. Cambodian Glory: The Mystery of the Deserted
Khmer Cities and their Vanquished Splendour: and a Description of
Life in Cambodia Today. Thornton Butterworth, London.
Robertson, Roland 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global
Culture. Sage, London.
Rooney, Dawn 2003. Angkor: An Introduction to the Temples. Revised
edition. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.
Rutherford, Ian 2000. Theoria and Darshan: Pilgrimage as Gaze in Greece
and India. Classical Quarterly, 50:133-46.
Sahlins, Marshall 2000. Goodbye to Tristes Tropes. In Sahlins, Marshall.
Culture and Practice: Selected Essays. Zone Books, New York.
Said, Edward 1994. Orientalism. Vintage Books, New York.
Sassen, Saskia (ed.) 2002. Global Networks, Linked Cities. Routledge,
New York.
Singh Rana P.B. 1995. Heritage Ecology and caring for the Earth: a
Search for Preserving Harmony and Ethical Values. National
Geographical Journal of India, 41 (2): 191-218.
―. 2010. Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes: An Appraisal; in,
Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes.
Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 6. Shubhi
Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi: 7-56.
Singh, Rana P.B. and Rana, Pravin S. 2010. Heritagescapes of India:

Appraising Heritage Ecology; in, Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.)
Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes. Planet Earth & Cultural
Understanding Series, Pub. 6. Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New
Delhi: 87-128.
Šopova, Jasmina 2007. From Herders to Architects: Man’s Imprint on
World Heritage. The UNESCO Courier, 2007 (6). http://portal.unesco.
org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38681&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html <accessed: 2 July 2007>
Spitulnik, Debra 1993. Anthropology and Mass Media. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 22: 293-315.
Tarling, Nicholas 1999. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Vol. 1,
Part 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Turner, Victor 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
—. 1974. Pilgrimages as Social Processes. In Victor Turner, Dramas,
Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca: 166–229.
Turner, Victor and Edith Turner 1978. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian
Culture. Columbia University Press, New York.
United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) 1945. Constitution of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO 1st General
Conference, November 16, 1945, London.
—. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage, Article 1, November 16, 1972. World Heritage
Centre, Paris.
—. 1996. Angkor: Past, Present and Future. APSARA, Phnom Penh.
—. 2005. World Heritage Information Kit. World Heritage Centre, Paris.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 1975. Why a
World Tourism Organization? Annals of Tourism Research, 11 (5):
246–249.
—. 2007. Another Record Year for Tourism. Press Release, 29 January.
UNWTO, Madrid www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html <accessed: 27
June 2007>
United States Postal Service 2004. ‘Reach for the Sky and Collect
Stamps!’ with Cloudscapes During National Stamp Collecting Month.
Press Release, September 10, 2004. United States Postal Service,
Washington, DC.
Urry, John 2002. The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London.
—. 2003. Networks and Fluids; in Urry, John: Global Complexity. Polity

Press, Cambridge: 50-75.
Vickery, Michael 1979. The Composition and Transition of the Ayudhya
and Cambodian Chronicles; in Reid, A.J.S. and Marr, David (eds.)
Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia. Heinemann Educational
Books (Asia) Ltd., Singapore.
Wagoner, Phillip L. 2000. Epilogue: Each Particular Place: Culture and
Geography; in Murphy, Alexander B. and Johnson, Douglas (eds.)
Cultural Encounters with the Environment. Enduring and Evolving
Geographic Themes. Rowman and Littlefield, New York: 311–322.
Wertsch, James 2002. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge
Winter, Tim 2002. Angkor Meets Tomb Raider – Setting the Scene.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (4): 323-336.
-----------------------------
Michael A. Di Giovine
Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago
1126 E. 59th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637. U.S.A.
T: +001 773.634.9786. F: +001 631.850.5789 Email: digiovim@uchicago.edu
Website: www.michaeldigiovine.com
§ Di Giovine is an anthropologist and former tour operator with degrees from

Georgetown University (B.S.) and the University of Chicago (A.M., Ph.D.
candidate). Working in both Southeast Asia (Cambodia and Việt Nam) and Europe
(Italy), his research focuses on tourism/pilgrimage, heritage discourses, museums,
placemaking, development, religious movements, and revitalization. Drawing on
over a decade of experience with the travel sector, his monograph The Heritage-
scape: UNESCO, World Heritage, and Tourism (2009), has been well received. A
dual Italian and United States citizen who has published and translated numerous
scholarly works, Michael is currently conducting ethnographic research in
Southern Italy, where he is examining urban and cultural revitalization associated
with pilgrimage and spiritual devotion at the birthplace of the twentieth century
Catholic stigmatic and saint, Padre Pio of Pietrelcina.
3
Heritagescapes of India:
Appraising Heritage Ecology
Rana P.B. Singh & Pravin S. Rana

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. Heritage Ecology, as a way of knowing, is proposed as the line
of thought which involves multi-disciplinary and multi-code research, and
is also deeply conditioned by belief about our built nature and destiny and
the ways to follow the path of sustainable development. As cultural
resources, heritagescapes represent the sacredscapes of mystic-religious
sites, built-structures, historical monuments, the perceived natural
scenarios and landscapes, and intangible resources that keeps the historical
links and cultural continuity of traditions. The UNESCO’s World Heritage
Sites enlists 911 such sites based on their criteria of which 29 fall in India.
And, heritage resource conservation is a strategy of sustainable develop-
ment that could be achieved by Self-realisation, deeper consciousness, and
awakening and public participation. The development of heritage tourism
need to be conceived and projected on the line of spiritual tours and
participation in cultural traditions like rituals, festivities, pilgrimages and
associative religious activities. Proposal of heritage laws and heritage
zoning in the heritage cities are pre-requisite for activating such
programme.
Keywords. Conservation, cultural resource, Earth mysteries, ethical
values, heritage ecology, heritagescapes, heritage zoning, sustainability.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A country with a 5000-year old history in continuity and contrasts, a

civilization united by its diversities and distinctiveness, keeping live
experiences of the richness of culture/s, the glory of the past, the turbulences
and triumphs, nevertheless keeping all together leading the march in the
cybernetic sphere, while preserving the landmarks of each era, the
achievements of each age, the legacy of the regime― all those tied together
in its vast geography that was created, re-created, maintained, continued and
passed on from one generation to another on the long passage of time―
thus evolved India’s heritagescapes. …… anonymous.
88 3. Rana P.B. Singh & Pravin S. Rana
1. Background: the Context and Concern

The word ‘heritage’ is commonly used in a broad sense involving both
natural and cultural milieu, and in a more extended form it also refers to
the ideas, beliefs, and ways of life that people value and use when faced
with change ― above all the link to an intimate relationship between the
human psyche and the mystery of nature. Religion is a major factor and
has the capacity to endow space with sacred meaning. All the sacred
spaces vary according to the special sense attached to them, depending on
how ‘sacred’ the space is ― persons, cultures or faiths, and the intensity of
attraction at a sacred place as centre of pilgrimage. In India, the holy
centres, sacred sites and centres of pilgrimages are almost identical, and
together in a complex way represent the archetype mysticism built
structure, historicity and faithscape ― to be understood and explained
through the framework of heritage ecology. Cultural heritage is to be seen
as embody of human feelings that developed within the historical-cultural
processes, therefore it should be studied for understanding a deeper and
hidden truth while interpreting it in terms of intrinsic meanings and
reverence. Heritage is at once a spatial phenomena as it always exists in
space making it transformed into place; a temporal product as it evolved,
changed and preserved the superimpositions in the passage of time; a
psychological state as it always has sense of attachment, belongingness
and power – altogether that makes identity; and with these characteristics
it becomes a ‘resourceful whole’ (like mosaicness, thus the idea of
heritagescapes) where varying attributes, subjects, ideas and practices can
get their hold and uses it within their own context and perspectives, and
ultimately get interconnected to the others.
The basic idea of India’s heritage, which has endured since remote
antiquity despite subsequent acculturation, is the maintenance of a unified
sensibility in the search for wholeness and interrelationships among
matter, life, and mind. In this regard a theory of archetypal transformation
of the celestial realm (macrocosm), on the earth as the visual and
experienced reflection (mesocosm), and down to the individual temple or
body symbolism (microcosm), has been developed by Indian seers. In a
harmonic balance between nature and humanity a close interlinkage
between all three realms is maintained. Such thought processes provide the
essence of the ethics behind the development and maintenance of India’s
heritage (cf. Singh, 1997a: 101).
In Indian tradition, heritage is called ‘dharohara’, which is a
combination of two words, i.e. dharā- (‘the mother earth, Prithvi/ Lord
Vishnu who holds’), and -ihara (‘endeavour of identity through time’).
Heritagescapes of India: Appraising Heritage Ecology 89
The word also carries the meaning of ‘bearing’ and ‘preserving’ the
surface of the earth. Prithvi is also called dhara, dhri, dharti, dhrithri,
meaning that which holds everything (see the Sathapatha Brāhmana, a
Vedic text: 10.56.6; 10.59.25; 10.68.48). That is how it should also be
explained in terms of the ‘root’ (‘shrota’) and ‘identity’ (‘asmitā’) ― a
framework of continuity of interconnectedness and a personality of
culture, thus in terms of space it combines the microspace, site (sthān), the
extended space, habitat (paryāvāsa, extended as ‘dwellingness’) and the
regional projection, territory (parikshetra), and ultimately linking to
terrestrial, cosmos (brahmānda). Additionally, it also connotes the
tangible, intangible and visual attributes. In other context the word
‘dharohara’ also refers to spatial-functional symbol that links ‘locality’
and ‘universality’, consisting of four hierarchically covering layers, viz.
sthān (site), parikshetra (defined territory), simānta (border transition),
and brahmānda (cosmos).
Altogether the Indian word ‘dharohara’, thus connotes a wide and
expanded frame, therefore it should be better translated as
‘heritagescapes’ [always in plural] and to be explained in the purview of
‘heritage ecology’ in corroboration with ‘deep-spiritual geography’ (cf.
Singh 1995: 197). It possesses the spirit of spirituality and interconnected-
ness that have roots in the past giving messages, existence in present
promoting experiences, and dreaming the future projecting vision, what is
called ‘sanātana’ (Essenceness-Beingness-Becomingness) that in passage
of time and space represents the eternity, and altogether this works in
unified totality for psychological well-being or soul/spiritual healing (cf.
Singh 2009a). It is to be noted that the Sanskrit word ‘sanātana’ denotes
that which always is, that which has neither beginning nor end, that which
is eternal. This may be compared with the philosophy of sustainability that
carries the seeds of ‘existence-maintenance-continuity’ (sandhrita and/or
samposhita). The word dharohara is also used in different contexts in
various regions of India and in different contexts, like ascendancy,
continuity of tradition, property rights, monuments, etc., and also
altogether representing wholeness, that is how the sense of ‘holiness’ is
attached to dharohara.
Garden (2006: 407) conceived heritagescapes representing ‘heritage
sites as landscapes’ that get transformed through the dynamic process in
space and time being “rightful place as a fluid, changing space with which
people regularly interact”. But introducing a term as substitute to another
one is not a solution in explaining the comprehensiveness and applicability
of the messages and meanings implicit therein (cf. Di Giovine 2010: 69).
The concept of heritagescape is also conceived as method, vision and as
means of addressing problems those associated with heritage sites and

further theorising all heritage sites are landscapes. Garden (2009: 289)
thus taken heritagescapes as “complex social spaces and beginning the
process of taking them apart to view their components in order to start to
understand how they ‘work’ is an intrinsic endeavour. By considering
these spaces as landscapes in and of their own right and by drawing upon
ideas inherent in the study of cultural and natural landscapes the
heritagescape is able to offer a radical new approach for analysing heritage
sites, allowing us to expand and deepen our understanding of heritage
places”. Her interpretation and conceptions are unable to fully explain the
inherent cultural connotations, historicity and public domain in ancient
world like India that make heritagescape encapsulated with emotional
bondages and serve as means of regulating age-old traditions.
The metaphysics behind dharohara (heritagescape) may be compared
with Heidegger’s metaphysics of ‘the question of Being’ that he explained
in the frames of ‘the question of meaning in Being → the question of truth
of Being → the question of place of Being. Sheehan (1987: 2) explains it:
“Being [esse] is the actuality of every form or nature; ….. Being itself
[ipsum esse] is the most perfect of all; indeed, it is compared as act to
everything. For nothing has actuality except insofar as it is. Thus Being
itself is actuality of all things. And since in God there is nothing potential, it
follows that at the apex of reality essence is existence: “The divine essence
is Being itself. God is Being itself substituting per se”.
Di Giovine (2010: 74) has explicitly explained this as:
This simultaneity of being-and-becoming is the hallmark of many Indian

religions, particularly in the theological concept of daivī-māyā, the timeless
and ineffable Brahman’s act of manifesting itself into apparent forms
(Bowker 1997). Dharohara, then, conveys the sense that a site is in
perpetual liminality; conjoining worlds or states of being, it is thus an axis
mundi where time and space conflate for visitors who interact with it.
Rather than being translated as “heritage” or “patrimony”, which is often
wrongly conceived of as a stagnant and unchangeable thing, a fixed point in
time, dharohara literally means a manifestation of mother earth’s
continually changing identity — or, “heritage-scape”.
However one should keep in mind that in Indian thought the lifeways have
always been prescribed to be followed in the purview of dharma, denoting
a natural way like the dharma of wind is to blow, the dharma of water is
to flow, …. the dharma of honey is sweetness …, so to the dharma of
human being is to save the dharohara and sustainably transfer it to the
coming generations. This is the Sanātan Dharma ― the Eternal Natural

Way of ‘existence-maintenance-continuity’. In Eurocentric philosophy
such ideas are projected and propagated as “static, despotic, and irrelevant
to world history” (cf. Said 1993: 168) ― an attempt to discard the Oriental
ethics and moral codes and superimpose the hegemony of the European
thought, what Hegal started and later followed by Karl Marx, Max Müller,
Monier Williams, and others.
Carl Jung’s idea of Anima Mundi, the soul of the world, as a unified
totality, a natural force responsible for all the phenomena of life and the
psyche, is an inherent thought to understand the way to heritage ― the
way of implicit reality, i.e. symbols associated with heritagescapes (cf.
Bishop 1994: 54-55). In the light of Jung’s exposition that we have lost a
world ‘that once pulsed with our blood and breathed with our breath’
(Jung 1970, X: para 44), Bishop (1994: 61) has firmly come to the
conclusion that “Anima Mundi certainly calls into question established
notions of what constitutes a psychological perspective and at the same
time offers geography a coherent way of deepening its concern with a
poetics of the World and with its understanding of humanity’s residence
on the Earth”. To know, understand, experience, communicate and
preserve the heritagescapes and beautifully transfer to the coming
generation should be taken as a way to moral duty. Our heritage sites tell
the history, possibilities and future prospects of our existence and
continuity. Heritagescape is the mirror of mankind’s growth, progress and
prospects; that must be preserved, conserved and made part of lifeways.
This ideology may also be taken as an environmental ethics having
heritage ecology at the core.
In a recent critique, applying the notion that globalisation produces a
series of amorphous –scapes spread across the world, and also in support
of a social structure concerning heritage postulated by United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), a concept of
heritage-scape is recently introduced by Di Giovine (2009: 6), who
expresses that it “is not simply a mosaic of aggregate individual sites, a
network of specially-delineated destinations with their own local social
relations, but rather, it is a unique place with its own social context that is
constantly evolving and expanding UNESCO continues its activities,
integrating increasing more places, objects and now even intangible
customs within its nebulous boundaries” (ibid.: 41-42). The concept of
heritage-scape is thus to explain interrelated social systems to convey both
the totalisation of temporal, spatial and cultural forces that the UNESCO
wishes to foster (ibid.: 399). Of course in this essay UNESCO World
Heritage issue has been always taken into consideration, but in no way this
is superimposed upon the Indian thought and present context of

‘heritagescapes’ in India. In the western context heritage refers to
‘ownership’ and ‘property right’, but in Indian thought it is a ‘sense of
belongingness, beingness and becomingness’― in a way an intense
perspective of phenomenology. This is also debated that there is no such
thing like ‘heritage’, in fact it is human’s conscience and deeper quest to
explain his cosmic interconnected he transmit and transpose meaning and
messages there and reciprocate too (cf. Smith 2006: 13). Quite rightly
noted that concern for the past, per se ‘heritage’, has a deeper history as it
is used to construct ideas of individual and group identities as part of
human condition (Harvey 2001: 320); moreover this has been a rich and
strong tradition in old culture like India.
As a representation of the memories and glories of the past, the concept
of heritage is a way of viewing the past and its association with places.
Thus ancient sites, monuments, antiquities and sacredscapes are,
symbolically, the places of learning, and the ‘repositories of knowledge
about former understanding of our planet and our relationship with it’
(Devereux 1990: 54). In a broad sense such heritage refers to the places
where the spirit of nature and culture meet, and are additionally
symbolised and maintained by people’s attachment to the rituals (sacred
and secular, both) performed there. We want to possess the sacred without
owing the ordinary. At least in Indian thought ‘heritagescape’ is taken to
include everything that people carried from the past and want to handover
to the coming generation, including all sorts of attributes of material
culture and nature (cf. Howard 2003: 1). The comprehensiveness and
capacity to include everything under the aegis of heritage creates too much
complication too.
Trying to receive power from the heritage sites we want the direct
experience of body touch, e.g. festivities, or celebration. As a result,
inevitably we look beyond everything without seeing it for what it is. That
is why a preparatory and special rite and mode of human psyche are
prescribed before entering to the territory of sacredscape. Only then one
can get a close experience of touch and feeling. However, only those can
get that experience who have deep faith. The reverence and faith of people
to the cultural heritagescape and as integral part of their traditions should
be respected and added to the strategy of heritage conservation together
with sustainable development.
Many of the heritage sites and attached sacredscapes are associated
with mythology and maintained by the tradition of pilgrimages. Such
places also contain symbolic images and icons, both natural and cultural,
and pilgrims and devotees visit them for faith healing, and to experience
the ‘spirit of place’. These places need special care and preservation ‘as
they have power to inspire people for experiencing mystical or
transpersonal nature’ (Swan, 1992: 197). In a domain of increasing human
intervention where cultural and natural sites are threatened by degradation,
their disappearance would be an irreparable loss, and their preservation
concerns us all.
Obviously, it is noted that “the idea of heritage emerged at a time when
religious or metaphysical beliefs ceased to exits as the main bases for
collective values, social life and political organisation. It was the time
when nations become the only justification for the existence of states, the
era of the nation-state” (Claval 2007: 88). Moreover, the repository of
heritage is taken as a memorial symbol of the past and reminder of the
cultural identity in the western culture. In India most of such heritages are
monuments seen, perceived and visualised as invisible memorials of
divine beings who room in and around the vicinity and bless the faithful
visitors. With the spatial and moral turns in geography the landscape
studies are returning back and this would further lead to serious studies of
heritagescapes.
2. Scale of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites and the

Indian scenario
Out of 890 heritage sites in the world (as in September 2010; cf. Table
3.1), 29 heritage sites (Cultural 24, Natural 5) from India are included in
the World Heritage List (cf. Table 3.2, Fig. 3.1). However, the Indian
government has declared 150 places as national heritage sites on the basis
of the criteria adopted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The
UNESCO committee consists of the three types of programmes, which
include research and documentation, training and awareness, and
conservation and sustainable planning.
Presently a proliferation of international agencies attests the global
character of concern for tangible heritage and its preservation; these
include the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the International
Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Centre for
the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Architectural Works (IIC-HAW), the World Heritage Centre (WHC) of
the UNESCO, and Sacred Sites International Foundation (SSIF). Efforts to
develop heritage programmes and heritage resource conservation are
promoted by these agencies in different ways and on priority basis in
various parts of the globe. [For UNESCO perspectives of heritage, see

Singh 2010: 3-8.]
Table 3.1. UNESCO World Heritage Properties; September 2010
represented
State Party
Cultural
Natural
Zone
Mixed
Total
%
Africa 32 42 4 78 9 38
Arab States 4 61 1 66 7 16
Asia-Pacific 51 138 9 198 22 44
Europe & North America
58 377 10 445 49 52
(including Israel, Russia)
Latin America & Caribbean 35 86 3 124 14 27
TOTAL 180 704 27 911 100 177
In India, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Indian National

Trust for Art, Culture and Heritage (INTACH) and Indian Heritage
Society (HIS) are the prime organisations responsible for protection,
conservation and preservation of heritage sites. It is claimed that the ASI
has not been maintaining traditional conservation practices and was
exceeding its brief by setting up unnecessary structures, and that the
comprehensive heritage environmental plan has not been taken into
account.
The growing pressure of tourism and consequential development of
built structures are a testimony to consumerism and current economic gain
which ignores the sustainable approach. There appears to be a weak
coordination between ASI and IHS and the various organisations (private
and public) dealing with the tourism industry. However, recently, the
Department of Tourism at the Centre and also its counterparts in all the
States are promoting various programmes for sustainable heritage tourism.
In its projects the INTACH emphasises that, somewhere between
historical continuity and acceptance of modernity, our living culture is
being compromised and lost by default. The strategy for planning should
therefore follow a middle path, maintaining the harmony of deeply
implanted culture while, at the same time, taking account of future-
oriented urban development. Use of the concepts of ‘area conservation’,
‘heritage zoning’, and ‘heritage ecology’ are some of the examples of this
approach.
Table 3.2. India: Heritage Properties as in Unesco World Heritage List,

September 2010.
Se. Category No. Heritage Properties

(Year of inscription)
Cultural Heritage
1. Fort, Palaces, 6 Agra Fort (1983), Fatehpur Sikri (1986),
Tomb Humayun’s Tomb, Delhi (1993), Qutb
Minar complex, Delhi (1993), Red Fort
Complex (2007), Taj Mahal (1983)
2. Monuments 4 Hampi (1986), Mahabalipuram (1984),
Pattadakal (1987), Khajuraho (1986)
3. Caves, ancient 3 Ajanta Caves (1983), Elephanta Caves
murals (1987), Ellora Caves (1983)
4. Buddhist 2 Sanchi (1989), Mahabodhi Temple
Monuments Complex at Bodh Gaya (2002),
5. Ancient 2 Great Chola Temples: Gangaikonda,
temples Airateshvara, Brihadeshvara (1987), Sun
Temple at Konârak (1984)
6. Archaeological 2 Champaner-Pavagarh Park (2004), Rock
Landscape Shelters of Bhimbetka (2003)
7. Mountain 3 Darjeeling (1999), Nilgiri Mountain
Railways Railway (2005), Kalka-Shimla (2008)
(counted as one
group)
8. Church 1 Churches and Convents of Goa (1986)
9. British 1 Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly
Architecture Victoria Terminus) (2004)
Total 24 -----
Natural Heritage
1. Natural Park 4 Kaziranga (1985), Keoladeo (1985),
Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers
(1988), Sundarbans (1987)
2. Sanctuary 1 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (1985)
TOTAL 29 ------
The INTACH which operates in various cities (including Varanasi) is

now acting as a pressure group and has been successful in achieving some
encouraging results in urban heritage planning whereby tradition and
modernity can exit side-by-side. Some other one-city based societies like
the Golconda Society, the Hyderabad Historical Society, and the Save
Bombay Group, are also in operation.
According to the UNESCO a country must first take an inventory of its
significant cultural and natural properties, called the Tentative List, a
country may only nominate properties that have already been included on
this List. The World Heritage Centre offers advice and help in preparing
this file. The Indian List includes 31 such properties (Table 3.3).
Fig. 3.1. India: Unesco World Heritage sites, September 2010.
Table 3.3. India: Properties on the Tentative List, September 2010.

Se Heritage Properties (year of submission)
1. Temples at Bishnupur, West Bengal (1998)
2. Buddhist Monastery Complex, Alchi, Leh (Alchi Chos-kor) (1998)
3. Golconda Fort, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (1998)
4. Dholavira: a Harappan City, Gujarat, District Kachchh (1998)
5. Rani-ki-Vav (The Queen’s Stepwell) at Patan, Gujarat (1998)
6. Mattanchery Palace, Ernakulam, Kerala (1998)
7. Tomb of Sher Shah Suri, Sasaram, Bihar (1998)
8. Group of Monuments at Mandu, Madhya Pradesh (1998)
9. Ancient Buddhist Site, Sarnath, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh (1998)
10. Hemis Gompa (1998)
11. Sri Harimandir Sahib, Amritsar, Punjab (2004)
12. River Island of Majuli in the Brahmaputra River in Assam (2004)
13. Kalka Shimla Railway (2004; inscribed in List: 9 Nov. 2008)
14. The Matheran Light Railway (exts. to the Mt. Railways) (2005)
15. Western Ghats (sub cluster nomination) (2006, again in 2009)
16. Namdapha National Park (2006)
17. Wild Ass Sanctuary, Little Rann of Kutch (2006)
18. Kangchendzonga National Park (2006)
19. Urban and Architectural Work of Le Corbusier in Chandigarh (2006)
20. The Kangra Valley Railway, an extension to the Mountain Railways of
India (2009)
21. Mumbai’s Churchgate building, presently the Western Railway
headquarters (2009)
22. Mussorie’s Oak Grove School premises (2009)
23. Gwalior’s Maharaja Light Railway (2009)
24. Excavated Remains at Nalanda (2009)
25. The Jantar Mantar, Jaipur: Astronomical Observatory of India (2009)
26. Great Himalayan National Park, Kullu HP (2009), Natural Heritage
27. Bhitarkanika Conservation Area, Kendrapara OR (2009), Natural Heritage
28. Neora Valley National Park, Darjeeling WB (2009), Natural Heritage
29. The Thar, Desert National Park RJ (2009), Natural Heritage
30. Ashram Complex and Patha Bhavan at Santiniketan WB (20 Jan. 2010)
31. Silk Route Sites linking the following 12 properties proposed (20 January
2010 by the ASI Govt. of India) together under ‘cultural landscape’, viz.
ancient Vaishali, Vikramshila ancient University, Buddhist remains of
Kushinagar, Sravasti, Kaushambi, Ahichhatra, Ancient Site and Buddhist
Stupa (Sanghol), early historic site of Arikamedu, remains of
Kaveripattinam (at Pallavaneswaram-Melaiyur), ancient monastery and
stupa at Harwan, Mound locally known as Burud Kot (Maharashtra), and
Indraprastha.
India has been requested, together with all other State Parties, to
develop a Tentative List that is more representative of the time depth of
Indian history, the diversity of its cultures and cultural manifestations, and
the typology of heritage places. A great number of the current World
Heritage Sites in India are ASI (Archaeological Survey of India)
monuments from different historic periods. These sites are far from
representing all relevant periods in Indian history. They also do not reflect
the typologies of heritage as defined in the World Heritage Convention.
Although being one of the most ancient urban civilizations, India does not
have a single city on the World Heritage List. Other heritage types missing
are, for example, ‘cultural landscapes’, ‘cultural routes’ (silk route, salt
route, etc.), industrial monuments, and many other categories; however
recently the Silk Routes Sites are proposed in the Tentative List.
Intangible Cultural Heritage

According to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the ‘Safeguarding of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ [(see the Web: http://www.unesco.org/
culture/ich/index.php?pg=00002], the “Intangible Cultural Heritage” ICH,
or living heritage, is the mainspring of our cultural diversity and its
maintenance a guarantee for continuing creativity that are part of a
network and interlinking system (cf. Singh 2010: 8). By 2009 out of total
90 ‘Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity’,
located in 77 state parties, four are within the territory of India; their
highlights are given below:
(1) Ramman: religious festival and ritual theatre
Representing the distinct ICH of the Garhwal Himalayas (proclaimed

in 2009), Ramman is celebrated every year in late April, mostly in the twin
villages of Saloor-Dungra in the state of Uttarakhand (northern India).
Ramman is celebrated as a religious festival in honour of the tutelary god,
Bhumiyal Devta, a local divinity whose temple houses most of the
festivities. This event is made up of highly complex rituals: the recitation
of a version of the epic of Rama and various legends, and the performance
of songs and masked dances. The festival is organized by villagers, and
each caste and occupational group has a distinct role. For example, youth
and the elders perform, the Brahmans lead the prayers and perform the
rituals, and the Bhandaris – representing locals of the Kshatriya caste – are
alone entitled to wear one of the most sacred masks, that of the half-man,
half-lion Hindu deity, Narasimha. The family that hosts Bhumiyal Devta
during the year must adhere to a strict daily routine. Combining theatre,
music, historical reconstructions, and traditional oral and written tales, the
Ramman is a multiform cultural event that reflects the environmental,
spiritual and cultural concept of the community, recounting its founding
myths and strengthening its sense of self-worth. In order to ensure that it
remains viable, the community’s priorities are to promote its transmission
and to obtain its recognition beyond the geographical area in which it is
practised.
The festival of Ramman combines music, poetry, dance and crafts that
form an expression of the religious and aesthetic experience of the
community, celebrate the bonds between humanity, nature and the
divinity, thus ultimately gives the community a sense of identity and
belonging. Inscription of the element on the Representative List would
allow the efforts of the community and State to gain further momentum
and boost the self-esteem of the tradition bearers, while contributing to the
visibility and awareness of intangible cultural heritage at the local,
national and international levels; Its nomination process of the element has
benefitted from the participation of the community, particularly the ritual
leader and the elected representative body of the community, and the
submitted consent letter signed by them testifies to their free, prior and
informed consent.
(2) Kutiyattam, Sanskrit Theatre
Kutiyattam, Sanskrit theatre (inscribed in 2008), popularly practised

in the state of Kerala, is one of India’s oldest living theatrical traditions.
Originating more than 2,000 years ago, Kutiyattam represents a synthesis
of Sanskrit classicism and reflects the local traditions of Kerala. In its
stylized and codified theatrical language, netra abhinaya (eye expression)
and hasta abhinaya (the language of gestures) are prominent. They focus
on the thoughts and feelings of the main character. Actors undergo ten to
fifteen years of rigorous training to become fully-fledged performers with
sophisticated breathing control and subtle muscle shifts of the face and
body. The actor’s art lies in elaborating a situation or episode in all its
detail. Therefore, a single act may take days to perform and a complete
performance may last up to 40 days. Kutiyattam is traditionally performed
in theatres called Kuttampalams, which are located in Hindu temples.
Access to performances was originally restricted owing to their sacred
nature, but the plays have progressively opened up to larger audiences. Yet
the actor’s role retains a sacred dimension, as attested by purification
rituals and the placing of an oil lamp on stage during the performance
symbolizing a divine presence. The male actors hand down to their
trainees detailed performance manuals, which, until recent times, remained

the exclusive and secret property of selected families.
With the collapse of patronage along with the feudal order in the
nineteenth century, the families who held the secrets to the acting
techniques experienced serious difficulties. After a revival in the early
twentieth century, Kutiyattam is once again facing a lack of funding,
leading to a severe crisis in the profession. In the face of this situation, the
different bodies responsible for handing down the tradition have come
together to join efforts in order to ensure the continuity of this Sanskrit
theatre.
(3) Rāmalilā, the Traditional Performance of the Rāmayana
Rāmalilā, literally “Rāma’s play” (inscribed in 2008), is a

performance of then Rāmāyana epic in a series of scenes that include
song, narration, recital and dialogue. It is performed across northern India
during the festival of Dashahrā, held each year in autumn (October-
November) according to the Hindu lunar calendar. The most representative
Rāmalilās are those of Ayodhya, Ramanagar and Varanasi, Vrindavan,
Almora, Satna and Madhubani.
This staging of the Rāmāyana is based on the Rāmacharitmānasa, one
of the most popular storytelling forms in the north of the country. This
sacred text devoted to the glory of Rāma, the hero of the Rāmāyana, was
composed by Tulasidās in the sixteenth century CE in a form of Hindi
(Awadhi) in order to make the Sanskrit epic available to all. The majority
of the Rāmalilās recount episodes from the Rāmacharitmānasa through a
series of performances lasting ten to fourteen days, but some, such as
Ramanagar’s, may last an entire month. Festivals are organized in
hundreds of settlements, towns and villages during the Dashahrā festival
season celebrating Rama’s return from exile. Rāmalilā recalls the battle
between Rāma (divine king) and Rāvana (demonic king of Sri Lanka) and
consists of a series of dialogues between gods, sages and the faithful.
Rāmalilā’s dramatic force stems from the succession of icons representing
the climax of each scene. The audience is invited to sing and take part in
the narration. The Rāmalilā brings the whole population together, without
distinction of caste, religion or age. All the villagers participate
spontaneously, playing roles or taking part in a variety of related activities,
such as mask and costume making, and preparing make-up, effigies and
lights. However, the development of mass media, particularly television
soap operas, is leading to a reduction in the audience of the Rāmalilā
plays, which are therefore losing their principal role of bringing people
and communities together. The Ramanagar’s Rāmalilā, the only in the

whole world of this type, is a unique example of environmental theatre in
which the different episodes take place at least at twenty places and still no
modern means of audio-visual aids or electricity are used.
(4) The Tradition of Vedic chanting
The Vedas comprise a vast corpus of Sanskrit poetry, philosophical

dialogue, myth, cosmologies and ritual incantations developed and
composed by Aryans over ca. 3,500 years ago. Regarded by Hindus as the
primary source of knowledge and the sacred foundation of their religion,
the Vedas embody one of the world’s oldest surviving cultural traditions.
The Vedic heritage embraces a multitude of texts and interpretations
collected in four Vedas, commonly referred to as “books of knowledge”
even though they have been transmitted orally. The Rig Veda is an
anthology of sacred hymns; the Sama Veda features musical arrangements
of hymns from the Rig Veda and other sources; the Yajur Veda abounds in
prayers and sacrificial formulae used by priests; and the Athara Veda
includes incantations and spells. The Vedas also offer insight into the
history of Hindu traditions and the early development of several artistic,
scientific and philosophical concepts, such as the concept of zero.
Expressed in the Vedic language, which is derived from classical
Sanskrit, the verses of the Vedas were traditionally chanted during sacred
rituals and recited daily in Vedic communities. The value of chanting
tradition (proclaimed in 2003, but inscribed in 2008) lies not only in the
rich content of its oral literature but also in the ingenious techniques
employed by the ancient sages and later the Brahmin pundits in preserving
the texts intact over thousands of years. To ensure that the sound of each
word remains unaltered, practitioners are taught from childhood complex
recitation techniques that are based on tonal accents, a unique manner of
pronouncing each letter and specific speech combinations.
Although the Vedas continue to play an important role in
contemporary Indian life, only thirteen of the over one thousand Vedic
recitation branches have survived. Moreover, four noted schools – in
Maharashtra (central India), Kerala and Karnataka (southern India) and
Orissa (eastern India) – are considered under imminent threat.
With the support of the governmental institutions (central and state
levels), especially the departments of tourism and culture, voluntary
organisations at historical and sacred cities are developing model
programmes (events) for using heritage based tourism as a vehicle of
development for communities rich in intangible cultural heritage. It is a
ground reality that there is often appropriation of tourism business by

outsiders. Further, it has been observed that in some of the heritage
tourism destinations indigenous people become merely a part of an
exhibition mechanism and have little say in the way they are represented,
and have rarely rational earnings. Some of the site NGOs are trying to
make community an active stakeholder in tourism development and
upholding cultural heritage. Tourism events ― like Basanta Utsav in
Raghunathpur in Purulia, Bihar, and Dhrupad Music festival in Varanasi
― educate visitors on the wealth of ancient cultural performances and
fosters respect for the people carrying on the traditions. Such events would
create incentives for the local community, especially the poor youth to
safeguard their heritage.
The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR,) with the
support of the ministry of culture (Govt. of India) has recently planned
(April 2007) to create a digital database of intangible cultural heritage
such as songs, instrumental music, architectural concepts, martial arts,
legends, paintings and pottery as the first step towards protecting them;
addition to this list include protecting India’s centuries-old knowledge in
herbal medicine, elements of folk culture, traditional farming methods and
similar other issues.
3. Heritage – A Cultural Resource

A heritage resource may be defined as site, landscape, scenery,
monuments (tangible, drishya-rupa), or living traditions and performances
(intangible, kriya-rupa) as identified by its community, province or
government as representative of the history and culture of the area and of
current importance to the people. Heritage resources can be classified into
two broad groups, i.e. (i) Historic/Cultural heritage resources, the
facilities primarily oriented to the education or entertainment of visitors
through the display and interpretation of culture including live
performance theatre, public art galleries, cultural centres, community
museums, genealogical centres and archives, and historic sites/buildings/
monuments registered with the appropriate, municipal, provincial, national
or private registry; and (ii) Natural heritage resources, the areas of
significant natural, environmental, or aesthetic interest to visitors, as well
as facilities whose primary purpose is to exhibit and interpret natural
habitat to visitors, including wildlife parks, aquariums, botanical gardens,
and distinct landscape features. The idea of cultural heritage as resource
was proposed by the World Heritage Trust Convention and was adopted in
1972 by the General Conference of the UNESCO.
Heritage should be ‘explained’ in terms of roots, and of ‘our’ ‘deep’

glories of the past. A person could at least commune with special places of
power where one can see “his heritage evolves from within, a heritage
which could be shared with the whole community sharing together, along
with an understanding of sacred geography” (Jarow 1986: 11). It is also
realised that “ancient sites are places of learning; repositories of
knowledge about former understanding of our planet and our relationship
with it” (Devereux 1990: 54).
How the heritage environment affects the everyday lives of the people
who use it ― that is how it affects them in an immediate sense through
their eyes, ears, nose and skin (Lynch 1976: 3-4). This is why they can be
viewed with reference to sensory quality (cultural attitudes toward looking
and feeling), social importance (place and attachment to the society) and
management and preservation (need imperative, today and tomorrow). It is
not as important what and how are they important at present, it is more
important to learn a lesson from them? Each tradition can learn from the
other. Lynch (1976: 6) suggests that “preservation of cultural heritage than
creating a new heritage symbol, and with management more than design”
needs to be accepted as prime goal. In fact, one has to remember that, “no
place remains unchanged except heaven, hell, and outer space, and none
those are fit for human beings” (ibid. : 72). Cultural heritage is to be seen
to embody human feelings developed within the historical-cultural
processes and to be studied for a deeper and hidden truth while
interpreting it in terms of intrinsic meanings and reverence.
As an individual and social being, the cultural heritage remains integral
to us all as “it is assimilated in ourselves and resurrected into an
ever-changing present” (Lowenthal 1985: 412). Lowenthal has further put
it modestly: “The urge to preserve derives from several interrelated
presumptions: that the past was unlike the present; that its remains are
necessary to our identity desirable in themselves; and that tangible remain
are a finite and dwindling commodity” (ibid.: 389). This way cultural
heritage is a resource. The cultural man is he who knows his past from
whom he learns lessons.
Cultural heritage sites are the true representative of the divine order
and human’s deep faith involvement, that is how it may be accepted as
religious ‘resource’, but it has scientific, recreational, aesthetic, economic
and sacramental values too. At a sacrosanct or holy place one can get
nearness to sublime ultimate. Cultural heritage offers a richer source of
environmental well being in terms of deep attachment of human being to
the nature where lies the human identity and will for continuity and
existence. Carl Jung had already acknowledged spirituality as an integral
aspect of human nature and a vital force in human life. To realise and
reveal that vital force, one is bound to preserve the cultural heritage
resource ― the form of spiritual landscape. Following Confucius’
wisdom, Swan (1992: 233) has established the idea of cosmic integrity:
“Heaven directs things, the earth produces, and man co-operates to create
success”.
4. Heritage Resource Conservation

The places and monuments which preserve human history of value
assessment and deep feelings of the nature’s mystery need to be preserved
and conserved around the three basic themes (Shepard 1976: 235-271):
(1) Landscape threatened ― the frontier was coming to an end and
new attitudes toward nature, land and resources were emerging;
(2) Landscape transcendental ― the inspirational qualities of the
natural landscape were idealised in literature and art; and
(3) Landscape triumphant ― there was a continuing search for the
aspects of country-level experience which reinforced national
identity and cultural distinctiveness.
Under the pace of population pressure, economic scarcity, attitudes

toward technocracy and materialism and priority consideration for
livelihood, the following nine thematic issues with respect to heritage
resource conservation are suggested under subsequent communications:
1. The Transformation of traditional ways of life: technocracy,

population movement, commercialisation, desire for
modernisation, and exerted pressure for land speculation.
2. Urban Development and Conservation: need for conservation
management, harmonising action and balance.
3. Financing: budget augmentation, financial links, ongoing quest for
financial solutions, integrated financial strategy.
4. Citizen’s Involvement: collective action, subscribing to the
decisions, educational programme and consensus.
5. Architecture and Restoration: norms, laws and charters; guidelines
based upon shared experience and concern with history,
morphology and materials -- to preserve city’s rhythms, harmonies
and dissonances.
6. Traffic: size of the city, needs, situation, specific problems
concerning movement in and around the sites and monuments.
7. Tourism: desirability and historic preservation, expectation and

fulfilment; rational needs and maintenance of balance.
8. Expertise: need for technical expertise having deep feelings and
technical knowledge both, and security norms.
9. Forming Networks: contacts and interaction, exchange of
information, regional meetings and specific commissions and
agencies, institution for systematic co-ordination.
The highest form of man-nature relationship is the experiences of the

sacred environments. They “are an attempt to get closer to the divine, by
ordering it more, making it a more perfect expression .... Sacred
environments conform closest to an ideal, for they are the most ordered”
(Rapoport 1982: 78). Humans’ “sensory quality is clearly related to the
history of place. Place character is the result of historical evolution, and
thinking of how to conserve or enhance that character is illuminated by
knowing how it came to be and what historical forces still sustain it”
(Lynch 1976: 72). “Preservation thus promises ecological thrift along with
heritage and environmental felicity” (Lowenthal 1985: 400). With the
increasing domain of human interference, cultural and natural heritage and
sites are threatened by degradation! Heritage cities and sites are all
monuments and places where splendour enriches each and every one of us.
Their disappearance would thus be an irreparable loss, their preservation
concerns us all. Conservation of our cultural heritage is part of the
movement to save the Earth, so to say preserving the symbol of the Living
Sacred Earth. Also, to be considered that unorganised tourism threatens
the heritagescape that results to sometimes irreparable loss.
Conservation Methodology. The conservation strategy needs a single
integrated, inter-professional methodology co-ordinating a range of
aesthetic, historic, scientific and technical studies as multidisciplinary
activity. The practical aspect of conservation varies in scale and extent of
intervention. In broad perspective, say for example architectural work
requires four aspects of considerations: (a) treatment of material in terms
of local availability of materials, ravages of time and weather, (b) scale of
operations while considering the complexity and size, (c) the dilemma
between complexity, and communal and supervision, and (d) consideration
of the context of historic structure, incorporating site, setting and physical
environment (Feilden 1993a: 2).
Value Judgement. In conservation strategy, while defining the
objective and methodological orientation the identity of “values” and our
feelings in the object are also a follow-up task. The values can be defined
under the three broad categories: (a) Emotional ― this includes wonder,
continuity, veneration, symbolic value, and spiritual feelings and related

values, (b) Cultural ― this consists of aesthetic, artistic, art and historical,
documentary, archaeological, and age values, and (c) Use values ―
referring to functional and fundamental characteristics. Other values also
be evaluated and taken into account include architectural, scientific,
landscapic, townscapic, economical, socio-political, etc. (Feilden 1993a:
3-7).
Above all, “there is need to develop a holistic approach to our heritage
on the basis of cultural pluralism and diversity respected by professionals,
craft-persons and administrators. Conservation requires the ability to
observe, analyse and synthesise” (ibid.: 9).
5. Vision and guiding Principles

Defining the heritage value or significance of a historic place or
resource is the foundation on which any heritage conservation process is
built. The natural, cultural and indigenous history and heritage of the city
are known and valued, celebrating the past and informing the future. The
fundamental principles for overall heritage planning, policy and
programme initiatives as expressed in the Heritage Strategy include:
1. Identify and Research: Identify and research heritage resources
and evaluate their importance to our history.
2. Protect and Conserve: Protect and conserve our heritage
resources.
3. Manage and Use for the Future: Maximise community benefits of
heritage assets and resources by seeking positive outcomes
through appropriate management and use.
4. Communicate and Educate: Raise community awareness and take
an active role in education about the value of history and
heritage.
5. Celebrate: Celebrate local events, milestones, individuals and
achievements to build community identity and community
pride.
6. Support and Fund: Support and fund heritage programmes in the
community, and assist volunteers to become involved in history
and heritage.
As part of the Action Plans in process through the Heritage Strategy
for which civilians are fighting over the last decade, the primary concern
will focus on:
§ Increasing appreciation and awareness of history and heritage
issues.
§ Continue to work with the community in developing local history

initiatives and actively support research on the City’s key
historic-cultural themes.
§ Working through collaboration of the NGOs and other affiliates in
service to heritage concerns (like ASI, INTACH) to establish
and implement a conservation management policy and strategy
for heritage identification, awakening and community-based
maintenance.
§ Continue to strengthen the partnership with the heritage city and
various heritage related institutions and other community
groups interested in history and heritage.
§ Continue to implement public programmes and temporary
exhibitions and displays for schools and the general public both
on-line as well as at museum and cultural centre venues and
schools.
§ Continue to implement a programme of recording the urban, rural
and cultural heritagescapes, and natural heritagescapes of
Development Authority to document city character, and history
of city neighbourhoods to inform future development that fits to
Master Plan and City Development Plan (under JNNURM).
§ Develop exhibitions and displays to present key aspect of local
cultural history and heritage in both Development Authority and
community facilities as well as electronically through a 24hour
Museum.
§ Encourage the development of Cultural Precincts and Cultural
Hubs throughout the City.
Recommendations made in the ASI/ UNESCO “Workshop on World

Cultural Heritage Site Management in India” at Hampi: 15-18 June 2008,
as reflection of the deliberations refer that:
1. All World Heritage Sites (WHS) should have an Integrated

Conservation and Management Plan (ICMP) as per the World
Heritage Convention, UNESCO operating guidelines, and
related international charters.
2. The Integrated Conservation and Management Plan (ICMP)
should be ratified by the Lead Authority (the authority
managing the site) and other associated authorities (Govt.
agencies, legal bodies, etc.).
3. There should be a Coordinating Body comprising of the lead and
associated authorities, the related departments and the site
managers, both at State and at Central Level. This Coordinating

Body would be responsible for the implementation of the
ratified ICMP and also act as facilitator for conflict resolution.
6. Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism

It is recently argued that heritage tourism is so important that it
requires separate treatment together with heritage planning and urban
development. Of course, it can easily be narrated that as a group or
separate category heritage tourism does not exist, however as a strategy for
the sustainable development an yardstick of heritage always be given
special place. Three dimensions of heritage in intersect of the urban
planning can be identified (Graham, et al. 2000: 256):
• heritage is inherently a spatial phenomena, characterised by location,
distribution, and scale;
• it is a fundamental part of cultural concern with signification,
representation and identity; and
• heritage is an economic instrument in policies of regional and urban
development and regeneration.
These viewpoints are mentioned in the recent Master Plans of some of
the cities those are trying to be enlisted in the UNESCO World Heritage
List like Varanasi, Madurai, Gwaliar, Amritsar, Ujjain, etc. The first and
the only authentic guidebook to World Heritage Sites in India, covering
17, prepared by Mitra and Thakur (2001) deals with historical-cultural
background of the site and existing monuments there illustrated with
coloured photographs and sketches. This book needs a thorough revision,
expansion and inclusion of all the 29 sites and also even the 31 sites in the
tentative list, together with practical guidance and discussion on
conservation and preservation.
Sustainable heritage tourism is no way separate from the Eco-tourism.
If nature is in danger, culture has to pay its price. If both to be taken in an
integrated way, it would result to more beneficial in the preservation of the
heritagescapes and their long-term use by the mankind. Heritage tourism
sites are not only designed for the sole purpose of tourism but they are the
paths to discover our past and a way to learn about land, people, culture
and history of a specific place. This gives opportunity to a specific country
to combine its unique heritage with the tourism industry to create social,
economic and environmental benefits. It creates travel experiences based
on the authenticity, learning and discovering our culture, ecological,
artistic and ethnic heritage and also creates a distinct identity for a specific
place. These sites, of course to be used as resources for promoting tourism,
moreover these heritage sites and areas need to be given special

consideration under the wider strategy of sustainable resource conservation.
Fig. 3.2 . Heritage, Place Identity and Tourism: Components of Triangle.
Other Heritage Uses
Heritage Resources
Political Heritage
Place Identity Tourism
Says Graham, et al. (2000: 259), “It must always be remembered that
because all heritage is someone’s, it cannot be someone else’s. As a
result, we are observing more and more cases of the problems raised by
the sacred and profane connotations of heritage in which someone’s
consecrated heritage is sold as someone else’s entertainment”. The idea of
heritage tourism is closely associated with its definition as resource,
political identity and educational and socialisation process. The interc-
onnections among them can be represented by the triangular connections
among heritage, place identity and tourism (Fig. 3.2). At one scale,
heritage contributes towards political identity, and further supports tourism
is a distinct way, and finally encourage to learn the remembered past in
search of linking past to present and make perspective for future (cf. Rana
and Singh 2000).
World Tourism Organisation defines the Heritage tourism as “an
immersion in the natural history, human heritage, arts, philosophy and
institution of another region or country”. The definition itself explains that

heritage tourism includes variety of experiences focus on natural, cultural
and historic resources used as commodity to sale in tourism industry.
Sustainable development of heritage resources is essential because then
only we can use our resources at optimal level and be able to pass it to our
future. The basic idea of sustainable heritage tourism is based on the uses
of remembered past for furthering the attraction of particular way that its
essence and inherent meaning to be preserved and its structural condition
to be revived continuously. The concept of sustainability in heritage
tourism refers to the long-term viability of the heritage commodity based
on the degree to which its economic, environmental and socio-cultural
systems are efficient, integrated and constantly continued in the long
future ahead (cf. Hall and Page 1999: 253-254).
The issue of ‘identity’ associated with intangible cultural heritage is
manifested in different domains (all sorts of oral traditions, performances,
rituals and festive events, craftsmanship, etc.), which can be evaluated
through different criteria: territorial, cultural, historic, civic, and social of
identities (Girard and Torrieri 2009: 229-231; cf. UNESCO 2007: 72-73).
The aspect of identity is linked to ‘sense of time’, ‘sense of place’ and
‘sense of culture’ (Graham and Howard 2008: 5-8). On the guidelines as
proposed in Our Common Future (1987), the sustainable (cultural)
heritage tourism should also follow the following eight principles:
1. Restricting the tourism impact at the regional, community and site
level up to the limit within the carrying capacity of the heritage
area.
2. Maintaining the stock of biological wealth surrounding the
heritagescapes.
3. Minimising the depletion of non-renewable and extremely fragile
marine and terrestrial resources.
4. Promoting long tern tourism development that increases the
economic, educational and cultural benefits from natural resources
and maintains the bio-diversity in the region.
5. Achieving an equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of
resource use and environmental management befitting to the local
situation.
6. Making a very strong provision for effective participation of
residents, local institutions, communities and NGOs in protection
and policy implementation.
7. Promoting values and ethics that contribute to sustainable heritage
tourism (local, regional and international); e.g. “Think globally, but
act Locally” ― a type of awareness march.
8. Defining clearly and making comprehensive strategy with the co-

ordination of various other associated sectors that leads to
successful adoption and implementation of the sustainable heritage
tourism.
The following four steps of successful and sustainable cultural heritage

tourism are recently debated:
Step 1: Assess the Potential. Evaluate what your community has to
offer in attractions, visitor services, organizational capabilities,
ability to protect resources, and marketing.
Step 2: Plan and Organize. Make good use of human and financial
resources. They are the keys that open the doors to sustainable
heritage tourism. Set priorities and measurable goals.
Step 3: Prepare for Visitors: Protect and Manage Your Resources.
Look to the future as well as the present. Be sure that the
choices you make now improve your community for the long
term.
Step 4: Market for Success. Develop a multi-year, many-tiered
marketing plan that targets your market. Look for partners in
local, regional, state or national groups.
Considering cultural heritage as ‘capital’ which can be re-generated

through renovation, restoration, adaptive reuse, and so on, Throsby (2009:
19-24) has proposed three ‘Golden rules’ that certainly need due
consideration in enhancing cultural heritage tourism in India, taking into
consideration its own indigenous culture, tradition and worldviews. They
are:
1: Get the Values Right (clarity in understanding the values and their
contexts);
2: Get the Sustainability Principles Right (continuity, equity and
maintenance of ecosystems); and
3: Get the Analytical Methods Right (contextuality, cost-benefit
analysis, viability and rationality).
7. Heritagescapes: Scenario and an Ethical View

Heritage as economic resource is an object of promoting tourism. Tour
organisers and tourist agencies regard cultural heritage as an item to be
exploited. On the other hand, the development and governmental agencies
at most of the levels fail to plough back profits into conservation.
Subsequently over-promotion of tourism led to encourage unthinking
commercialism and disastrous effects on natural beauty and the

centuries-old rhythm of community life. With the increasing pace of
modem tourism, lacking of maintenance of heritage ecology, the heritage
environment becomes a major threat of deterioration.
There is somewhere an ethical gap in promoting tourism. In fact, that
should have been promoted in the light of religious perspective of
tourism-pilgrimage with a view to maintaining the spirit of sustainability.
Feilden in his keynote speech at the first International Symposium on
World Heritage Cities, 1991 has rightly warned us:
“What we do today will be the history of tomorrow and ultimately it is by
history that we are judged. Civilising the city is now a vital cultural
question. “Where there is no vision the people perish” (Feilden 1993b:
33).
A question always comes to our mind whether in the face of all these
modern changes the heritage site can retain those qualities of the spirit that
have made it a magnetic place! May one hope that the preservation of
those qualities must derive from those old impulses of the tradition and
belief which have made the glory of sacredscape the powerful symbol of
that rich cultural heritage. One may also hope for reviving the sense of
belongingness in the light of ecoethics for preserving the age-old
intangible spirit of sustainability, and for recognising our identity in the
context of heritage sites. Ecoethics is a moral feeling to behave in a way to
help others― a justice for all ecological cosmology, i.e. ecojustice. The
disappearing trend of the man-nature-cosmic relationship is one of the
basic causes for the present environmental crisis we are facing today. In
Indian tone it is referred as ‘ethical-and-moral pollution’, or
crisis-replacing the old value system of sustainability by materialism and
consumerism. It seems that during the past 700 years of foreign cultural
domination ― superseded by Muslim culture and the British Christianity
― the ancient Hindu value system has lost its many facets, nevertheless
the seeds are still preserved in some forms of religious ethics and related
performances. We certainly need the march for public awareness (Chetna
march)!
According to Hindu theology spirit-of-place exists everywhere,
imbuing the earth and the heaven with its unique and ineradicable sense of
rhythm, mood, and character; the experiences of this result to variety of
local forms of faith and traditions derived from it, however the
fundamental ethic of reverence is everywhere. But disturbing the spirit and
misusing the holiness of place bring calamity to society. If the harmony is
disturbed the spirit of place decreases its power of sanctity of life.
8. Heritage Resource Conservation: Scenario from India

With a view to promoting dialogue between tradition and modernity
and cultural preservation, the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural
Heritage (INTACH) is actively engaged in heritage preservation. The
concept of “cultural heritage zone” refers beyond more buildings and
artefacts of culture; it also includes a spatial-territorial approach to
integrate the monuments with people’s faith and performance system
(sacred ecology). The basic idea behind this approach is “placemaking.”
The cultural heritage zone is similar in concept to the European historic
town centre and the North American historic district, and implied in Indian
context with additive thrust on preservation, overall maintenance,
sustainable development, provision of recreation, and maintenance of land
reserves. The planning of Cultural Heritage Zone is to be guided by the
broad principles and objectives of conservation of urban historic areas, as
summarised by the ICOMOS (cf. Menon 1989: 6):
* For the conservation of a historic town to be most effective it should be
an integral part of a coherent policy of economic and social
development and of urban and regional planning.
* The values to be preserved include the historic character of the historic
site and all those material and spatial elements that create this character,
especially:
• the urban pattern and network;
• buildings and green and open spaces;
• appearance and morphology of buildings;
• natural and cultural regional settings; and
• Changing role of a historic city and consequences.
* The participation and the involvement of the towns-people of every age
is essential for the success of the conservation programme and must be
encouraged. The conservation of historic towns concerns first and
foremost residents.
* Conservation in an historic town demands prudence, sensitivity and
precision without rigidity, since each case presents a specific problem.
These outlines need modification in Indian condition, as they do not
easily fit to our situation. The INTACH had undertaken a heritage
preservation plan for the Ganga Ghats, Varanasi, and finally a Master Plan
of the entire stretch of the Ghats was framed. It is obvious through this
study that an understanding of the characteristics of the heritage of the
Ghats provides the appropriate framework for a planning intervention
(Menon 1989: 14). A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability and beauty of the site as living organism.
A collaborative Indo-US team performed another study of cultural
heritage conservation and planning for Sarnath (VDA & DLA 1990).
Accepting Sarnath as a microcosm of the cultural heritage of India, an
attempt was made to integrate tradition and modernity in a complementary
manner: preserve the past, introduce the modem where both can fit easily
to make harmonic continuity of the past. The proposed Master Plan is in
accord to the heritage conservation, environmental sensibility, people’s
involvement, users’ feelings and the need for the site as a very important
tourist centre (ibid.; also Sinha 1991).
In the above context Sinha (1991: 30) remarks that “a sacred place is
not viewed for aesthetic appreciation only (although that may be a part of
it) but is also associated with transcendental experience. Therefore its
environmental manipulation should be handled extremely sensitively with
full awareness of religious history and contemporary cultural meanings.”
All such sites and places which are living cultural treasures are the
heritage of our existence, therefore must be preserved and maintained. Of
course, there exists a line of thought that heritage preservation is a luxury
expandable, but it is only and marginally true when times are hard.
8.1. Khajuraho: Scenario of a World Heritage Property

The UNESCO World Heritage List includes Khajuraho (79º 55’E and
24º 51’N, elevation: 283 metres; Chhatarpur district, Madhya Pradesh;
population 19,282 in 2001) which consists of 23 monument sites built by
Chandela kings and dating from the tenth century. Neglected and forgotten
after the fourteenth century, this site was reported in 1839 by T.S. Burt, an
engineer and explorer, as ‘probably the finest aggregate number of temples
congregated in one place to be met with in all India’. In 1852 F.C. Maisey
prepared the earliest drawings of the temples and in the same year
Alexander Cunningham drew a plan of Khajuraho, documenting all the
temples, monuments and heritage sites of the area (cf. Fig. 3.3).
On the following criteria of the UNESCO WHL enlisting under
‘Cultural Heritage’, the group of monuments at Khajuraho were enlisted
on 28 November 1986:
(i) Criterion I, to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius.
The complex of Khajuraho represents a unique artistic creation,
as much for its highly original architecture as for the sculpted
décor of a surprising quality made up of a mythological repertory
of numerous scenes of amusements of which not the least known
are the scenes, susceptible to various interpretations, sacred or

profane.
(ii) Criterion III, to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to
a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which
has disappeared. The temples of Khajuraho bear an exceptional
testimony to the Chandela culture, which flourished in India
before the Muslim invasion of 1202.
Fig. 3.3. Khajuraho: Spatial view of monuments.

In the passage of time, the comprehensive regional development plan

(Master Plan) of Khajuraho is prepared, called ‘Khajuraho Vikas Yojana
2011’, under the act of ‘Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam 1973’. The first draft development plan was prepared and
published by the Madhya Pradesh State Government on 16 October 1975.
Thus, finally following the above perspectives Khajuraho Development
Plan came into existence from 10 March 1978, which is replaced by
Khajuraho Development Plan of 1991 that refers to the development
vision to 2011 and was approved on 5 June 1995. The main focus of the
2011 Plan was an integrated development of tourism as well as
preservation of glorious temples of international recognition and of
universal values.
On the line of landscape planning and environmental cleanliness and
beautification of the World Heritage Sites of Khajuraho, the INTACH
(Indian National Trust for Art, Culture and Heritage, New Delhi) has
started its extensive study for the sustainable development of the
Khajuraho Heritage Region in 1998. Special emphasis is laid on the
expansion and preservation of parkland landscape. The multidisciplinary
approach of the restoration project highlights the different historical,
archaeological, cultural, social and economical aspects. The final aim is to
restore these gardens into their original splendour with their varied
horticulture and princely leisure spots, in order to create direct local
employment, but also in order to attract the tourists. In accordance with the
basic philosophy of INTACH, this restoration is done with the local
craftspeople (who receive the appropriate training if necessary); also the
exploitation of the domains will be confined to the local population (cf.
Robberechts 2005). The motto adopted by the INTACH is: “For and by
the local people”. Nothing is done without the approval of the local
inhabitants, and at each stage in the project efforts are made to use local
know-how or to give the training needed to do the work.
Thanks to the recent project of the “Conservation and Sustainable
Strategy for the Khajuraho World Heritage Region”, under which
conservation activities are now taking care. Additionally, under the
Restoration of Khajuraho’s Gardens Project by the INTACH Belgium, the
landscape is coming up in close to historical reality, grandeur and above
all the re-visioning the ancient glory (cf. Singh 2006).
8.2. Konark: Scenario of a World Heritage Property

Konark (86º 06’ E and 19º 54’N, elevation: 2 metres; population
15,020 in 2001), located in the Puri district of Orissa was enlisted as a Un-
WHL in 1984. The town area contains monuments which date back to the
thirteenth century on a site that was subsequently deserted during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A. Stirling visited the site in 1825,
and details of drawings were prepared in 1837 by James Fergusson, and,
by 1868, an account made by Rajendralala mentioned that ‘the sanctuary
was reduced to an enormous mass of stones studded with a few pipal
(sacred fig, Ficus religiosa) trees here and there’ (Mitra 1986: 13).
Fig. 3.4. Konark: the temple complex.
The main temple complex (Fig. 3.4) consists of a sanctuary, its

attached porch and an isolated pillared edifice. Erected on an impressive
platform, the sanctuary and the porch are the two components of a single
unified architectural scheme, the whole fabric being designed to represent
the celestial chariot of the sun-god who is believed in Hindu mythology to
course across the sky in a chariot drawn by seven horses. Treated
magnificently, each wheel consists of an axle kept in position by a pin as
in a bullock cart, a hub, a felloe and sixteen spokes, of which eight are
broad and other eight are thin. Constructed during the thirteenth century,
the Sun-god temple is described as ‘the most richly ornamented building
in the whole world’ (UNESCO-IUCN 1992: 182). Now in ruins, this
temple of the Sun-god once had a tower almost 60 metres high and a
massive porch covered with many carvings and sculptures of lions,
elephants, human figures and floral decorations (cf. Singh 1997: 124).
Since the images have long been removed from the main temple, the
sanctuary is no longer regarded as a holy place. In the northeast corner of
the compound a modem building houses the old doorway arch showing the
planets of Hindu mythology; Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn; all seated cross-legged on lotus, carrying in the left hand a
water pot and in the right a rosary. In addition, a fierce looking Rahu
bearing a crescent in both hands, and Ketu holding a bowl of flames in the
left hand and a sword or staff in the right, are depicted. In recent years
these have become objects of veneration, and Brahmin priests are now in
charge of this building as a place of worship. There has also been
substantial recent renovation, some of it protective, some replacing fallen
stonework and sculptures, so that the appearance of the whole temple
complex is now very different from that of even a few years ago.
The conservation efforts of the temple complex are so extensive that
they are treated as part of history in themselves. In 1806 the Marine Board
made a request to take measures for preservation, but this appeal was not
taken seriously and a portion of the temple tower was lost. In 1859, the
Asiatic Society of Bengal proposed to remove the Nine-Planet (Nava
Grahas) architrave to the Indian Museum in Calcutta, but an initial attempt
at removal, in 1867, failed due to transportation problems and the lack of
sufficient funds. In 1892 a second attempt was made to transport the Nine-
Planet architrave to Calcutta, but this move was stopped, after the shifting
of thirteen sculptured pieces, due to the objections of local people.
In December 1900 the visit of Sir John Woodburn, Lieutenant
Governor, to Konark, initiated a new programme for heritage conservation.
In February 1901, T. Block, Archaeological Surveyor of the Bengal circle,
submitted a proposal for the unearthing of the buried portion of the temple
and the compound wall and exposed a wheel by excavating a trench at the
base of the porch. Within a decade substantial works were undertaken to
rescue whatever survived of this stupendous fabric (Mitra 1986: 15-20).
The first phase of conservation was completed by 1910, incorporating all
work essential for rendering the monument stable at a cost of nearly Rs.
100,000.
In the next phase by 1922 all the major structural repairs, the
rebuilding of the wall-tops, construction of the walls, and removal of sand
and fallen stones and the development of a sculpture shed were completed.
Since then, small scale repairs, like the clearance of vegetation, resetting
of loose stones and painting of filling in the crevices, were affected
annually until 1953 when the ASI took over responsibility.
The rapid growth of tourism is now leading to ill-conceived plans
which do not promote sustainable development. The irrational plan to
dereserve large areas of the Reserved and Protected Konark-Balukhanda

and Bhitarkanika wildlife sanctuaries for tourism development will harm
both the Sun temple at Konark, and wildlife on the adjoining beaches. The
trees and shrubs grown in the recent past are proposed to be cleared by
mass felling of trees to accommodate various tourism-promotion oriented
constructions, a plan not supported by the Union Government in New
Delhi.
Recently large scale reconstruction has been carried out in the name of
restoration. The Master Plan (1991-2011) for tourism development
envisages the dereservation of portions of the reserved sanctuaries, for the
construction of modem means of entertainment, leisure and recreation for
tourists. Such works, done in the name of development, involve mass
felling of trees and the clearing of forests developed over a long period for
the safety of the coastal regions and also the hinterland (Sengupta 1995:
11). The immediate surroundings of the Konark temple, according to the
Master Plan, are to be preserved by adequate landscaping. But, to boost
tourism and to generate land revenue, the provisions of the plan have been
flagrantly violated by the construction of a market complex, an auditorium
and an office building. The land attached to the temple, declared prohibited
under the Ancient Monuments, Sites and Remains Act 1958, has also been
encroached upon by new constructions. Three major hotel chains (Taj,
Oberoi and Clarks) have obtained land to build hotels on the beach about
three kilometres from Konark and may spoil an already crowded and
popular site.
A report of the Union Ministry for Forests and Environment mentions
that one might grow forests and develop beaches, but not create another
Konark temple. As the media highlighted the negligence and inefficiency
of the ASI, a team of UNESCO experts visited Konark in September 1980.
Their report contends that ‘sand filling has had no obvious damaging
effect on the stability of the temple’. But the next UNESCO team of two
architect-restorers, visiting in January 1987, thought differently. They
suggested that ‘... the dry-stone-filling and sand fill are not required for the
overall structural strength of the Jagamohana (i.e. the extant assembly
hall)’. The total estimated cost of restoration would be Rs.75 million,
though no allocated money was released. Sengupta (1995: 11) suggests,
‘While environmentalists are looking after the Olive Ridley turtles and
forests, adequate attention must be given to properly preserve the Konark
temple, the goose laying golden eggs for tourism’.
The INTACH (New Delhi) in its Silver Jubilee Celebration meeting,
held on 27-27 January 2009, has made strong recommendation of the two
aspects: (i) Declaration of 2009-2010 as ‘Year of Heritage Document-
ation’ with a view to making an international consciousness and concerns

to protect, preserve and maintain the heritagescapes of India; let the Indian
masses be make up their mind to preserve their heritage, and (ii)
Developing links between heritage and economic system, which will help
for various action programmes and monetary support for maintenance and
continuous uses, e.g. promotion of heritage tourism. All the over eighty
chapters of INTACH working in different heritage sites (cities) in India
were requested to follow up and collaborate in this project. However, there
are only stories of marginal success in this endeavour.
9. JNNURM, the CDP and concern for Heritage!

According to the census of 2001 a little over 27.8% of India’s total
population (1.029 billion; and projected over 2 billions by 2071) lives in
urban areas, and it is expected that its share will be close to 45% by 2050.
To handle India’s rapid urban growth and sprawl and its consequential
problems a comprehensive and sustainable development strategy was
designed and inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan
Singh, on 3rd December 2005. This is named Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), which will work for a period of 7
years beginning from 2005-06 under the central Ministry of Urban
Development/ Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation,
under the 74th Constitution Amendment Act (CAA), 1992. The main
components under the mission include urban renewal, water supply and
sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management, urban transport, re-
development of inner city areas, development of heritage areas,
preservation of water bodies, slum development, basic services to urban
poor and street lighting. In the first phase, the Mission is being executed in
63 cities with a population of ‘one-million and above’, State capitals and
23 other cities of religious and tourist importance. With an estimated
provision of Rs, 614.6 billion [1 US $ = Rs 46.5] for 7 years, the Mission
is the single largest Central Government initiative in the urban sector. The
PM emphasised the importance of cities that are internationally known for
heritage, tourism and pilgrimages and maintained their historical and
cultural glories, like Varanasi, Amritsar, Haridwar, Ujjain, Gwaliar,
Madurai, etc.
The primary objective of the JNNURM is to create productive,
efficient, equitable and responsive cities. In line with this objective, the
Mission focuses on: (i) Integrated development of infrastructure services,
(ii) Securing linkages between asset creation and maintenance for long-run
project sustainability, (iii) Accelerating the flow of investment into urban
infrastructure services, (iv) Planned development of cities including the

peri-urban areas, outgrowths (OG), and urban corridors, (v) Renewal and
redevelopment of inner city areas, and (vi) Decentralization of urban
services to ensure their availability to the urban poor. In view of these
issues the future vision for heritage cities (Varanasi, Amritsar, Ujjain,
Madurai, Gwaliar, etc.) is to keep and develop it as an “economically
vibrant, culturally rich tourist city”. Under this programme the
comprehensive City Development Plans (CDP) were prepared in
collaboration with private agencies and INTACH (Indian National Trust
for Art, Culture and Heritage). Of course, various CDP reports recognise
that ‘the process of CDP being a multi disciplinary platform includes
various stakeholders who work towards the development of the city. As
the stakeholders know the city better and are responsible citizens, their
views are important at every step, while preparing the CDP’, but in fact,
the city authorities have not taken active collaboration with stakeholders or
local institutions (cf. Singh 2009b: 135-182).
The case of Delhi may be cited as an example of action programmes
under JNNURM. The ASI, State Dept. of Archaeology, the DDA, MCD,
INTACH and DUAC jointly manage the city’s heritage areas, presently
numbered to 231. Delhi encompasses a vast range of heritage typologies,
including archaeological sites; civic buildings and complexes; religious
structures and complexes; historic gardens; hunting lodges; living
settlements such as the historic Walled City; the planned city of New
Delhi as well as traditional networks associated with systems of water
harvesting and management. These heritage resources continue to be of
great significance and relevance to any sustainable development planning
vision for Delhi. However, heritage in the city suffers from a lack of
integration with the planning process and contemporary requirements, as a
result of which, it is gradually being degraded and lost. The urban
heritages are also threatened mainly due to: lack of integration with
development processes in the city; by over-densification, uncontrolled and
inappropriate construction due to the non-enforcement of guidelines for
development in their vicinity; and multiplicity of organizations and lack of
effective, coordinated action. This is one of the stories of crises.
10. Epilogue: Emergence and March

In India, there has been criticism of the roles that urban development
and mass media have played in erasing the material relics of the past, as
well as in diminishing residents’ knowledge of and attachments to those
relics. At the same time, the greater value accorded tourism as an avenue
for development reflects a perception that the marketing of heritage offers

a means of preserving and enhancing the value and visibility of the
endangered residues of the past (Hancock 2002: 709). Historical
geography and cultural memory have worked as a force under which past-
consciousness is generated and further animated in the urban life of
Chennai, a city in south India where people remember and represent their
past (Hancock 2008). The religious consciousness has left far behind the
awakening of the cultural heritage and heritage buildings. Religious
buildings form a large part of the cultural heritage in South Asia, but little
consciousness of historical value (Feilden 1993a: 1).
The conservation movement in India has not yet integrated the
religious ethos of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs as well as Muslims and
this is a critical area that needs study by persons of their own culture, who
understand the ethics and practice of conservation and projection of
universal values (ibid.). Cultural heritage in Asian cities is shaped by
philosophies and religious systems that emphasize the intangible rather
than the tangible, and the built environment is often not integral to
memories of the past. Asian cities are treasure of intangible heritages by
an abundance of myths, legends, and festivities and rituals associated with
sacred places. Without taking these and religious rites into account
together, even the best-preserved temple will be merely an empty shell and
of little significance to local people (Howe and Logan 2002: 248; cf.
UNESCO 2007: 72-73). Moreover, conservation should also give equal
importance to nature conservation; otherwise it would turn to misbalance
(see the case of cave temple Elephant Island, a WHS, cf. Walters 2004).
‘The current emphasis on architectural preservation overlooks the
dialectics between the tangible and intangible forms of heritage. As
important as it is to preserve significant material remains from the past, the
knowledge base and skills that produced them should be preserved as well
in order to support a living heritage tradition’ (Ruggles and Sinha 2009).
The role cultural heritage played in post-war reconstruction has
implications and warrants critical attention, it may be Iraq, Afghanistan or
Kashmir in India; the study of heritagescapes of Kashmir reaffirm their
worth as a community, their sense of going about things, their “culture”
(Winter and Panjabi 2010). Remember that when tradition is totally
ignored, the result can be an environmental and cultural disaster (Orland
and Bellaflore 1990: 94). In fact, in most of the developing countries the
sacred site and heritage sites are subjected to extraordinary economic
pressures and change in lack of sustainable approach and realization by the
local inhabitants and authorities. Strategy for sustainable heritage tourism
under the purview of ‘Healing the Earth’ is the message of heritage
ecology. This process of healing requires a specific mode of conduct,

dharma, a word whose root implies ‘to hold’. Dharohara, the word for
heritage, is derived from the same root, thus the dharma of water is
wetness … the dharma of honey is sweetness … the dharma of our culture
is to save and sustain its heritagescapes by promoting deeper moral values.
The practice of heritage ecology is the ‘yoga of place’, the sacred
attachment to the symbol of the earth spirit which is the meeting point of
humanity and divinity (Rana and Singh 2000: 154). Obviously, “with the
ongoing integration of new forms of “universal value”, the heritagescape
will continue to expand, complexifying participants’ conceptualisations of
their position with others in history and in the world ― their very heritage
― linking them with disparate times and places, and orienting them
towards meaningful future activity” (Di Giovine 2009: 429). Let us
proceed to achieve that noble goal for making happy, friendly and good
heritagescapes ― satyam, shivam, sundaram (the truth, the good, the
beautiful), what Lowenthal (1961: 260) has eloquently provoked: “The
geography of world is unified only by human logic and optics, by the light
and colour of artifice, by decorative arrangement, and by ideas of the true,
the good, and the beautiful”.
11. References
Aa, Bart Johannes Maria van der 2005. Preserving the Heritage of
Humanity? Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of
listing. PhD thesis at the Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of
Groningen. Fedbodruk, Enschede.
Bevan, Robert 2006. The Destruction of Memory. Architecture at War.
Reaktion Books, London.
Bishop, Peter 1994. Residence on Earth: Anima Mundi and a sense of
geographical ‘belonging’. Ecumene (Sevenoaks, UK), 1 (1): 51-64.
Bowker, John 1997. Daiva. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World
Religions. www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Daiva.html <accessed:
21 April 2010>
Claval, Paul 2007. Changing conceptions of heritage and landscape; in,
Moore, Niamh and Whelan, Yvonne (eds.) Heritage, Memory and the
Politics of Identity. Ashgate, Aldershot & London: 85-93.
Desai, Devangana 1996. The Religious Imagery of Khajuraho. Project for
Indian Cultural Studies Publication IV. Franco-Indian Research Pvt.
Ltd., Mumbai.
Deva, Krishna 1990. Temples of Khajuraho. 2 vols. Archaeological
Survey of India, New Delhi.
Devereux, Paul 1990. Places of Power. Blandford, London.

Di Giovine, Michael A. 2009. Heritage-scape: UNESCO, World Heritage,
and Tourism. Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield Publs. Inc.),
Lanham USA.
―. 2010. UNESCO’s Heritage-scape: A Global Endeavour to Produce
‘Peace in the Minds of Men’ through Tourism and Preservation; in,
Singh, Rana P.B (ed.) Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes. Planet
Earth & Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 6. Shubhi Publications,
Gurgaon & New Delhi: 57-86.
Feilden, Bernard M. 1993a. Is conservation of cultural heritage relevant to
South Asia. South Asian Studies, 9: 1-10.
—. 1993b. Management of World Heritage Cities. Safeguarding Historic
Urban Ensembles in a Time of Change. Quebec. Canada: 19-33.
Garden, Mary-Catherine E. 2006. The Heritagescape: Looking at
Landscapes of the Past. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12
(5): 394–411.
―. 2009. The heritagescape: looking at heritage sites; in, Sørensen, Marie
L. Stig and Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies: Methods and
Approaches. Routledge, London: 270-271.
Girard, Luigi F. and Torrieri, Francesca 2009. Tourism, heritage and
cultural sustainability: three ‘golden rules’; in, Girard, Luigi F. and
Nijkamp, Peter (eds.) Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Local
Development. Ashgate, Aldershot UK: 221-242.
Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter 2008. Introduction: Heritage and
Identity; in, Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (eds.) Ashgate Research
Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Pub., Aldershot
Hampshire & London: 1-15.
Graham, Brian; Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. 2000. A Geography
of Heritage. Arnold, the Hodder Headline Group, London.
Hancock, Mary E. 2002. Subjects of heritage in urban southern India;
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20 (6): 693-717.
—. 2008. The Politics of Heritage from Madras to Chennai. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Harvey, David C. 2001. Heritage pasts, and heritage presents: temporality,
meaning and scope of heritage studies. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 7 (4): 319-338.
Howard, Peter 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity.
Continuum, London & New York.
Howe, Renate and Logan, William S. 2002. Conclusion. Protecting Asia’s
Urban Heritage: The Way Forward; in, Howe, Renate and Logan,
William (eds.), The Disappearing ‘Asian’ City - Protecting Asia’s
Urban Heritage in a Globalizing World. Oxford University Press

(China), Hong Kong: 245-256, notes 279.
Jarow, Rick 1986. In Search of the Sacred: A Pilgrimage to Holy Places.
Quest Books, Wheaton, IL.
Jung, Carl G. 1970. The Collected Works. Trans, RX.C. Hull. 2nd ed.
Princeton University Press, Princeton. lst. ed. 1964.
Logan, William S. 2008. Cultural diversity, heritage and human right; in,
Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (eds.) Ashgate Research Companion
to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Pub., Aldershot & London: 439-454.
Lowenthal, David 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge
―. 1961. Geography, Experience, and Imagination: Towards a
Geographical Epistemology. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 51 (3), September: 241-260.
Lynch, Kevin 1976. Managing the Sense of a Region. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Menon, A. G. Krishna 1989. Cultural identity and urban development. The
Indian experience. Urban India (NIUA, New Delhi), 9 (1): 1-15.
Mitra, Debala 1986. Konark. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
Mitra, Swati and Thakur, Sona (eds.) 2001. Speaking Stones. World
Cultural Heritage Sites in India. Supported by Dept. of Tourism, Govt.
of India. Eicher Goodearth Ltd., New Delhi.
Orland, Brian and Bellafiorce, V.J. 1990. Development directions for a
sacred site in India. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19: 181-196.
Rana, Pravin S. and Singh, Rana P.B. 2000. Sustainable Heritage Tourism:
Framework, Perspective and Prospect. National Geographical Journal
of India, 46 (1-4): 141- 158.
Rapoport, Amos 1982. Sacred places, sacred occasions and sacred
environments. Architectural Design, 52 (9-10): 75-82.
Robberechts, Geert 2005. Khajuraho Gardens’ Restoration Project.
INTACH Belgium Report, Leuven. See Website: http://www.lostgar
dens.com/uk/what/intach.htm <accessed: 25 January 2009>
Ruggles, D. Fairchild and Sinha, Amita 2009. Preserving the Cultural
Landscape Heritage of Champaner-Pavagadh, Gujarat, India; in,
Silverman, Helaine and Ruggles, D. Fairchild (eds.) Intangible
Heritage Embodied. Springer, New York: 79-99.
Said, Edward 1993. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books, New York.
Sengupta, R. 1995. Is the sun setting on the Konark temple? The
Hindustan Times (daily newspaper from New Delhi), 9 April: 11.
Sheehan, Thomas 1987. Heidegger’s early years: Fragments for

Philosophical Biography; in, Sheehan, Thomas (ed.) Heidegger, The
Man and the Thinker. Precedent Publishing Inc., Chicago: 1-20.
Shepard, Paul 1967. Man in the Landscape. Ballantine Books, New York.
Silverman, Helaine and Ruggles, D. Fairchild 2007. Cultural Heritage and
Human Rights: Introduction; in, Silverman, Helaine and Ruggles, D.
Fairchild (eds.) Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. Springer, New
York: 3-22.
Singh Rana P.B. 1993. Varanasi: A World heritage city: The frame,
historical accounts on UNESCO scale; in, Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.)
Banaras (Varanasi): Cosmic Order, Sacred City, Hindu Traditions.
Tara Book Agency, Varanasi): 297-316.
—. 1995. Heritage Ecology and caring for the Earth: a search for
preserving harmony and ethical values. National Geographical Journal
of India, 41 (2), June: 191-218.
—. 1997. Sacredscape and urban heritage in India: contestation and
perspective; in, Shaw, Brian and Jones, Roy (eds.) Contested Urban
Heritage: Voices from the Periphery. Ashgate, Aldershot & London,
UK: 101-131.
—. 2006. Khajuraho, India, a World Heritage Site: Patterns of the
Landscape Geometry and Heritage Preservation. National
Geographical Journal of India, 52 (3-4): 115-136.
—. 2008. The Contestation of Heritage: The enduring importance of
Research Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Pub. Ltd.,
Farnham, Surrey UK: 125-141.
—. 2009a. Heritagescapes of India: Appraising heritage ecology; in, his:
Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Visions for the 21st
Century. Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 2.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne U.K.: 351-393.
—. 2009b. Varanasi, the Heritage city of India: Master Plan, JNNURM
and issue of inscription in UNESCO WHL; in his, Banaras, the
Heritage City of India: Geography, History and Bibliography. Indica
Books, Varanasi: 135-182.
—. 2009c. Banaras, Making of India’s Heritage City. Planet Earth &
Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 3. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
Newcastle upon Tyne U.K.
—. 2010. Heritagescapes & Cultural Landscapes: an appraisal; in, Singh,
Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescape & Cultural Landscapes. Planet Earth &
Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 6. Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon
and New Delhi: 7-56.
Sinha, Amita 1991. The conservation of sacred sites: Sarnath, a case study,
Landscape Research, 16 (3): 23-30.
—. 2004. Champaner-Pavagadh archaeological park: a design approach’,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10 (2): 117-128.
Sinha, Amita and Harkness, Terence 2006. Heritage, the Eye visit: the Taj
Mahal in Agra, India. Indian Architect & Builder, July: 95-98.
Smith, Laurajane 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.
Swan, James A. 1992. Nature as Healer and Teacher. Villard-Random
House, New York.
Throsby, David 2009. Tourism, heritage and cultural sustainability: three
‘golden rules’; in, Girard, Luigi F. and Nijkamp, Peter (eds.) Cultural
Tourism and Sustainable Local Development. Ashgate Pub. Ltd.,
Farnham, Surrey UK: 13-29.
UNESCO (Pub.) 1989, 1992, 2009. The World Heritage (a poster with
photographs and reporting). The UNESCO Press, Madrid.
UNESCO 2007. World Heritage: Challenges for the Millennium. [directed
by Francesco Bandarin]. Unesco, World Heritage Centre, Paris.
UNESCO-IUCN (eds.) 1992. Masterworks of Man and Nature.
Harper-MacRae, Patonga, Australia. Managing Editor: Mark Swadling.
VDA & DLA (UI) 1990. Sarnath: Design Guidelines and Case Studies for
Tourism Development. Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; jointly with Varanasi Development
Authority, and Govts. of U.P. and India.
Walters, Graham 2004. Elephanta Island: World Heritage, Cultural
Conservation and Options for Nature Conservation. Current Issues in
Tourism, 7 (4 & 5), October: 456- 460.
Wescoat, James L. Jr. 2007. The Indo-Islamic garden: conflict,
conservation, and conciliation in Gujarat, India; in, Silverman, Helaine
and Ruggles, D. Fairchild (eds.) Cultural Heritage and Human Rights.
Springer, New York: 53-77.
Winter, Tim and Panjabi, Shalini 2010. Leaving the building behind:
conflict, sovereignty and the values of heritage in Kashmir; in,
Langfield, Michele; Logan, William and Craith, Mairead Nic (eds.)
Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in
Theory and Practice. Routledge, London & New York: 243-257.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor of Cultural Geography & Heritage Studies, Banaras Hindu
University, New F - 7 Jodhpur Colony, Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.

Dr. Pravin S. Rana

Lecturer in Tourism Management, Faculty of Arts,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.
Email: psranabhu@gmail.com
§ Pravin holds a master degree (2000) in tourism management and has worked on
“Pilgrimage and Ecotourism in Varanasi Region: Resources, Perspectives and
Prospects” for his doctoral dissertation (University of Lucknow, 2003), and
published a dozen of papers in this area. He is a co-author of Banaras Region: A
Spiritual and Cultural Guide (2002/2006, Indica Books, Varanasi, with R.P.B.
Singh), and Tourism Geography (2006, New Royal Book Co., Lucknow, with A.K.
Singh). During Aug. 2005-July 2009, he had served as Manager of the Children
Programme at World Literacy of Canada (India Office); and also gave seminars in
Norway and Canada.
4
The World Heritage Villages of Shirakawa-

Gō and Gokayama, Japan: Continuing
Culture and Meeting Modernity
Rana P.B. Singh & Masaaki Fukunaga
Banaras Hindu University, India Gifu Women’s University, Japan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. The mountainous villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama are
well known for the unique architecture of their “Gassho” farmhouses, and
enlisted in UNESCO World Heritage List in 1995. These villages with
their Gassho-style houses subsisted on the cultivation of mulberry trees
and the rearing of silkworms. The large houses with their steeply pitched
thatched roofs are the only examples of their kind in Japan. Due to the
difficulty of access until recent times, the relations between this area and
the outside world were very limited ― and this long isolation gave rise to
the unique culture and traditional social systems, folklore and customs,
which have maintained their continuity. Taking people participation,
environmental assessment and behavioural approach this paper throws
light on the deeper heritage values, their role in nature conservation and
cross-cultural and comparative studies. The paper reflects the experiences
as ethnological report based on the personal experiences during December
2004, the time when the Tokai Hokuriku Jidosha-Do, the national highway
passing nearby was opened. It is to be noted that the first co-author is
happened to be the first Indian who visited this site.
Keywords: Cultural heritage, folklore, Gassho farmhouses, heritage
tourism, traditional system, World Heritage site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Geographical Introduction & Personality of Place

The Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō (Shirakawa-mura) and
Gokayama are one of Japan’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites, consisting
of the traditional villages of Ogimachi, Ainokura and Suganuma (Figs. 4.1
and 4.2). The site is located (36°16’N and 136°54’E) in the Shogawa river
valley stretching across the border of Gifu and Toyama Prefectures in
northern Japan. Shirakawa-gō (“White River Old-District”) is located in
130 4. Rana P.B. Singh & Masaaki Fukunaga
the village of Shirakawa in Ōno District of Gifu Prefecture (Chūbū

region). The Gokayama (“Five Mountains”) area is divided between the
former villages of Kamitaira and Taira in Nanto, Toyama Prefecture.
These villages are well known for their houses constructed in traditional
architectural style known as gasshō-zukuri. The Gassho-zukuri, “prayer-
hands construction” style is characterized by a thatched and steeply
slanting roof resembling two hands joined in prayer. The design is
exceptionally strong and, in combination with the unique properties of the
thatching, allows the houses to withstand and shed the weight of the
region’s heavy snowfalls in winter.
Fig. 4.1. Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama Heritage sites, Japan.

The World Heritage of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama, Japan
Fig. 4.2. Ogimachi, the nucleus of heritage sites of Shirakawa-gō, Japan.

131
Fig. 4.3. The structure of the Gassho-style house [cf. Saito and Inaba 1996: 74]
(a)
Body frame
structure: a
house frames
without chona-
bari beams.
(b)
Sasu (truss-
like) structure:
the usu-bari
beams placed
on the body
frame, having
the sasu
structure
constructed on
the top.
(c)
Flooring and
roof-framing:
sunoko-yuka
(wood or
bamboo slat
flooring) is
installed, and
slopping
rafters are
supported on
the yanaka
(horizontal
framing
members).
The World Heritage of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama, Japan 133
The Gassho-zukuri houses are large, with three to four stories

encompassed between the low eaves, and intended, historically, to house
large extended families and a highly-efficient space for a variety of
industries. The upper stories of the Gassho houses were usually set aside
for sericulture, while the areas below the first floor were often used for the
production of nitre, one of the raw materials needed for the production of
gunpowder. During the Meiji era (1868-1912) Japan has recorded a great
transformation towards modernity and industrialization. Like other parts in
the country Shirakawa-gō also noticed changes. Earlier in the practice of
slash-and-burn and shifting cultivation and associated family composition
the four stories houses, called Gassho-zukuzi, well suited to the habitat and
economy (cf. Mizoguchi 2006). Similar to the period of the 17th to 20th
centuries Shirakawa-gō is still characterized by its low agricultural
productivity. But the economy is now strongly supported by providing
local hospitality and traditional meals in local ‘minshuku’ guesthouses,
which gives special experience of the traditional past of rural Japan.
Of course at the end of the Meiji era landscape was conceived as one
of the objects of national monuments that need to be preserved, but
perceptible preservation and accepting it as part of cultural tradition started
in 1915. From 1915 to 1920, categories of national monuments had been
discussed, in which landscape shifted its position from natural monuments
to meisho − originally means a place of scenic beauty. In 1927, new
perceptions of landscapes, which focused on natural geography, were
spread over to Japan, that is how new types of landscapes were designated
as “natural monument and meisho”, which indicates Natural Reserves
(Kuroda and Ono 2004). In this process of change and adaptation
Shirakawa-gō has also drawn attention of the authorities. By late 20th
century under management of historic landscape, this area has further
received special attention and care too considering it as ensemble of
heritage buildings and natural beauty that together making it universally
important (cf. Son, Kuroda and Shimomura 2003). This is now accepted as
rich resource for tourists where they can learn how to behave and
communicate with the serene message and spirit of place (cf. Kuroda
2010; Hanyu, Kuroda and Takahashi 2002).
Shirakawa-gō records an area of 356.55 km², recording population of
1,933 on 1st April 2004 that reached to 1,946 on 1st October 2007; thus
the density of population has no major change, i.e. 5.46 persons per km².
The Shōkawa River flows through the village, and most of the population
is inhabited in its valley. Located in one of the snowiest places in Japan,
the densely-forested mountains of the region still occupy 95.7% of total
land area, and prior to the introduction of heavy earth-moving machinery,
the narrow bands of flat lands running the length of the river valley limited
the area available for agriculture and homestead development. After
1960’s, grassland, which was distinctive character of forest landscape, had
decreased and the change makes the border between forest and village
clearer than before. Forest landscape has evolved through use by the
people whose activity and occupancy shaped it, and current landscape,
which is covered by trees, has been formed as a result of decrease of forest
use only for a few decades (Kuroda, Hanyu and Takahashi 2003).
Obviously the constant push of heritage and nature-based tourism has
influenced the residents to maintain and preserve the forest landscape
together with maintenance and continuity of old and traditional heritage
houses and landscape that are now proven as rich resources for tourism.
The following two criteria taken by the UNESCO WHC for inscribing
Shirakawa-gō as Cultural Heritage on 9th December 1995:
• 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”;
• V. “to be an outstanding example of a traditional human
settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture
(or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially
when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible
change”.
At the centre of this area is the Sho River, flowing from south to north
along the deep valley winding through this range of 1500-meter high
mountains. Because of the steepness of the mountain slopes, most of the
villages in this area are located in the narrow strip of land along the river
valley floor. In the past, in village after village we could see unique and
beautiful landscapes with their clusters of Gassho-style houses set against
the surrounding irrigated rice fields and dry crop lands, but now only these
three villages which are inscribed on the World Heritage List still retain
the traditional landscape. As part of the development plan a new national
highway route, the Tokai Hokuriku Jidosha-Do, is constructed in 2004 at
the approval by the national council. This highway connects Ichinomiya
City in Aichi Prefecture with Oyabe City in Toyama Prefecture, thus
covering total length of 185km, with a width of 20m with four traffic
lanes. The basic plan of the section of the roadway which affects the
designated world heritage districts was designed in 1973; this section
passes about 500m to the west of Ogimachi Village, and runs about 700m
to the west of Suganuma Village. But the height of the base pillars is kept
in way that it does not directly pollute and damage the serene and scenic
environment and wildlife. The environmental impact assessment of this

highway has been done in relation to air and water pollution, noise, and
the impact on wildlife and the scenic landscape; as a result of this
assessment, the most serious impact judged refers to the detrimental effect
on the scenic landscape of the Ogimachi district. As a countermeasure,
under a strategic plan tree-plantation has already been in process along the
roadside and the embankments, and the design of the forms and colours of
bridges are significantly controlled to protect the view of the landscape
from Ogimachi Village.
Due to the difficulty of access until recent times, the relations between
this area and the outside world were limited and was cut off from the rest
of the world for a long period of time ― and this long isolation gave rise
to the unique subsistence culture dominated with the cultivation of
mulberry trees and the rearing of silkworms, and associated traditional
way of life that perfectly adapted to the mountainous environment that
further reflected in the social systems, folklore and socio-economic
circumstances and customs which have been handed down to the
succeeding generations. Because of the steepness of the mountain slopes,
the three traditional villages in this area, viz. Ogimachi, Ainokura and
Suganuma, are located in the narrow strip of land along the river valley
floor, and occupied by beautiful landscapes with the clusters of Gassho-
style houses set against the surrounding irrigated rice fields and dry crop
lands (Singh and Fukunaga 2007: 68). However, in spite of the processes
of transformation the culture and landscape have maintained their
continuity as symbol of human history despite of economic upheavals,
which in the past century drawn attention of people from all-over the
world, including Unesco WHC.
Shirakawa-Mura records 45.6 hectares of land under World Heritage
area. This is the only such site, which is active, and people live and do
their traditional works. There are 148 households, consisting of 608
persons. There are 332 total buildings, consisting of traditional buildings
109, non-traditional buildings 208, new construction 7, and under-
construction 8. Traditional buildings are surrounded by traditional
agricultural farms, old water drains, also including mountain areas, trees,
heritage properties, and are red marked. In this group the heritage assets
are Yellow marked. The three nominated heritage property areas are:
Ogimachi Village (Shirakawa-Mura; area: 45.6 ha) in the south,
Suganuma Village (Kamitaira-Mura; area: 4.4 ha) in the north, and
Ainokura Village (Taira-Mura; area: 18.0 ha) in the further northeast (cf.
Table 4.1). Out of the total 5 Heritage areas, 3 are under Prefectural
Government, 1 covering 300.45ha under Central Government Act, and 1
covering 105.02ha under World Heritage Site when it was declared on 9

December 1995.
Each property in the Shirakawa-Mura is surrounded by its own
primary buffer zone (I), and is further protected by a secondary buffer
zone (II), a wider area which contains all three villages. Buffer Zone I
refers to an area in which alteration of the existing state is strictly
regulated to preserve the natural and/or historic environment. Buffer Zone
II connotes an area in which development actions over a certain scale are
controlled to conserve the natural environment and the cultural landscape.
The areal extents of these areas are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Shirakawa-Mura: Distribution of Cultural Heritage areas

Shirakawa- Latitude North/ Area of the Area of Area of
Mura Longitude East property Buffer Buffer
(ha) Zone I (ha) Zone II (ha)
Ogimachi 36º -15’ / 45.6 471.5 35,655
Village 136 º -54’
Ainokura 36º -25’ / 18.0 9,406
Village 136º -56’ 3,863.6
Suganuma 36º -24’ / 4.4 9,477
Village 136º -53’
TOTAL 68.0 4,335.1 54,538
(Source: Saito and Inaba 1996: 42; and reports from Mayor’s office 2004).
Since December 1971 there has been an active local People

Organisation, constituting neighbouring Land, People and tract of Nature
(L-P-N). Daily human life also needs to be maintained on the harmonic
principle of integration among the L, P and N. It is notable that there does
not exist any legal structure or NGO for this purpose. However, the old
people born in the village have formed such an organisation to serve the
above cause for the good reasons.
2. The Issue of Tourism Pressure

It is a matter of pride and honour for every Japanese that Shirakawa-
gō is included in the Unesco World Heritage List on 9 December 1995.
This is model to have a harmonious life by eco-friendly balance between
nature and culture. The result is profitable by strong influx of tourists
every year, i.e. 1.8 million in 2004 and a little more than 2 million in 2008.
The local people have survived many old traditions and they themselves
follow the ethical code and rule to conserve and preserve the heritage
assets of Shirakawa-go. It is unfortunate that most of the tourists perceive

and use this area like sight scene for enjoyment and amusement through
the modernised means and modern way of thought. However, this
tendency is not worthwhile and in fact, dangerous for the future prospects
of this unique World Heritage. Of course life need to be adjusted
according to the modern transformation, however on the other side the
nature-man harmonious relationship based culture also be conserved for
the sake of sustainable future and economic benefit, we need both at the
same time, nature-based old traditions and at the other end good life with
economically sustainable means. This is a big challenge in social planning
and cultural awakening! The role of media will serve as catalyst in this
respect (cf. Singh and Fukunaga 2005: 2). An owner of ‘inn’ expressed
that these are lack of basic economic structure for strong sustenance,
checking the new opening and growth of rest houses/ inns because of the
opening of national highway (Tokai Hokuriku Jidosha-Do) nearby,
declining tendency of local agriculture, and lack of any union associating
inns and rest houses. Moreover, there is a lack of strong leadership within
the society and stakeholders. Most of the tourists coming here just to enjoy
and relax, mostly for 2-3 hours, and they never realise the need for
sustainable development and deeper understanding together with
conservation of nature and culture (Singh and Fukunaga 2005: 4). Of
course, the Japanese tourists dominate, however Chinese, Taiwanese,
Vietnamese and Koreans also visit in good number.
It is informed by the mayor’s office at Shirakawa-gō that not exactly
any kind of opinion surveys was made before proceeding to inscribe it in
the Unesco WHC in 1995, neither even succeeding years such surveys are
made. However, by the general perception and experiences attempts are
made to preserve the serene atmosphere of the region. The crucial issues
include the gap of understanding among the governmental authorities and
the stakeholders concerning the limit, intensity and perspectives of the
speedy growth and impact of tourism. The notable concern is the keen
interest and awakening of the authorities. There exists an active and
strong association of the Unesco World Heritage Sites in Japan through
which each one seeks coordination with other heritage sites that helps to
make a shift and balance on the demographic, economic and environ-
mental pressures that various according to seasons. This association is
under the Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) of the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which helps
to maintain, protect and regenerate the activities and programmes adopted.
The financial support is subsidized by the ACA under the special ‘World
Heritage Fund’ and the local NGO or voluntary organisations, especially
for repairing and restoration, and community functions. At the site level
the Mayor’s office takes care of all the programmes and their
implementation.
There is also contestation and confrontation between the two
ideologies, the one dealing with increase of tourism, and the other with
preservation of cultural heritage and control of environmental
deterioration. Both sides of people talk of human right too in their own
right. However, in between two contrasts, preference should always to be
given to preserve Shirakawa-gō primarily as agricultural and natural
landscape as symbol of Japanese heritage. Only sustainable and rational
plans to be given preference in which heavy traffic should be stopped
outside, no big parking space be developed close to heritage area, and
above all there should be legal control and monitoring with active public
support and participation. Mentioned be made that 1.6 million tourists paid
visit to this site in 2003, and in 2007 this number already crossed 2 mill.
Further, in 2004 after opening of national highway, Tokai Hokuriku
Jidosha-Do, passing nearby, the heavy traffic has increased rapidly and
tremendously. This will cause a great threat to the heritagescape of the
region. The Division of Cultural Affairs noted that the opening of this
national highway, growth of transit tourists and 3-4 hour tourists, high
charges for bus parking, checking private cars and small buses in the
heritage area, are some of the problems emerged recently that area faces
today. There is need of urgent consideration to emphasise space (for
movement), scale (referring to landscape) and intensity (of growth
pressures); the involved authority is hopeful that they would succeed at
reasonable level within a short period of time (Singh and Fukunaga 2005:
3).
The other associated and supporting organisations include Heritage
Museum, and Gifu Prefecture Board of Education − of course take care of
the specific activities according to their main objectives. Whatever major
perspectives or programmes are taken into considerations, preference
always to be given to preserve Shirakawa-gō primarily as agricultural and
natural landscape. There is a strong harmonious tradition to build Gassho-
style houses in this Mura. To keep this tradition alive the local Junior High
School has started a programme through which all the students collaborate
in making this house; together with villagers they take active part
intensively and within a day complete one of the Gassho-style houses.
Such programmes are part of the curriculum together with non-curriculum
activities.
Promotion of adult education and cultural awakening among the
schools, school children, and associated parents is a good programme that
runs in the schools of the area, viz. 2 Primary and 1 Junior High Schools
under the directives of Japanese Board of Education. The curriculum and
programmes have a strong purview of heritage education, awakening and
practical training and adoption of a heritage house for further care with
commitments. The teachers and members of the board actively collaborate
with Mayor’s office for such programmes.
On the scale of the four hierarchical categories of the heritage as
identified in Japan, the following four heritage properties and sites are
enlisted and administered by the governmental institutions with the
support of the other institutions (NGOs and social): (1) Enlisted in Unesco
World Heritage List (e.g. Traditional and old Gassho-style houses; see
below for the total list in Japan), (2) National Heritage as defined by the
Central Government (the Wada House), (3) Prefectural Heritage as
identified by the Pref. Govt. (e.g. Myzenji Folk Museum, The Heritage
Museum), and (4) Local Heritage as defined by the local government (e.g.
Doburoku Festival Hall, Myozenji Shrine, Honkakuji Shrine). Altogether
there are 935 cultural assets as identified by the Gifu Pref. Govt.; all these
sites are irrespectively of their identification are visited by the tourists and
pilgrims.
According to the mayor of Shirakawa-gō, Mr. TANIGUCHI Hisashi,
‘In Japan everything is standardised – life, architecture, traditions, and
there does not exist difference between old and new. However, in
Shirakawa-gō people feel more close to the nature and culture and this
feeling is well symbolised in the built architecture, Gassho houses, and
people’s harmonious lifestyle set in natural landscape’. The JICA
(Japanese International Cooperation Agency) has made a programme for
Asian people by supporting them to see Tokyo (− modern culture) and
Shirakawa-gō (− old tradition), from both the perspectives, i.e. life and
built architecture. Use of old traditional Gassho-zukuri houses as resource
for tourist attraction helps maintenance of the ancient spirit of place and
also to convey the inherent messages of cultural continuity that the human
generation can learn and further pass on to the succeeding generation; thus
by the processes of maintenance, renovation and recreation one can learn
lesson from the past and envision the future through creation in the
present. Of course Japan has a historical record in such transformation and
continuance, Shirakawa-gō is noteworthy and unique in this list (cf.
Sasaki-Uemura 2007).
The Japanese sense of national loyalty and their love to their cultural
symbols have promoted mass of tourists to see World Heritage. This is
similar to the case of Alberobello, southern Italy, which was enlisted in
UNESCO World Heritage List in 1996, taking in view of its Trulli
limestone boulder stone houses with pyramidal, domed or conical roofs

built up of corbelled limestone slabs. This site wants to collaborate with
Shirakawa-gō in various programmes of conservation, management and
promotion of heritage tourism. Forward steps are in process.
Consideration of tourism as a very fruitful means for earning money is
a challenging threat to the idea of preservation of natural and cultural
heritage. To satisfy the needs of increasing tourism in absolute the area has
faced a threatening problem of loss of landscape beauty and natural cover
during the last ten years. This resulted to different kind of social-cultural
contestations and conflicts. In this context there are two considerable
alternatives. Firstly, to come back to the old style of traditional life based
on harmonious relationship between Nature and Man for which
Shirakawa-gō was once known in history (‘philosophy and lifeways that
refers being close to nature’). Secondly, to divert and use the income
generated by the inflow of tourists in making the local life, tradition and
heritage much better and sustainable for future while preserving the old
traditions and heritagescapes. In reality both the situations are quite hard to
implement, but not impossible. Of course, these problems were not
discussed with the local people, or newly migrant settlers, however it is
realised that a rational balance between economic benefits and
preservation of natural-cultural heritage to be strengthened and made part
of the action programmes.
3. Story of an experienced authority in tourism,

Mr. Mitsuru Nakagawa
Mr. Mitsuru Nakagawa (69 yrs old) has been involved in travel
industry for a period of 30 years and that is how travelled all over the
world, but he loved India the most. He was kind enough to elucidate his
experiences. He said, ‘Everywhere we face chaos and clashed in the West,
but India can give the message of philosophy and spirituality for making
human being happy and harmonious life because India is the home of
human civilisation, where the East and the West meet. I’m sorry to note
that presently Japan is also following the path made by USA ― which is
not good for future. Following our old Oriental culture as interpreted and
practised by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941), Mahatma Gandhi (1869-
1948) and Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), Japan can learn more lessons
from India the harmonious life and peaceful culture. Leo Nickolai Tolstoy
(1828-1910) was right in understanding Indian culture in right way.
Japanese can also learn! We have already the root of Buddhist sense of
ecology and respecting nature; let us learn from Gandhi’s ahimsa (‘non-
violence’) what he said, “Nature has enough for human needs, but not for
their greed”. In the past Henry D. Thoreau (1817-1862) in USA has
realised this, but high tech in USA has completely crushed this spirit.
Through our own long historical links to Indian culture we can learn more
and revive the base for global peace and human love’.
Explaining the conscience and consciousness among Japanese for
heritage, he narrates that ‘In English the meaning of ‘heritage’ refers to
‘native sense of use, like property right’, but in Japan it is called ‘Isan’
means ‘transfer of good things of older generation as valuable property’.
Let us survive the ethical sense of Japanese culture for World Heritage.
World Heritage does not mean only ancient architecture and age-old
traditions; it really refers to Philosophy and Way of Life respectfully close
to Nature: Love and Harmony with Nature. World Heritage is for people;
in loss of people what heritage can do? In spite of all the contradictions
and diversities India knows how to live and enjoy. Mother Teresa (1910-
1997), Nobel Laureate for Peace, has been an example. Remember that
natural resources are finite, and human greed having no end; therefore we
need a new culture which serves the cause of humanity, like Hindu
tradition is open to all and accepts every good ideas from anywhere. If
India will be careful the 21st Century will be India’s Century’.
Presently, most of the people and stakeholders in Shirakawa-gō, like
other heritage sites, are concerned only with monetary benefits, lacking
sense of respect to nature and its preservation. In fact, there is no ‘real’
cooperation for eco-friendly and sustainable development. Remember that
modern tourism is disastrous as it is based on depletion of resources and
promotion of economic benefit at any cost. The sense of sight-scene and
amusement should be stopped. Let the visitors may participate in various
action-programmes for the benefit of local people and preservation of
natural and cultural heritagescapes. This is the issue of modern attitudes
and lust of love for the high-tech modern life.
Of course Shirakawa-gō is now World Heritage site, it is also
modernising and loosing its traditional image what it had before 1995.
During last fifty years Japan has developed tremendously in high-tech
culture which is non-human. Now this is the time that Japan should divert
its culture towards human life based on close relation with nature. May I
warn India not to follow this path, which ultimately turns into chaos?
4. Present concerns for Future

On the line of his experiences and daily communication and
understanding Mr. Mitsuru Nakagawa suggested the five major strategies:
(1) Reconstruction and revival of local social community group for

preservation of culture, nature and landscape, including public awareness
programmes. (2) Diversion of sufficient money from different organisa-
tions at World, National, Prefectural and Local levels in making various
supporting projects successful. (3) Only richer enjoy life in lavish manner,
therefore they should realise to pay more money for good causes in the
development of heritage resources. (4) Mass awakening, legal rights and
control, and transaction of money, to be integrated through spiritual
feelings of the community. (5) There is a need of social leader that can
link local experiences, spiritual thought, administrative functioning,
governmental support, and better attitudes and respect for the nature. We
face a difficult social stigma that no way local community accepts
anybody from outside (those not born in this village) as their leader in any
respect. I terribly feel this and unable to work together with local people!
On the other hand, some rich persons purchased the land and while
constructing their home they demolished the old and valuable structure,
but no body from the local community had objected. However, let us have
hope and always march towards betterment of our culture through
conservation of beauty of natural landscape and the built architecture and
Gassho-zukuri houses on the line of sustainable heritage development (cf.
Kuroda, Shimomura, Ono and Kumagai 2001).
Commenting on the relationship between cultural assets and
properties, and tourism, the authorities of the Agency for Cultural Affairs
express that “certainly, we face the problem of less coordination between
the issue of heritage preservation, and increasing pressure of tourism.
Obviously, we also realise that most of the tourists pay visit just to enjoy,
rarely awakening them to act voluntarily for saving the heritage tradition
and serene nature. This is a major issue of our dialogues Diet Meetings.
We realise the need for attitudinal survey and mass awakening. An
example of the latest cultural heritage enlisted (in July 2004) from Japan in
the WHL, i.e. ‘Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain
Range’, be cited where preservation strategies are framed with strict
consideration that the area be used only for pilgrimage, not for enjoyment
or fun. This way the heritagescape will be preserved and maintained
sustainably. Every year several thousands of pilgrims walk on this route,
and follow the ethics and code of conduct to save the nature and tradition
while experiencing the spirit of place that has been realized and revealed
by their fathers and their forefathers in the past. This spirit and social
acceptance are “the lessons for other such heritage sites in Japan, and also
similar cultural landscapes (of mixed properties) in other countries too”
(Singh and Fukunaga 2005: 13). With the growing sense of tourism and
wish to see culture in the mirror of history and tradition, heritage resource
management becomes a focal issue in both the ways: protection and
maintenance of sacred sites, and survival and continuity of pilgrimage
ceremonies. Fostering a rediscovery of forgotten (or, about so) common
cultural heritage and practices at sacred places (if in a sense Shirakawa-gō
be considered so) that centred on reverence to and harmony with the Earth
as source and sustainer of life, the conservation and preservation of such
sacred and pious sites would put a strong step in this direction (Singh
2008: 135).
Of course, there has been a strong movement in Japan to merge and
unite the villages with the cities for development programmes; however it
is doubtful in this strategy that the villages would receive equal facilities
and be able to maintain their rural function and natural setting. The case of
Shirakawa-gō is different as it is trying to maintain its traditional identity
in a natural setting, and not to be directly being part of the Takayama City.
Increasing demand for more parking space is the latest problem, which is
increased by the private owners by converting the agricultural land into
parking space. There is a strong need for legal control and social bondage
on such happenings through the local government like Village Council
together with people’s organisations. Social consciousness and awakening
are also necessary. The role of media and advertisement plays like a
catalyst. Advertising the best image of Shirakawa-gō outside the
prefecture and the nation through media, newspapers, TV shows at regular
bases (weekly and monthly) has given prime importance. This helped to
create a mass awakening among the citizens (mostly Japanese) with sense
of proud and honour. But for the rest of the world the problem is lack of
dissemination of information, statistics and news in English and other
European languages.
Of course the Mayor’s office is trying to improve the situation to
attract international tourists, but it is a challenge and tough task. Of course
there were two stage goals for 2005 (celebrating a decade of inscription of
WHC) and 2010, and supporting programmes, they structurally yet more
concerned with East Asia. It is good to note that in 1974 Shirakawa-mura
was an only farm village selected as an Important Preservation District for
Groups of Historic Buildings (Kuroda and Ono 2002). Since aspect of
planning and conservation system concerning with characters of farm-
village had not established at the time, only Gassho-style houses have been
focused on, but on the line of changing strategy and impact of internatio-
nal pressure now such programmes are taken seriously.
Under the landscape protection, old stone construction, preservation
and repairing of old drain and old stone fencing of the drain are the issues
of preserving cultural heritage. Every time it is noticed that the traditional

and old cultural lands are decreasing and threatened continuously which
always turned to be a great loss that would be repairable. Keeping
sufficient distance between two buildings is an important issue for
maintenance of the architectural beauty and longevity of the houses.
However, now-a-days people are avoiding this for this personal gain and
quick profit, which may be checked by strict law and rules to be amended
in the earlier laws and acts related to heritage and buildings. Additionally,
the reconstruction and repairing also need to be approved by the Board of
Education and Heritage Committee. As apart of reverential development
every visitor is strictly requested to follow the following six ethical codes
of behaviour: avoidance of litter or bring trash into the village, taking extra
caution to prevent fire, protecting the natural environment and ecology,
not disturbing the privacy of residents, using only public restrooms and
lavatories, and finally accepting prohibition of camping.
The Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment
(Mamorukai) has been working in Shirakawa-gō since 1966, and since
opening of World Heritage Fund unit in 1996, with latter’s active
collaboration promotes the two board plans: (1) Protect the Natural
heritage assets and environment, and (2) Promote regional development,
including cultural traditions like folk dance and folk songs. In the cultural
programmes they invite visitors from the outside and also encourage local
people to actively participate, this result to enhance mutual cohesiveness
and social harmony and place attachment. The Mamorukai also maintains
close relations with inns, souvenir shops, restaurants, etc. this is an
example of public consciousness and active participation in democratic
way.
5. Epilogue and Vision

Change is inevitable. As our world shifts from one orientation towards
another, various stakeholders coalesce and diverge in the flux of
development. Every now and then emerges a fusion of forces ready to take
on challenge after challenge making together a great challenge to make a
harmonious balance between tradition and modernity, between serenity of
nature and needs of the materialistic culture. How do we understand that
both sides are complimentary to each other? It is the matter of contexts, re-
generative process and mass awakening to live close to nature with love
and respect! How the philosophy of sustainability to be part of lifeways?
These issues need to be re-considered seriously and deeply while
maintaining the inherent qualities and power at Shirakawa-gō. Heritage is
a cultural identity to be reflected in the purview of individual, unique and

multiple layers of pluralism, especially with respect to religion (reflected
as lifeways), at least in cultural environment like Japan that maintained
their traditions and continuity together with high-tech modernity. In the
span of time the layering of various traditions put their marks, which in the
sequence of time sometimes turn to be the issue of conflicts due to claims
and uses by the different groups for different purposes; consequently
resulting to the issues of representation, belongingness, control and power,
dissonance and contestation (Singh 2008: 125).
The World Heritage Shirakawa-gō Gassho style Houses Preservation
Foundation (2004), through its popular brochure, profusely illustrated with
photographs, cartoons and models, propagates the “Rule for Visitors”, that
all the visitors and expected and appealed to respect and follow; they are:
1. There are no public trash cans. Please take your own trash with you.
Return fast food packaging to the restaurant where you purchased the
food.
2. Gassho style houses can catch on fire easily. Smoking is allowed only
within designated areas. Do not discard cigarettes butts or smoke
while walking. Making a fire or setting off fireworks in the village is
strictly prohibited.
3. Do not take any plants home from Shirakawa-gō. Respect the natural
environment and help us protect it.
4. People are living in the village. Please refrain from entering private
land, gardens and rice fields. Do not peek into residences or open
doors of the houses. Also, do not pick wild and/or cultivated flowers
and plants or remove produce from the gardens.
5. Use designated public restrooms only. Using the bathroom in other
than public rest rooms is strictly prohibited.
The above five codes of conduct and human concerns are widely
disseminated in the form of posters and advertisements from the TV and
media sources. These codes further need to be accepted as moral and
ethical code of human behaviour (like a dharma, in Buddhist ethics).
Moreover, this should be strongly taught in the primary schools; such
awakening movements should be from ‘down to up’. Let the young
generation learn such good lessons and life philosophies that help to make
the future more peaceful, happy and harmonious with nature. It is to be
remembered that the maintenance of intrinsic value of cultural heritage
and its relationship to sustainable tourism development has been the
historical reality and carrying on tradition in Japan in contrast to other
countries of the oriental world. The primary aim in the strategies for the
regional development centred around the world heritage, like Shirakawa-

gō and Gokayama, is not to attract more tourists, but to cultivate the
unique value of the world heritage that visitors could feel and carried as
message. The regional development with this aim would result in
establishing the high-quality of regional brand and lead to regional
activation. This will be a great example of integrating locality with
universality (cf. Imai 2006).
Located in a mountainous region that was cut off from the rest of the
world for a long period of time, these villages with their Gassho-style
houses subsisted on the cultivation of mulberry trees and the rearing of
silkworms. The large houses with their steeply pitched thatched roofs are
the only examples of their kind in Japan. Despite economic upheavals,
these heritage villages are outstanding examples of a traditional way of life
perfectly adapted to the environment and people, and social and economic
circumstances.
The society should be careful and conscious in maintaining order and
public awakening to keep peace in the society and harmony with the
nature. Religious beliefs and practices have shaped the local geographies
through the built forms set in the natural environment and associated
rituals and performances. In course of time such visual forms and
traditions are sometimes considered as symbol of political control,
identity, hegemony and social security, thus also turning to conflicts and
political interference as the division and sub-divisions in the society
segmented around their narrow defined goals and territorial demarcations
on the line of individualism, consumerism and materialism (cf. Singh
2008a). Such notions should never be promoted taking the universal image
of the place that has wonderfully reflected upon the harmonious blending
of human ingenuity and divine nature.
6. Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the Gifu Women’s University for providing
visiting professorship to Rana P.B. Singh (India) in December 2004 and
for further financial support for the fieldwork and interviews in the
heritage sites and administrative offices. We are grateful to Prof. Pema
Gyalpo, the founding Director of Centre of South Asian Studies at Gifu
Women’s University, who has been a great source of inspiration and
constructive critic and was with us in the field studies and interviews; only
with his support this study was conducted in such a tight schedule. All the
authorities related to Shirakawa-gō and governmental as well as NGO
organizations are acknowledged with honour and thanks. With thanks
acknowledged a major financial support provided by the Japan

Foundation (New Delhi) to Rana Singh for attending the 19th World
Congress of the IAHR, International Assoc. of History of Religions,
Tokyo, Japan (24 - 30 March 2005), and also doing further fieldwork at
Shirakawa-gā.
--------
NOTE: This paper is a slightly changed and updated version of earlier publications
by the co-authors (2009a and b).
7. References & Sources

ACA (Agency for Cultural Affairs) 1994. World Heritage. The Historic
Villages of Shirakaw-Go and Gokayama Traditional Gassho Style.
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, Tokyo.
HANYU Fuyuka, KURODA Nobu and TAKAHASHI Masayoshi 2002.
Ogimati Shirakawa Village area of tourism and act as tourist village
landscape studies: A Study on Tourist Behavior and the Landscape as
a Tourist Attraction in the Historic Village of Sirakawa A Study on
Tourist Behavior and the Landscape as a Tourist Attraction in the
Historic Village of Shirakawa. Landscape Research (Journal of the
Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Ser 20, Tokyo, ISSN:
1340-8984), 65 (5): 785-788. [in Japanese, with English summary].
IMAI Kenichi 2006. Regional Development Strategy for the World
Heritage core and Strategies for the Regional Development Centered
on the World Heritage. Kinki University Technical College Journal,
22, 67-74. [in Japanese, with English summary].
KURODA Nobu 2003. Studies on Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
Case Study in Shirakawa-mura, Ogimachi. Bulletin of the Tokyo
University Forests (Japan Science & Technology Center, Tokyo,
Code: G0661A. ISSN: 0371-6007), vol. 110: 71-157. [in Japanese,
with English summary].
―. 2010. Conservation of cultural landscape in Shirakawa-go; in Singh,
Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescape and Cultural Landscapes. Planet Earth
& Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 6. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.: 147-168.
KURODA Nobu and SHIMOMURA Akio 2001. The current situation of
tourism and its outlook in the historic village of Shirakawa-go, the
World Heritage. Papers on City Planning (Japan Science &
Technology Society, Tokyo, Code: G0606A, ISSN: 0916-0647),
vol./No. 36: 253-258. [in Japanese, with English summary].
KURODA Nobu and ONO Ryohei 2002. Problems in Conservation of

Living Landscape as a Cultural Property thorough a History of
Studies on Shirakawa-mura. Landscape Research (Journal of the
Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo, ISSN: 1340-
8984), vol. 66 (5): 665-668. [in Japanese, with English summary].
KURODA Nobu and ONO Ryohei 2003. Analysis on Encoding Process of
Developing Tourist Sites form an Aspect of Planning: A Case Study
of Shirakawa-mura, Gifu-pref. Journal of the City Planning Institute
of Japan, 38 – 3, Abstracts No. 114, CSD Rom Contents, 2003/10/25,
p. 679.
― 2004. Transition of Landscape’s Position in the National Monuments
at the Beginning of Preservation Systems, from the end of the Meiji
Era to the beginning of the Showa Era. Landscape Research (Journal
of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo, ISSN:
KURODA Nobu, HANYU Fuyuka and TAKAHASHI Masayoshi 2003.
Changes in Forest Uses and Their Influence on the Forest Landscape
in Shirakawa-mura, Ogimachi. A paper in the 20th Scientific
Research Meeting, Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture
(Tokyo).Web:http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/landscapeproc/65/0/
65_87/_article <accessed: 30 April 2008>.
KURODA Nobu, SHIMOMURA Akio, ONO Ryohei, and KUMAGAI
Yoichi 2001. Shirakawa Village Ogimati group of traditional
buildings in the centre of the village landscape features and
conservation studies. Landscape Research (Journal of the Japanese
Institute of Landscape Architecture, Ser 19, Tokyo, ISSN: 1340-
8984), vol. 64 (5): 759-764. [in Japanese, with English summary].
MIZOGUCHI Tsunetoshi 2006. Shifting Cultivation and Family Compo-
sition in Shirakawa-go, Central Japan. A paper in the 13th Interna-
tional Conference of Historical Geographers: “Transformation
Processes of Cultural Landscapes”: 20-24 August 2006. II.4 Monday,
11:00-12:30 53. Hamburg, Germany. Web:http://www.geowiss.uni-
hamburg.de/i-geogr/ichg/Abstracts_ICHG_ 2006.pdf
SAITO Hidetoshi and INABA Nobuko 1996. World Heritage. The
Historic Villages of Shirakaw-Go and Gokayama- Traditional Gassho
Style. Committee for the Commemoration of the inscription of the
Historic Villages on the World Heritage List, Gifu, Takayama and
Tokyo. Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, Tokyo.
SASAKI-Uemura Wesley 2007. Postwar Society and Culture; in, Tsutsui,
William M. (ed.) A Companion to Japanese History. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., Oxford: 315 - 332.
Singh, Rana P.B. 2008. The Contestation of Heritage: The enduring

importance of Religion; in, Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (eds.)
Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Publs.,
Aldershot Hamp. & London: 125-141.
― 2008a. Heritage Contestation and context of Religion: Political
Scenario from Southern Asia. Politics and Religion [an annual
journal, ISSN 1820-659X. Center for Study of Religion and Religious
Tolerance, FPN, Jove Ilića 165, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia], vol. 2 (1),
Spring: 79-99.
Singh, Rana P.B. and FUKUNAGA Masaaki 2005. World Heritage in
Japan: Experiences of Shirakawa-gō, Gifu and Takayama, Japan.
Interviews and discourses: 08 to 17 December 2004. <posted on web
on 15 March 2005; accessed: 15 December 2006 >.
Web.:http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://ww
w.b-612.jp/A-36.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=9&ct=result&
prev=/search%3Fq%3Drana%2Bp.%2Bb.%2Bsingh%2Bjapan%26
start %3D50%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
― 2007. The World Heritage Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama,
Japan: Continuing Culture and Meeting Modernity. A Lesson for
South Asia; in, Persi, Peris (ed.) The Landscape between Research
and Governance (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Cultural Heritage: 6-8 October 2006). Institute of Geography,
University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Urbino (Italy): p. 68.
― 2009a. The world heritage villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama,
Japan: the tradition of Gassho-style houses and challenges of today;
in, Persi, Peris (ed.) Contested Territories: Knowledge Fields, Local
Identities, Institutions, Planning (Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on ‘Cultural Heritage’: Pollenza–Macerata, Italy; 11-13
July 2008). Istituto Interfacoltà di Geografia, Università degli Studi di
Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Urbino (Italy): pp. 422-431.
― 2009b. The World Heritage Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama,
Japan: Continuing Culture and Meeting Modernity. National
Geographical Journal of India (Varanasi), 55 (2), June: 1-16.
SON Yonghoon, KURODA Nobu and SHIMOMURA Akio 2003. A
Comparative Study on the Historic Landscape Management of
Andong Hahoe Village and Shirakawa Ogimachi Village. Landscape
Research (Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape
Architecture, Tokyo, ISSN: 1340-8984), vol. 67 (5): 723-726. [in
Japanese, with English summary].
― 2004. Korean village of Andong times River County, and Shirakawa,
Gifu Prefecture, Ono Ogimati village to see the historic landscape
management of a comparative study. A Comparative Study on the

Historic Landscape Management of Andong Hahoe Village and
Shirakawa Ogimachi Village. Landscape Research (Journal of the
Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Ser 22, Tokyo, ISSN:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rana was a senior Japan Foundation Fellow (1980), worked at Okayama
National University; a visiting professor at Gifu Women’s University (2004), and
was panel organiser and keynote presenter in the 19th World Congress of the
IAHR, International Association of History of Religions, held at Tokyo (20-30
March 2005). His publications on Japanese cultural landscape include a book,
Changing Japanese Rural Habitat: Perspective and Prospect of Agricultural
Dimension (NGSI Pub. 26, 1981, with Shogo Yuihama), and six research papers.
Prof. Masaaki Fukunaga

Centre for South Asian Studies, Gifu Women’s University, 80 Taromaru,
Gifu-shi, Gifu 501-2590, JAPAN. Email: office@fukunaga.cc
§ Fukunaga is specialised in Indian village studies. He has published a book,
Society, Caste and Factional Politics: Conflict and Continuity in Rural India
(1993, Manohar Publ., New Delhi; eBook London, 2007). He is also serving as
Co-editor of the new serial, South Asian Affairs of the CSAS, Gifu Women’s
University. During last two decades (1986-2006) he was also an academic partner
of Prof. Rana P.B. Singh (India) on the issues of pilgrimage and village studies.
5
Conservation of the Cultural Landscape in

Shirakawa-gō
Nobu Kuroda
University of Tsukuba, Japan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. ‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama’ were
inscribed as World Cultural Heritage sites in 1995. The elements of the
cultural landscape in Shirakawa-gō include buildings, cultivated land,
water systems and forests. The crucial element is Gassho-style houses,
although the wholeness of and relationships among all the elements are
also of utmost importance. Here, the standard occupations of the residents
have changed drastically, from sericulture and agriculture to construction
and tourism. There are strict regulations in place for landscape alterations,
but living activity changes by itself. It is notable that the organization of
residents, formed in 1971, mainly works toward conservation. They hold
discussions on the feasibility of modifications. A foundation named
‘Protection of Gassho-style houses in World Heritage’ is also an effective
organization. Funds generated from parking fees by the local governments
are used for repairing works. The tangible elements of the landscape are
tied together with the intangible benefits of the residents’ living activities,
although these activities should be modified accordingly as required. It is
important to consider not only the tangible elements but also the intangible
activities, in fact both together.
Keywords. Cultural landscape, Shirakawa-gō, Conservation system,
World Heritage, Tourism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Two points of view on the conservation of Living

Heritage
When tourists visit a village in which people reside and which is
simultaneously conserved as ‘heritage’, there are two potential problems.
One is loss of substance and another is modernisation. These two issues
can be spotted in a variety of situations. Shirakawa-gō is no exception.
152 5. Nobu Kuroda
Some tourists who visit Shirakawa-gō leave with the impression that
it was much more modernised than they expected it to be (Kuroda 2001).
They expect an isolated, nostalgic village, and they want to see residents
cultivating rice fields without using modern mechanics. The same notion
can be observed in many articles encompassing statements such as, ‘I was
astonished because they use electric lights in old houses’ (Okamura 1929),
‘I was so disappointed because they use plastic materials instead of natural
wood’ (Mizoguchi 1961), and ‘in the Gassho-style houses, open fireplaces
had been changed to oil stoves, and in the roof space, sericulture was not
being done any more’ (Mainichi-graph 1970).
On the other hand, too much tourism development leads to a loss of
substance. Some tourists have made comments such as ‘I was so disapp-
ointed because it was too touristy to relax. Shirakawa-gō is no longer part
of the rural countryside.’ The rice planting festival (taue show), as
discussed in more detail below, is a typical example of this issue.
Shirakawa-gō has been a farming village for hundreds of years, but there
are no longer any villagers who cultivate their land by hand, in the
traditional manner. Ironically, when residents begin acting for tourists to
show what they used to do in the traditional manner, it makes some
tourists feel uncomfortable because they know that it is fake and not a part
of the ongoing life.
These two negative notions are two sides of the same coin. If only old
physical objects are retained and life changes, those objects lose substance.
If residents modernise their lives as a result of responses to changes in
society, it also leads disappointment for the tourists. The more the tourism
industry develops, the less substance there is in real life.
There are no clear solutions to this dilemma, but people are living
their lives and trying to address this dilemma.
2. Transitions of the cultural landscape in Shirakawa-gō

2.1. Outline of Shirakawa-gō
Shirakawa-gō is located in the mountainous region of Gifu Prefecture,
which is in central Japan. Shirakawa-gō is one of the snowiest districts in
Japan. The ‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama’ were
inscribed as World Cultural Heritage sites in 1995. Ogimachi Village is a
designated area of Shirakawa-gō and was defined in 1976 as an ‘Important
Preservation District for Groups of Historic Buildings’, covering 45.6
hectares. ‘Gō’ is an old name for ‘region’; and Shirakawa-gō consisted of
42 villages in the 17th century. In the 19th century, local governments
were created nationwide, and only 23 villages were held together under the
Conserving Cultural Landscape of Shirakawa-gō, Japan 153
name ‘Shirakawa-mura’. Due to dam construction and isolation, some

villages have been ruined or vanished entirely; now, people reside in only
14 villages including Ogimachi Village. This may seem very confusing,
but ‘Shirakawa-go’ is actually much larger than the World Heritage site,
which only encompasses one-fourteenth of the original Shirakawa-gō area.
In 1992, the World Heritage Convention became the first interna-
tional legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. In its
16th session, the Committee adopted guidelines concerning the inclusion
of those landscapes in the World Heritage List (UNESCO 2010). The
‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama’ was inscribed on the
World Heritage List three years later, but it was not inscribed as a cultural
landscape. The person in charge of the Agency for Cultural Affairs said
that the ‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama’ had
adequately met the criteria without qualifying as cultural landscapes.
However, there is no doubt that Shirakawa-gō meets the definition of a
cultural landscape: it reveals and sustains the interactions between humans
and their environment.
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 (photographs) were taken in 1976 and 2009.
Compare the two pictures: did the landscape change or not? If it changed,
how and why did it change? If you examine these pictures carefully, you
will find that the number of buildings increased, but the amount of
farmland decreased. If you broadly compare those pictures, you may say
that the landscape has not changed significantly because there are no high-
rise buildings and because many Gassho-style houses still remain. Both
answers are correct. The landscape is something that always changes.
Since a cultural landscape expresses an intimate relationship between
people and their natural environment, one cannot stop it from changing.
The important thing is how to discern what is changed and unchanged.
The most vital point regarding the cultural landscape in Ogimachi
Village is that it should be conserved as ‘heritage’. If you contemplate the
conservation of a landscape, you have to decide the elements, which are
traditional and important and should be protected, and how you can
change the other elements. When cultural landscapes stop changing, one
may say that they are no longer alive. The important thing is how people
manage those changes. These pictures show one result of the conservation
of the landscape.
2.2. Gassho-style houses

The most important elements of Shirakawa-gō are Gassho-style houses.
These houses have a very unique structure that has never been seen in any
other region of Japan. Most Gassho-style houses were built from the early
154 5. Nobu Kuroda
Fig. 5.1. Ogimachi Village in 1976
Fig. 5.2. Ogimachi Village in 2009

19th to the beginning of the 20th century. One of the biggest such houses
is 11m high. The roof is a tall, steeply-sloped thatched gable roof, with a
slope of about 60 degrees [information on the location and outline of
Gassho-style houses in Shirakawa-gō is given in an essay by Singh and
Fukunaga 2010; also Saito and Inaba 1996].
The inside of the roofs of Gassho-style structures were first used for
sericulture. This has since changed due to the tourism business. Some of
them have opened as small museums, and others are used as
accommodations. Fig. 5.3 shows ‘Kanda House’, which was opened in
2004 and is a small museum run by a family. They display antique tools
extracted from their storage space and explain to tourists how to these
tools were used in ancient times. In Ogimachi Village, 59 Gassho-style
houses are designated as important traditional buildings, including one
national property. Of these 59 houses, 21 are used as accommodation, 16
are restaurants and souvenir shops, four are small museums, and two are
owned by the National Trust. Thus, more than 70 per cent are used for the
tourism industry. Most owners have altered their houses due to the
changes in the use of the houses. They are prohibited by certain
regulations to destroy the buildings, but they can add 50 per cent more
space for modern rooms. Those additional sections are mostly used to
construct bathrooms with modern equipment.
Fig. 5.3. Kanda House: a small museum runs by a family.

156 5. Nobu Kuroda
The traditional mutual help system, the custom of ‘yui’, consists of all
residents in the village and is followed in work projects such as house
construction or the re-thatching of roofs. This community system is slowly
changing. According to the research by Mika Uchiumi, some repair work
is being done by ‘modern yui’, where members are owners of Gassho-style
houses. Other works are done by a contractor. Only 20 per cent of roofs
were re-thatched in the traditional manner from 2001 to 2007. The reason
for this change is that the traditional style of re-thatching requires the extra
effort of inviting and entertaining all local residents (Uchiumi 2009)
The roof ridge lines of all of the Gassho-style houses in Ogimachi
Village are lined up parallel to the Sho River. The composition of the
nearly identical architectural shapes, all oriented in the same direction,
forms a very impressive village landscape. There are a few Gassho-style
houses that go against this orientation. These houses were moved from
other villages in the 1970s for use as souvenir shops. In 2010, the biggest
house changed direction in order to preserve the harmonic landscape. It
was slowly separated from the ground and turned at a 90-degree angle so it
would face the same direction as the other houses.
As for the materials with which Gassho-style houses are constructed,
the mountainous area surrounding the settlement has fields of kaya, which
is the thatching for roofs. Those fields are owned and maintained privately.
Kaya used to be piled up and stored as ‘nyu’. Today, a fair percentage of
kaya is purchased from neighbouring villages or other prefectures and the
kaya fields have gradually decreased. Traditional ‘nyu’ can no longer be
found.
2.3. Non-Gassho-style buildings

Seven non-Gassho-style buildings, constructed from the late 19th to early
20th century, are also designated as historic buildings. The reason for this
is that the existence of these wooden houses shows the history of changes
in house styles in Ogimachi Village.
The number of buildings in Ogimachi increased from 289 in 1987 to
501 in 2007 (Sato 2009). Approximately 400 non-Gassho-style buildings
exist in the village. According to the revised conservation plan composed
in 1994, the development of new buildings is prohibited. One reason for
the increase in number is that new houses and shops were built or moved
in before the revision of the conservation plan.
Some tourists have remarked that there were more non-Gassho-style
houses than they had expected. How to control these buildings is an
essential issue for the conservation of the landscape. Today, residents can
rebuild their houses, but these must be built within certain guidelines.
They must create wooden structures with brown or dark brown wooden
walls and dark brown or black tin roofs. On the other hand, the guidelines
also permit residents to increase the building area by 50 per cent, which
has led to a reduction in the spaces between buildings. The current
guideline is one factor of the changing landscape (Sato 2009).
2.4. Farmland
Cultivated land is as important an element of the cultural landscape as
Gassho-style houses. In the 1920s, a canal was constructed in order to
reclaim rice fields in Ogimachi Village. Due to the modernisation of
agriculture, rice fields were expanded from the 18th century through the
1950s. Since the 1950s, land use has changed substantially amidst a
process of rapid social change. The biggest change in land use in the last
60 years has been the decrease in rice fields. The reason for this is that
most of the rice fields are too small and irregularly shaped to use power
cultivators, so residents tend to cultivate consolidated rice fields located
outside the settlement. Even after its designation as cultural property, some
farmland has been converted to parking lots (Masuhara 2009), while other
lands have been used for housing or are simply abandoned (Aso 2009).
After 2004, the foundation started to restore abandoned rice fields for the
protection of rural scenery, and the effects of this change can be seen now.
Rice fields are no exception in the realm of touristy elements. The
picture of cultivation in paddy fields was taken in the 1940s (Fig. 5.4). A
farmer cultivates his rice field, soaking in water up to his thigh. The lower
picture shows a rice planting show (Fig. 5.5). Residents and tourists with
traditional cloths planted rice before many photographers and tourists.
2.5. Forests
Forest areas have also clearly changed. In Japan, more than two-thirds of
national land is covered with forests and most settlements in mountainous
areas are surrounded by forests. Through an analysis of the current
situation of forests in World Cultural Heritage sites, the following points
are clarified. In general, 74 per cent of all properties and 77 per cent of
properties and buffer zones are covered with forests (Kuroda 2009). Until
the 19th century, forests adjacent to settlements were essential to
residents’ everyday lives. People gathered firewood and underbrush for
fuel and collected edible wild plants. These forests are called ‘satoyama’.
158 5. Nobu Kuroda
Fig. 5.4. Cultivation in paddy fields in the 1940s.
Fig. 5.5. A rice planting show

All the forest areas in Shirakawa-gō belonged to the Edo government

from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The forests located deeper in the
mountains were conserved as old-growth forests for timber use, and the
forests near the villages were used for various purposes directly related to
people’s lives as ‘satoyama’. Slash-and-burn agriculture was practiced, but
most of the fields disappeared before the 1940s (Kuroda 2002). Gathering
wild mulberry leaves for sericulture in Gassho-style houses was also one
of the most important uses of the forests. When sericulture declined in the
1980s, mulberry trees and abandoned slash-and-burn fields were converted
to cypress plantations. Forestry was an important industry until 100 years
ago, but because of the import of low-cost wood from overseas, forestry in
Japan declined. Today, the cypress trees are not managed.
2.6. Water System

Another traditional element of this region is the water-spring. There are 21
water-springs in Ogimachi Village, and they are connected with canals.
The water springs are privately owned, but some of them are shared
among neighbours. There are customary rules for the usage and
maintenance of the water system. Before modern waterworks facilities
were constructed, these canals led into the Gassho-style houses, and water
from the canals was used for cooking and daily life. In winter, melting
snow is another important purpose of the canals. Traditional water
management structures were carefully developed in order to make the best
use of the canals’ given geographical and hydrological features
(Toyoshima 2009). The canals are stretched in a finely meshed pattern and
their total length is more than 12 km. Today, more than half of the canals
have been reconstructed with concrete or covered conduits. Five hundred
fifty meters of canals are designated as environmental features of the
‘Important Preservation District for Groups of Historic Buildings’, but
those canals were renovated with mortars and stones from outside the site.
The more traditional canals remain with their original materials, but those
are not protected features (Nishiyama 2006). A draft for a revised
preservation plan is being discussed, and environmental features including
canals and springs will be designated in a few years.
2.7. Stone walls

Stone walls stacked in the traditional way, another element of the village’s
cultural landscape, are also protected by preservation measures. Some of
the new retaining walls are concrete, but they have surfaces decorated with
stones and mortar joints. A recent landscape survey performed by Kyushu
160 5. Nobu Kuroda
University pointed out that the traditional stone should be made in the
traditional way (Nishiyama 2006).
2.8. Transition of the landscape

Previously, residents of Ogimachi Village made their livelihood through
sericulture and agriculture. Today, they make money from the tourism
industry and the construction industry. The relationship between the
people and the landscape changed with the changing of their lives. Forests
used to have a close relation to most livelihood activities, such as
sericulture and agriculture, but today, forests have little relation to any
form of livelihood. Residents still cultivate their farmland for their own
use, but they do not make their living through agriculture. Today, the
tourism industry has a relation to almost all elements of the landscape.
Gassho-style houses are used for accommodations and shops. Even rice
fields are cultivated for landscape conservation and for tourists’ benefit.
Gassho-style houses and some canals are also maintained for the sake of
conservation and tourists.
The question, ‘what is an authentic landscape?’ is often discussed in
the context of heritage management. Are Gassho-style houses without
sericulture and rice fields cultivated for tourists authentic or not? A
cultural landscape is primarily a consequence of people’s lives, but the
primary industries are not able to be continued anymore. Then what is
protected in Ogimachi Village?
Living landscapes change with people’s lives. In Japan, many small
villages located in isolated regions like Ogimachi Village have been
affected by depopulation. There was once a possibility that Ogimachi
Village would become a ghost town. Yet, Ogimachi Village survived
through conservation. Land use and the relations between landscape
elements have changed in order to accommodate the tourism business.
Tourism was promoted because Gassho-style houses remained and became
resources. The cultural landscapes of agriculture and sericulture are no
more in Ogimachi Village; instead, it survives because of the tourism
industry. Since residents cannot live without tourism, it may be no
exaggeration to claim that the cultural landscapes exist for tourists. The
important thing is not to deny the touristy landscape but to interpret the
reality of the landscape to visitors and other people.
3. Conservation of the landscape in Ogimachi Village

3.1. History of conservation in Shirakawa-gō
In Japan, the 1970s was a decade of high economic growth. Many

industries developed, while natural and cultural environments were
destroyed. This nationwide destruction led to a movement for the
preservation of traditional culture. The start of the conservation activity in
Ogimachi Village was related to this social background.
In Ogimachi Village, the conservation movement was started by
residents. Before then, academic surveys of Gassho-style houses were
conducted in the 1920s. They focused on room layout and structure.
Gassho-style houses had been evaluated by researchers as a part of the
area’s architectural history, but their conservation could not start without
residents’ firm intention. If residents did not begin conservation, Ogimachi
Village would not be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The decreasing number of Gassho-style houses caused by dam
construction and depopulation triggered a change in people’s attitudes. Fig.
5.6 shows a transition in the number of houses in the village. From the
1960s to 1970s, the number of Gassho-style houses decreased greatly.
Many houses were moved to other places and used as restaurants and
museums or at worst were destroyed. At that time, sericulture declined
sharply and agriculture became unstable due to the government’s policy of
trimming rice production. In the middle of these social movements, the
‘Organisation for the Conservation of the Natural Environment in
Ogimachi Village’ was established in 1971 by a group of young people.
They were promoting agricultural modernisation at that time. Two people
actually affected the establishment. One was author Miyoshi Enatsu and
the other was Tosihiko Kobayashi, who was from Tsumago Village.
Fig. 5.6. A transition in the number of houses in the Shirakawa-mura.

162 5. Nobu Kuroda
Enatsu wrote a novel on her mother, who was born in Ogimachi Village.
Kobayashi was working for the local government and became a pioneer of
the conservation movement. Tsumago was the first village to be entirely
conserved by residents. These two people visited Ogimachi Village and
told young villagers what was happening in Tsumago Village and how
precious Gassho-style houses were. The young villagers discussed the
future of the village and decided to begin conservation of their Gassho-
style houses. According to Tsumago Village, the Organisation laid down
three fundamental rules of conservation: ‘do not sell, do not lend, and do
not destroy regional resources such as Gassho-style houses, cultivated
land, and forests’. The first action performed by the members of the
Organisation was to make steady efforts to dissuade residents from
destroying their Gassho-style houses. They also planned for their village to
be designated as a national cultural property in order to obtain funding for
conservation (Shirakawa-Mura, 1998).
At that time, many traditional houses were being ruined all across the
country. Traditional houses were being surveyed by architects and
sociologists, and Shirakawa-gō was no exception. Detailed social and
architectural surveys of Gassho-style houses were performed by Eizo
Inagaki (1952-1954), and by the Education Committee of Gifu Prefecture
(1957). The Agency for Cultural Affairs started an emergency investi-
gation of traditional houses in 1966 and the results affected conservation
measures. In 1975, the government revised the Law for the Protection of
Cultural Properties and established a new system for the conservation of
the ‘Important Preservation District for Groups of Historic Buildings’.
Cultural properties were widened from individual buildings to living
villages. This was a big change in protection issues in Japan. Before the
revision, cultural properties were preserved exactly as they were before;
this is called ‘freeze preservation’ and it is hard to apply to living villages.
The Agency for Cultural Affairs widened their territory from preservation
to creation (Nishimura 1997). In 1976, seven districts including Ogimachi
Village were first defined as ‘Important Preservation District for Groups of
Historic Buildings’.
3.2. Conservation system

Today, two organisations are effective in conserving the landscape in
Ogimachi Village. These are the ‘Organisation for the Conservation of the
Natural Environment in Ogimachi Village’ and the ‘Foundation for the
Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World Heritage’.
Residents who want to modify their houses and properties must apply
for permission of modification to the ‘Organisation for the Conservation of
the Natural Environment in Ogimachi Village’. The organisation holds a

discussion once a month, at which they give careful consideration to an
application. These are often deliberated in consideration of an individual
situation. Between 1975 and 2008, 37 modifications of parking constru-
ction were applied for and only six of them were not approved (Masuhara
2009). Members of the Organisation have an attitude that arises from
traditional community dynamics, which is the reason why they cannot
rationally decide to accept the applications strictly according to regulations.
Thus, the Organisation could be a force for both the alteration and
preservation of landscapes. These flexible decisions also help to maintain
their traditional community. Members of the District Council of
Preservation include residents from outside of Ogimachi Village and
specialists in conservation. Most applications are discussed by the
Organisation and only a few special issues are discussed by the Council of
Preservation.
A few years ago, the Organisation, along with residents, started going
over a master plan for the protection of the World Heritage sites with the
cooperation of Nishiyama-labo at Kyushu University. Their vision and
future actions are described in the master plan. It is expected to be the new
guiding principle for conservation.
The ‘Foundation for the Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World
Heritage’ is also an effective organisation in Ogimachi Village. The
foundation was established in 1997. It operates on a budget of four and
half billion yen; three billion yen were from donations and one and half
billion were budget from the prefecture. The Foundation is commissioned
to operate and maintain parking for tourists. Part of the parking fee is used
for repair works to improve the village landscape. The budget used for
conservation consists of 20 million yen per year, while 10 million yen are
used for repair works and 5 to 10 million yen are used for modification.
One of the most important services is the design and supervision of repair
works. This includes annual partial repair of thatched roofs and subsidies
for modification.
Figure 5.7 shows a house with a plastic snow shade. The Foundation
offers a subsidy for the use of traditional snow shades made of straw and
wood (Fig. 5.8). The Foundation also restores abandoned rice fields in
cooperation with the ‘Organisation for the Conservation of the Natural
Environment in Ogimachi Village’. Five thousand two hundred forty
square meters of farmland have been restored, including 4,330 square
meters of rice fields in 2007, from which 1470 kg of rice were harvested
(Foundation for the Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World Heritage,
2007).
164 5. Nobu Kuroda
Fig. 5.7. A Gassho-style house with a plastic snow shade.
Fig. 5.8. A Gassho-style house with a traditional snow shade

3.3. Residents’ consciousness of conservation issues

The Foundation for the Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World
Heritage conducted a questionnaire among residents in Ogimachi Village
in 1999, five years after its inscription on the World Heritage List. The
purpose of the questionnaire was to understand the impact of the
inscription. Figure 5.9 shows the answer to the question, ‘Did the village’s
World Heritage status have a negative or positive impact?’ Half of the
residents answered that the impact had both negative and positive aspects;
22 per cent responded it as negative, and 14 per cent thought it was
positive.
The next question was, ‘What are the positive and negative aspects of
living in a World Heritage site?’ The most significant factor was thriving
on tourism, which includes an increase in tourists, positive economic
effects, and an increase in employment. The second most significant factor
is awareness of ‘Shirakawa-gō’. The region has achieved name recognition
and residents have begun to take pride in and have awareness of
conservation. The negative impacts were damage caused by tourists, such
as bad behaviour, and overcrowding. Some tourists misinterpret Ogimachi
Village as a theme park like Disneyland; they sometimes enter private
houses without asking, or even worse, use bathrooms without knowing
that they are private. Another negative impact cited by residents was
changes in community and daily life. It is interesting that both positive and
negative impacts are related to tourists or the tourism industry. These
results indicate that appropriate tourism management is crucial.
Fig. 5.9. Did the village’s World Heritage status have a negative or
positive impact?
166 5. Nobu Kuroda
The last question was, ‘Are you convinced of the protection of

Shirakawa-gō as a World Heritage site?’ Approximately one-third of
residents thought no or “it is difficult to protect”, while 58 per cent of
residents answered that ‘we should make efforts’ and only 9 per cent said
yes. This is because various social and environmental changes made
residents less confident in their protection.
These are the result from a questionnaire conducted 10 years ago. The
consciousness of residents might since have changed. We have to update
the survey and figure out how it has changed in the past 10 years.
Children’s awareness has also changed. An elementary school student
wrote an essay in 1991 that included the following statement: ‘I grew up in
Shirakawa-gō. I do not want to let Shirakawa-gō be deserted. I do not
think Gassho-style houses are enough as resources for tourists to support
our village. We must make efforts not to ruin our village’. After the
village’s inscription on the World Heritage List, students wrote, ‘No
matter what happens, our tradition and culture must be inherited as part of
the World Heritage’, and, ‘I do not want to ruin Gassho-style houses. The
reason is that they were built by our ancestors with their traditional
craftsmanship’.
4. Current condition of tourism

4.1. Changes after the inscription
Figure 5.10 shows the shifts in the number of tourists to visit Ogimachi
Village. It sharply increased after the village’s inscription on the World
Heritage List. In 2007, about one and half million tourists visited
Ogimachi Village, where only 700 people reside. The number of tourists
increased by about 200,000 after the World Heritage List inscription and
increased again by about 400,000 after the opening of the Tokaihokuriku
Highway. It usually takes less than 10 minutes to get from the highway
interchange to the World Heritage site, but it took for a few hours during
high season in 2008.
According to a survey conducted in 2002, 83 per cent of tourists were
day trippers, 70 per cent of whom were staying at locations within two
hours of Ogimachi. As there are few experience-based facilities in
Ogimachi, tourists can only visit small museums, walk around the village,
and eat lunch or have a cup of tea at most. One reason for the small
percentage of tourists who stay overnight is the limited number of
accommodations. There are nineteen Gassho-style tourist inns and one
non-Gassho-style hotel of in the village and their capacity is limited to less
than 1000 tourists. Most tourists stay in larger tourist sites such as
Kanazawa City or Takayama City. Shirakawa-gō is nothing more than a

stopping over between Takayama-city to Kanazawa-city (Hanyu 2002).
Fig. 5.10. Shifts in the number of tourists to visit Ogimachi Village.
The phenomenon of tourism is still ongoing in Ogimachi Village.

During 2002-2009, 2 small museums and 15 restaurants and souvenir
shops were opened. In contrast, only one tourist inn was closed during that
period. At least three privately owned tourist parking areas were
constructed in the middle of the Heritage Site. These changes were caused
by the decline of the construction industry and the reduction of public
works such as dam construction. There were once several construction
companies in the village, but some of them went bankrupt during the past
ten years. Not only the managers but also the employees have started
businesses for tourists, which can easily earn them money while keeping
them close to home.
The number of foreign tourists has been increasing in recent years:
120,000 foreign tourists visited Shirakawa-mura in 2008, of which 90,000
were from Taiwan. But in 2009, only 46,000 tourists from Taiwan were
recorded, which was declined by half. Most tourists from Taiwan visit on
group tours and their numbers are affected by economic ups and downs.
The Tourist Association has printed brochures in English, Chinese,
Taiwanese, Korean, and Italian.
For the purpose of evaluation the standard and comfort under the ages
of the Michelin Green Guide, one of their experts had visited and stayed
168 5. Nobu Kuroda
one night in Ogimachi Village in May 2008; that is how in 2009

Shirakawa-gō was given three stars and Ogimachi Village two stars grade
as marks of standard at international level. As the Ogimachi Village is
merely a part of Shirakawa-gō, the result showing two separate gradations
seems quite strange (cf. Kuroda 2009). The Michelin Green Guide states
that ‘Shirakawa-gō is over-crowded in daytime, especially on weekends,
so an overnight stay is recommended’. It will take time to assess the
benefit of this evaluation, but it is said that the number of tourists from
European countries increased in 2009 (Shirakawa-mura 2010). Tourists
from European countries are independent while most tourists from Taiwan
and China travel in groups, so the needs of these groups are different. How
to support the diverse needs of tourists from many countries has become
an imperative and difficult issue (Kuroda 2009).
Since 2006, a park-and-ride system has taken place every Saturday
and every third Friday. Since 2009, regulatory measures have been taken
to limit the number of large vehicles that visit the site. For more than five
years, these measures have been discussed by residents again and again.
To avoid traffic jams during high seasons, a new parking area was
constructed by the local government in 2009. At long last, a new traffic
system has been established.
4.2. Landscape plan

In May 2008, an article entitled ‘Development of resort hotel in
Shirakawa-gō’ appeared in a Yomiuri Shimbun. Taking the warning from
the article to preventing the site from such a large developments like
opening of hotels and restaurants, the Shirakawa-mura government rushed
to formulate a landscape plan. In the plan, the Terao area, which is a buffer
zone for the World Heritage site, was designated as an important
landscape district. Since Terao can be seen from Ogimachi Village, any
new development is strictly prohibited, and the area will be maintained as
farmland or open space. Iijima and Hatogaya, located between the
highway interchange and the heritage site, are also important as entrance
zones, but there is no plan or regulation for those areas. Shops and
restaurants for tourists have increased over the past several years in these
areas. New landscape regulations are needed as soon as possible. In the
core zone, there are strict regulations to prevent large-scale developments,
but in the buffer zone, various facilities can be built. Appropriate plans for
the entrance zone to control the landscape may generate a more fruitful
experience for tourists.
4.3. Current movement of tourism

We must also reconsider the aforementioned principle of ‘do not sell, do

not lend, and do not destroy regional resources such as Gassho-style
houses, cultivated land, and forests’. Sometimes this also entails the
prevention of the entrance of capital from outside of the village. There is
no doubt that these principles have been credited with the success of
conservation in Ogimachi Village, but their deterrence is becoming
undermined little by little. Most souvenirs sold in Ogimachi Village are
manufactured in other cities such as Takayama City, and local products are
few. These problems have been pointed out for years. A few years ago, a
chain-store souvenir shop that is part of a nationwide company was built in
the middle of the site. The interior design of the shop is sophisticated and
they sell differentiated commodities, so the shop became more popular
than the other shops in the village. Obviously, the more tourist shops there
are, the fiercer their competition becomes. Each shop needs originality and
ingenuity in order to get ahead of the competition. They should go back to
the basic plan of how to create local products and should give tourists an
enriched experience.
Recently, some further developments for tourists have begun. The
Tourist Association and the owners of inns have cooperated to provide
various programs such as traditional farming and cooking for tourists, but
some inn owners have said that the program adds to their burden. The
Commerce and Industry Association produces dressings and spices
containing bean paste as local souvenirs, but only a few shops sell such
products. These developments are still sporadic and a more comprehensive
approach is needed for the future.
5. Concluding Remarks
In Ogimachi Village, people still reside in Gassho-style houses, rice
fields are cultivated, and water continues to flow through springs into
canals. Yet, sericulture is no longer done in the houses, and the residents
have to make great efforts to keep their fields cultivated. The tourism
industry has altered villagers’ lives in both negative and positive aspects.
In spite of these alterations, their community does not seem to have
changed at all. Residents, organisations, and a foundation cooperate and
work well together toward the conservation of the landscape. The current
cultural landscape of Ogimachi Village is a result of their efforts for
conservation.
The tangible elements of the landscape are tied together with the
intangible benefits of the residents’ living activities, although these
activities should be modified according to the needs, conditions and
170 5. Nobu Kuroda
contemporary conditions. Thus, it is important to consider not only the

tangible elements but also the intangible ones ― this is the holistic way to
understand and experience heritage.
8. References
ASO Miki, MASUHARA Miki, SATO Mutsumi and NISHIYAMA
Noriaki 2009. Transformation of spatial composition in rural village
and problems of how to conserve the traditional landscape: case study
on Ogimachi-area of Shirakawa-village in Gifu-prefecture. Journal of
Architect Planning, Vol. 74, No. 646, Architectural Institute of Japan,
2637-2645. [in Japanese, with English summary].
Education Committee of Gifu Prefecture 1957. Report of Academic
Survey in Sho-Shirakawa Districts. pp. 138. [in Japanese].
Foundation for the Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World Heritage
2007. Gassho-style houses in Shirakawa; The 10th anniversary issue.
Foundation of protection of Gassho-style houses in World Heritage,
pp. 71. [in Japanese].
HANYU Fuyuka and KURODA Nobu 2002. Report of tourism condition,
Foundation for the Protection of Gassho-style Houses in World
Heritage. pp. 114. [in Japanese].
INAGAKI Eizo 1952-1954. Formation of Houses in Mountain Villages.
Journal of History of Architecture (10, 12, 15), Shokoku-sha. [in
Japanese].
KURODA Nobu 2002. Changes in Forest Uses and Their Influence on the
Forest Landscape in Shirakawa-mura, Ogimachi. Landscape Research
(Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo,
ISSN: 1340-8984), 65 (5): 659-664. [in Japanese, with English
summary].
―. 2009. A study on the existing condition of the forest areas in the world
cultural heritage sites in Japan. Landscape Research (Journal of the
Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo, ISSN: 1340-
8984), 72 (5): 645-650. [in Japanese, with English summary].
―. 2009. Current Condition and Issues of Tourism in Shirakawa-gō; the
World Heritage Site. Landscape Research (Journal of the Japanese
Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo, ISSN: 1340-8984), 73 (2):
108-109. [in Japanese, with English summary].
KURODA Nobu, NAKAZONO Hiroko and MATSUMOTO Keita 2001.
Landscape in Shirakawa-gō, Village of Gassho-style houses: Report of
Landscape Research, Foundation of protection of Gassho-style houses
in World Heritage, pp. 113. [in Japanese].
MAINICHI-GRAPH 1970. Vanishing Minka in Japan. 109. [in Japanese].

MASUHARA Miki, SATO Mutsumi, ASO Miki and NISHIYAMA
Noriaki 2009. Study on Cultural Heritage Management in Ogimachi
Shirakawa-mura, Pref. Gifu. No.10: Landscape Conservation in
Historical Village by Grasping Space Composition Changes. Research
papers for Kyushu division of Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 48,
385-388. [in Japanese].
MIZOGUCHI Utako and KOBAYACHI Masato 1961. Journey of Minka.
Touho-shoin, 121-127. [in Japanese].
NISHIMURA Yukio 1997. Conservation of Environment and Creation of
Landscape. Kajima Institute Publishing, pp. 154. [in Japanese].
NISHIYAMA Noriaki and HUMIHIKO Kobayashi 2006. Environ-mental
assets in Ogimachi-village, Shirakawa mura. Foundation of protection
of Gassho-style houses in World Heritage, pp. 212. [in Japanese].
OKAMURA Seiji 1929. A big family in Shirakawa-mura, Gifu prefecture.
pp. 59. [in Japanese].
SAITO Hidetoshi and INABA Nobuko 1996. World Heritage. The
Historic Villages of Shirakaw-Go and Gokayama- Traditional Gassho
Style. Committee for the Commemoration of the inscription of the
Historic Villages on the World Heritage List, Gifu, Takayama and
Tokyo. Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, Tokyo.
SATO Mutsumi, MASUHARA Miki, ASO Miki and NISHIYAMA
Noriaki 2009. Study on Cultural Heritage Management in Ogimachi
Shirakawa-mura, Pref. Gifu. No.9: A Process of Building Increase
from The Viewpoint of The Community Transition. Research papers
for Kyushu division of Architectural Institute of Japan, No.48: 381-384.
[in Japanese].
Shirakawa-Mura 1998. History of Shirakawa-Mura (vol. 2): 809-842. [in
Japanese].
Shirakawa-Mura 2010. Statistics of tourism in Shirakawa-village. Web:
http://www.Shirakawa-gō.org/lifeinfo/info/kankou/main.htm
<accessed 23 April 2010>
Singh, Rana P.B. and FUKUNAGA Masaaki 2010. The World Heritage
Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama, Japan: Continuing Culture
and Meeting Modernity; in Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescape and
Pub. 6. Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi: pp. 129-150.
TOYOSHIMA Hisano and SAITO Hidetoshi 2009. Evaluation of cultural
landscapes from the water environmental aspects: case study in
Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, a world heritage site. Journal of Architect
172 5. Nobu Kuroda
Planning, Vol. 74, No. 642, Architectural Institute of Japan, 1905-

1910. [in Japanese, with English summary].
UNESCO 2010. History and terminology, Cultural landscapes.Web: http://
whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#1 <accessed 20 April 2010>
UCHIUMI Mika and KURODA Nobu 2009. A study on the change of
‘Yui’ and ‘rethatching’ of Shirakawa-mura. Landscape Research
(Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, Tokyo,
ISSN: 1340-8984), 72 (5): 665-668. [in Japanese, with English
summary].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Nobu Kuroda
Assistant Professor of World Cultural Heritage Studies, Graduate School
of Comprehensive Human Science University of Tsukuba,
1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8574. JAPAN
Tel: +81-29-853-5992 Fax: +81-29-853-7099.
E-mail: kuroda@heritage.tsukuba.ac.jp
§ Ms. Nobu Kuroda has received Ph.D. in Agriculture from the University of
Tokyo in 2002. She is researching in the fields of conservation of Cultural
Landscape mainly in Shirakawa-gō and Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine in Japan and
focusing on the relationships between land use and livelihood. Her publication
includes Shirakawa-gō, the World Cultural Heritage (University of Tsukuba Press
2007), and half a dozen papers published in the Journal of the Japanese Institute of
Landscape Architecture.
6
Cultural Heritage in a Living-Mining Town

in México: The Case of Cerro de San
Pedro
José G. Vargas-Hernández
(University of Guadalajara, Jalisco, México)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. This essay aims to analyze the importance it has to rescue,
defend and promote the historic and Cultural heritage of Cerro de San
Pedro, and in revitalizing a mining town in San Luis Potosí, México. The
community decision is to maintain itself tide to its own historic and
cultural treasures. This case also shows the lack of negotiation between
firms, communities and new social movements and governments in
planning, development and revitalization of a shrinking colonial town. The
Canadian firm Metallica Resource Incorporated was at the point to destroy
part of the environmental, cultural and historic heritage of the country,
although there were three judicial resolutions to halt operations granted by
different authorities upon request of the Ejidatarios (communal land-
owners) who have rights to own the land had been dispossessed. It was
assumed that operations of the firm were in complicity with the Federal,
State and local governments. The environmental and health risks would
have side effects on more than one million people living in the localities of
Cerro de San Pedro, la Soledad and San Luis Potosi. Norms were violated
by the transnational when it started operations without obtaining legal
permit of construction and operations and authorization to manage and to
store explosives.
Keywords: Cerro de San Pedro, Cultural heritage, mining town,
revitalizing, public awareness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Introduction
Grass roots movements in relationships of cooperation and conflict
between firms, communities and government have an important role to
stop a living city from disappearing. This paper describes and analyzes the
implications of the collective action used by grass roots movements in the
174 6. José G. Vargas-Hernández
defense of an old mining town, Cerro de San Pedro of being disappeared

due to the pollution of fresh watersheds by the operations of a mining
company and the effects on the living city of San Luis Potosí, in the center
of Mexico. The mining operations of the firm have been referred as an
ecocide, contamination of watersheds, pollution of air and destruction of
the historical heritage. The inhabitants of these communities supported by
environmental groups and NGOs argue that the project will pollute sources
of fresh water besides of perturbing the environment and the ecology of
the region.
According to the company Minera San Xavier (MSX), the 100%-
owned Cerro San Pedro gold and silver heap leach project is located in the
historic Cerro San Pedro mining district in the State of San Luis Potosi,
Mexico. The presence of MSX in Cerro de San Pedro has caused a severe
social conflict among the inhabitants of San Pedro, Soledad y San Luis
and has called the attention of all who are concerned by historic heritage,
cultural and environmental issues.
2. Geographical Localization
Cerro de San Pedro is a semi-abandoned historic mining town located
in the centre of México, the State of San Luis Potosi. Cerro de San Pedro
is a small village 10 miles (16 km) east of the City of San Luis Potosi, the
Capital of the State of San Luis Potosi. Cerro de San Pedro is located in
the mountains above the valley of San Luis Potosi and is part of the
watershed area for the valley and its major cities (cf. Fig. 6.1). The valley
is the source of 73 per cent of the water for the area. It is a ghost town
containing the ruins of shops, churches, estates and a hospital (cf. Fig.
6.2). Today there are only about 100 people living in the Cerro. The Real
hamlet covers the hills on both sides of the canyon; large and small houses
flank the narrow streets (Cordero de Enciso 1997). The remains of the 400
year old town are still there, along with an active church and municipal
office. Cerro de San Pedro sits in the high desert in the heart of México,
the kind of place with lots of road runners and big cacti.
Four hundreds years of mining did not alter the original appearance of
Real, which is irregular and whose centre is the parish of San Pedro. The
artistic and urban development that started in the 17th century is
represented in Cerro de San Pedro.
There are two structures particularly important from the historical
heritage perspective. The Church of San Nicolas dates from 17th century
and San Pedro Apostle which dates from the 18th century.
Cultural Heritage in a mining Town of México 175
Fig. 6.1. Location of Cerro de San Pedro, México.
Tarascan Indians settled around the church and they adopted San
Nicolás as their patron saint; the avenue in front of the church was used as
an exchange and socializing place. Two churches were built in Cerro de
San Pedro attended by the secular clergy helped by the Franciscan monks,
and later by the Augustines who were able to speak Tarascan. The two
churches built in the first half of the 17th century being identical, though
the San Pedro church was later modified. The church of San Pedro is a
rare example of a 17th century church; and its coloring is in aesthetic
harmony with the hill behind it. The San Nicolás de Tolentino church is
built on one side of the canyon and has become an urban area The San
Nicolás church kept its primitive appearance of only one nave and barrel
vault. The section of town known as “La Colonia de los Gringos” contains
what once were company offices and living quarters of the American
Smelting and Refining Co.
Fig. 6.2. Landscape of Cerro de San Pedro region, México.
The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the relationships

of cooperation and conflict between grass roots movements, a community
and the role of government to stop the operations of a mining company
which contaminate the watersheds, pollute the environment and destroy
the living spaces of the town Cerro de San Pedro and affect the city of San
Luis Potosi in México.
3. Historical antecedents
The Guachichiles inhabited the area of Cerro de San Pedro hills
before the Spanish came. The first original urban plan of Cerro de San
Pedro dates from 1412. A couple of missionaries visited the area in the
1570s, but silver was found in the Cerro de San Pedro hills. Cerro de San
Pedro used to be one of the biggest mining towns of the Colonial New
Spain Five hundred years ago, Spanish conquistadors carved up the earth
as they plundered the town’s riches, sending most of the treasure back to
Europe. In March 1592, Don Miguel Caldera, a mestizo and Commander
of the Spanish army sent a group of miners to reconnoiter the land in the
hills of the valley of San Luis Mexquitic and register the mines of the gold
that called it Real de San Potosí. Some 60 discoveries were registered with
metals rich in lead. The richest minerals lay near the surface. After 40
years of struggle with the Guachichiles during the last decade of the 16th
century, the Conquistadores convinced the Indians that planting crops and
to have a sedentary life. Real de Minas de Cerro de San Pedro was
founded in 1583 after several mines in the vicinity began operations,
although is established that was in 1592, before that the capital of San Luis
Potosi., discovered in the 16th century, due to its wealth was baptized by
the Spanish as the Potosi. Martín Pérez was one of the discoverers of the
mines of el Cerro de San Pedro (S. L .P.), on March 4, 1592 (Del Hoyo,
1979).
Cerro de San Pedro dates back to the 17th century and was the
original location of the state capital of San Luis Potosi. But at the San
Pedro Hill there wasn’t enough water to support the town and for washing
the metals, so they ended up moving. The Spaniards founded the village
San Luis Potosi in the valley. The San Luis Potosi city’s Coat-of-Arms
had the Cerro de San Pedro on a blue and gold background with two silver
and two gold cross bands, over which is lying Saint Louis King of France,
testimony to its mining origins. The mountain is the symbol of their
heritage. Some Spanish families mestizos, mulattos and Indians founded
Real de Cerro de San Pedro further up in the sierra which had their own
governors and unions. Tlaxcalans, Tarascans and Otomies were brought in
to work in the mines and the cattle ranches. The mining district Cerro de
San Pedro has supported various periods of significant mining activity and
has seen many production mining campaigns since its discovery over the
past 500 years. There are no records of production during the period (1575
to 1660) of mining activity in the Cerro de San Pedro. The mines produced
wealth in the first thirty years and the equivalent of some $ 62 million
were paid in rights alone during its first 60 years of existence; that is, some
$ 1 million per year (Cordero de Enciso, 1999).
In 1613, the mayor, Pedro de Salazar had the famous Socavón del Rey
built; a horizontal tunnel that gave access to deeper veins which produced
around thirty tons of silver mixed with gold in a year. After 15 years of
mining the amount of precious metals reduced although there was a “gold
rush” that stirred greed among a group of men, who colluded in an
enormous fraud and the owners of the Briones mine lost their property and
finally in 1628 the houses in San Luis Potosí’s main square were vacated.
The last rich mine, the San Cristóbal was closed down in 1656 although
there were some bonanzas on El Cerro. In 1690, the Mayor, Alonso
Muñóz Castilblanque, opened the San Cristóbal mountain pass with the
help of a loan made to him by the Viceroy, the Count of Galvez and
production increased to one fifth of what it was in 1620. In 1740 one
hundred furnaces and sixty mineral crushers still existed in the region
(Cordero de Enciso, 1997). In the 18th century the area had a reputation
for maltreatment of indigenous people and anger. The poverty of the
inhabitants of the Hill and its surroundings increased and became worst in
1767. The donations of silver given towards the reparation of the church
were lost. The expulsion of the Jesuits resulted in an uprising in 1767.
Cerro de San Pedro in 1767 was the focal point of a popular insurrection
against the excess of Borbonic reforms. The serranos had demands and
opposed the removal of the Jesuits but have to surrender. Viceroy Marquis
de Croix sent Don José Galvez with 400 soldiers to punish the rebels and
their families cruelly, but the serranos managed to have their taxes reduced
and the church was repaired and improved.
Fig. 6.3. Compañía Patriótica in Cerro de San Pedro region, México.
By the mid 18th century, after two hundred years of mining industry,
Cerro de San Pedro was underdeveloped and the mines had low of
productivity due to a lack of capital, technological insufficiency, the
limited capacity of the specialized workers, and a shortage of supplies and
labor, among other things (Villalba Bustamante, 2000). A few years later,
Don Joseph de Castilla y Loaeza, a knight of Santiago founded the
Compañía Patriótica that invested 20,000 pesos and used old-fashioned
techniques (see Fig. 6.3). In 1773, San Luis Potosí had around twenty
mining communities in deplorable state of unproductiveness. By 1774,
Cerro de San Pedro had to continue to struggle to restore exploitation of
the local mines (López Miramontes y Urrutia, 1980). In 1816 a horizontal
tunnel was built in the Pópulo Hill and the Socavón Aventurero de la
Victoria, the tunnel of adventure and victory, restarted 60 years later.
Compañía Metalúrgica Mexicana owned the railway that extended towards
Río Verde that to transport the minerals from San Pedro to San Luis
Potosi. A major period of mining activity began in 1870 and continued
through the early 1950’s. In 1930, the American Smelting Company
(ASARCO) worked the horizontal tunnel and the work continued until
1948 when the miners’ strike broke out and the mine closed down. By the
late 1940s, the gold, lead, iron, manganese and mercury deposits finally
began to give out. By the early 1950’s it is estimated that approximately
2.5 million ounces of gold and 40 million ounces of silver had been
produced from the Cerro San Pedro district.
In 1993, the region of Cerro de San Pedro was declared an
ecologically protected area. Local firms continue to extract limited
quantities of minerals from the mines. Visitors can enter La Descubridora,
the town’s first mine.
4. Legal Background
Since the Prehispanic times in México, mining has played an
important role in economic and political history. From 1986 to 1990 The
World Bank granted credits to support the structural adjustment economic
policies. The credit 3,359 supported structural adjustment of the mining
sector categorized as B to eliminate environmental requirements and
public hearings (Border Ecology Project 1994). Under a neoliberal
economic policy, amendments to constitutional Article 27, a new Agrarian
Law, a Mining Law (1993) and a Foreign Investment Law during the
nineties, allow the ejidatarios, originally limited owners of land rights, to
change the ownership. Investors now could associate with ejidatarios,
exploit land resources without buying it. The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) offer advantages and opportunities for investors.
The Mining Law (1993) and the Regulation to the Mining Law (1999)
opened to foreign capital areas that were reserved for national investors
and defined new rules for the development of national and foreign
investments in exploration and exploitation of minerals as activities of
public utility. The granting process of mining concessions does not require
public hearings and most of the times the affected communities are the last
ones to know about the project. There are some references about
considering this and others “competitive advantages that offer México
compared to their partners in NAFTA (Logsdon, et al. 2003). A mining
concession cannot be cancelled for polluting the environment and only can
be fined.
5. Minera San Xavier project development in Cerro de

San Pedro
Renewed interest in the Cerro San Pedro district began in the 1970’s
with evaluations by various companies to determine the district’s potential
as a large tonnage, low-grade, bulk mineable deposit. In 1971, Las Cuevas

mining company was unable to revitalize the mines. When the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enforced in 1994, the
Canadian Company Metallica Resources Inc. started to explore the old
mining town with the intentions to exploit its resources in gold and silver.
In 1995, Metallica acquired an option to purchase Cerro San Pedro project
and began an exploration program to expand the work of recent
exploration programs conducted by other companies. Minera San Xavier
(MSX) at Cerro de San Pedro is developing a gold mining project. In
February 2003, Metallica updated the Glamis’ feasibility study run-of-
mine development plan to provide for contract mining. The use of contract
mining will reduce the project’s capital cost to approximately $25 million,
a result of eliminating the need to purchase the mining fleet. Metallica also
updated the mineral reserve estimate using a higher gold price due to the
strengthening of the gold market. Based on a $325 per ounce gold price
and a $4.62 per ounce silver price, the mineral reserves stand at 61.1
million tonnes representing 1.8 million ounces of gold equivalent. The
gold equivalent reserves increase to 2.1 million ounces at a $350 per ounce
gold price and a $5.00 per ounce silver price (Metallica Resources, Inc.
2005). In September 2003, an updated capital and operating cost study
was completed for the Cerro San Pedro project. Metallica Resources
(MR), promised to build what it announced Wall Street, one of the greatest
open pit mine of gold and silver of the world.
Actors involved in the conflict:

a. The mining company. Minera san Xavier (MSX) is the Mexican
subsidiary of the Canadian company is Metallica Resources involved in
developing the San Xavier Mine in the municipality of Cerro San Pedro,
San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The mining project of Minera San Xavier (MSX)
is located 20 kilometers northeast of the city of San Luis Potosi, the state
capital with a population of approximately one million people.
b. Community and social movements involved. The affected
community is the small village of Cerro de San Pedro where it has been
formed an alliance among diverse civil groups; organizations and political
parties in a coalition called Alianza Ciudadana Opositora a Minera San
Xavier. Alliance in Opposition to the San Xavier Mine is formed by social
movements. Among the groups, the most involved are: Educación y
Defensa Ambiental A.C., Environmental Education and Defense. Pro San
Luis Ecológico A.C., Pro San Luis Ecology, Patronato Pro-Defensa del
Patrimonio Cultural e Histórico de Cerro San Pedro, A.C., Patronato in
Defense of the Cultural and Historical National Patrimony of Cerro San

Pedro, and Asociación de Vecinos de Cerro San Pedro, the Neighbors’
Association of Cerro San Pedro. Other members that have joined to the
alliance are more than 80 social movements. The alliance also counted
with the support from the Catholic Church and its Archbishop. The
citizen’s group opposed to the project, the Ample Oppositional Front
(Frente Amplio Opositor) is the citizens’ movement that has a long-
running struggle to prevent the destruction of the village of Cerro de San
Pedro by a Canadian company that is planning to operate an open-pit gold
mine. University of San Luis Potosi has conducted an independent review
of the environmental impact study. Compas, this is one of the resistance
movements of the San Luis Potosí civil society.
c. Government. Municipal President of Cerro de San Pedro opposed
the mining project and had not given his town’s permission to the state
government, the Governor of the State of San Luis Potosi and the
President of Mexico. These three levels of government are actors on their
own.
6. The Conflict
According to the company Minera San Xavier (MSX), the 100%-
owned Cerro San Pedro gold and silver heap leach project is located in the
historic Cerro San Pedro mining district in the State of San Luis Potosi,
Mexico. The presence of MSX in Cerro de San Pedro has caused a severe
social conflict among the inhabitants of San Pedro, Soledad y San Luis
and has called the attention of all who are concerned by historic heritage,
cultural and environmental issues. Minera San Xavier (MSX) argues that
its operations would have some benefits: $ 4 million in taxes will be paid
to the federation in eight years and would by materials and provisions to
local suppliers which would be the minimum because most of these
suppliers would be foreign. Never the company referred the mining
operations as an ecocide, contamination of watersheds, pollution of air and
destruction of the historical heritage. The inhabitants of these communities
supported by environmental groups and NGOs argue that the project will
pollute sources of fresh water besides of perturbing the environment and
the ecology of the region.
At the centre of the controversy is the cheap and efficient technology.
It is alarming the use of cyanide and its impact on watersheds, the
environment and human health. Lixiviation consists in pile up mineral
mixed with cyanide over a platform in such a way that gold will be
residual. Cyanide is used for the extraction of metals since 1887 as a
chemical reactive to solve gold in water. 20 percent of global production is

used in a process of lixiviation to get gold (Ronco 2002). Almost 99% of
gold is separated from a rock and it is profitable to spend one ton of
cyanide to extract 6 kilos of gold. Studies done by Minera San Xavier to
evaluate pollution risk to the watershed of the valley of San Luis and to
quantify the use of millions of cubic meters of water and its evaporation
are insufficient and with a tendency. The hydrological card of Instituto
Nacional de Estadística, Geografìa e Informática or INEGI (National
Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics) the subterranean waters
of San Luis Potosí and Cerro de San Pedro are the same in the geo
hydrological zone. The daily use of 16 tons of cyanide and 32, 000 tons of
rock material that would require one million of cubic meters of water per
year would have residuals of cyanide, heavy metals, toxic material and
mercury stem can contaminate the watershed favored by inclination of
land and put at risk population (Metallica Resources, Inc. 2005). The
process implies daily 16 tons of cyanide mixed with 32 millions of litters
of water.
According to the Environmental Impact Manifestation presented by
MSX, should be erosion by deforestation, alteration of drainage patterns,
cancellation of productive activities, pollution caused by deposits of toxic
residuals and severe, irreversible and permanent damages. The Manifes-
tation of the Environmental Impact of the company considers that “the
impact is significant and adverse for the extraction of water” (page 16)
90% of water consumption comes from the valley of San Luis which can
be contaminated by the cyanide used in the lixiviation process (Martínez
Ramos 2004). In the last 25 years, the major causes of cyanide spill over
have been 76% due to imperfections in the lixiviation yard, 18% due to
pipes and 6% due to transportation accidents (State Environmental
Resource Center, 2004). Mining Companies have caused ecological
catastrophes that have provoked reactions of civil society groups and
governments around the World. Governments of many countries have
prohibited open pit mining exploitation using cyanide (State Environ-
mental Resource Center, 2004). The company had bought up buildings in
the village to be used for offices. The open-pit silver and gold mine
planned for the area would have a dramatic effect and is being challenged
in court by environmentalists. Environmentalists have a long battle against
the company Minera San Xavier (MSX), a subsidiary of Canada’s
Metallica Resources that plans to build an open-pit silver and gold mine
that would decapitate the mountain that looms behind the town Cerro de
San Pedro. In a postproduction model developed by the company, the area
looks like a lunar landscape. The ore-processing plant, where the toxins
would be used, sits just 20 minutes from San Luis Potosí, the capital of the
state and home of about one million people.
Excavation for the mine will take place in an area of 67.7 hectares,
digging a crater 1,150ft deep and a half-mile wide to gain access to the
90,500 oz of gold and 2.1 million oz. of silver the mountain could yield
each year for the next decade. The mountain will be demolished and in its
place will be large deep pits filled with the residue of the mining process.
Soil cover will be lost in an area of approximately 500 hectares. The pit is
only about 600 meters from the town square and the tunnels from the old
town go under the church and the square. If the mining project precedes, a
1,150-ft, half-mile crater would be blasted in top of the mountain located
behind the town of Cerro de San Pedro.
Fig. 6.4. Proposed Mine in Cerro de San Pedro region, México.
The proposed mine (cf. Fig. 6.4) would destroy the historic remains of
the old town and destroy the environment because of the cyanide leaching
and potentially poison the water of San Luis Potosi. Greenpeace says
cyanide high risk in mining plans by a Canadian firm in the Mexican
district of Cerro de San Pedro will pollute the water sources putting at risk
of death more than one million people. The firm Cambior has been
involved in two most disastrous cyanide spills in mining history where
millions of liters of water were contaminated. In August of 1995, in the
mine of Omai, Guyana, occurred the spillover of 3.2 billions of cubic
litters of polluted water by cyanide, which the Quebec Government
identified as the worst disaster on gold mining in human history. The
water of the rivers Omai and Essequibo were polluted with mercury and
cyanide. The inhabitants of the area lost their cattle and the land was
polluted. The settlers suffered and still suffer health consequences and
some have died (Zenón, Iban/CEICOM 2006). To mitigate damages
caused by the firm Cambior Ltd, the government of Guyana had to beg for
financial support from the American States Organization and the United
Nations Organization. In 1994, in Quebec, Cambior had four charges of
guilty and fines for offenses against the environment and for hide in its
report a spillover of toxic substances in one of their mines Deza Arroyo
(2006, 2002).
The project would entail moving part of the town and its historic
buildings, but the people do not want to move. To avoid damage of the
buildings, the company plans to move the municipal buildings and the
several centuries old church another 600 meters away. In that case, the
company would destroy the environment for a yield that would last only 6
to 8 years. In the environment impact report, MSX only vaguely outlined
how to restore the mountaintop, clean up the massive piles of bulldozed
waste, protect rare plants and wildlife like the biznaga cactus and the
desert tortoise, and safeguard the town’s 16th century structures. Actual
profit from the exploitation would be low in comparison to the amount of
destruction and permanent ecological damage that would result. Most
troubling was the company’s unclear plan for the management and
disposal of the toxins, including cyanide, that are used in gold mining. The
daily use of 13 tons of explosives composed of nitrate “Anful” will
produce great quantities of dust which can cause irreversible ills. 640
million cubic meters of cyanide materials would be residuals covering a
surface of 178 hectares or 17.8 square kilometers, which will not allow
agricultural or cattle activities for generations.
The potential poisoning of the watershed lands alone would have
dramatic consequences for the inhabitants of San Luis Potosi (Campbell
2004). However, MSX argues that it has clarified its plans and is
implementing the 100 changes suggested by a group of Mexican
academics who studied the environmental-impact report. In spite that
permits have been cancelled the company has huge trucks, big tanks and
workers on site, and the land has been cleared for future use in an
environmentally protected area, so the clearing is obviously illegal. A test
drill resulted in the street collapsing because of the tunnels under the
street. The company had “repaired the damage” by dumping a load of
gravel. If the project proceeds, MSX would add about 170 jobs to its
existing staff of 34 to work on the mine. But, the new jobs will require
education and training that people from Cerro de San Pedro often lack.
Some qualified residents would receive temporary housing a few miles

from town. Other villagers could choose to stay here and receive a
monthly payment based on the typical wage here, from MSX that could be
used to strengthen their houses to protect them from the blasts (cf. Fig.
6.5).
Fig. 6.5. Settlements in Cerro de San Pedro region, México.
The Company violated federal and state laws. Violated federal laws
were: Presidential Decree of June 2, 1961 which forbids extraction of
water in the valley of San Luis Potosi. Article 35 of Federal Law of fire
refers to arms and explosives. Store and consumption of explosives is only
50 meters from town instead of at least one kilometer. The Agrarian Law
establishes the obligation of the agrarian authority to staff and protect the
ejidatarios. The Company leased ejidal lands from fake ejidatarios. State
laws violated were: Article 7 of the Environmental Law of San Luis Potosí
which does not give faculty to the governor to authorize licenses of land
use. The Governor exceeded his authority to grant authorization of land
use in may 2000. Article 15 of the State Constitution of San Luis
establishes the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy environment and to
prevent and combat environmental pollution.
7. Recent Events of Cooperation and Conflict Relation-

ships between the Actors
A decree of September 1993 protects the area of the municipalities of
Cerro de San Pedro, Soledad and San Luis Potosi of any type of
aggression against the natural environment. A Renewal Plan of San Luis
Potosí and surroundings (Plan de Ordenación de San Luis Potosí y sus
alrededores, launched by Government in 1993 included Cerro de San
Pedro and previewed and ecological restoration during the following 20
years. On September 1993, the government of San Luis Potosi granted the
plan, establishing that 3 fourths of the municipality territory should be
oriented toward development of wild life, signaling the lack of water as a
fundamental problem and the need to have recharging watersheds and
giving priority to industries with low consumption of water and not
polluted (Periódico Oficial del Estado de San Luis Potosí, 1993). In 1994
MSX conceived the mining Project to exploit Cerro de San Pedro in an
open pit process at only 50 meters from the town. Since 1995, information
and letters have been sent to many officials. The citizen’s group opposed
to the project, the Frente Amplio Opositor (Broad Opposition Front), has
won a number of legal battles. However, some people favor the project
arguing that mining is part of this town’s history and its economic legacy.
On May 5, 1996 was founded the Patronato Pro Defensa del Patrimonio
Cultural e Histórico del Municipio de Cerro de San Pedro, AC.
The mining project started in 1997, when MSX received authori-
zations from local authorities. The company argued that the Project Cerro
de San Pedro would generate almost $ 200 million in investments, jobs
positions for locals and 74% of buying al local suppliers (Europa Press,
2004). With the announcement of the Project was born also the opposition
formed by environmental and architectonical conservation MSX subscri-
bed the leasing contract of land in March 1997 for a period of 15 years by
fake ejidatarios that did not have land rights on the Ejido. The
Environmental Impact Statement for the Cerro San Pedro project was
submitted to the Mexican Federal authorities in October 1997. Since then,
the permit process has included a public hearing in March 1998 and a
technical review of the permit documents by the University of San Luis
Potosí as mandated by the State government. In 1998, a technical scientific
opinion from the Commission to Review the Project Cerro de San Pedro
and Minera San Javier from the Autonomous University of San Luis
Potosi established over the environmental components that only prevents
monitoring of water but not air and soil where the cyanide could harm
(Comisión de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí para la
Revisión del Proyecto Cerro de San Pedro de Minera San Xavier, 1998).
Researchers accepted the invitation under the condition that the results of
the study should be published before should be shown to the Company and
to Environmental and Natural Resources Secretary (SEMARNAT or
Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). The researchers of
the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi had conducted the
environmental study. However, this study has not been considered to be
serious, complete and professional although it was considered as an
instrument of expression of company’s interests.
On March 20, 1998, the Municipal President was found dead by a
bullet in his head. He was murdered after he requested an audit and wanted
penal action against former municipal president that had sold illegally
abandoned fincas to MSX. One day before he was murdered, an official of
the company gave a presentation of the mining project at the Hotel Westin
in San Luis Potosí. After the lunch at El Saucito the Municipal President
argued with William Copeland Dodge, the manager of MSX. It was lost a
case containing documents which proved the land communal property that
the murdered had with him. The Governor of the State of San Luis
recommended the interested persons to review their motivations, to take
care of themselves and warned that the officers of the company would do
anything to get what they want. An official from the International Council
of monuments and sites (ICOMOS), an organization of UNESCO declared
that if the Minera de San Xavier project destroys the cultural heritage of
Cerro de San Pedro, the Governor of San Luis Potosi will be remembered
in history as responsible (La Jornada San Luis and Triunfo Elizalde,
2005). Conservationist and environmentalist groups have asked stated
government and federal government not to authorize the project.
Government should find equilibrium between conservation of cultural
values and exploitation of material resources in such a way that the
solution should guarantee the integrity of historical monuments.
In 1999 The Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT) authorized the project and its environmental impact in
spite of serious violations to the General Law of Ecological equilibrium
and Environmental Protection. In February 1999 The National Institute of

Ecology (INE) granted environmental permit to operations of MSX
against the existing plan of 1993 but establishing 100 conditionings,
among which, the number 12 established relocations of the communities
Cerro de San Pedro and La Zapatilla. Conditioning 68 established that the
company should consider a proposal for limiting the use of water through
treatment and other alternatives (Instituto Nacional de Ecología 1999). On
the 26 of February, 1999, the National Institute of Ecology granted
authorization at changed land use in Cerro de San Pedro. In the 2000, the
civic platform Pro San Luis Ecological presented an appeal against
auth0orization of mining exploitation granted on 1999 to Minera San
Xavier by the National Institute of ecology. On May 5, 2000, the
government of San Luis Potosi and the municipal of Cerro de San Pedro
granted conditional authorization at land use for mining exploitation.
Since 2001, The Social Justice Committee of Montreal, Mining Watch
Canada and the Mexican NGO FUNDAR Center for analysis and research,
funded by IDRC, are involved in a project to establish the impact of
Canadian mining operations in Mexico, and to provide support to the
affected Mexican communities. Field research was carried out in Cerro de
San Pedro. Relationships between Canadian and Mexican partners are
maintained, nurtured and deepened linking communities and NGOs up
with similar groups. A seminar on the impact of mining activities in
Mexican communities took place as well as case studies (Mining Watch
Canada 2002). In April 2002, according to information from the company,
the last of the amendments to the federal and state mining permits that had
previously been issued was received by MSX. MSX acquired of irregular
form water rights of ejidatarios and small land owners who have suit the
company. The company obtained illegally and against conditioning 68,
992, 000 cubic meters of water from intermediaries of six concessions. An
order of apprehension of MSX’s officials was granted (La Jornada San
Luis 2002). On August 2002, the Tribunal of the International Center for
Dispute Resolution on Investments established a laud in favor of the
United States Enterprise Metalclad, imposing a fine of $16 Million to the
Mexican Government for discriminatory treatment after the authorities
closed a land field for residuals and trash in Guadalcázar (San Luis Potosí,
México). This was a dangerous antecedent that the commercial and
business logic is above the health and welfare of communities.
In October 2003, Mexican state and federal agencies, and Catholic
Archdioceses of San Luis Potosi, authorized the structural stabilization and
installation of blast monitoring equipment at the Cerro San Pedro Apostle
Church. Metallica Resources Inc. was pleased to announce it on October
23 (OTC Bulletin Board 2003). On November 24, 2003, the Agrarian

Unitary Tribunal (Tribunal Unitario Agrario) emitted an agreement to stop
operations of the transnational company, requested by the real ejidatarios
to maintain the integrity of the land in conflict. Approximately $2 million
was spent on initial project development during 2003. Construction of the
mine begun in the first quarter of 2004 with commissioning scheduled for
the fourth quarter of 2004. The exploitation unit started to build on
February 2004 with the withdrawal and re-plantation of 21,000 protected
cactae (cactus) while MSX affirmed being in process of ISO 14,001
certification. The topography report includes plans of geoposition of the
National Institute of Geograpfy and Statistics (Instituto Nacional de
Estadística Geografía e Informática, INEGI) stating that the mining
exploitation is on the area of the hill and in the town. On February 11, five
years later, the company submitted the impact on health issues and the
company has not given any information regarding the areas of
conservation of five species of cactus to the SEMARNAT. Besides the
historic architecture, there are five species of flora risking extinction.
Earlier, a group of nearly 20 environmental and civic groups charged
Mexico’s Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources of illegally
rubberstamping in 1999 MSX’s environmental-impact report. Cruz
Camarena (2004) reports a confrontation early in March between 60 local
environmental and community activists and representatives of the San
Xavier Mine, the head of the State Unit of Civil Protection, Investigators
from the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (UASLP) and the
Secretary of Ecology and Environmental Organization. On March 17,
2004, the Unitary Agrarian Tribunal rejected the rental contracts between
the MSX and false ejidatarios. The Governor of the State of San Luis
pressured the President of Municipal Government of Cerro de San Pedro
to grant the corresponding agrarian permits. He also pretended to cancel
the decree that protects the ecological zone. The Secretary of the State
Government also pressured and wanted to bribe the Municipal President of
Cerro de San Pedro to grant permits of land use and to give support for
authorization of SEDENA’s permit to use explosives for bastings. The
Secretary of Economic Development of the State of San Luis has land
properties neighboring MSX and ceded 65 per cent of water rights. The
President of the Mining Chamber of Mexico was the situation of conflict
of interests; however he supported the blasting of MSX even knowing that
this was against judicial decisions.
MSX has established programs dedicated to the conservation of the
environment. MSX has formed a non-profit foundation to supervise and
administer the funds that Metallica donate to preserve the village of Cerro
de San Pedro and assist the surrounding communities. April 12, 2004, a
protest mining at Cerro de San Pedro was organized by the National
Liberation Zapatista Front (FZLN). On May 11, 2004, Fred H. Lightner,
General Director of Minera San Xavier, sent a letter to Herrera Muñoz
insisting on the permit to use explosives, warning that Metallica Resources
would announce publicly in United Status that the company is found
without any possibilities to continue with the construction of the mine due
that it has no count with the general permit to use the corresponding
explosives. He continued on saying that their investors and potential
investors in other projects in Mexico would begin to question regarding
the risks to invest in Mexico (Cruz Martínez, 2004). On May 18, 2004,
The Second District Court granted a suspension as part of the appeal
564/2004 promoted by inhabitants of Cerro de San Pedro to halt granting
of construction and functioning of MSX. However, this permit was
liberated on the 7 of August at Cabildo session. In June 2004, the anti-
mine coalition, Pro San Luis Ecológico won a federal court sided with
environmentalists in effectively nullifying MSX’s environmental permit,
which halted the company’s work. June 23, the Supreme Tribunal of
Fiscal and Administrative Justice cancelled the environmental permit
granted by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT) in February 1999. On June 23, the 9th Collegiate Tribunal
in Administrative Issues of the First Circuit of the nation Supreme Court
of Justice (SCJN), declared that the license of change of land use and open
pit mining project granted to MSX by the National Institute of Ecology
violated the General law of Ecological and Environmental Equilibrium
and the Decree of Planning in the State of San Luis Potosi.
On July 22, the Municipal Presidency was taken over by the Minera
San Xavier (MSX). One week before an entrepreneur of the MSX intended
to bribe the President. The Secretary of Economy of Mexico declared in
August hat MSX was a win-win project and authorized on July 28 a
temporal occupancy of land against article 20 of the Mining Law that
forbids a mining exploitation when there are population or an ecological
reserve The environmental permit to operations of MSX was cancelled on
July 28, 2004 the same that was granted by The National Institute o
Ecology (INE). For more than one year, Fox visited the State once per
month and promotes MNX. President Fox visiting Canada questioned the
judicial decisions affecting operations of the mining company. On July 29
when visiting San Luis met the President Municipal of Cerro de San Pedro
and recommended the approval of the municipal permits even against
resolutions of the judicial power. According to Loredo, Fox told him that
he was worried to achieve the mining project and that he (The President of
Mexico) recommended its approval (La Jornada San Luis, 30.08.04). The
argument used by government to support operation of the open pit mining
company is the generation of 300 low wages employments, for only 8
years. It was criticized that President Fax for having a double moral. While
he promotes disobedience to the law of the Municipal President of Cerro
de San Pedro, he has accused the Mayor of Mexico City for the same fault.
The Municipal President recognized that he authorized the operations of
the open pit mining because he was afraid of his life and the life of his
family. In 1999, the Municipal President, the father of Loredo, was
murdered because his opposition
On August 7, the Municipal President of Cerro de San Pedro
approved the permits to build the mine and conformity regarding safety
and location against a previous agreement of no approval done on may 28,
based on the appeal 564/2004 and agrarian and environmental resolutions
forbidden these permits. Loredo recognized that the permits were illegal;
there was no other way to face the pressure. However, the session was tape
recorded, where the Municipal President declares that he was under
pressure by President Fox and the Governor of the State The Municipal
President declared that it was known beforehand that the federal
government and the state government are in agreement and they are potent
that one cannot be against them; they have the hand over our neck and
there were some advertencies. When this decision was questioned, he
responded asking if his life was not important. On August 9, the Second
District Court admitted other appeal presented by ejidatarios and next day
declared suspension in order that SEDENA could not authorize buying and
using of explosives. On August 10, the same Court granted other
suspension as part of the appeal 909/2004, to halt Sedena’s actions to
deliver to the company permit to buy and use explosives, but license was
issued the 12 of October by the Secretary of Defense. On August 18, a
congresswoman Eliana García presented to the Permanent Commission of
Congress a point of agreement to request the Judicial Power to investigate
federal and state officials involved in disobedience to the law.
On August 21, opponents to the MSX’s project closed the offices and
demanded immediate exit of the company from Cerro de San Pedro.
Among these opponents were Movimiento Pro-Cerro de San Pedro,
Frente Cívico Potosino, Greenpeace, Frente Zapatista de Liberación
Nacional y del Movimiento “Ya Basta”, inhabitants from Cerro de San
Pedro, San Luis Potosí and Soledad, and a patrol of public security. On
September 1, 2004, a decision of the Mexican Federal Superior of Fiscal
and Administrative Justice Court (TFJFA or Tribunal Federal de Justicia
Fiscal y Administrativa) called for the mining company’s permit that was
granted on February 1999. The permit was granted to conditionally

operate the mine. However, the TFJFA revoked the permit because of its
failure to comply with proper procedures with respect to their
environmental impact study. The resolution states that because
biodiversity is at danger, the Project should not be authorized.
Commencement of mine operations was anticipated to begin in the fourth
quarter of 2004, subject to project financing.
In a resolution dated September 1 (2000), the TFJFA substantiated a
case brought in 2000 by the civic union Pro San Luis Ecológico, opposing
the authorization granted to the company the previous year by the National
Institute of Ecology (INE). The Delegate of the Secretariat of Environment
and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) a local office in San Luis Potosí
(2002-2004) created the Foundation of Potosi under the purpose declared
by Minera San Xavier to fulfill the conditions established by National
Institute of Ecology to authorize the Manifest of Environmental Impact
and to provide the compensations of ecological costs. The firm needs more
than three years to fulfill only 32 of 100 conditions imposed by
SEMARNAT while this Secretary only needed one Month to accept them.
The Court halted operations at the San Luis de Potosí Gold Project, owned
by Minera San Xavier (MSX), a subsidiary of the Canadian company
Metallica Resources. The Federal Court’s resolution was based on the
necessity of ecological preservation of San Pedro Hill, where some animal
species are in danger of extinction, as well as risks derived from cyanide
use in mining, which would put in danger the biodiversity of the area. In
addition to this point, the TFJFA recalls that the responsibility for
preservation and regeneration of the environment lies with the federal
authority. It concludes that the permit granted for the concession did not
conform to “applicable laws”.
The opponents to La Minera San Xavier consider that “the project is
dead”, since any action that could undermine the federal justice decision
“would imply disrespect and transgression of the law”. The company has
retorted that the decision lacks a scientific base and that it will harm
Canadian investments in the country. Second District Judge of the Federal
Judicial Power dictated suspension of plan as part of the appeal 909/2004,
promoted by ejidatarios de Cerro de San Pedro, San Luis Potosí, to
suspend permit of buying and using explosives by the company. MSX
appealed the ruling and, in September, lost again. Because the company’s
latest appeal was rejected, they are threatening to use NAFTA’s Chapter
11 to sue the Mexican government for potential lost profits. On September
27, 2004, the Broad Opposition Front asked to the Sub direction of Mining
Rights to order cancellation of concession to Minera San Xavier. On
October 7, 2004, personnel of the Secretary of Economy asked the

ejidatarios to withdraw the land but a judge suspended the action. Against
the owners of the land, during the first period of the project, more than 100
hectares of protected areas were illegally naked of protected species
cutting the flora and expulsing the fauna. The municipal President, who
under pressure granted the permit, confronts a suit for not obeying the law
because the municipal permit was suspended on March 16, 2004. On
February 6, 2004, MSX did not acknowledge some of the environmental
commitments acquired and underestimating obligations to fulfill
conditionings.
The company also committed fraud against the three levels of
government who granted respective permits for the mining project under
the assumption that land tenure was not viscid. With a fake contract, MSX
took possession of land causing destruction on old buildings and protected
flora and fauna, a loss to the ecosystem. The company also closed
neighborhood roads that had been used by inhabitants of La Zapatilla,
Cuesta de Campa, Portezuelo y Cerro de San Pedro, without any permit.
Invaded land of national property where was the old track of the train
Potosí-Rioverde and installed a fence of several kilometers to avoid access
to inhabitants to municipal land (Montemayor 2004). On October 26,
2004, the Federal Tribunal of Fiscal and Administrative Justice determined
that authorization of conditioned land use granted in 1999 to the project of
MSX was against federal norms and not considered the existence of a
protected area plan for the Cerro de San Pedro and surroundings. In a
public speech held on October 28, the Minister of Environment and
Natural Resources evaluated the resolutions of tribunals as the worst result
and spoke on favor of the company as having fulfilled all the requirements
and considered as absurd the opposition of the inhabitants. After
SEDENA granted permits for use of explosives, on November 18, an
incident of violation of suspension granted to the appeal promoted by
ejidatarios on August 9 was promoted. On the 22 of November 2004, the
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) promoted a
revision against the resolution that cancels the permit of conditioned
operation of the open pit mining to MSX and SEDENA authorized to
MSX the use of explosives. On November 29, 2004, the Director of
Mining in the State of San Luis Potosí declared that in the following days
the Company would have the first blasts to prepare operations. On
November 30, 2004, The Senate Chamber passed an “obvious and urgent
resolution” to stop programmed operations of MNX.
On December 1, 2004, an Agrarian Unitary Tribunal defended its
claim that MSX’s lease excludes a group of land owners. The Agrarian
Unitary Tribunal ordered to obey the sentence derived of an appeal 807/

202 which determined the illegality of the leasing contract of land
subscribed in March 1997 for a period of 15 years by fake ejidatarios that
did not have land rights on the Ejido (Cruz Martínez 2004). The Court
cancelled rental leases subscribed between the company and false
ejidatarios. The ruling freezes MSX’s land rights although the company
constructed barbed wired fences around land that the company doesn’t
own. The Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Unitario Agrario) has nullified the
rental contracts for the land where important parts of the mine are located
– on the grounds that the persons renting the ejidal (socially-owned) land
to the company were not in fact members of the ejido, that is to say that
their actions were fraudulent. About the land use, the company declared
that the ejido leased is Cerro de San Pedro when belongs to the
municipality of Soledad de Graciano Sanchez. The intention is to avoid
permits in area that is legally environmentally protected. Also, Ejidatarios
of Palma de la Cruz leased 136 hectares to Minera San Xavier to be used
as shops but the company was using it as disposal of sulphurous material
that is not lixiviable. On December 13–14, 2004, the company blasted the
area of La Zapatilla incrementing tension among the inhabitants of the
region. On December 14, it began excavating the mountain. Inhabitants of
the town La Zapatilla were relocated alter the company initiated
operations. When the INAH knew about the blasting, requested the
company to stop of such activities arguing the defense of around 115
buildings dated from 17th to 19th centuries. Since 1998, INAH had
warned over the danger for the historic heritage that would represent to
activate the mining. With the opposition of the National Institute of
Anthropology and History (INAH), and the reluctant permission for using
explosives for blasting the mountain, of the Secretary of Defense
(SEDENA) the company has begun its operations. The company appealed
but the judge did not grant suspension against the decision made by INAH.
On December 18, 2004, intellectuals, artists and around 50 civil,
environmental and Human Rights organizations strongly requested
President Fox to respect and enforce the law at Cerro de San Pedro and to
order Minera San Xavier to suspend activities based on judicial resolutions
and verdicts. The arguments of the organizations, among others, Frente
Amplio Opositor, la Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos, la
Unión Nacional de Trabajadores Agrícolas y el Movimiento Agrario
Indígena Zapatista (Maiz), were in favor to defend the environmental,
cultural and historic heritage and the imminent health risks of more than
one million people Ejidatarios continued with a safety line in front of the
entrance to the mine although it was announce that the Secretary of
Economy of México will grant a permit of temporal land occupancy in the

agrarian nucleus of Cerro de San Pedro in response to an application done
by MSX on June 28, 2004 (Cruz Martinez 2004a) Thus, the company and
government were looking for other options of land ownership such as
expropriation or temporal occupancy. But expropriation is only by cause
of public utility. On December 20, 2004 the Third District Court received
the appeal presented by the company against the decision of the INAH.
The Canadian firm Metallica Resources Incorporated suffered a
second decrease in the year of 16 percent in value of shares on December
21, after informing shareholders over the resolutions of Unitary Agrarian
Tribunal which nulls the contract of leasing of 300 hectares in Cerro de
San Pedro. Metallica Resources responded with an appeal and skating that
would look for other option of land tenancy to have access to mineral
resources. The first decrease in a year, of around 20 per cent occurred in
mid-2004. Members of Christian Science Monitor were the first Canadians
to come and witness the damage that has already happened, and the
potential for more harm. On December 22, 2004 under strategic action,
México citizen’s group sought halt in the Canadian-owned mine, in
responds to an urgent request for Canadian support to challenge legality
and operations. Sedena admitted participation in control and surveillance
of blast that the company realized, confirming violation of suspension
dictated by the judge in August, 2004 ordaining not liberation of permit to
use explosives Cruz Martinez, and Balboa 2004). Another round of
blasting was scheduled for December 31. On December 18, the Municipal
President of Cerro de San Pedro announced the next detonation.
On November 15, 2003, The Commander of the 12 Military Zone of
San Luis Potosí considered that authorization of the permit could have
negative effects for Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA). The
Secretary of National Defense, the 30 of November 2003, agreed to
suspend the permit to use explosives granted to the mining company, but
on October 12, 2004, against resolutions of judged, signed and granted
permits of use of explosives. The Commander of the military zone that had
opposed was removed from his position. On November 22, SEDENA
authorized to MSX the use of explosives. However, the 24 of December
when authorizations were public already, the permits were suspended but
not cancelled. SEDENA suspended the permit 3762-San Luis Potosí
granted to MSX to buy and consume explosive material under the
argument that the license to the company was altering the peace,
tranquility and public order among people living in the region of Cerro de
San Pedro, although the inhabitants have denied alteration of public order.
The National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) suited

against directives of the Transnational for destruction and demolition of
Finch Guadalupe that dated since the 18th century. The Broad Opposition
Front sent a letter to the Canadian Embassy requesting intervention to halt
operations of the Canadian company who is blackmailing and pressing
inhabitants of Cerro de San Pedro using as arguments the NAFTA’s
framework (Román, 2004). The last two days of December 2004, the
lawyer of the company MSX got signatures among fake ejidatarios from
Cerro de San Pedro and La Zapatilla, who would agree to use TNT (La
Jornada 2005a). The Ministry of the Environment has taken legal steps to
have the previous court rulings against the company overturned. The
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) had
promoted an appeal of revision to the resolution of cancelled permit but
had obtained in its favor a suspension to avoid cancellation of the permit.
The Commission of Governance, Constitutional Issues and Justice of the
Permanent Union Congress approved an agreement to request information
to SEMARNAT about the legal status of Minera San Xavier and to accept
the resolution of the Court that cancels the permit of operation of the open
pit mining. A plural commission travelled to Cerro de San Pedro La
Jornada, (2005b).
The destruction of a historic building catalogued as a heritage
monument of the 18th century in the town of Cerro de San Pedro by
Minera San Xavier was reported by La Jornada San Luis and Triunfo
Elizalde (La Jornada San Luis and Triunfo Elizalde 2005). The Finca o
Casa de Guadalupe is included in the National Catalogue of Historical
Monuments. Access to the Finca was in the area. On January 17, protesters
of AOF demanded INAH for information (Enciso 2005e). The owners of
Casa Guadalupe, a historic real state demolished by MNX suited the
company for dispossession and damages. The building is in the catalogue
of historic constructions of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia (INAH). Personnel from INAH ordered to stop demolition on
January 15. The Patronato Pro Defensa del Patrimonio Histórico y
Cultural del Municipio Cerro San Pedro, demanded cancellation of
concessions to MNX for not fulfillment of the Mining Law (Enciso
2005d). According to The Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAT) Minera San Xavier has fulfilled with 180
conditions established to favor sustainable development (Enciso 2005c).
On January 20, 2005, the Broad Opposition Front (AOF) Frente de
Oposición Amplia (FOA) to the Minera San Xavier addressed an open
letter to the Constitutional Governor of the State of San Luis to denounce
damages caused by the blasts and the dangers and risks of planned mining
operations. The argument of the governor stating that it was “an issue
between particulars” is severely criticized. Minera San Xavier suit for
defamation to members of the Broad Opposition Front two ejidatarios of
Cerro de San Pedro and the leader of a civil organization Pro Defensa de
Cerro de San Pedro (Enciso 2005a) for the publication of an article in La
Jornada (Masiosare, 29 de Agosto de 2004).
The National Network of Civil Organizations of Human Rights, All
the Rights for All (la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos
Humanos Todos los Derechos Para Todos) started to circulate a setter of
support to the three accused, as an Urgent Action. Minera San Xavier lost
other judicial process when the Third Court of District from State denied
an appeal against the National Institute of Anthropology and History
(Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, INAH), who requested last
December suspension of blast explosions that damaged the historic
heritage (Enciso 2005b). In a public message, AOF sustained that in a
shameful act of cynicism and impunity, Cardenas Jimenez has recomm-
endded the Minera to go to the Tribunals without knowledge of the
coursed legal process (La Jornada 2005c). The Broad Opposition Front to
the MNX announced in mid-February 2005 that would promote a demand
of political suit for negligence against the Minister of the Environment and
Natural Resources who have supported the company in a public hearing on
the 11 of February (La Jornada 2005d). The Senate approved an agreement
requesting the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT) and SEDENA to explain their involvement in the Minera
San Xavier case (Cruz Martinez 2005).
On March 4, 2005 a conference/forum Cuarto Concierto Cultural por
la Defensa de Cerro de San Pedro took place for the defense of the
environment the village and the rights in Cerro de San Pedro sponsored by
Patronato Pro Defensa Cerro de San Pedro, marking the 413 anniversary
of its foundation, the 4 of March of 1592. On March 17, a delegation of a
group of the Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (KAIROS)
delegation by seven Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic
and United church leaders went to Cerro de San Pedro to investigate a
mining operation owned by Metallica Resources, a Canadian company
based on Ottawa that stands accused of illegal gold mining in México. The
company threatens to destroy both the historic town and the surrounding
fragile ecology. The Canadians met with KAIROS’ Mexican partners and
local people to bear witness to their struggle and brought details home to
Canada, including video and other documentation. “Foreign mining in
México is another by-product of NAFTA and the trade liberalization
policies that affect the poor,” said Lutheran National Bishop Ray Schultz,
a delegate with the KAIROS program. “When our Mexican partners raised
concerns about this Canadian-owned mine, we felt we had to investigate”
(Kairos 2004). Representants of Kairos formed by a group of Canadian
religious institutions expressed concerns over the conflict of the
Community of Cerro de San Pedro and the Canadian company considering
that the practices of MNX violates Canadian Laws in Mexican territory
(Muñoz 2005). Previously, a member of the Broad Opposition Front had
toured and campaigned in Canada lobbying leaders of opinion and
legislators. On March 18, 2004, the Auxiliary Bishop Daniel Bohan of
Toronto called on a Canadian company to abandon a Mexican gold and
silver mining operation using cyanide that locals fear will poison their
water. With a surge in gold prices, MSX executives want to move forward
and are searching for a legal breakthrough that will allow MSX to begin
excavation and resume operations by mid-2005 (Campbell 2004). Under
an irregular procedure, the Canadian Company promoted two appeals, but
was denounced by the Pro Ecology Group. On 6 of April, 2005, a Tribunal
in Administrative matters of First Circuit informed to MNX that had lost
the appeal. Canadian legislators and Human and Parliamentary Rights
Canadian Organizations formed a follow up and analysis committee to
investigate actions of Metallica Resources, owner of the project Minera
San Xavier. The Human Rights Canadian organization had visited
previously the community of Cerro de San Pedro (Enciso 2005a). The
Canadian Ambassador in México met with the Broad Opposition Front to
the MSX on the 4 of May and expressed the concerns of the Canadian
Government for the conflict between the company and the Community of
Cerro de San Pedro. A group of 30 environmentalist organizations accused
the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources to benefit
transnational corporations approving projects such as the open pit mining
at Cerro de San Pedro against the will of the community and demanded a
change in the environmental policy (Enciso 2005).
The protestors also denounced that the Minister has prosecuted
environmental activists (cf. Fig. 6.6). Oppositional groups win the judicial
controversy against MNX after the First Court of District (Juzgado
Primero de Distrito) has dismissed the appeal 503/2005, which was the
last resource of the Company’s defense (La Jornada 2005e). The Governor
of the State of San Luis Potosí ordered to hijack a complete edition of the
newspaper La Jornada San Luis to avoid the publication of his official
maneuvering for pressuring the decision to install the mining company
Minera San Xavier (Hernández López 2005). On May 13, 2005 is reported
that after Metallica Resources presented looses in its first report of the
year, the owners of MNX plan to withdraw Cerro de San Pedro’s project
and will suit the NAFTA’s panel of controversies (Cruz Martínez 2005a).
Fig. 6.6. Protestors’ movement in Cerro de San Pedro region, México.
Mining activities are perceived as the main factor of marginal regions
and depressed zones. Mining concessions granted by Mexican government
is centralized, brief and against public hearings, in such a way that affected
groups and communities can not react immediately and mobilize against
potential risks and dangers or to negotiate rights and interests. The
Canadian firm Metallica Resource Incorporated was at the point to destroy
part of the environmental, cultural and historic heritage of the country,
although there were three judicial resolutions to halt operations granted by
different authorities upon request of the. Ejidatarios who have rights to
own the land had been dispossessed. It was assumed that operations of the
firm were in complicity with the Federal, State and local governments.
The environmental and health risks would have side effects on more than
one million people living in the localities of Cerro de San Pedro, la
Soledad and San Luis Potosi. Norms were violated by the transnational
when it started operations without obtaining legal permit of construction
and operations and authorization to manage and to store explosives.
Exploitation of gold trough open pit mining and use of cyanide lead to
destruction of natural environments and irreversible geomorphologic
alterations, distortions of watersheds, reduction on the quality of available
water, transport accidents of dangerous substances and spill over during
the exploitation, irreversible destruction of natural scenic and generation
of deposits highly risky pollutant materials which have social, cultural and
environmental impacts at short, medium and large terms (Montenegro,
2004). The negotiation agenda and international mobilization around the
debate over the concept of sustainable development and defense of the
environment is a paradigm presented as a model of cooperation and
consensus where the needs of all are incorporated and the greater have a
compromise to support weaker. Intervention of the state and international
community to benefit the public interest and the common good and to
control forces of the state and to achieve more equity among populations
together with the implementation of more sustainable production and
consumer patterns. It is quite evident the lack of sensitivity of foreign
mining companies toward the consequents of their activities upon the
communities and environment. To a certain extent, we disagree with
Sánchez-Mejorada (2000) who argues that facts will not convince the
fringe environmental activists, the best defense is to address all
environmental concerns and to have an aggressive community relations
program that will put the facts before the general population that will be
affected by the project. Keeping a low profile will rarely work when being
assaulted by activists on all fronts. However, aggressive community
relations will only escalate the conflict.
This case also shows the lack of negotiation between firms,
communities, new social movements and governments Information about
externalities and future costs of company activities is crucial but more
crucial is formulation and implementation of more sensitive policies to
avoid damage of the environment, biodiversity and health of population.
Government institutions must be aware that their decisions may affect the
community quality of life of actual and future generations only for a small
increment in economic growth and large increase in private benefits of a
small group of investors. More informed citizens tend to be more active
protestors, such as the case of the students in San Luis. Contact between
informed individuals of diverse groups and organizations help to exchange
experiences and create public opinion in favor of mobilizations.
Community participation and involvement in decision making of
community development planning is quite limited by the lack of critical
information. This fact is critical when the local government cannot provide
the right information because there are other interests affecting the
process.
9. References
Bardacke, Ted 1993. The Mexican Gold Rush. El Financiero
Internacional, Sep. 27- Oct. 3: 14-15.
Border Ecology Project 1994. Environmental Protection within the
Mexican Mining Sector and the Impact of World Bank Mining Loan #
3359. Draft Report, April.
Comisión de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí para la
Revisión del Proyecto Cerro de San Pedro de Minera San Xavier
(1998), Opinión Técnico-Científica sobre los Componentes
Ambientales del Proyecto Cerro de San Pedro de Minera San Xavier,
San Luis Potosí, diciembre de 1998, pp. 16.
Campbell, Monica 2004. Mexican town curbs mine giant. The Christian
Science Monitor, December 14 edition.
Cordero de Enciso, Alicia 1999. Real de Catorce, San Luis Potosí.
Investigación y texto -- México: INAH: JGH, 1999. -- 102 p. il. --
(Guía, México y su patrimonio; 2) Título de cubierta. Incluye
bibliografía: p. 99 ISBN 970-18-1219-0.
__. 1997. San Pedro Hill it still worth a Potosí. México en el Tiempo, No.
19 July-August. México desconocido Online. http://www.Méxicodes
conocido.com.mx/english/cultura_y_sociedad/actividades_
economicas/detalle.cfm?idsec=17&idsub=83&idpag=689.
Cruz Camarena, Beatriz 2004. Community, Environmentalists Fight
Canadian Mine Co. La Jornada.
Cruz Martinez, Angeles 2004. Admite Sedena que autorizó uso de
explosivos a minera: ejidatarios. La Jornada, 24 de diciembre.
―. 2004a. Intelectuales y ONG exigen a Fox ordene a Minera San Xavier
suspender actividades. La Jornada, 19 de diciembre de.
―. 2005. El Senado aprobó un punto de acuerdo en el que exhorta a las
dependencias a informar. Semarnat y Sedena deben explicar su
participación con Minera San Xavier. La Jornada, Domingo 27 de
febrero.
―. 2005a. Dueños de Minera San Xavier planean retirar el proyecto,
aseguran opositores. La Jornada, Viernes 13 de mayo del.
Cruz Martinez, Angeles and Balboa Juan 2004. Suspende Sedena permiso
a Minera San Xavier para manejar explosivos. La Jornada, 26 de
diciembre de.
Del Hoyo, Eugenio 1979. History of El Nuevo Reino de Leon (1577-

1723). Editorial Libros de Mexico, S.A., Mexico, D.F. cited from
P.F.V. Col. Doc., Vol. I, p. 254.
Deza Arroyo, Nilton 2002. Oro, cianuro y otras crónicas ambientales.
Editorial Universitaria. Cajamarca, Perú.
―. 2006. Oro, ciaburo y otras crónicas. Editorial Universitaria. UNC,
Cajamarca, Perú.
Enciso, Angélica L. 2005. Ecologistas acusan a Alberto Cárdenas de
beneficiar al sector.
―. 2005a. Legisladores y ONG de Canadá deciden investigar actos de
Minera San Javier. La Jornada, 18 de Abril.
―. 2005b. Niegan amparo a Minera San Xavier. La Jornada, 3 de
Febrero.
―. 2005c. Insiste Semarnat en defender a Minera San Xavier. La Jornada,
20 de Enero.
―. 2005d. Dueños de la Casa Guadalupe denuncian a Minera San Xavier
por daño y despojo. La Jornada, 19 de Enero.
―. 2005e. Presenta el INAH demanda penal contra la Minera San Xavier.
La Jornada, 18 de Enero.
Europa Press 2004. Tribunal mexicano paraliza el proyecto minero en San
Luis de Potosí La empresa responde que ya tenía todos los permisos y
que el Tribunal carece de conocimientos medioambientales. 2
Noviembre 2004.
Hernández López, Julio 2005. Astillero. La Jornada, lunes 9 de mayo del
2005.
Instituto Nacional de Ecología 1999. Autorización DOO DGOEIA
001130.
Kairos 2004. Delegation to México looks at poverty, murder, Canadian
mining practices and other free-trade by-products MEDIA ADVISORY
KAIROS— Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.
La Jornada 2005a. January 2.
―. 2005b. January 12.
―. 2005c. February 13.
―. 2005d. February 14.
―. 2005e. May 9.
La Jornada San Luis 2002. “La Minera San Xavier adquirió de manera
irregular derechos de agua”, 22 de junio del 2002.
La Jornada San Luis and Triunfo Elizalde 2005. Minera San Xavier
destruye un inmueble histórico del siglo XVIII. La Jornada,
Domingo 16 de enero del 2005.
Logsdon, Mark J. et. al. 2003. The Management of Cyanide in Gold

Extraction; de, Logsdon, Mark J.; Hagelstein, Karen and Mudder,
Cihterry I. (eds.) publicado el miércoles 3 de diciembre del 2003, en:
http://www.ilustrados.com/publicaciones/EpZpVpEpkkjxcfwDzo.php
16 de nov, 2004.
López Miramontes, Álvaro y Cristina Urrutia (1980) Las minas de Nueva
España in 1774, Mexico, INAH, 1980.
Martínez Ramos, Mario 2004. Carta a Quien Corresponda, San Luis
Potosí S.L.P. México, Setiembre 23 del 2004; http://www.
esquelonline.com/~noalamina/Sanluispotosi.htm, 5 de noviembre.
Metallica Resources, Inc. 2005. Cerro San Pedro. http://www.metal-
res.com /main.asp?section=properties&page=cerro.
Mining Watch Canada 2002. Mines Alerte. Newsletter, number 8,
Winter/Spring 2002.
http://www.miningwatch.ca/publications/newsletters/newsletter8.html.
Montemayor, Carlos 2004. Minera San Xavier despojó de tierras a
habitantes de Cerro de San Pedro. La Jornada, 20 de octubre del
2004. III Parte.
Montenegro, Raul A. 2004. Estudio sobre el Impacto Ambiental y
Sanitario de las minas de oro. El caso Cordón Esquel; http://
www.funam.org.ar/introduoro.htm, 4 de noviembre del 2004.
Muñoz, Alma E. 2005. Destruye el TLCAN a las familias: grupos
religiosos. La Jornada, 19 de marzo del 2005.
OTC Bulletin Board 2003. “Metallica Resources Announces Authorization
to Proceed With Church Stabilization at the Cerro San Pedro Project,
Mexico”. October 23.
Periódico Oficial del Estado de San Luis Potosí 1993. Plan de Ordenación
de San Luis Potosí y de su zona conurbada. Publicado 24 de
septiembre de 1993.
Román, José Antonio 2004. Piden a Canadá obligar a Minera San Xavier a
respetar ley mexicana. La Jornada, 28 de diciembre del 2004.
Ronco, Jorge 2002. Fundamentos de la Campaña Esquel. Eco sitio 2002-
04; http://www.eco-sitio.com.ar/fundamentos_de_la_campana 2.htm,
15 de nov del 2004.
Sánchez-Mejorada, Rodrigo 2000. Mining law in México. Mineral
Resources Engineering, vol. 9 (No. 1): 129-139.
State Environmental Resource Center 2004 Banning Cyanide Use in
Mining, en http://www.serconline.org/mining/talking.html, 21 July,
2004.
Villalba Bustamante, Margarita 2000. State and business initiative in the

formation of the Valenciana and Real de Catorce mining communities
(Mexico), 1760-1790. Colegio de San Luis.
Zenón, Iban/CEICOM 2006. Minería de oro y plata en Sensuntepeque.
Centro de Investigación sobre Inversión y Comercio. Capturado el 28
de Nayo del 2006. http://www.ceicomobservatoriodelsur.org/index.
php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=8&pid=4.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. José G. Vargas-Hernández, M.B.A., Ph.D.
Profesor Investigador miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores,
Departamento de Mercadotecnia y Negocios Internacionales, Centro
Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas; Universidad de
Guadalajara, Periférico Norte 799 Edificio G-306. Zapopan, Jalisco C.P.
45100; MÉXICO
Tel y fax: +52(33) 3770 3343 ext 5607. Email: josevargas@cucea.udg.mx
[also]
La Grana 170 C5; Col. Bosques de San Isidro, 45080 Zapopan, Jalisco;
Cerrada Petronilo López 31, Cd. Guzmán, Jalisco, 49000, MÉXICO
Tel +52(341) 4120909. Email: jvargas2006@gmail.com
José G. Vargas-Hernández is a member of the National System of Researchers of

Mexico, and Research professor at University Center for Economic and
Managerial Sciences, University of Guadalajara. He has been a Visiting Scholar
IURD- UC Berkeley, Visiting research professor at School of Public
Administration, Carleton University, Canada. Earlier he had served at Facultad de
Economía de la Universidad de Colima, and Instituto Tecnológico de Cd. Guzmán
and at UNIVER. José has a Ph.D. in Public Administration (Columbia States
University), and also a Ph.D. in Economics (Keel University, England). He holds
degrees and diplomas in Studies in Organisational Behaviour (Lancaster
University), Master of Business Administration in Industrial Management (Pacific
States University), Marketing Certificate (The British Institute of Marketing), and
Diploma in Philosophy (Universidad Panamericana), Bachelor in Commercial
Relations, Instituto Politécnico Nacional. He serves as External Independent
Consultant, ex director of Centro de Capacitación y Adiestramiento, General
Manager of Patronato del Instituto Tecnológico, Chief Eexecutive Office of
Novacal S.A., Manager of the Consejo de Colaboración Ciudadana, and Director
of Mass Media at Ayuntamiento de Cd. Guzmán. His publications include more
than 100 scientific papers and three books.
7
Varanasi, India’s Cultural Heritage City:

Contestation, Conservation & Planning
Rana P.B. Singh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. It has been realised that the cultural and natural heritages are
increasingly threatened by destruction not only due to the traditional
causes of decay, but also by changing socio-economic and political
conditions. From India 28 properties are enlisted in WH List, however
Ghats of Varanasi has not yet been proposed for inclusion, mostly due to
political complexity and lack of strong movement from the stakeholders.
This essay attempts to critically examine the rationales for proposing
Varanasi as a heritage city in the WH List and the problems faced in this
process since last ten years. In this context the status of Varanasi on the
scale of UNESCO-WH List, the implications of the present Master Plan
and City Development Plan (JNNURM), role of INTACH (Varanasi),
governance strategies and issues of public awareness are critically
examined. It is suggested that the auspices of City Administration a
Heritage & Conservation Cell in the Development Authority and
Municipal Corporation should be created, and specific by-laws also be
formulated for the development and preservation of heritagescapes.
Keywords: JNNURM, heritage planning, contestation, Master plan, public
participation, stakeholders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. The Master Plan and Heritage Zones

People say, “By seeing Banaras, one can see as much of life as the
whole India can show”. In fact, Banaras is an archetype of all India, but it
is full of complexity and contrasts resulting too difficult in comprehension
for those who stand outside the Indian tradition. Vārānasi, popularly called
Kāshi or Banāras (wrongly spelt as Benares in anglicised way), known as
the Cultural Capital, Heritage city of India and one of the oldest living
cities of the world, records a continuous settlement history since ca. 1000
BCE. However, the present city has grown mostly during the early 18th
century. Varanasi acquired status of a ‘million+ city’ (as Urban
Agglomeration) in 1991 and recorded a population of 1,231,220 in 2001.
The city’s population consists of predominantly of Hindus (63 per cent),
substantial Muslims (30 per cent) and other religious groups. The main
city of Varanasi spreads over an area of 84.55km2. Additionally, everyday
about 40,000 commuters visit the city, which increases to 60,000 during
festive season. There are ca. 3,300 Hindu sanctuaries, and 1,388 Muslim
shrines and mosques (more than in any city in the world). Existence of 4
universities and 3 deemed universities, 150 Muslim schools, ca. 100
Sanskrit pathashalas (traditional schools), and 50 Inter and Degree
colleges make the place a ‘City of Culture and Learning’. The vividness
and multiplicity, and the diversity and unity are easily envisioned in its
practising religions, performing cultures, functioning society and
regulating economy – altogether making a cultural mosaic or universe of
‘heritagescapes’, in which age-old festivities and performances play a
major role (cf. Singh 2009c: 17-18).
As the city has grown in area, population, business and administrative
functions, its influence extends beyond the municipal limits. From a city
with a single core (CBD, i.e. Chauk), it has now acquired the character of
an Urban Agglomeration (UA) spread over an area of 115.27 km2. And
then there is a much larger area called Varanasi Urban Region over which
it has no formal control but to which it sends its products and from which
it draws its food and other requirements. What happens in the region has
implications for the city and its people and vice versa. With further
improvement of the GT road (National Highway 2) into a super highway,
the future expansion of the city will continue to be on all sides surrounding
the city.
In 1982 the Varanasi Development Authority (VDA, formed in 1974)
made an assessment of the earlier plans of the city. And, under its
direction, the Town & County Planning Organisation (TCPO) prepared a
comprehensive Master Plan of Varanasi 1991-2011, during which time the
population of Varanasi Agglomeration is expected to double (cf. Singh
2009c: 327). The five-tier areal units are defined on the basis of
administration and planning strategy, taking Varanasi Development
Region, VDR (as in Master Plan 2011) as the outer limit. From lower to
higher hierarchy they are: Varanasi City Municipal Corporation 84.55
km2, Varanasi Urban Agglomeration, VUA 112.26 km2, Varanasi Master
Plan - Operative Area 144.94 km2, Varanasi Master Plan - Projected Area
179.27 km2, and the outer most Varanasi Development Region, VDR
477.34 km2 (Fig. 7.1).
Varanasi, India’s Cultural Heritage City 207
Fig. 7.1. Varanasi, Development Region: Development Plan, 2011-2021.
Under the Master Plan 2011 the expanded area proposed for Greater
Varanasi is 179.27 km2, however the land use categories planned do not fit
the standard norms of ecological balance in the minimum threshold. The
most noticeable change during the 1991-2011 Plan is the expansion of the
area of the city (+112%). The major changes since 1991 as introduced
after 1988, indicate a catastrophic increase of land under government and
semi-government uses (+390.50 per cent), and public and community
facilities (+190.63 per cent). The increasing pace of population results to
increase area under residential uses up to 253.63 per cent over 1988 (cf.
Singh 2009c: 327). This catastrophic change spoils the ecological system
of land use; the most crucial group is parks and open ground that records a
decrease of over 60 per cent in comparison to 1999. Similarly a great loss
of agriculture and open land within the master plan area, at a rate of above
40 per cent, is again a great warning. In addition to the city’s population,
everyday about 40,000 commuters visit the city; this numbers increases to
60,000 during festive season.
Fig. 7.2. Varanasi, Development Plan 2011.
For the first time in the history of Master Plans for Varanasi, some
strategies of urban heritage and heritage zoning were proposed in the
recent Master Plan (1991-2011; Singh 2009c: 327, cf. Fig. 7.2) to maintain
and preserve the ancient glory of Varanasi, and to identify necessary
facilities and infrastructure and various heritage complexes (cf. Rana and
Singh 2000: 150-154). A little over 2% of the total area is proposed under
tourism and heritage zone. More emphasis has been laid on the
government and semi-government uses.
According to the zoning plan, five heritage zones can be identified in

Varanasi (Fig. 7.2):
1.1. Riverfront Ghats (stairways to the riverbank)

The riverfront heritage covers the portion of the city stretching within
200 m from the river bank. Eighty-four riverfront ghats cover a length of
6.8 km along the crescent-shaped bank of the River Ganga, Ganga-ji
(Ganges in anglicised way, devotionally called Ganga-Ji), from the
confluence of Asi drain in the south to the confluence of the Varana river
in the north (Fig. 7.3). Here the riverfront is overlooked by lofty palatial
buildings built mostly by kings and lords from different parts of India
between 18th and 20th centuries, and the area along the ghats is dominated
by various shrines and temples. One of the most impressive buildings is
the Darbhanga Palace, presently called ‘Brij Rama Palace’, which is
presently in the process of conversion into a heritage hotel that will
consequently result into loss of heritage and promotion of environmental
pollution. The ghats of Varanasi (cf. Fig. 7.4) represent one of the finest
ensembles of monumental architecture linked with the everyday activities
of the devout people, thus symbolising the heritage tradition of India.
Almost all visitors (tourists and pilgrims) take part in the on-site
package scenic tour programmes (whether at a luxury or a basic level), of
which the Ganga ghats are the most popular. The ghats are the nexus of
the major rituals and festivals (‘the intangible cultural heritage resources’)
in the holy city, from where all rituals start by taking a sacred bath and get
concluded by giving a donation to the riverfront priests, like thanks giving.
In order to absorb the population growth in the old city centre, new
buildings are being constructed either by demolishing old structures or by
building on them. Since most of the heritage sites are in these densely
inhabited narrow lane areas, two UP State Government orders (no.
320/9-A-32000-127, of 5 February 2000, and 840/9-A-3-2001, of 11 April
2001) state that, “in all the towns situated along the Ganga river, no
development activities can take place 200 metres from the riverbank”. It
specifically prohibits new construction on the riverfront ghats unless these
buildings are temples, maths and ashrams (monasteries) and only if these
have approved construction plans or are only being renovated. The order
goes on to say that all other old buildings that are within 200 metres from
the ghats can only be renovated. Overall these orders aim to protect the
integrity, sacredness and the ancient glory of cities along the Ganga. The
crescent-moon shaped riverbank is a landscape temple in the form of an
amphitheatre, where the ghats form the platforms, the water the altar and
the sun is God.
Fig. 7.3. Riverfront Varanasi, World Heritage Site.

Fig. 7.4. Riverfront Varanasi: a scene of the Ahilyabai to Shitala Ghats.
1.2. Durgakund-Sankatmochan Area

This area contains about twenty temples and shrines and the water
pools of Durgakund and Kurukshetra kundas, which are two historic
sacred tanks dating from the late 18th century (Singh 1994). Every
Tuesday, and more frequently in the month of Shravana (July-August) and
Ashvina (September-October), especially the nine nights (Navaratri) in the
light fortnight, worshippers perform rituals in the Durga temple. This was
built on the orthodox model of Hindu temples, but without an excessive
display of minute carvings and sculptures. Towards the east near the
Ganga river is the oldest sacred pond in Varanasi, viz. Lolarka Kund,
which was referred to in the Mahabharata (2nd century BCE) and which
still attracts a large mass of pilgrims, especially on its annual day of
celebration falling on the Bhadrapada (August-September) 6th of the light
fortnight. In this area also stand the temples of Tulasi Manas Mandir and
Sankatmochan Hanuman Mandir.
1.3. Kamachcha-Bhelupura Area

This area records some of the old monasteries, ancient shrines and an
ancient heritage site associated with the Jain Tirthankara Parshvanath,
together with many monuments and buildings of the British period (18th-
19th centuries). The historically notable temples and shrines in this zone
are: Kamachha Devi, Krodhan Bhairava, Angareshi Chandi, Vatuka
Bhairava and Vaidyanath Shiva. The Dvarakadhisha (Krishna) temple and

sacred pool of Shankhudhara are other heritage sites.
1.4. Kabir Math (Lahartara) Area

This site was the birthplace of Kabir, a great saint-poet and social
reformer of the 16th century. There are several monasteries in this area
related to the life of Kabir. The Kabir Temple Complex is coming up as a
great heritage and centre of solace and learning. Under the heritage
complex development programme by the UP Government, a development
plan has been prepared and some works have already been started.
1.5. Sarnath
Fig. 7.5. Sarnath: Places of attraction.
This archaeological heritage site was famous for its sanctity, beauty
and natural scenery (Fig. 7.5), qualities that attracted the Buddha to give
his first sermon here in 528 BCE. Following Muslim invasions and the
downfall of the Gahadavalas Kings, the site was left in ruins and only
came to light in CE 1793.
The principal site in Sarnath includes a well-preserved commemorative
stupa (a decorated masonry tumulus) which dominates the site, the
foundations of a reliquary stupa, the ruins of the temple complex and
ancient monasteries, and a myriad of small votive stupas. The stupa and its
surroundings are already proposed in the tentative list of UNESCO World
Heritage Sites in 1998. The on-going development plan is in accord with
heritage conservation, environmental sensibility, public involvement and
user feelings, as befitting a most important centre of heritage tourism. It is
sad to record that there is lack of co-ordination between Japanese donors
and the Indian institutions involved in planning.
1.6. Other Heritagescapes

There are many other sites, areas and monuments in Varanasi which
urgently require restoration and preservation and inclusion in the
sustainable heritage tourism programmes. These include the Hindu
Observatory at Man Mandir Ghat, the Amethy temple at Manikarnika
Ghat, the Sumer Devi temple at Ramanagar and adjoining tank, and many
others. Varanasi is famous for its series and layers of sacred circuits,
among which the Panchakroshi is the most popular. This pilgrimage
circuit representing the cosmo-spatial mandalic territory (kshetra) of Kashi
is a unique attribute of Varanasi. The total route covers 88.5km (25
krosha, i.e. 5 krosha x 5 parts) and is divided into five parts marked by
overnight stops. At these five spots there are 44 dharmashalas (rest
houses) for pilgrims. In every intercalary month, malamasa (e.g. the last
one was from a period of 17 May to 15 June 2007, and the forthcoming
will cover from 15 April to 14 May 2010; falling every 3rd year), over
45,000 devotees perform this pilgrimage (cf. Singh, Rana 2002). Under the
recently initiated heritage development project, a part of the Master Plan,
partial works like improvement of roads, cleaning of the water pools and
repairing of some of the roads are being completed. On the ground of
pilgrimage-tourism this cosmic circuit should be given special emphasis,
so also promote sustainable heritage tourism.
Among the above five sections, of course the Riverfront City is being
in the process of getting enlisted in the UNESCO Heritage List ‘mixed
cultural landscape’. Due to the lack of the public awareness and active
participation, the complex web of bureaucracy, rising corruptions, and the
rise of both individualism and consumerism, there seems to be little hope

for the proper implementation of the plans and maintenance of heritage
properties in their original forms. Ultimately there is an urgent need to re-
vitalise the city with re-establishing the ecological order by promoting
civic sense and active public awakening and participation. The Ganga
river is so polluted now that only the most faithful would venture to take
bath in it. The Ganga River as an environmental milieu is not simply a
water stream that flows across the land, this is what the Hindu culture
knows to be true ― and knows this in a certain way. It is not simply a
question of how the river matters to society at present (in a strict sense), it
is more important to see the meanings and cultural values which have been
sustained for centuries. It is our moral obligation to revere this deeper
attitude and maintain it in the context of the present needs, searching for a
balanced relationship between man and nature within the microcosm of the
Ganga river. This ideal brings together both Hindu culture and the vision
of a sustainable society. The Ganga is declared as a ‘National River’ by
the union government of India on 4 November 2008, as the first step for
environmental and heritage preservation.
Having a prime objective to help replace the current piecemeal efforts
to clean up the Ganga with an integrated approach that sees the river as an
ecological entity and to address the problems and strategies for
environmental cleanliness the National Ganga River Basin Authority
(NGRBA) was founded on 20 February 2009 and opened by the prime
minister of India. Let us hope that the vision and reflections of heritage
(tangible and intangible) associated with the Ganga river and continued
since the ancient past would also be considered in such programmes.
The impact of urban sprawl and neighbouring effect is constantly
marked by the expansion and growth of two towns across the Ganga river,
i.e. Ramanagar and Mughalsarai, lying only at 5 km and 18 km east of the
main city, and recording population of 40,619 and 116,308 in 2001,
respectively (cf. Singh 2009c: 335). During 1991-2001 they recorded a
growth of 35 and 23%, and are expected according to the Master Plans to
grow up to 30 and 38% in 2001-11, respectively. It is further estimated
that both towns will be directly linked as a continuous urban space by
2031. This tendency will further intensify the demographic and economic
pressure on the city of Varanasi.
Unfortunately the Master Plan 2001-11 as prepared by the VDA and
passed by the UP Legislative Assembly has failed to implement most of
the priority projects enlisted. Realising this now ‘private investors’ are
encouraged to come forward and take care of the follow up in-process
Master Plan 2011-21 under the purview of withdrawal or non-
implementation of the earlier strategies and projects. In the Master Plan

2001-11, a long list of roads was prepared to ensure its widening but the
condition of roads could not improve despite the fact the traffic load
continued to increase. The VDA could also failed its drive against high
number of illegal constructions, misuse of basements sanctioned with
parking provisions and developers of illegal residential colonies on the
outskirts, and illegal destruction and encroachments of heritage properties.
Projects like Kamdhenu Nagar were put on the backburner while the fate
of Transport Nagar hung in balance due to delay in completion of the
process of land acquisition. A few years back, the VDA had adopted strict
attitude against the law breakers and violators of building laws, but its
drives could also not continue for long ― resulting back into the earlier
condition. However, despite its failures in the past, the VDA now appears
‘serious’ for ensuring a planned development in future as would be
proposed in the coming Master Plan 2011-21.
It seems that some ready-made plans on the line of other similar cities
would be superimposed, like in the past, and again rarely people’s
participation be given its rational place? Will the VDA put these plans in
public domain and call for opinion of the civil society who is passionate
about their heritage and contributing their bit towards its maintenance and
preservation? Or will it want the people living in this sacred city to be as
disconnected as they are today with their heritage and traditions, which are
mostly used as resource for (outsider) tourists? Do we want citizens to
continue to be disconnected from the campaign and continue to flush and
forget its rich traditions? There is a need to involve the communities and
reconnect them to the heritage and traditions in making in-process Master
Plan 2011-21 more sustainable and heritage-oriented. Let’s not undermine
the fact that success of the programme to bring the city’s culture to better
life will rest with the involvement of communities’ right from planning to
monitoring (cf. case of the Ganga river, Babu 2009).
2. UNESCO guidelines for Cultural Heritage & Cultural

Landscape
According to the Operational Guidelines (2005) of the World
Heritage Committee of UNESCO, a property designated as ‘cultural
heritage’ nominated should:
i. represent a masterpiece of human creative genius (monument, group of
buildings or site);
ii. exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or

within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or
technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
iii. bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a
civilisation which is living or which has disappeared;
iv. be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s)
in human history;
v. be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use or sea-
use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction
with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the
impact of irreversible change; and
vi. be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas,
or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal
significance (the Committee considers that this criterion should preferably
be used in conjunction with other criteria).
Additionally, it would be more plausible to have one more criterion

from the natural heritage to be taken into consideration for identifying
cultural heritage:
vii. contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural
beauty and aesthetic importance.
The “Riverfront cultural and heritage landscape and Old City

Heritage of Varanasi” fully accord with all the above criteria of WHC
UNESCO 2005 (i to vi and vii).
There appeared a number of ‘imbalances’ and ‘gaps’ on the world
heritage list of UNESCO till 1994, including the over-representation of
historic towns, religious buildings, and European sites. With a strategy to
solve it, the concept of cultural landscapes was introduced in 1992 and a
‘global strategy’ is framed; however, after passage of time more the spatial
and typological alleged imbalances have grown (cf. Aa 2005: 37). Even
being one of the founding members, India has not been fully represented
mostly due lack of seriousness from the side of government authorities and
community organisation; the ‘Riverfront heritagescape of Varanasi’ is an
example of not finally proposed for getting enlisted, in spite of fulfilling
all the world heritage criteria (ibid.: 24; cf. Singh, Dar and Rana 2001).
3. Varanasi on the criteria of UNESCO-WHC

i. Representing a masterpiece of human creative genius
There are several examples of architectural master pieces of attached
with inherent meanings, archetypal representations and continuity of
performances and rituals. The micocosmic temple of Panchakroshi that

places 273 deities in three-dimensionality as replica of the originally
existing images and shrines along the five sacred routes in the city is a
unique example (Gutschow 2005, also Singh 2002). Built in 1936 Bharat
Mata (‘mother India’) temple, of which the interior is dominated by a
remarkable 90-square-metre map of India carved in a relief out of marble
blocks set into the floor, is an example of perceiving the nation as a
goddess, as eulogised in the ancient mythologies. Other distinct and
unparallel examples include the temples of Gurudham, Kardameshvara,
Vrisabhadhvajeshvara, Amethy, Mahamaya, Lolarka water pool, and some
others too (cf. Michell and Singh 2005).
One of India’s earliest, most picturesque and one of the finest Gothic
Revival structures in Perpendicular style, the building of Sampurnananda
Sanskrit University, Varanasi, dates from 1848-52. Of course the Sanskrit
University (earlier college) was founded in 1795, but later it shifted to the
present building. This is the only institution in the whole world that is
based on Sanskrit language and ancient Indian tradition. It has also the
richest collection of ancient manuscripts, kept in the Sarasvati Vidya
Library. Presently the building and the collections in the library are both
facing the problem of destruction and loss.
ii. Exhibiting interchange of human values in architecture and

monuments
Varanasi is the only city in India where textually described
cosmogonic frame and geomantic outlines are existent in their full form
and totality, thus the city becomes universally significant even today. The
city is a mosaic of the various religious groups and their traditions. In the
city alone, there are over 3300 Hindu shrines and temples, about 1388
Muslim shrines and mosques, 12 churches, 3 Jain temples, 9 Buddhist
temples, 3 Sikh temples (gurudvaras) and several other sacred sites and
places. Here Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity and
even Islam have their distinct traditions, and on the other end they together
conform the harmonious life and culture of the city called ‘Banarasian’.
The life style of Banaras is unique in nature, and is referred to as
Banarasipan. It is an art of living, both passionate and carefree, what the
Banaras dwellers call masti (‘joie de vivre’), mauj (‘delight, festivity’) and
phakarpan (‘carefreeness’). Teaching and training of Sanskrit and
Ayurveda (the traditional system of Indian Medicine) has been present
here since at least the 5th century BCE, and is still in practice prominently.
iii. Testimony to cultural tradition in history

The city has two remnants of a holy past: the first one being Sarnath
where Buddha gave his first sermon, ‘Turning the wheel of law’ in ca. 528
BCE. Later during the 3rd century BCE king Ashoka built a monastery
township there which continued its existence till the 12th century CE and
was later destroyed. The second one is the Rajghat Plateau, where the
archaeological findings and the C14 dating of some of the wares excavated
from the earliest level (upper part of IA layer, sample No. TF-293) refer
the existence of urban settlements in the period during 1000-500 BCE. The
archaeological investigation is further supported by Robert Eidt (1977) on
the basis of scientific analysis of chronosequence of non-occluded/
occluded phosphate ratios. This site has been the original centre of one of
the oldest continuously occupied modern cities in the world. The site
evidences indicate small farming and domestication of animals, a sign of
pastoral economy. This is only the far past. After this, the whole history of
Banaras is a ‘testimony to cultural tradition in history’, as it was one of the
main centres of Hindu culture and civilisation.
iv. Outstanding example of architectural ensemble and landscape

The unique crescent-shaped arc of the Ganga river has attracted people
from various parts of India to come, settled and make their own distinct
imprint along the 7 km bank of the river as clearly visualised in the
architectural grandeur and the cultural landscapes. The existence of 84
ghats along the Ganga river to archetypal connotations, e.g. 12 division of
time x 7 chakra (sheaths), or layers in the atmosphere; likewise the
number 84 refers to the 84 lacs (hundred thousands) of organic species as
described in Hindu mythologies. This development records a sequential
growth during the last two thousand years. Since sunrise to sunset, the
cultural landscape along the Ganga river is dominated by ritual scenes and
religious activities, a supportive system for other profane functions that are
dependent on this. The view of the riverfront from the river is clearly an
outstanding example of architectural ensemble and landscape scenario.
v. Example of a traditional habitat, culture and interaction

Since the past people from different cultures, religions and territories
came and settled here while maintaining their own distinct traditions in
their own community, and also developed a harmoniously integrated
culture of traditions lost elsewhere, which is still visible on different
festive occasions. Of course, occasionally there also happen religions
conflicts, tensions and contestations; however, during natural calamities
like flood, water logging, heavy rains, or human induced occurrences like
bomb blasts and riots, people from such diverse ideologies, like Hindus
and Muslims, work together to save the city and thus prove that this is a
city of humanity and universality. There are fourteen tombs of Muslim
Sufi saints which are regularly visited by Hindus and Muslim, who
perform their own rituals side-by-side.
vi. Example of the continuity of living traditions of life (intangible)

Since ancient times the natural and cultural landscapes of the city,
closely associated with the traditional way of life, have retained an active
social role in contemporary society. The city is a place of pilgrimage and a
holy site for sacred baths in the Ganga River, for having a good death, and
getting relief from transmigration for learning and receiving spiritual
merit, etc. In spite of several downfalls and upheavals, traditions are fully
alive even today. The presence of ‘dying homes’, charitable homes and
pilgrims’ rest houses are some of the city’s unique characteristics.
Additionally, silk weaving and sari making, metal, wood and terracotta
handicrafts, toy making, particular painting forms, etc., bear witness to the
continuity of historico-cultural tradition. Banaras is considered to be a
veritable jungle of fairs and festivals with respect to variety, distinction,
time, sacred sites, performers, overseers and side-shows. “Every day is a
great festival in Banaras” – so says the tradition. Recently some of the old
festivals have been revived in it original style, despite some modern
touches. This lifestyle has also manifested itself in a musical tradition
known as the Banaras Gharana (style). Many great musicians and
performing artists have been born here and still regularly return to visit
and to perform their art for the public as tribute to the spirit of the soil. The
names of Ravi Shankar, (late) Bismillah Khan, (late) Kishan Maharaj and
many others make obvious the richness of the Banaras musical culture.
vii. Beauty of natural phenomena & aesthetic importance

The city represents a unique natural shape along the Ganga river which
forms a crescent shape, flowing from south to north for about 7 km; the
city has grown on the left bank in semi-circular form around it. The area
along the right side is a flood plain, preserving the natural ecosystem.
Thus, together the two sides represent the cultural and natural beauty
where meet the human construct of architectural grandeur in the form of
series of traditional buildings and other side perennial flow of the Ganga
from south to north, which is unique in the whole course of the Ganga
valley. This is described in ancient mythology and religious literature,
which became part of the religious and ritual activities that are still the
prominent scenes. The eastern edge of the city faces the rising sun, which
makes the ghats of Banaras sacred and unique for all Hindu rituals. This
aesthetic harmony between the river and the city is unique in its
presentation.
viii. Unique traditional performance: example of environmental

theatre
Of course originally proclaimed in 2005 by the government of India,
UNESCO has incorporated the ‘Rāmalilā ― traditional performance of the
Rāmāyana’ in its representative list of 90 declared on 4 November 2008.
This list also includes two more intangible heritages, i.e. ‘Kutiyattam,
Sanskrit Theatre’, and the ‘Tradition of Vedic Chanting’. The Rāmalilā is
a dramatisation of the epic journey of Rāma, the 7th incarnation of the
Hindu god Vishnu. The Rāmalilā, a theatrical form of story of the
Rāmacharitamānasa (old Rāmāyana), is performed in a series of scenes
that include song, narration, recital and dialogue. It is performed across
northern India during the festival of Dashahra, held each year according to
the ritual calendar in autumn (September-October, Hindu month of
Ashvina). Of course the most representative Rāmalilās are those of
Ayodhya, Ramnagar and Banaras, Vrindavan, Almora, and Madhubani,
the Rāmalilā of Ramanagar is unique in the whole world. In the city of
Banaras Rāmalilā holds for different periods at different sites according to
their tradition and historicity, ranging from the period of ten days to 31
days (cf. for details see Sax 1990/ 1993).
4. Old City Heritage and Riverfront Cultural Landscape

All the criteria, according to Article 2 of the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention of 2003 and 2005, which relate in the domain of intangible
cultural heritage, are already part of age-long traditions in Varanasi. This
includes oral traditions of ritual performances, folk music and songs;
performance arts like traditional dance, music and theatrical performances
on special festive occasions throughout the year; social practices in
celebrating festivals and events; knowledge and practices concerning
nature (like naturopathy, alternative medicine, yoga) and the universe
(classical astronomy and astrology); and traditional craftsmanship like toy
and pot making, silk embroidery, etc. Moreover, other characteristics as
defined in the above Article also are a part of life in Varanasi, continued
and maintained since the past, being transmitted from generation to
generation; being constantly recreated by communities and groups, in
response to their environment, their interaction with nature, and their
history; providing communities and groups with a sense of identity and
continuity; promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity;
being compatible with international human rights instruments; and

complying with the requirements of mutual respect among communities,
and of sustainable development.
Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention of 2003 clarifies its
purpose for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage by ensuring
respect for the intangible cultural heritage of the communities, groups and
individuals concerned, raising awareness at the local, national and
international levels about the importance of intangible cultural heritage,
and securing mutual appreciation thereof, and ultimately providing
international cooperation and assistance. Nevertheless it is to be noted that
all these plans have to pass through governmental and bureaucratic
procedures. Thus many times they suffered delays, obstacles, as well as
lack of priority ― given to other choices for political or personal motives
― in spite of the urgency of the matter and its universal importance. One
can cite an example of administrate building complex of Chandigarh (in
late 1950s built by Swiss architect and urban planner Charles-Édouard
Jeanneret-Gris, known as Le Corbusier (1887-1965) and was already
enlisted in the WH Tentative List on 23 October 2006, which is now in
process to get it proposed for inscription in the UNESCO WHL in 2010;
let us wait for the final result as no way one can finally predict in such a
complicated process of submitting proposal and consideration of priority.
The Ganga riverfront with its ghats fully fulfil the criteria of Cultural
Landscapes as designated in Article 1 of the Convention, and specifically
that of cultural landscape “that retains an active social role in
contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life,
and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress”, and associative
cultural landscape “by virtue of powerful religious, artistic, cultural
associations of the natural element”.
The conservation of most heritage properties faces intense pressure.
Even if these properties are presently in the same physical condition as in
the last couple of decades and their architectural characteristics are being
maintained without many legal and administrative measures, their
architectural integrity is now being threatened. In the name of
development, old structures are modified or demolished, even where these
structures are made of stone and are not weak. The ownership is often
collective or remote (like maths, ashrams, havelis, palaces, etc.), and
renovation work is expensive. Unless stringent measures are taken for
protection, there is a high probability that new structures, using new
building materials, will increasingly replace old architectural shapes and
material. Recent construction work and events in the old city demonstrate
that even when ownership is in a single proprietor’s hands, he usually
prefers rebuilding rather than renovating. Besides these risks, the buffer
zones and the skyline of the old city, whose status quo is preserved at this
moment, are also being threatened by encroachments and the rising
heights of buildings.
According to the Master Plan (1991-2011), under the Clause 2.9.2
Use Zone S-2 (Core Area/Heritage Zone), all the heritage monuments will
be protected by the laws and construction permits be issued as per the
norm of ‘the distance-regulation’. This plan is the first of its kind to be
officially approved by the govt. of Uttar Pradesh (ref. No. 2915/9-Aa-3-
2001-10Maha//99, dated 10 July 2001). For the first time, heritage
protection issues have been discussed in this Plan and heritage zones and
sites have been identified. The Plan has been revised in order to implement
the policy of preservation of heritage sites and to channelize the
development of the city.
In order to absorb population growth in the old city centre, new
buildings are being constructed either by demolishing old structures or by
building on them. Since most of the heritage sites are in these densely
inhabited narrow lane areas, two state government orders (order number
320/9-A-32000-127, dated 5 February 2000, and order number
840/9-A-3-2001, dated 11 April 2001) state that, in all the towns situated
along the Ganga river, no development activities can take place 200 metres
from the riverbank. It specifically prohibits new construction on the
riverfront ghats unless these buildings are temples, maths and ashramas
(monasteries) and only if these have approved construction plans or are
solely being renovated. The order goes on to say that all other old
buildings, that are within 200 metres from the ghats, can only be
renovated. A recent example of renovation and conservation of the
Manikarnika Ghat with the support of JICA (Japan International
Cooperation Agency) is an example of work that was in progress till 2005
(cf. Singh 2009 b: 341-342); however in lack of continuity of maintenance
and carelessness the scenario is again return back to its old phase in ugly
way.
The increasing impact of pollution and the decreasing volume of water
in the Ganga together have a multiplying effect in Varanasi. The
appearance of huge sand islands from the end of April and the increasing
lower water level of the Ganga are proving a big threat to the very
existence of the ghats and their purpose. About three decades ago the
width of the river had been 225-250m, however it has recently reached to
around 60-70 m. The main stream has lost the previous high speed of its
current due to less volume and pressure of water, resulting in an increased
pollution level. Close to the Asi Ghat, the first one, the river has already
left the bank about 7-8m. The existence of ghats in Varanasi is in danger
because the existence of the Ganga is in danger. This trend is constantly
increasing, and already some ghats at the down stream are now in 2008
facing the problem of sinking and fracturing.
5. JNNURM and the Varanasi CDP: Dilemmas!

According to the census of 2001 a little over 27.8% of India’s total
population (1.029 billion; and projected over 2 billions by 2071) lives in
urban areas, and it is expected that its share will be close to 45% by 2050.
To handle India’s rapid urban growth and sprawl and its consequential
problems a comprehensive and sustainable development strategy was
designed and inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan
Singh, on 3rd December 2005. This is named Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), which will work for a period of 7
years beginning from 2005-06 under the central Ministry of Urban
Development/ Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation,
under the 74th Constitution Amendment Act (CAA), 1992. The main
components under the mission include urban renewal, water supply and
sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management, urban transport, re-
development of inner city areas, development of heritage areas,
preservation of water bodies, slum development, basic services to urban
poor and street lighting. In the first phase, the Mission is being executed in
63 cities with a population of ‘one-million and above’, State capitals and
23 other cities of religious and tourist importance. With an estimated
provision of Rs, 614.6 billion [1 US $ = Rs 48] for 7 years, the Mission is
the single largest Central Government initiative in the urban sector. The
PM emphasised the importance of cities that are internationally known for
heritage, tourism and pilgrimages and maintained their historical and
cultural glories, like Varanasi, Amritsar, Haridwar, Ujjain, etc.
The Mission has to work on improving urban infrastructure and urban
basic services. The JNNURM plans to trigger a deeper process of reform
at the state and city level, viz. (i) using fiscal flows to all sort of service
utilities and local governments to change and reform, (ii) decentralisation
as potential to spark change and create incentives with the support of
effective regulation, and (iii) promoting citizens’ demand by making
service delivery provision directly to the grass level.
The primary objective of the JNNURM is to create productive,
efficient, equitable and responsive cities. In line with this objective, the
Mission focuses on: (i) Integrated development of infrastructure services,
(ii) Securing linkages between asset creation and maintenance for long-run
project sustainability, (iii) Accelerating the flow of investment into urban

infrastructure services, (iv) Planned development of cities including the
peri-urban areas, outgrowths (OG), and urban corridors, (v) Renewal and
redevelopment of inner city areas, and (vi) Decentralization of urban
services to ensure their availability to the urban poor. In view of these
issues the future vision for Varanasi city is to keep and develop it as an
“economically vibrant, culturally rich tourist city”. Under this programme
the City Development Plan (CDP) was prepared by the Municipal
Corporation (MC) within a month through a hired agency, Feedback
Ventures (FV) of New Delhi, and was submitted to the Central
Government in September 2006.
For implementing the Mission’s objectives of equitable, sustainable
and rationally service delivery mechanisms through community
participation and involvement of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) for
individual cities, comprehensive City Development Plans (CDP) are
prepared. The CDP aims to provide a rational perspective and vision for
the development of the city where lessons be learnt from the past,
problems of the present be critically examined and solved, and prospects
of the future be made reality. The Varanasi CDP was submitted on 22
August 2006, and the evaluation report on it was released on 12 October
2006. It is quite surprising that only within two months the CDP was
prepared on the basis of secondary sources and giving over-emphasis on
the structural plan with financial allocations.
The Varanasi CDP submitted to the JNNURM lacks the survey and
understanding of the present ground realities faced by the city. Of course,
the report recognises that “the process of CDP being a multi disciplinary
platform includes various stakeholders who work towards the development
of the city. As the stakeholders know the city better and are responsible
citizens, their views are important at every step, while preparing the CDP”,
but in fact, the city authorities had been least concerned with this
objective. In the later half of 2006, meetings for this purpose were held for
an hour in the forenoon (i) on 6 June with people involved in sari (silk
lion-cloth) industry, (ii) on 8 June with Weavers Association, (iii) on 13
June with Sankatmochan Temple trust, and also (iv) on 20 July having
discussions with District Industrial Association and INTACH (Indian
National Trust for Art, Culture and Heritage). Using their usual colonial
setup of complicated bureaucracy, and neglecting the active involvement
of the people, stakeholders and scholars who have been working life-long
on various aspects of Varanasi, the Municipal Corporation (MCV) and
Varanasi Development Authority (VDA) had succeeded in formulating the
CDP that was finally submitted to the government. That is how after a
four hours of discourses with stakeholders, in which only two persons in

each group were represented, the city authorities took only two months (5
July to 5 August 2006) for assessment and documentation of the CDP
under the contract of a private agency, Feedback Venture of New Delhi
(FV 2006) and had it finalized.
In the spirit of JNNURM, the making of Varanasi CDP had claimed to
follow the two-stage procedures: consultation for the purpose of making
the people understands the existing situation, followed with participation
process for involving the people to take decisions. However, at no stage
the first draft had been put before the public, thus their claim for
transparency and active public participation is not at all justified. In the
appraisal report of the Varanasi CDP the above issues are mildly
mentioned and further clarifications were asked for. In a bureaucratic way
the list of NGOs and persons attending the meetings were submitted, and
that is how the CDP has been approved (cf. Rao 2006). This whole CDP
report (3 parts and annexure; and appraisal report) turned to be a mere
good-looking report, lacking the contemporary surface realities like
complexity of land use and space allocation, priority concerns, the Ganga
riverfront heritage planning that attracted the attention of UNESCO WHC,
civic amenities, etc.
Surprisingly, the appraisal report at the end appreciated the “vision of
the CDP in making the city an economically vibrant, cultural rich tourist
destination”, adding further that “the vision lays emphasis on heritage and
cultural preservation” (Rao 2006: 13), but no where in the CDP these
aspects are considered as measures of urban planning, preserving cultural
heritage, and promoting religious (like pilgrimages) or sustainable heritage
tourism. Since 2001 the city has recorded a mass movement to have the
“Riverfront and Old City Heritage and Cultural Landscape” in the World
Heritage List by the UNESCO enlisted. Following the guidelines and
identifications of the current Master Plan, 1991-2011, thematic surveys
and documentations of the state and conditions of heritage buildings and
the regional perspectives were prepared under the auspices of Varanasi
Development Authority, and reports were sent to the government in 2002
(cf. Singh and Dar 2002a, b, and c). Of course, no progress has yet been
noticed, again primarily due to lack of bureaucratic and governmental
support, and also of strong public involvement. In the meantime some
architects, urban planners and conservationists from Austria, Germany and
France with the assistance of their students and the collaboration of Indian
colleagues have prepared detailed inventories and documentations,
including some major publications (cf. Michell and Singh 2005, and
Gutschow 2005). To fill up the blanks under the key issues in the Varanasi
CDP a few sentences and a chart have been added that refer to planning
the riverfront heritage and the old city heritage zones while integrating
heritage conservation with developmental activities (cf. FV 2006: 140).
The critical issues of environmental deterioration, preservation of cultural
heritage (tangible and intangible), demographic pressures and illegal
encroachments along the riverfront heritage zone are not given a single
reference. Additionally, the legislation system and need for citizens’
awareness about these subjects are not taken into consideration in the
CDP.
There also exist many forms of pressures that deteriorate the heritage
scenario (Singh 2009b: 344-348); such pressures include (i) development
pressure referring the increasing pace and threat of extremely high density
(400 to 500 persons/ ha), (ii) population pressure, which is projected to
reach 2.35 million by 2031, excluding the everyday floating population of
pilgrims and tourists that on average runs around 35,000 people, (iii)
shrinking space, resulting in lack of areas for further extension and illegal
constructions, (iv) incompatible sacredscapes with the religious exigencies
and the urban carrying capacity of a congested city centre bounding to
have a hard impact on the long-term sustainability of the cultural assets of
the city, (v) traffic load generated as result of drastic increase of
population and motorisation that lead to traffic congestion, (vi) increasing
load of unmanaged tourists and pilgrims that counted over a million every
year, and (vii) all the above pressures together result to chronic
environment pressures that results to loss of ecological order and balances.
6. Deteriorating Heritagescapes: the Issue of Awareness

The basic and primary goal in heritage planning is the protection of the
tangible built heritage and the intangible cultural heritage together with
making the landscape and cultural environment alive, peaceful, sustainable
and self-mobilised. This can be developed on the process of ‘existence-
continuance-maintenance’ though its knowledge, understanding and
awareness among the people, dwellers and visitors both. If that is achieved
and transmitted to the next generations, then only development could
proceed for long term and in the better service to the mankind. It has been
observed that the issue of cultural and religious heritage is facing a critical
situation, notable among them are already recorded by the VDA in its
Master Plan of Varanasi (2001: 95):
(a) Lack of proper and easy accessible path.
(b) Lack of cheaper but optimal residence or dharmashalas (pilgrims’ rest
houses)/ hotels.
(c) Speedy encroachment of the heritage area and their conversion into
residential or commercial uses.
(d) Lack of proper care, protection and maintenance, and civic sense.
(e) Increasing loss of the outer form, aesthetical appearance and overall
function due to illegal and immoral encroachment and also their
conversion, and
(f) Lack of strategy and system for renovation and environmental cleanliness.
Obviously, the present situation along the Riverfront Heritagescape

(study area) refers:
1. There is no plan for heritage planning and conservation. In fact on the name
of beautification and change the development and transformation of the
ghats environs turned to be a more problematic area. The closing down of
the old Asi confluence (i.e. shifted 1/2km in the south in 1981-82) and the
pucca (stone-slab) construction of Asi and nearby ghats resulted to create
a crucial problem of silt deposition. According to an estimate about 8200
m2 of silt in a length of 60m get deposited every year. Moreover, the
course and the flow are also changing which cause loss of the aesthetic
sense and sacramental value of the ghat.
2. Lack of civic sense, public awareness and lack of knowledge of the ancient
rich heritage resulted to several ugly construction, nearby scattered
garbage, half burnt wood used by pilgrims and similar scenes. The local
priests are interested into more rituals and donations and no way thinking
of cleanliness, preservation and maintenance of the ancient glory.
3. No specific measures are taken for conserving and preserving the temples
and kunds, except performing and maintaining the daily religious
activities by the Brahmin priests’ families living there in (sometimes
illegal encroachments), and sometimes some devotees donate for
cleanliness and repairing that never be used rationally and in totality.
The spatial structure of ghats is basically viewed in the perspectives of

following aspect:
1. The water edge, where - direct water rituals are performed, including sacred
bathing and oblation rituals.
2. Adjacent platform, where most of the shopkeepers exist, and bathers and
watchers use space for specific social and religious purposes.
3. Open space, where the public gathering is performed on special occasions
including people those sit and relax.
These three spatial division and associated function also to be

maintained as part of heritagescapes. For this purpose the following
suggestions are made:
1. The Sulabh Sauchalaya (easy toilet) should be shifted to some other place,
not facing directly the ghat.
2. Yoga camps should be installed or operated at various places at the
riverfront.
3. Installation of dustbins at suitable places to maintain the cleanliness.
4. Religious and rituals activities should be minimised and spiritual activities
must be given due importance through awakening and cultural
understanding and participation.
5. Some government restriction (through strict law) must be imposed upon the
various activities performed by the pandas.
It is expected that by the support of- active people participation,

awareness to save the age-old rich heritage, and development under the
Master plan (and its judiciary control) the ghat heritage will be protected
and conserved for the better benefit to the society.
The threatening impact of consumerism has resulted into loss of
heritage buildings at dangerous limit. Based on perceptual surveys and
interviews the report mention that it is a matter of mystery that people of
this holy city are not so conscious and concerned, while this city had
awakened the society in the past. The heritagescapes of the city are the
subject of illegal encroachment, unauthorised possession, unethical
destruction and change in the basic structure, carelessness for the
neighbourhood or community sense, and so many associated issues that
together make the situation havoc. Groups of mafias are so active and
rooted into the system that the common society is so terrorised that it keep
themselves desperate and rarely think for making awareness and mass
movements. The rich people, with support from such mafias, purchase the
disputed properties and replace the structure what they like and completely
transform its heritage vale, use and its contextual image in the community.
Remember, it is the moral duty of the local people to maintain the
existence and continuity of age-old traditions and architectural beauty that
we inherited from the past. The above report further mentions that the rich
people involved in such business have developed a favourable alliance
with VDA which compensate them by protecting their interest. Of course,
there are no such laws concerning sale and purchase heritage properties,
their protection, renovations and maintenance. According to VDA those
purchase such buildings are free to make use of them as they like.
However, the sensitivity to the heritage and cultural values are not
completely lost; there is still hope for change for betterment. The cases of
Hotel Ganges View and Banaras Art Galley may be taken as model
examples of rational renovation, preservation and maintenance and use
that suits to the present requirement. Another example of heritage
awakening walk (Dharohar chetna march) took place on 21 April 2008
when a group of eleven people performed the ‘site survey and

understanding march’ to visit Lolark Kund in Bhadaini. It has been
realised that on the name of heritage preservation and renovation,
repairing and changes are made which no way suits to the architecture,
landscape and the structure of the walls, e.g. use of artificial tiles, stone
blocks, paints, and fencing and locking of the neighbourhood, and
cementing the natural floor surrounding the sacred trees and the sacred fire
pit (havan kund). In fact, the political people performed such renovations
for their own interest to gain popularity. No way, support from the
architectural and conservation experts taken. Such visits to be regularised
and further incorporated into mass movements under ‘Save Kashi, Save
your Culture’ (Kashi bachao, Sanskriti bachao).
Since the late 1990s, mainly due to loose administration and lack of
administrative control from the VDA (Varanasi Development Authority),
there has been along the riverfront ghats a spate of illegal encroachments
and opening of restaurants and guest houses, partial conversion of the
houses into shops or paying guest houses, silk and handicrafts shops, and
also transformation of heritage buildings for more economic benefits. The
well known heritagescape of Mir Ghat is now changed into a commercial
hotel, and the hospice nearby has been turned into guest house. The huge
fig-tree that once gave shadow and shelter to the ghat died, and no one
thought of replacement. The Prayageshvara temple at Prayag Ghat (built
in 1934) is slowly becoming part of private property and is subject to
destruction of the main architecture and colour symbolism. Similarly the
architectural beauty and the symmetry of the adjacent platform at
Panchaganga Ghat have recently been destroyed by the renovation and
repairing works. The opening of the Disneyland-type four storied Dolphin
Restaurant-cum-hotel next to the Manmandir Observatory, a protected
monument by the ASI, is one of such examples of illegal construction and
the worst threat to heritage building. No legal or public agitations were
made to stop such development.
While Banaras is one of the unique cities in the world where traditional
lifestyle is best preserved, it is paradoxically also one of the cities where
architectural heritage is least protected. There is no law that forbids private
owners to make drastic changes to their historic buildings or even
completely destroy them just to achieve a clear land property. There is
indeed an ordinance that forbids new constructions within a 200-metre
distance from the riverside, but this is little policed and extensively
disrespected (Dar 2005: 140). Taking the loopholes of law and
encouragement through the ideology of ‘making identity and getting
protection under the umbrella of religion’, many illegal and immoral
buildings and constructions are already growing in the other side on the
sand-silt strip of the Ganga river. There is no concern for the moral code
(dharma) or spiritual feeling for the nature (adhyatamik anubhuti). This, in
fact, is a shameful threat to the basic essence of the cultural beauty and
identity of Banaras.
In a special meet of the VDA on 13 August 2008 the issue of enlisting
heritage zone/s of Varanasi in the UNESCO World Heritage List has been
discussed. This issue is now victim of confusion in understanding and
framing, confrontation in political arena, and contradiction in bureaucratic
system. Through the newspapers it is provoked that ‘Varanasi needs to be
declared as heritage City’, keeping aside the criteria and guidelines of
UNESCO WHL that refers to cultural landscape and mixed (natural and
cultural) heritage. On these guidelines only the “Riverfront and Old City of
Varanasi” fits to be nominated in the Heritage List, as discussed in the
sequence. Without critically and strictly following the UNESCO Criteria,
everything part of old tradition should not be projected as heritage as it
leads to confusion at global scale. Also, on the name of beatification (e.g.
constructing flyover bridges, and new roads) and minor repairing of
heritage properties (selected buildings), and sometimes even ugly,
unscientific and destructive repairing are performed on the name of
heritage conservation. Such issues attract politicians who take opportunity
for their electoral support by confusing people, which finally result to
confrontation, of course for a shorter period. Rarely in case of Varanasi,
has the bureaucracy properly maintained coordination with local NGOs,
politicians, social activists, and researchers and intellectuals! Again
another governmental meeting was held on 18 August 2008 at Lucknow,
the State’s headquarters, and several ideas were chalked out, but no action
and follow-up plans were crystallised.
Sometimes misleading news also propagated, like the one (4 April
2008) that ‘according to unofficial news Varanasi is also accepted to be
inscribed as Heritage city by UNESCO, declaration waited’ (cf. Thats
Hindi 2008). In fact, this is competently false, as no such official proposal
has been submitted. Under the auspices of VDA the Kautilya Society, an
NGO in service of culture and heritage, has prepared three such reports
that refer to ‘Varanasi: Inscribing Heritage Zones for WHL UNESCO’
during March-April 2002 [cf. Singh and Dar 2002a, b, and c]. The third
report was widely circulated among the architects and scholars directly
concerned with such studies, collaborative programmes and also those
served the WHL and ICOMOS for heritage inscription in countries like
Austria, France, Japan, Nepal, and Italy. Already seven years past after
submission of the final report, and no ‘management plan’ and ‘operational
time schedules’ either finalised yet or any such attempt made. The present
author has presented papers on these issues in four international
conferences held abroad, but the issue has not attracted the local
intellectuals. In the situation of political crises and lack of awakening it
becomes now herculean task to revive the ‘heritage conservation plan’ and
activate public movement for this purpose.
Whenever some queries or clarification asked from the parliament,
human right commission, or UNESCO Representative in India concerning
the heritage enlisting, for a few days the VDA authorities feel awakened to
follow up some action programme and making of proposal. However after
sometimes those issues are kept out of concern, in view of priority
consideration. Additionally, so intermittently the senior officials of VDA
transferred to other places that no follow-up action is implemented. The
coming officials watch and learn the situation and peoples’ willingness for
five-six months, but when they plan to start they are transferred to other
centres.
Let me cite case of the CDP Varanasi, where surprisingly no where in
the CDP these aspects are considered as measures of urban planning,
preserving cultural heritage, and promoting religious (like pilgrimages) or
sustainable heritage tourism. Since 2001 the city has recorded a mass
movement to have the “Riverfront and Old City Heritage and Cultural
Landscape” in the World Heritage List by the UNESCO. As in case of
other nations the process of nominating a certain site or tradition as a
world heritage by the UNESCO can be seen as dialectic of the local and
the global politics and pressure games. Of course the aim of this global
cultural policy as formulated by UNESCO-WHC is to enhance the pride of
the local population in their own culture, foster efforts to its preservation
as well as to enrich the whole of humanity in creating a cultural memory
on a worldwide scale, but the road to reach destination is arduous, time-
consuming and full of frustrations (cf. Scholze 2008).
Following the guidelines and identifications of the current Master
Plan: 1991-2011, thematic surveys and documentations of the state and
conditions of heritage buildings and the regional perspectives were
prepared under the auspices of Varanasi Development Authority, and
reports were sent to the government (cf. Singh and Dar 2002a, b, and c).
Of course, no progress has yet been noticed, again primarily due to lack of
bureaucratic and governmental support, and also of strong public
involvement. The critical issues of environmental deterioration,
preservation of cultural heritage (tangible and intangible), demographic
pressures and illegal encroachments along the riverfront heritage zone are
not given a single reference. Additionally, the legislation system and need
for citizens’ awareness about these subjects are not taken into
consideration in the CDP (Singh 2009b: 388).
Recently (8 June 2009) under phase III of the Mega Project called
‘Revitalisation of Varanasi as a Special Tourist Destination in State of
Uttar Pradesh’ that earlier planned for investment of Rs 250 million is
now revised and reduced to Rs 108 million. In this revised proposal
special emphasis is laid on the preservation, conservation and renovation
of some distinct architectural grandeur of the city that includes Ramanagar
Fort (lies other side of the river and already marked as one of the sites in
the cultural landscape that is underway to get nomination in the World
Heritage List) and Gurudham Temple (1814, one of the three such
monuments in India that preserved the archetypal architectural symbolism
of Tantra). The other part of this project aims to improve the
environmental condition and beautification of the riverfront ghats and the
Buddhist heritage areas in Sarnath. In the II phase of this project a grant
worth Rs 142 million was sanctioned for development of the Buddhist
Green Park and Light and Sound project in Sarnath, establishing a Lotus
Park and renovation and beautification in and around Shulatankeshvara
temple area. Unfortunately the II phase started only on paper and blocked
without any noticeable result. However, in the III phase renovation and
beautification of Gurudham Temple and Ramanagar Fort; Ramabagh, the
Kshirasagar Kund (water pool) and the monuments in the Ramalila
grounds, museum in the fort and the fort itself are given special
consideration. Under the above Mega Project a sum of Rs 78.6 million was
sanctioned for renovation and beautification of riverfront ghats, water
pools, and some important ancient lanes, however only Rs 33.5 million
was spent as acclaimed by the authorities, however the visible results are
noticeable up to any level of expectation. This is an example of inside and
intense story concerning development of heritage planning and tourism in
Banaras.
Based on a survey (2006-07) concerning understanding the public
participation and resultant action (PPRA), it is obviously noted that in
order to achieve a long term self-sustained maintenance of the healthy life
in Varanasi, an extensive programme of public awareness should be
conducted to communicate and educate about the value of public hygiene,
health and heritage and their potential socio-economic and cultural
benefits, that can be enhanced by the harmonious integration between the
old heritagescape and the modern constructs. This strategy will help
stakeholders to participate in sustainable operations, management and
maintenance plans effectively and successfully. With this approach of
marching from a development culture based on physical infrastructure to a
development culture based on accumulation and sharing of knowledge, we

need to realise that sustainable planning is possible only by active public
awareness and participation. Of course, this is true everywhere, but it is
more true in Varanasi, where the root of underdevelopment is none other
than lack of knowledge, awareness and participation.
The passive fatalism and uncooperative acceptance of ‘made-
elsewhere’ policies that has previously characterized urban planning in
Varanasi, now can be reversed by the methodology of participated
programme design, implementation and evaluation that the local
development institutions have illustrated and recommended too.
7. Heritage Development Plan: the Perspectives

In a meeting held at Lucknow (5 September 2008), under the
chairmanship of the chief secretary of government of the Uttar Pradesh,
the authorities have reconsidered the issue of inscribing heritage zones of
Varanasi in the UNESCO WHL, and nominated INTACH (Indian
National Trust for Art, Culture and Heritage, New Delhi) as advising and
coordinating agency. No way the earlier submitted three detailed and
illustrated reports (2002, see Singh 2009b: 363) have been taken into
consideration. In fact, together these three reports consist of 166 heritage
sites illustrated with detailed surface plans, architectural designs, and
cross-sections (cf. Singh and Dar 2002 a, b, and c). And the third report
has already been distributed among scholars, institutions and architect-
planners concerned with Varanasi, belonging to different parts of the
world. The recommendations include assignment to the VDA for
preparing phase-wise action programmes and preparation of pilot projects
and management plan, taking support of the state departments of housing,
tourism, and culture. The INTACH Varanasi has not been asked for
coordination.
With the initiative of the Chief Secretary of the state government of
Uttar Pradesh, on 1 January 2009, the INTACH, an agency and NGO at
New Delhi has been assigned the job to prepare Heritage Development
Plan (HDP) for Varanasi. The plan to be prepared by this agency would be
submitted to UNESCO through Government of India. This task is in
extension and on the line of earlier reports prepared by the Kautilya
Society, a local cultural body, on voluntary basis (cf. Singh and Dar 2002
a, b, and c). The INTACH New Delhi is entrusted this task for a fee of Rs
3.5 millions (ca. US$ 73,000). This agency has its local Chapter, INTACH
Varanasi, which is not directly involved in this project, except for show
piece and to honour face value; this happened by taking benefit of no local
architect or urban planner as members of the local Chapter, in addition

with the control of local chapter by the business community of a group and
their kin and kiths who commonly use this platform for their personal
benefit. Out of total over hundred members, only five are from the
university faculty. The first VDA and INTACH New Delhi joint meeting
was held on 5 January and it was expected that by June 2009, the first
report of the HDP be submitted and released for the public consultation,
however the report is kept ‘secret’ by the authorities.
On 16 July 2009 and again on 3 August 2009, the INTACH New Delhi
has made a presentation on its report and submitted the report to the VDA.
However, they avoided to disseminate the report for the public and giving
its copies for review to any local expert. Surprisingly, in such plan,
including the Master Plan, public participation and their suggestions are
essential before finalisation, but in the present case things are kept secret.
Of course the convener of the local Chapter possesses the copies of all
such reports, but never allows any other person, including the members, to
consult and examine the reports. Nevertheless, based on the presentation
and personal experiences since last three decades, the major highlights and
rational critiques of the HDP are presented here.
With a vision of sustainable urban development, promotion of heritage
tourism, conservation and preservation of heritages (tangible and
intangible), the Heritage Development Plan (HDP) has been recently
introduced in January 2009 under the auspices of VDA (Varanasi
Development Authority) on the line of the identification of the five
heritage zones in Varanasi, and also consideration of urban renewal and
revitalisation programme under JNNRUM. The HDP will be applicable for
the next two decadal period that refers to the followed up revised Master
Plan, i.e. 2011-2031. The vision behind this project is to revive, re-create
and making of sustainable effort to preserve traditional glories and values
together with adjusting the modern changes, with an aim that old heritage
properties changed and preserved in a way that they may serve as
reproductive resource for today. Therefore the focus is laid upon
preserving traditional values and architecture, urban public space where
the function may work more efficiently and harmoniously, tradition and
modernity go hand-by-hand in making landscape and culture more eco-
friendly and symbols of human ingenuity. The heritagescapes that given
specific consideration include architecture, natural landscape, built
heritage (structure and function), and pilgrimage routes.
The first phase of the HDP consists of four selected areas as pilot
project:
(1) Dashashvamedha Ghat and the nearby area ― the predominant

area of rituals, pilgrimages, visitation to temples, and visitors’ attractions.
This area is delimited with the pilgrimage routes and individual temples‒
their number goes more than 160, and around sixty per cent all religious
activities and ancient temple are lying in this area. At the other end, this is
also one among the three main market areas in the city, dominated by
residential-cum-shop-attached-temple type of built structure. All these
mixed and thus evolved a mosaic of ‘sacredscapes’. The basic aim to
develop this area is restoration and development together in making the
area more liveable where riverfront natural heritage, built architecture and
symbolic values of temples, the grandeur of architecture, the market
structure and the variety of shops that support the profane side of the
human needs, the intangible performances and rituals continued,
maintained and still in operation at least since last 1500 years (ancient,
medieval, Mughal, colonial, post-colonial, modern periods in spite of three
time major destructions, etc. work together.
This area is facing drastic problems related to (i) depleting heritage
environment, (ii) environment like unhygienic, filthy houses and lanes,
wandering animals (bulls and cows), (iii) encroachment of public space,
walkways, open space near houses, (iv) vehicular congestion and poor
traffic management, hostile pedestrian environment, (v) lack of tourists’
facilities, including inadequate places and room for stay, like loges and
guesthouses, (vi) inadequate pilgrims’ facilities, (vii) inadequate festival/
event management, (viii) dangerously opened electric lines and telephone
lines, (ix) inferior urban images, lacking signage, indication of lanes and
names, ugly additive structures, advertisement posters, (x) improper retail
growth, dominated by vendors, side-shops and illegal shops that
encroached the public spaces, and (xi) no proper and viable planning
measures together with lack of public awareness and their participation,
also neither exist by-laws, nor people are ready to follow upon by
changing their habits and life styles. Very similar condition would be
visualised in different degrees and intensities in other old parts of the city,
like Chowk, Vishvesharganj, Lahurabir.
The HDP emphasises the four interconnected attributes for
revitalisation and heritage planning, viz. Pedestrian environment, Façade-
scape, Riverfront Ghatscape, and Cultural centre and sites of cultural foci.
Many theoretically and ideal suggestions are given in the above contexts,
in addition with promoting pedestrian environment development, site
interpretation, improving accessibility, civic facilities, health and hygiene.
(2) Chet Singh Palace along the riverfront is to be projected as a

Cultural Centre in the city due to its magnificent buildings, morphological
structure, functional space, built space where public and private can
interact so closely.
Chet Singh (1770-1781) built the palatial building of this Ghat in mid
the 18th century as a small fortress, which witnessed the fierce battle
between the troops of Warren Hastings and Chet Singh in 1781 that
resulted to the defeat of Chet Singh. Thus this fortress went under the
control of British. In late 19th century the King Prabhu Narayan Singh had
again took the possession of this fort. The northern part of it was donated
to Naga group of ascetics who later on built their monasteries and ghats,
called Niranjani Ghat and Nirvani Ghat (cf. Singh 2009b: 270). This
palace has been principal residence of king in British Period. This building
composed of (a) a palace with pavilions, built on the terrace overlooking
the Ganga, (b) a group of buildings for the women (demolished), (c) a
Mughal garden with darbar (assembly hall) and water tower, and (d) a
chain of interconnected three temples. The palace has a particularly
favoured relationship to the Ganga. It opens out onto the ghat which is a
continuation of the palace and reached by means of a monumental
gateway. The gateway houses a stairway, which gives access to the
terrace. There, a central pavilion stands looking out over the Ganga, on
which the Maharaja appeared for glimpse. The terraced level is defined at
two corners by two massive structures tapped by octagonal domed
pavilions. There are three state temples of Shiva in the compound, built in
18th-19th century. The Kashiraj Trust of the Maharaja, own this palace
and area like other properties of the estate. No specific measures are taken
to conserve and preserve the palace and its compound, except that once or
twice in a year for some celebrations the palace is allotted and on that very
occasions cleaning, white washing and some repairing are done. In lack of
proper care and maintenance the whole environment is in the stage of
depletion.
Developing the Chet Singh palace and associated ghat as cultural
centre will promote activities in enhancing dissemination and revival of
cultural performances (classical music, play, etc), example of heritage
preservation and re-use, religious activities used for promoting civic sense,
use of temples for more public visits. The centre will be a nodal point for
cultural interpretation. The arrangement of signage, illumination,
landscaping, properly suited lightings, revival and reorientation of garden,
additive extension of built space that would help to maintain old heritage,
and meeting and interaction among tourists and pilgrims leading to
spiritual awakening and understanding would be some of the measures

suggested.
(3) Five halt stations (vāsa sthāna) on the pilgrimage route of

Panchakroshi Yatra that delimits the cosmic circuits, viz. Kandwa,
Bhimachandi, Rameshvar, Shiopur, and Kapildhara. This route represents
the only such unique historical circuit of pilgrimage covering ca. 88km
interconnecting 108 shrines and temples (cf. Singh 2002). All the five
stations are attached with a sizeable kund those are now critically facing
environmental problems (for details, see chapter 9 of this book). The
emphasis is laid upon the kunds, main temple complexes, dharmashalas
(pilgrims’ rest houses), preservation and restoration of historic buildings,
pilgrimage paths, maintenance of green space in view of keeping the
serene and sacred scene of the area alive and more eco-friendly for the
mass of pilgrims.
(4) Selected Water pools (kunds), exemplified with Sarang Talab,

Pisachmochan and Pushkar ― as representative of three conditions of
heritage and cultural contexts, respectively facing the problems of
environmental pollution and loss of cultural values, site in danger that has
once recorded history of ancient ritual of ancestors’ worship and religious
cleanliness, and a cultural symbol having association with Brahma (‘god
of creation’) and Krishna (‘god of love’).
The basic objectives for restoration and development of such water
pools include edge formation and improvement, revetment and
construction of retaining walls that help to restoration, additional
restoration, and upgradation of public and open space that would promote
social cohesiveness and more harmonious and hygienic environment.
There should be a system of re-charging, maintenance of cleanliness, and
societal consciousness to have their sense of attachment to place that
constantly help to maintain ‘the spirit of place’. By 1932, there were more
than hundred water pools; but at present only twenty exist and their
condition is unhygienic, environmentally polluted, filled with filth and
commonly used as sewer pits by the neighbouring houses.
For the first phase monetary budget is proposed to worth Indian rupees
Rs 2500 million (ca US$ 53 millions), which would further subdivided for
four sub-projects according to the requirements.
The second phase of HDP would consists of preparing detailed

inventory and listing of heritage properties; till August 2009 the INTACH
has tentatively prepared the list of such 693 properties. Selected properties,
like Tripoli Entrance gateway at Ramanagar, Balaji temple (Mangla Gauri

Ghat), Jagannath temple (Assi), would be taken as pilot object for making
detailed plan for conservation and preservation.
Basic drawback of the HDP. The basic drawback of the recently

proposed HDP is lack of public participation, negligence of the historical-
cultural processes that made the landscape and lifeways, avoidance of
taking any sort of cooperation from the local experts and people,
superimposition of so many theoretical and other constructs that are
thought as the best measures by them, choosing samples of water pools
(kunds) without rationality of cultural significance and symbolic values as
perceived and practiced by local people since historical past, not
considering the proposal on the line of urban planning acts and the earlier
planned Master Plan, avoiding to make the report and details to the public
for critical observation, completely keeping aside intangible heritage (like
Ramalilas, ancestors’ rituals, fairs and festivals, environmental theatres,
traditional Sanskrit teaching and schools, traditional wrestling, folk art and
craftsmanship, toy making, silk weaving, seasonal songs and associated
singing assemblies, …, etc.), giving over emphasis on (recreational)
tourism and Western visitors, neglecting the requirements of the huge
mass of pilgrims (ca. 2 million every year), avoiding coordination with
other development plans that concerned with transport system, sewerage
drains, building construction, cultural activities, etc. And, several such
loopholes may be looked into. If these issues be sort out to a certain
degrees, the proposed HDP would be rationally befitted and eco-friendly
accepted and activated for a sustainable future of this heritage city.
In view of experiences in the past, it is clear that in lack of any pilot
project no way one could justify the relevance of the heritage conservation
plan and details of related aspects that would lead to put the main heritage
zones and properties first in the ‘Tentative List’ of UNESCO WHL, and
followed up proceeding toward getting enlisted in the ‘Final List’.
Additionally, sometimes controversial and false propaganda through
media and newspapers and doubts created by the officials and politicians
also play a role of obstacle.
8. INTACH Varanasi: Role, Reflections and Contestations

The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH)
was set up on 27th January 1984, having headquarters at New Delhi,
registered as a society/trust under the Registration of Societies Act 1860, as
a nationwide, non-profit membership organization with aims to protect and
conserve India’s vast natural and cultural heritage. INTACH has made
significant contribution over the years in conservation and protection of
our natural and cultural heritage in India through its 150 chapters in
various cities, those formed under Section V [Sub clause (xviii) of Clause
(D) of Rule 17] of the Rules and Regulations of the INTACH pertains to
the powers and functions of the Governing Council and the Executive
Committee. The rule suggests appointing chapter Convener for a period of
three-year, and may be extendable for one successive term.
In 1985 the INTACH Varanasi Chapter was established with the
consent and approval of the headquarters at New Delhi. Soon afterwards
(1986) the INTACH New Delhi executed a charitable Deed of Trust by
legal document signed by the then member-secretary and by others
including the close relatives (same business community, kith and kin, like
a noted Harvard professor of Indian art Pramod Chandra) and appointed
Mr Ananda Krishna (b. 12 Nov. 1925― ) as its chairman, who succeeded
to appoint his own son Mr Kalyan Krishna (b. 28 June 1946― ) as
Executive Trustee and he himself served as nexus of power control being
the Chairman even after passing 24 years. Thus using INTACH name
through tricks of power-game a parallel-but-associated organisation named
the ‘Rai Krishnadas INTACH Varanasi Nyas’ was founded by its
(lifelong!) chairman Mr Ananda Krishna on the name of his father (late)
Rai Krishnadas (1902-1980), a noted scholar of Indian art and Hindi
literature who carried the lineage tradition of business of art and artefacts.
Later the chairman has appointed his own son, Mr Kalyan Krishna, as its
Convener; thus the legacy of father-son has succeeded to have their
functional hegemony and financial control over the ‘two bodies in one-
frame’ till 5th May 2006 [serving over two decades] ― when Mr Kalyan
Krishna was replaced by another convener Mr Navneet Raman.
The second committee of INTACH Varanasi (6th May 2006 to 26th
November 2009), under the convenership of Mr Navneet Raman, had
taken some major initiatives in heritage programmes, following the
guidelines of the Central committee. During this period only three
meetings held, and hardly one-fourth (out of ca. 102) of members had
attended each of the meetings; additionally, no minutes of earlier
resolutions were further passed and execution monitored, and also no pilot
project or priority programmes were structured. This is another indication
of communication gap, and avoidance of participation of the experienced
and well-educated personnel in heritage studies and planning.
Nevertheless, one can also noticed that Mr Navneet and his team had
brought the Chapter back to life through various activities, programmes,
heritage walks, international conferences and meetings, coordination with
other chapters and public awakenings. He had paved the path of heritage
conservation as a great leader, activist, organiser, friend and visionary, but
at the end he was a victim of complex bureaucracy and manoeuvred
political game, which resulted to get him out from the convenership on 26
November 2009 [after serving 3½ years]. Most of the local life members
were completely against such appointments/dismissals in which without
taking into consideration the local members’ feelings, or due democratic
and juristic process, as almost every NGO or such organisations work,
one-sided decision of the headquarters was made.
One of the founding members of INTACH painfully narrated this
incidence as “the utter arbitrariness and high handedness that seems to
pervade the administration of INTACH, with no respect for the rights of
Chapters and members whatever. ….. I regard this kind of behaviour as
symptom of a deep seated malaise that cannot do our Trust any good and
its perpetrators should be voted out of office…”. The main officials
associated to the Chapter use this as platform for their own image-making
and benefits; in fact, the INTACH Varanasi Chapter is under the grip of a
community of businessmen. Moreover, maintaining conspiracies and
avoiding transparencies are common practices in the chapter’s working.
The first meeting of the existing Committee was held on 10 January 2010,
and no working plan or pilot projects were chalked out for on-going or
future programmes. Of course in its second meeting, held on 25 April
2010 (attended by only 18 members, out of the 102 old ones and
additionally new 30 members, thus totalling to 132!), the convener has
successfully narrated about the glorious achievements of the past five
months and whatever his close member companions did. The increasing
number of membership was campaigned for future strategy to get easily
their vote and support for regaining the power of control. The local
Chapter has done cleaning work at Jalasen Ghat which is still in
dilapidated state and suppressed under garbage pits; of course, its scene
has now been noticeably changed to cleanliness and serenity. The third
meeting held on 23 May 2010 in the presence of the chairman INTACH,
was attended only by 8 members; and the same old stories repeated by
praise and pleasing sweets. In this meeting on the name of ‘confidentiality’
[especially budget and allocation of money] they refused to show and
allow to study the six DPR prepared by INTACH New Delhi. This is the
way they completely neglect public participation and local involvement.
It is to be noted that the local branch of INTACH, as in the past, is
presently scarcely involved in documentation, protection, preservation and
conservation of the architectural heritage. However, it is to be remembered
that in 1985s the INTACH had successfully renovated and preserved the
architectural grandeur of the Raja Ghat, the only example of such work
still date.
As reported in a daily the Times of India [Varanasi, 18th November
2009 on page 3], using his undemocratic way and misusing position as
Convener of INTACH Varanasi chapter he had forwarded its “strong
objection against the city mobility plan to the Ministry of Urban
Development on 29th July 2009 when this objection was failed to draw the
attention of the Ministry, the INTACH forwarded it objection to the Prime
Minister of India and also sent reminder to the Ministry and UNESCO”.
This news was taken as serious offence against the rules and regulation of
the INTACH head office, resulting to withdrawal from being convener,
and thus was appointed Mr Kalyan Krishna (rarely an active member!) as
successor.
On 5 March 2010 an appeal was made by INTACH Varanasi Convener
to save vanishing symbol and icon of riverfront Banaras, called chhatari
(large-sized parasol), which completes the scene. It is expected that artists
and photographers, among other visitors, will reproduce the Banaras
scenes by giving prominence to the chhataris, and help to preserve them.
This project also was neither discussed with members, nor any schedule of
working structured; this was merely a news created personally.
Dharmakupa (‘Well of Dharma’) and its surrounding sacredscapes are
one of the mythical symbols and representative of the architecture and
sculptures of the late 18th and early 19th century stone art of Banaras,
which are presently at the edge of dilapidated condition. Thanks to local
voluntary organisation and local activists that took lead in making the area
environmentally clean and revive the sacred beauty and spirit of place
again in its original condition. For this purpose a cleaning ritual was
performed on 12 April 2010, and was attended by a dozen of people, of
course no expertise from conservation and preservation architect. Taking
into consideration of such public awakening and programme, the INTACH
Varanasi Chapter has taken initiative to join hands by suggesting the
following steps:
(1) Cleaning all the temples and shrines, removing the thick layers of paint
and colour wash, and re-carving the damaged portions;
(2) A couple of shrines have lost the top portion of the spire (shikhar
amalaka). New amalakas will be made in the style of the existing ones;
(3) Repairing and painting the low wall around the holy pipal & banyan trees;
(4) Making a better cover for the well; and
(5) Repairing and painting the houses surrounding the area.
The Chapter feels difficulty at this stage to make a precise estimate;

however restoration work can be started after collecting some money from
local people. It is strange to note that no member of the Chapter was

earlier informed, neither any collaborative plan concerning restoration and
preservation was discussed, and also no way and expertise consulted.
More emphasis is laid on fund-raising and populist propaganda for making
image and public attraction. This reflects individuality, consumerism and
power game played by a group of business community, which generated a
corpus fund of Rs 40,000 (equals to US$ 870) for this purpose. A
substantive part of this sum has already been consumed for cleaning and
preservation; however the field checks shows different story that hardly
one-sixth works was done (and even that one not in proper way). This is
an indication of misuse of money donated by people for the good cause.
The propagation and propaganda of such news help in making good and
sympathetic images to these people and also helping them to get in close
connection with like-minded business relatives and friends.
The INTACH Varanasi has rarely planned in its history to celebrate
such special days that are recognised and initiated by international
institutions and personalities under heritage and cultural programmes, viz.
the 18th of April as ‘Word Heritage Day’ that was initiated by ICOMOS in
1982 and established by the UNESCO in its 22nd Session in 1993, the 22nd
of April as the ‘Earth Day’ established by a United States statesman
Gaylord Nelson and celebrated in over 175 countries, and the 27th of
September as ‘World Tourism Day’ established by UNO in 1972. These
special days are recognised and celebrated universally with aims to
promote social, cultural, political, heritage-oriented, environmental and
economic values worldwide through the realization and awakening
programmes at local sites. Only having personal meetings and putting
some banners would not awaken the masses!
One of the distinguished founder members ultimately wished that “A
people’s organization like INTACH should be transparently and
democratically run. All documents relating to the body notably the Deed
of Trust, the Rules and Regulations, powers of the various officers and
bodies, their source of authority and details of procedure, agreements with
other institutions and their terms and conditions, details of the budget and
financial expenditures, regular publication of important actions taken by
INTACH and against it, activities of the Chapters, rules ensuring free and
fair elections devoid of conflicts of interest, and other germane matters,
should be easily available to any member who wishes to examine them.
This can fairly and easily be done with the help of modern information
technology”.
The story of INTACH Varanasi since its inception gives clear
perception that heritage concerns are often dominated by elites and
special-interest groups, and suspicions of self-interest undermine

appreciation of heritage as a public commodity. Some of the members feel
that the Chapter is a platform to aggrandize power and profits and making
family image, and serving their own ends rather than the public benefit.
Of course, it had never attempted, let us hope that on the line of
INTACH head-office declaration of 2010 as ‘Year of Heritage Document-
ation’, the Varanasi Chapter may also prepare a detailed inventory of
heritage/s (tangible and intangible) and make this available to everybody
in the form of heritage resource. Like in Delhi (by Delhi Development
Authority, cf. http://dda.org.in/planning/docs/10_Conservation_.pdf), it
will also be necessary to maintain close interaction and coordination
between all agencies and institutions concerned with such programmes,
particularly getting coordination of Varanasi Development Authority
[VDA], keeping in view the heritage zones already defined and delineated
in the Master Plan 2001-11, and taking in view the following objectives
and requirements:
i. Maintain and update a database.
ii. Develop organizational capacity for heritage management.
iii. Define all the applicable Terms
iv. Listing of Heritage Buildings based on the following criteria:
(a) The age of the building;
(b) Its special value for architectural or cultural reasons or historical periods
and authenticity;
(c) Its relevance to history;
(d) Its association with a well-known character or event;
(e) Its value as part of a group of buildings; and
(f) The uniqueness of the building or any object or structures fixed to the
building or forming part of the land and comprised within the cartilage
of the building.
v. Prepare guidelines for development, redevelopment, additions
alterations, repairs, renovations and reuse of the heritage buildings.
vi. Implementing programmes for education and awareness.
Let INTACH Varanasi should help and support each local body/ land
owning agency in formulating “Special Development Plans” for the
conservation and improvement of listed heritage complexes and zones.
Alteration or demolition of any building is prohibited in the listed heritage
complexes and zones without the prior approval of the Competent
Authority.
It is to be noted that the Government of India has amended Building
Byelaws 1993, wide Clause 23 and inserted a chapter on ‘Conservation of
Heritage Sites including Heritage Building, Heritage Precincts and Natural
Feature Areas”. The development plans/ schemes shall conform to the

provisions of the same.
9. Inscribing the Riverfront Ghats in UNESCO WHL:

Story of fight and failure
The story of realising issue of inscribing the Riverfront Ghats in
Unesco WHL goes back to 1989, when under the direction of Prof. M.S.
Swaminathan (President, National Academy of Sciences, NAS; b. 7 Aug.
1925―), a Project Design Workshop on “Natural and Cultural Sites along
the Ganga for inscription in the World Heritage List” was organised
during 7-8 April 1989 under the auspices of the NAS with the
collaboration of several departments of the Government of India like
Planning Commission, Department of Arts, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Prime Minister’s
Committee on Heritage and Cultural Resources, and also INTACH and the
Ganga Project Directorate. This was undertaken as a part of Nehru
Centenary Celebrations. This Workshop had turned to be only an
academic exercise and bureaucratic propaganda, and rarely any
comprehensive report came into black-and-white, even after passing three
years! It is surprising that the case of Riverfront Varanasi was no way
discussed at all.
Encouraged and inspired by the above initiative, the present author
(Rana P.B. Singh) had contacted Hélène Legendre-De Koninck, a
Canadian heritage expert and writer, through a letter dated 6 April 1992, to
know about the criteria and procedures of inscription in the WHL. Her
reply and advice (30 April 1992) helped to get in contact ICOMOS,
UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and concerned ministry of the
Government of India. On these lines on 16 May 1992 a letter was sent to
the President of ICOMOS by Singh, attaching the details, potential
grounds and strong conditions fulfilled by the “Riverfront Ghats and the
Old City Heritage of Banaras” for getting inscribed in the WHL. Also a
follow up letter (18 May 1992, ref. NGJI/VSF/206) was sent to the Indian
National Commission for cooperation with UNESCO (Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Govt. of India). The ICOMOS has considered the
request sympathetically and through the head of communication IUCN
(The World Conservation Union) sent the letter and documents to
Sectional Officer, Department of Culture (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Govt. of India); the office took note for appropriate action
(ref. No. F.17-19/ 92-UU, dated 1 June 1992), and sent copy to Singh. As
a follow up Singh had further contacted the Secretariat of the IUCN, who
forwarded his letter and all to documents to several persons concerned

with the issue. Time passed and things went in their own way, but nothing
in support of the proposal resulted.
The above story has encouraged to prepare and publish a per taking
into consideration all the criteria and characteristics that rationally and
most viably justified nomination of “The Riverfront and Old City Heritage
Zone of Varanasi” for getting inscribed in the UNESCO WHL; the
resultant essay was first of such reports (Singh 1993). Again the author
had tried to disseminate this noble idea by sending his essay to several
persons and institutions, including INTACH New Delhi and local Varanasi
Chapter, but sorry to say that no positive result had been noticed except a
few other publications of papers on the line of the same/similar idea
repeatedly (Singh, Dar and Rana 2001; Michell and Singh 2005; Singh
2004, 2007, 2009a, 2009b; Raman 2006). Feeling humiliated and
disappointed from all sorts of positive steps for public awakening,
shareholders’ active participation, non-cooperation from the intellectuals
and INTACH Varanasi Chapter, non-seriousness from bureaucrats and
administrators, and their consequential situations Rana Singh had stopped
working on heritage issues and inscription of riverfront heritage.
With the initiative of Mr Jagmohan, then Govt. of India Central
Minister of Urban Development, ca. four-month exercise of preparing
‘Integrated and Integral Cultural Development Plan of Varanasi’ was
performed intensively, resulting into two-days National Seminar,
organised by the U.P. State Department of Tourism: 11-12 August 2000,
resulted into recommendatory plans for preservation and development of
cultural and monumental heritage and also intangible heritage (fairs,
festivals, celebrations, folk culture, etc.). This comprehensive project also
included issues of development related to tourism, cleaning and repairing
of the riverfront ghats and the ancient and heritage lanes, maintenance and
repairing of roads and interlinking paths, plan for developing Panchakroshi
pilgrimage circuit, environmental cleanliness and pollution control, and
energy conservation, etc. Soon the ministry had changed, resulting into
change of priority and interest. In this project as usual INTACH Varanasi
had no way involved itself for any sort of support.
After a gap of about seven years Vrinda Dar, a great lady carrying
lamp of heritage awakening, met Rana Singh on the 4th of February 2001
(in Hindu almanac known as Jaya Ekadashi, Magha Shukla 11th light-half
fortnight, Samvat 2057) and again persuaded and inspired him to continue
the work of heritage documentation, preservation and conservation under
the auspices of the Kautilya Society, a cultural organisation based in
Varanasi, while collaborating with Society of Heritage Planning and
Environmental Health, SHPEH, a local NGO; this resulted like a strong

mass movement and activities that promoted the cause of heritage
awakening and preservation, say at least for two-years.
As a follow up programme Vrinda and Rana contacted the VDA
(Varanasi Development Authority) and its senior authorities, including Mr
Manoj Kumar (Commissioner and Chairman VDA) and Mrs Archna
Aggrawal (Vice-Chairman) who shown keen interest and under their
patronage the project for “Nomination Proposal for Inscription in the
UNESCO World Heritage List” had started its procedural preparation in
November 2001. With common consensus a Working Group for Drafting
UNESCO Proposal was formed consisting of thirteen representative
members from administration, bureaucrats, Varanasi Development
Authority, intellectuals and activists, department of tourism, department of
culture, faculty members teaching heritage tourism (e.g. from Banaras
Hindu University), museums (e.g. Bharat Kala Bhavan), legal experts,
eminent citizens, SHPEH, and Kautilya Society; this WG worked under
the guidance of three unanimously nominated persons as honorary
officials, viz. Rana P.B. Singh as Chairman (also President, SHPEH),
Vrinda Dar as Associate (also secretary, Kautilya Society), and Tripurari
Shankar as legal expert (an eminent and leading advocate). As in the past,
the INTACH Varanasi Chapter was completely silent and in spite of
several times calls and requests none of the associates attended any
meeting and took part in any of the heritage programmes. Finally an
agreement between VDA and Kautilya Society was made on 15 March
2002 for overlooking all the preparatory activities and final draft proposal.
On the above line of agreement the WG has prepared three reports
under “Nomination Proposal for Inscription in the UNESCO World
Heritage List”, where all the listed properties are described under
historical importance, aesthetics, locational characterises, present state of
condition and religious importance, also illustrated with GPS values, line
drawings, cross-sections, site plans and photographs (cf. Singh and Dar
2002 a, b, and c) within an year that deal with: (a) Varanasi: Heritage
Zones and Sites (details of 53 sites and properties, covering the riverfront
ghats, core heritage area surrounding Vishvanath temple, Sarnath, notable
properties in the city, and Panchakroshi route), (b) Varanasi: Heritage
Zones and Sites (details of 40 sites and properties, covering the same areas
like first report ‘a’ with additional illustrations and drawings), and the
final (c) The Riverfront and Old City Heritage Zone of Varanasi (details of
73 sites and properties, covering the riverfront ghats and old heritage zone
area, and also other side of the river Ganga, i.e. Ramanagar fort and
Ramalila space and affiliated builtup structure, also consisting of select
bibliography, historical accounts, tourists statistics, critique and resume of

other Chapters’ heritage activities, history of heritage laws and Indian
context, suggested amendment on Urban and Town & Country Planning
Acts, and finally detailed schedule of Plan of action 2002-2011). The final
report (op. cit., c) was on the line of the Master Plan of Varanasi 2011,
which was approved and passed by the UP Government Assembly on 10th
July 2001 (ref. 2915/9-Aa-3-2001-10Maha/99); in this Plan five Cultural
Heritage Zones were identified and in the purview of tourism development
strategies were proposed (see Fig. 7.2, and pp. 205-207 in this essay; see
the Concluding Remarks, p. 249-250).
After passage of time by changing the government at state and
ministerial changes into the central government, the local officials
transferred to other places, the degree of peoples’ involvement and
interest, the whole intense exercise for inscribing the ‘Riverfront and Old
City Heritage Zone of Varanasi’ gone into vein. However, with the
initiation from the UNESCO Delhi branch and pressure of the Central
government, again some attempts had been made on these lines, which
started in March 2003. In continuation, to discuss the 3rd Report VDA had
called official meeting on 15 October 2003 and asked for revision and
modification of the Proposal, which Kautilya Society had complied and
submitted on 21 October 2003 taking in view the recommendations made
by ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) in its letter dated 28 July 2003,
addressed to the Commissioner, Varanasi Division and suggestions made
by the VDA. Some bureaucratic formalities and forwarding transmission
were performed, but nothing consequential came out; and the officers get
transferred from Varanasi that resulted to put whole exercise into waste
bins as usual in such a system.
The second convener of INTACH Varanasi, Mr Navneet Raman (May
2006 to November 2009) had shown some interest in the above heritage
programme initiated by Kautilya Society and SHPEH, which led again to
revive the movement. Under their joint ventures the issues were raised in
the parliament and in various Unesco’s sponsored seminars on heritage
issues. Through media, training programmes, public meetings, slide-show
lectures and seminars, a public awakening has been created, and several
feature articles were published in the Hindi and English daily newspapers.
However, nothing substantial resulted in the form of proposal that was
initially thought over and several exercised were already done.
The latest initiative under JNNURM of a similar proposal of HDP
(Heritage Development Plan) was started on 1 January 2009 under the
auspices of INTACH New Delhi that without any direct collaboration
from its local Chapter or and local organisation has already prepared
several plans and project (cf. pp. 232-238 of this essay). Ultimately, no
(detailed) document on the line of UNESCO’s Guidelines to prepare
proposal for inclusion (dossier) in the WHL has been made. Moreover due
to time lag, there is a little chance for such proposal and its acceptance
even in the Tentative List, because of the fact that Shantiniketan has been
submitted and accepted to include into WH Tentative List (20 January
2010). [To be kept in mind that only one property or area is to be proposed
by a country in a year.] And for the succeeding year (2011), processes are
in the way to get Le Corbusier’s Capitol for Chandigarh comprising four
‘Edifices’ – the High Court, the Legislative Assembly, the Secretariat and
the Museum of Knowledge – included in the WH List under 21st Century
modern heritage; it is noted that this is already in the Unesco WH
Tentative List (23 October 2006). These builtup architectures have
maintained their originality since 1966 when they were built. At the
earliest the Riverfront and Old City Heritage of Varanasi can be put on the
list for 2012 provided the project proposal is prepared strictly in
accordance with the Unesco WHC Guidelines, and to be reviewed,
verified and submitted as soon as possible.
10. Public Awakening (chetna march): Raising the Voice

As a public awakening march, an open dialogue and press conference
was called upon on 10 August 2009 evening at Asi Ghat, attended by
around hundred persons raising a public voice to “Save the Heritage city
of Varanasi” taking in view of the discrepancies and major drawbacks of
the City Development Plan, CDP (esp. transportation and morphology)
prepared in hustle by Feedback Turnkey Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi,
and was highlighted in a newspaper (cf. Dikshit, 28 July 2009, TOI). No
where the DPRs (Detailed Project Reports) prepared by INTACH Delhi
and submitted to VDA on 16 July 2009, are taken into consideration or
even any sort of coordination maintained between these two plans (cf.
Singh, Binay 2009, TOI). The Convener of the INTACH Varanasi has
already sent (29 July 2009) an appeal to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
and other concerned authorities of the Govt. of India to see the issue and
intervene in such superimposed plans (prepared by outside agency) that
never fit to the spirit and culture and not viable; obviously they will turn to
serious threat to the holy and cultural city of Varanasi.
The budget of CDP is planned to Rs 46,806.5 millions (equals to US$
965 mill) and should be completed by the year 2030. In this plan the
following six threatening issues are realised and petitions are moved by
the public to media and government personnel, of course with a little

success:
1. Construction of Permanent Jetties along the ghats for the boats will
destroy the very purpose of the riverfront historical and cultural sceneries
serving as the most attractive landscape.
2. Construction sites of the five Flyovers in the main heritage zones would
destroy the functional character and heritage monuments.
3. Construction of the Ring Road outside the city territory without considering
the sacred territorial pilgrimage path of “Panchakroshi” that developed in
medieval period and still so frequently used by pilgrims, will destroy the
archetypal and cosmic symbolism of the city.
4. The construction of a new area for Dyeing and Polishing of fabrics outside
the city will serve as ‘outside’ pressure that will loss the traditional
craftsmanship of the city.
5. Introducing Mass Public transport system in the main city will create a
chaos and disaster to the heritagescapes; let the traditional system may be
improved in renovated way.
6. The Lighting of the heritage sites will promote stress on the heritage
component and further deteriorate the heritage environment. Modernity
should be avoided if heritage is in danger.
A common consensus has been resolved by the public and the

following alarming issues noted down for serious action programmes that
may run regularly (cf. KSM 2009: 1, 3):
1) The plan was completed at all speed within three/five months without
consultation with the Banaras public, the experts on Banaras, the religious
leaders, university academics, etc.
2) The current CDP and DPR both neglected the earlier heritage-concerned
reports prepared for inclusion of Riverfront and Old city of Varanasi in the
UNESCO World Heritage List.
3) Banaras is a historical, cultural, spiritual and pilgrimage city, where
traditions are alive and serve as backbone of life, therefore ‘urban
development plan’ should be on these lines befitting to its spirit and
tradition, no way like a ‘tourist centre’.
4) Banaras, especially the old historical town, needs renovation, preservation
and maintenance, no way transformation on the name of urban planning.
The City needs urban revitalization, not urban transformation.
5) The original ghat design and the network of linking and nearby galis (lanes)
have to be preserved in a way to save the ‘life line’ and arteries of this
organic city. Thinking of constructing a ropeway for tourists from
Dashashvamedh to the other side, or a skywalk from Godowlia to
Dashashvamedh will be like leprosy on city’s body!
6) Banaras cannot be forcibly turned into a modern city by giving priority to
motor traffic by indiscriminately enlarging roads or constructing flyovers
and skywalks. Modernization should be done as patchwork and adjustment
while preserving the architectural grandeur and culture.
7) One of the most important improvements urgently needed is developing eco-

friendly green environment, but unfortunately it is almost never mentioned
in any of the plans; rather on the name of expansion the green areas are
suggested to be replaced.
8) The Master Plan of Varanasi was passed on 10 July 2001, in which five
heritage zones (cf. Singh 2009b: 329-334) were identified; but no way these
are taken into consideration in CDP or DPRs.
Celebrating World Heritage Week during 19 - 25 November 2009, the

cultural and archaeological departments and Archaeological Survey of
India (ASI) had organised events like seminar, cultural programme, photo
exhibition and competitive programmes in the city for public awakening,
but such activities were neither performed properly, nor the public had
taken these seriously. Of course, the basic objective of the event was to
create awareness about the diversity of cultural heritage and the efforts to
protect and conserve the precious heritage and ancient monuments,
however nothing fruitful came out except mere formalities and use of
public funds for official satisfaction. The role of local chapter of INTACH
was also negligible in coordination, mostly due to lack of vision, insights
and plans that undemocratically handled by the present committee.
An year ago, on 9 February 2009, with the initiatives of INTACH
(Delhi) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MFAC) of
Spain a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed to conserve,
protect and preserve the heritage monuments and promote cultural heritage
in the temple city of Varanasi and develop world-class infrastructure in the
area, which will pave the path in inscribing Varanasi as ‘World Heritage
City’. According to this MoU experts from Spain will intensively work in
Varanasi for documentation, inventory and status reporting of the heritage
properties and heritagescapes; but no progress is made, and also the local
chapter of INTACH is silent. Such programmes are mostly based on
outsiders’ creation ― that are superimposed here, keeping away the
assessment of local requirement, understanding and without hearing the
local voices, however through media they propagate the rationality and
suitability of the plans and designs they have crafted out!
On 9 June 2010 with technical support and cooperation of German
Technical Cooperation (GTZ), CEPT (Centre for Environmental Planning
and Technology, Ahmadabad), and Advisory Services in Environmental
Management (ASEM), a venture of the Indian Ministry of Environment
and Forests, the Municipal Corporation of Varanasi has worked out the
sanitation plan for environmental cleanliness and hygienic urban habitat
that will result to conserve, preserve and maintain the aesthetic values of
heritage; let us hope for action through functioning “City Task Force”.
In spite of all such tragic situations, people are still hopeful for some
good changes that would be befitting in maintaining the glorious culture
and heritage of this heritage city. Let us hope for new light that may help
to keep, continue and envision its image as “the City of Light”!

Heritage is the mirror of mankind’s growth, progress and prospects; it
is very important that it should be preserved. One has to remember that
modern way of life and science, and ancient wisdom and its messages can
work together to help in searching a harmonious and peaceful path of
mankind’s integration with nature. In order that this heritage become a
resource for development, it needs to be first documented, then protected,
maintained and finally utilized according to specific heritage guidelines
and legislations. Only then, combined with an increased citizens’
awareness and participation, will policy efforts and interventions become
sustainable – environmentally, socially and culturally.
It is notable that the initiative made by local NGOs, experts and
eminent citizens of the city, to propose the nomination of the old city
centre of Varanasi for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List has
activated the sensitive and positive response in the city administration to
think of preservation of cultural heritage. A mass movement of awakening
(chetna march) is required for reverential development. But it should not
turn into fundamentalism, nor should it cause any damage to secular life;
good that it already started on 10 August 2009, as noted above.
In order that heritage becomes a sustainable resource for develop-
ment, it is essential that: (i) Heritage be protected and maintained; (ii)
Heritage protection be continuously monitored, assessed and strategies be
changed fitting according to appropriateness, priority and in need of the
time; (iii) Impact of heritage protection should be constantly evaluated am
improved upon; (iv) Heritage protection activities should be supported by
the residents and stakeholders; (v) City development plans follow specific
heritage guidelines support system and the by-laws; (vi) Heritage to be
promoted so as to bring sustainable economic benefits to the local
population; and (vii) Information and cultural programmes on heritage
issues to be disseminated for awareness building among citizens.
In our temporal frame we have to give respect to the past, search
solutions in the present, and make directions for the future. This should
apply to the issue of urban sprawl beyond the corporation boundary and
interlinks with the surrounding areas (peri-urban), which were not
considered in preparing the CDP or DPR. Remember, a thing is right when
it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the site as a living
organism. In order that this heritage becomes a resource for development,
it needs to be first documented, then protected, maintained and finally
utilised according to specific heritage guidelines and legislations. Only
then, combined with an increased stakeholder awareness and participation,
will policy efforts and interventions become sustainable – environment-
ally, socially and culturally. We may separate ourselves from the web of
our heritage in the pursuit of modernity and secularism, but it would
always be at the cost of our hearts and souls.
12. References
Aa, Bart J.M. van der 2005. Preserving the Heritage of Humanity?
Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of Listing.
Fedbodruk, Enschede (under the auspices of Netherlands Organisation
for Scientific Research).
Babu, Suresh 2009, December 4. Curious case of Ganga. India Water
Portal Org Blog, see: http://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/suresh-
babu/9006 <retrieved on 15 December 2009>
Dar, Vrinda 2005. Threats and Prospects; in, Michell, G. and Singh, Rana
P.B. (eds.) Banaras, The City Revealed. Marg, Mumbai: 138-143.
Dikshit, Rajeev 2009 (28 July). Heritage city in for a facelift (Varanasi).
Heritage city in for a facelift. Metro Rail, Ropeways, Subways,
Flyover to change City Skyline by 2030. The Times of India (a daily
newspaper), section Times City, p. 3. Web: http://timesofindia.india
times.com/NEWS/City/Varanasi/Heritage-city-in-for-a-facelift/article
show/4831009.cms
Eidt, Robert C. 1977. Detection and examination of anthroposols by
phosphate analysis. Science, 197 (30 September): pp. 1327-1333.
FV: Feedback Venture, New Delhi 2006 (August). Varanasi City
Development Plan under JNNURM (Cover Page, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Annexure). Accessed on 15 January 2008, Web: http://www.jnnurm.
nic.in/toolkit/varanasi.htm
Gutschow, Niels 2005. Benares - The Sacred Landscape of Varanasi.
Edition Axel Menges GmbH, Stuttgart-Fellbach.
KSM, Kashi Samvad Manthan 2009. Weekly Newspaper from Vishva
Samvad Kendra, Varanasi, vol. 9 [no. 24], 12 August: 1-4pp; editor:
D.B. Pandey.
Michell, George and Singh, Rana P.B. 2005 (eds.) Banaras: The City
Revealed. Marg Publs., Mumbai.
Raman, Navneet 2006. City development plan: A case of Varanasi.

Context: Built, Living and Natural (DRONAH, Gurgaon, HR, India), 3
(3), December: 143-149.
Rao, P.S.N. 2006 (12 Oct.). JNNURM CDP Appraisal Report -
VARANASI. Accessed on 15 January 2009, Web: http://www.jnnurm.
nic. in/cdp_apprep_pdf/CDP_Appraisal_IIPA/Varanasi_IIPA.pdf
Sax, William S. 1990. The Ramnagar Ramlila: Text, Performance,
Pilgrimage. History of Religions (University of Chicago Press), 30 (2):
129-153; Reprinted in, Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) 1993, Banaras/
Varanasi (Tara Book Agency, Varanasi): 257-273.
Scholze, Marko 2008. Arrested Heritage. The Politics of Inscription into
the UNESCO World Heritage List: The Case of Agadez in Niger.
Journal of Material Culture, 13 (2): 215-231.
Singh, Binay 2009 (16 July). Project plans fail to deliver (Varanasi). The
Times of India. Web: http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/article
show/msid-4785319,prtpage-1.cms
Singh, Manmohan 2005 (3 Dec.). Speeches: Prime Minister, Dr.
Manmohan Singh. PM launches Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
Renewal Mission. Accessed: 10 January 2009, Web: http://jnnurm.nic.
in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/Prime%20Minister’s%20Office.htm
Singh, Rana P.B. 1993. Varanasi: A World heritage city: The frame,
historical accounts; in, Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Banaras (Varanasi).
Cosmic Order, Sacred City, Hindu Traditions. Tara Book Agency,
Varanasi: 297-316.
―. 2002. Towards the Pilgrimage Archetype. The Panchakroshi Yatra of
Banaras. Indica Books, Banaras.
―. 2004. The Ganga Riverfront in Varanasi, a Heritage Zone in Contestation.
Context: Built, Living and Natural, (DRONAH, Gurgaon, HR, India), vol.
1 (1), September: 25-30.
―. 2007. The Ganga Riverfront in Varanasi (India), a Heritage Zone in
Contestation; in Persi, Peris (ed.) Recondita Armonia. The Landscape
between Research & Governance; Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Cultural Heritage: 6-8 October 2006. Università degli Studi
di Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Urbino (Italy): pp. 59-65.
―. 2005. Growth of the City, Banaras; in, Michell, George and Singh, Rana
(eds.) Banaras: the City Revealed. Marg Publs., Mumbai: 22-29.
―. 2009a. Banaras, the Heritage City of India: Geography, History and
Bibliography. Indica Books, Varanasi.
―. 2009b. Reflections on making the heritage city (Banaras); in his, Banaras,
Making of India’s Heritage City. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
Newcastle upon Tyne: 321-363.
Singh, Rana P.B.; Dar, Vrinda and Rana, Pravin S. 2001. Rationales for
including Varanasi as Heritage City in the UNESCO World Heritage List.
National Geographical Journal of India, 47 (pts. 1-4): 177- 200.
Thats Hindi 2008 (4 April). Speeding up the actions to make Varanasi as
heritage city. (Internet news in Hindi). http://thatshindi.oneindia.in/
news/2008/04/04/nation-varanasi-heritage.html
# Reports (Varanasi: Inscribing Heritage Zones for WHL UNESCO)

Singh, Rana P.B. (chairman and editor) and Dar, Vrinda (associate & co-editor)
2002a (March 20). Varanasi: Heritage Zones and Sites. [Details of 53 sites and
properties]. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi (India). 110pp + 18pp
appendices + 70 figures/ maps (locational, site plans, cross sections), 45 plates
of photographs, including historical outline and Selected Bibliography. 1st
Report. © Rana P.B. Singh.
―. 2002b (April 1). Varanasi: Heritage Zones and Sites. Nomination Proposal for
Inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List. [Details of 40 sites and
properties]. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi (India). 78pp + 26
figures/ maps (locational, site plans, cross sections), including historical
outline and Selected Bibliography. 2nd Report. © Rana P.B. Singh.
―. 2002c (April 25). The Riverfront and Old City Heritage Zone of Varanasi.
Nomination Proposal for inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List.
[Details of 73 sites and properties]. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi
(India). 174pp + 70 figures/ maps (locational, site plans, cross sections), 70
plates of photographs, including historical outline and Selected Bibliography.
3rd Report. © Rana P.B. Singh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8
Bodh Gaya, a World Heritage Site:

Tourists’ and Natives’ Perceptions of
Heritage and its Value
Rana P.B. Singh & Devesh Kumar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. Bodh Gaya, the sacred town and pilgrimage centre for Buddhist,
is well-known for its Mahabodhi temple (a World Heritage Site, enlisted in
2002) that serves as nucleus for all events in the town. There are many
temples and monasteries built by Buddhist Sanghas of different countries
that attract a large number of tourists and pilgrims come here for
worshipping, meditation and to attain peace of mind. This led to develop
infrastructure to support the visitors, which further led to socio-economic
changes. Of course, the inhabitants are mostly Hindus, but pilgrims are
predominantly Buddhists. Based on field survey and participatory observa-
tions the perception of people (both native and visitors) concerning
heritages and their preservation are documented and analyzed; this clearly
indicates negligence of local stakeholders, and complicated politics of
management. If these issues solved, there will be a bright future.
Key words: historical perspective, heritage valuation, perception,
Buddhist tradition, development, renovation, future plan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Blessed One having attained Buddhahood while resting under the
shepherd’s Nigrodha tree on the banks of the river Niranjara at Bodh
Gaya, pronounced this solemn utterance:
“… I have recognised the deepest truth, which is sublime and peace
giving, but difficult to understand; for most men move in a sphere of
worldly interests and find their delight in worldly desires”.
― The Mahavagga, 1, 3, ˜4.
1. Introduction: Historical Perspective, and Orientation

Bodh Gaya, the most important Buddhist site for the world’s 550
million Buddhists, is surrounded by a native population of different faiths,
256 8. Rana P.B. Singh & Devesh Kumar
predominantly Hindus ― say it as Hindu India (Doyle 1997); of course

there are Muslims too. The Buddhists’ population consists of migrants,
temporary visitors, pilgrims, refugees, shop-keepers and those living in
monasteries. Bodh Gaya is probably all the more interesting a place by
virtue of being much more of a working Buddhist centre than an
archaeological site (Fig. 8.1). It is the most important Buddhist pilgrimage
site in the world. Several inscriptions found there refer to Sri Lankan,
Burmese and Chinese people who performed pilgrimage to this site in the
historical past and patronised repairing and installing images of the
Buddha. Bodh Gaya’s special character is clearly emphasised in numerous
texts and pilgrim records which designate it as the only place where
Shakyamuni could have become a Buddha. The famous CE 7th century
Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang) described Shakyamuni’s futile
efforts to achieve enlightenment at nearby Pragbodhi Hill (now called
Dhongra Hill). Afterwards Shakyamuni found that spot about 3km south
of Pragbodhi Hill, where he was finally successful. And for centuries
since, the Buddhist devotees have journeyed to pay homage to this sacred
site of enlightenment.
Hsüan-tsang ascribes the erection of the original Bodhi shrine to
Emperor Ashoka. According to one of his rock edicts, Ashoka visited this
place, which is called Sambodhi in the inscription, ten years after his
consecration, and it is more than probable that the great emperor
constructed a shrine on this holy spot. However, no vestige of such a
shrine is found here. From the description of Hsüan-tsang it appears that
the Mahabodhi temple (Bodhimanda Vihara in Pali), essentially in its
present shape and appearance, existed already in the CE 7th century.
Today this temple which was extensively restored in the late 16th century
dominates Bodh Gaya. The Mahabodhi temple in Myanmar (Burma) is a
prototype of this grand temple (cf. Singh 2003: 76).
The vast majority of sculptures from Bodh Gaya date after the Gupta
period and primarily belong to the Pala-Sena period (ca. CE 8th-12th
centuries). The importance of this site after the 6th century is indicated by
the fact that the Buddha in bhumisparsha mudra (earth-touching gesture)
became the most common form for a Buddha image during the Pala period
(see Fig. 8.2). Although it is a specific reference to Bodh Gaya and a
symbol of the achievement of Buddhahood, this form seems to have
originated elsewhere at an earlier time. Nonetheless, the first place in
eastern India where it became prominent is at Bodh Gaya. Various kings,
queens, patrons and visitors repaired, renovated and added to the already
existing structures till the 12th century when floods silted the courtyard of
the temple complex, which remained buried until 1811.
Bodh Gaya, a World Heritage Site: Perceptions & Values
Fig. 8.1. Bodh Gaya: Sacred Landscapes – Temples and Monasteries.

257
Fig. 8.2. The Buddha in bhumisparsha mudra (Mahabodhi temple).
Although the exact circumstances and date are not known, after the
13th century, despite centuries of activity, Buddhist practices at Bodh
Gaya largely ceased. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, who visited Bodh Gaya
in 1811, reported that the temple was in a dilapidated condition and that
much of the immediate area had been greatly disturbed by the extensive
removal of bricks and other materials for local building projects. From the
beginning of the 19th century, several Burmese missions also travelled to
Bodh Gaya, first to find the site and make offerings, and then, in 1877, to
Bodh Gaya, a World Heritage Site: Perceptions & Values 259
renovate the dilapidated structures. In fact, it was the somewhat haphazard

renovation by the Burmese that prompted the British Government to
undertake a major restoration of the site in the 1880s. Unfortunately, the
19th century changes made at Bodh Gaya have greatly confused the record
of earlier activity. Some structures were totally dismantled and many
images were moved from their original locations.
In the late 19th century, along with the restoration of the site, attention
was focussed on Bodh Gaya by the writings of Sir Edwin Arnold. His
famous poem about Shakyamuni entitled ‘The Light of Asia’ (1879) and an
impassioned newspaper account of the sad neglect of this most sacred
Buddhist site proved effective tools for reawakening an interest in Bodh
Gaya throughout the world. In 1891 Sir Arnold’s writings helped to
inspire Anagarika Dharmapala from Sri Lanka to dedicate his life to the
struggle to have Bodh Gaya and especially the Mahabodhi temple under
Buddhist ownership rather than accepting the Hindu Mahant who was in
control of the temple at that time. Since 1953, under an act passed by the
Government of Bihar, the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee,
whose members are both Buddhists and Hindus, administers this temple
and has made vast improvements to both the temple and its grounds.
Existing structures have been repaired and new stupas are being erected.
With the reintroduction of gilded images in the niches of the Mahabodhi
Temple, it begins to regain some of the splendour described by Hsüan-
tsang.
Traditions states that Buddha stayed in Bodh Gaya for seven weeks
after his enlightenment. Each week was spent in a different part of the
sacred place or complex. The 1st week was spent under the Bodhi Tree,
the sacred fig tree (Ficus religiosa). For the 2nd week, he remained
standing and gazing uninterruptedly at the tree for having helped him in
his quest. Animeshalochana Stupa (‘unwinking gazing shrine’) marks this
spot in the northeast to the Mahabodhi temple, and houses a standing
figure of the Buddha with his eyes fixed towards the tree.
The 3rd week was spent in meditation, walking back and forth from the
tree to the unblinking shrine spot, out of gratitude for giving him shelter.
Lotus flowers are said to have sprung up in this place which came to be
known as Chankramana Chaitya (jewel walk) and is marked by a recently
made brick platform containing 18 lotus flowers representing the footsteps
of the Buddha.
The 4th week was devoted by the Buddha to attain higher modes of
exposition, i.e. Abhi Dhamma Naya (deep meditation). The place where he
performed meditation is called Ratanagraha Chaitya, which is incorporated
in the Buddhist flag of white, yellow, blue, red and orange. The 5th week
of enlightenment was again spent in meditation under another tree, called

Ajapa Nigrodha, where Sujata had offered him a meal of rice pudding
(khir).
The 6th week takes us to Muchalinda Lake, ca. 50 m south of the main
temple, where the serpent king Muchalinda, dwelling at the bottom of the
lake, rose up to protect the Master from a severe storm created by Maya
(the god of chaos) to disturb his meditation. There is a life-size image of
the Buddha covered by a cobra at the centre of the Muchalinda Lake. In
front of this lake are the remains of an Ashokan pillar, which is now about
6m high.
The Rajayatana tree marks the 7th and last week, where the Buddha
decided to preach and thus save human beings from further sufferings;
here two merchants, Tapassu and Bliallika of Utkala (modern Orissa), who
by chance had come there in the course of their travelling, offered him
cakes of barley and honey as food. From the Rajyatana tree, the Buddha
again returned to the Bodhi Tree and paid his finally reverential salute and
bowed his head to the sacred Bo tree. After thus spending 49 days
meditating, the Buddha left Bodh Gaya on foot to meet the five ascetics,
his former associates, at Sarnath (Banaras) in order to turn the first wheel
of Dhamma.
The Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya fulfils the five criteria
of the UNESCO WHL, and in view of those enlisted in the WHL on 26
June 2002. The criteria taken into consideration were:
(i): The grand 50m high Mahabodhi Temple of the 5th-6th centuries is of
immense importance, being one of the earliest temple constructions
existing in the Indian sub-continent. It is one of the few representations of
the architectural genius of the Indian people in constructing fully
developed brick temples in that era.
(ii): The Mahabodhi Temple, one of the few surviving examples of early brick
structures in India, has had significant influence in the development of
architecture over the centuries.
(iii): The site of the Mahabodhi Temple provides exceptional records for the
events associated with the life of Buddha and subsequent worship,
particularly since Emperor Ashoka built the first temple, the balustrades,
and the memorial column.
(iv): The present Temple is one of the earliest and most imposing structures
built entirely in brick from the late Gupta period. The sculpted stone
balustrades are an outstanding early example of sculptural reliefs in stone.
(vi): The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bodh Gaya has direct association
with the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained the
supreme and perfect insight.
Ashoka had built the first chaitya (temple) in the 3rd century BCE near
the Bodhi Tree. This temple was replaced in the 2nd century CE, which in
turn went through several alterations. The present temple, which has been
through layers and layers of restorations, dates from the 6th century CE.
Burmese monks found the temple neglected and overrun by squatters, and
initiated much of the rescue work in 1882. It has been repaired as recently
as early 1998 and 2008 (cf. Figs. 8.3 and 8.4).
The original Mahabodhi Temple was destroyed by the Muslims during
the 13th century. Parts of the intricately carved railings to the south and
west of the temple are very old. Some of the railings are original and parts
of the railings are reproductions. Over the last thirty years, many statues
have been stolen from the temple’s niches. The oldest structure left on the
site is a stone railing built in the 1st century CE to keep out wild animals;
however, a quarter of it has been whisked away to museums in London
and Calcutta. The entrance to the Mahabodhi temple is through a torana,
an ornamental archway, on the eastern side. The lotus pond where the
Buddha may have bathed is to the south of the temple. To the north is the
‘Chankramana’, a raised platform, 1m high and 18m long, dating from the
1st century with lotus flowers carved on it, which marks the consecrated
promenade where the Buddha walked back and forth while meditating on
whether he should reveal his Message to the world. This appears to have
been later converted into a covered passage with pillars, of which only one
survives.
The Mahabodhi temple (cf. Figs. 8.3 and 8.4), resting on a high and
broad plinth, with a soaring 54 m high pyramidal spire with a square cross-
section and 4 smaller spires, houses a gilded image of the Buddha, kept
behind glass, in the bhumisparsha mudra (earth-touching gesture). This
classical gesture, in which the Buddha’s right hand touches the ground
while the left rests in his lap, signifies enlightenment. In the centre of the
temple there is also a Shiva linga that was installed in about 860 CE. The
temple is also sacred to Hindus, as they accept the Buddha as the 9th
incarnation of Vishnu, the preserver in the Hindu pantheon. The smaller
spires in the temple appear to have been added to the original when
Burmese Buddhists attempted extensive rebuilding in the 14th century.
Among the column images, tree worship, especially the Bodhi Tree (Holy
Ficus, Ficus Religiosa), and relic casket are the prominent scenes.
Geary (2009: 9) has rightly remarked that “given the long historical
breadth and scope of inter-Asian influence at Bodh Gaya over the
centuries, it is tempting to discern that Bodh Gaya has always been a place
of global connection and transnational influence. As the ‘navel of the
earth’ and the geographic centre of the Buddhist world, the place of
enlightenment has long existed in the spiritual itineraries and religious

imagination of Buddhist’s prior to the history of nation-states” (also cf.
Geary 2008).
Fig. 8.3. Mahabodhi temple, Bodh Gaya: the present scene.

Fig. 8.4. Mahabodhi temple, Bodh Gaya (after A. Cunningham, 1892).
Being the most important Buddhist pilgrimage centre Bodh Gaya

attracts pilgrims, tourists, and supporting shopkeepers and stockholders,
all together they result in making distinct sacredscapes and heritagescapes.
Of course the overall scenario is dominated by Buddhists; however the
economic landscapes are functionally run by majority of Hindus.
Fig. 8.5. Mahabodhi temple and surroundings, the contemporary scene.
2. Orientation and Respondents’ background

As one of major areas of research in heritage studies people’s towards
the past and the heritage related attributes and interviewing people for this
purpose has received common attention in the contemporary researches

(Sørensen 2009: 164). So far, it has been common practice for studies of
socio-economic landscape and infrastructural facilities to focus on selected
and specific aspects, however attitudinal and perceptual survey of visitors
and the stakeholders is a recent orientation. Of course all the standard
methods proved useful for collecting statistical information and factual
‘surface’ phenomena, they fail to reflect upon the ‘insideness’ of thought
and life philosophy people possess and practice in daily life that results in
making their lifeways. Sørensen (2009: 168) felt that ‘it is pertinent and
useful to gain idea about how people relate to the past and what that
relationship is about’. She conclusively suggests (ibid.: 175-176) that
“sustained discursive reflection about the aims of the heritage interview is
necessary. …. We also need to develop more sensitive ways of
incorporating and analysing responses that do not match our expectations
and to listen for stylistic changes and ruptures in the narrations”. This type
of research is predicated on the participation and contribution of the
stakeholder public and may be used to develop a more rational policy
concerning cultural property and heritagescapes (Kersel 2009: 192).
Heritage awareness is conceptualised using a combined measure of
heritage awareness and residents’ visits to heritage sites. Taking these two
measures, a study based on a recent study of 600 participants proposed a
four-cell matrix that represents: 1) aware/visited, 2) aware/not visited, 3)
unaware/visited, and 4) unaware/not visited. When the four types of
residents were compared against demographic variables, attitudes toward
preservation, preservation criteria, and importance of feature and facilities,
most of these variables were found significant. The results indicate that the
aware/visited group members had more positive attitudes toward heritage
preservation than other groups (Nyaupane and Timothy 2010: 225, 276).
Smith (2006) relocates heritage away from its crude delineations of object-
orientation, inherent value and reification, replacing this with the idea of
heritage as an essentially cultural process. As well, Webb (2009) revisits
the idea of representation as culturally mediated, where she interrogates
representations that appear natural, revealing them to be products of
discourse. In this context, similar study was also conducted at Bodh Gaya.
The city of Bodh Gaya, recording a settlement continuity spanning
over 2500 years, exists at 24° 41’ 43.008” north of latitudes and 84° 59’
38.004” east of longitudes, at a distance of 560km from Kolkata in the
east, and 230km from Varanasi, in the central part of the state of Bihar at
the bank of a seasonal river Niranajana (popularly called the Phalgu).
The town surrounding Mahabodhi temple, by contrast, is dusty, noisy
and somewhat polluted, due in large part to the large numbers of pilgrims
and tourists who visit there (cf. Pick 2009). A new development plan has
been proposed to “ensure a sustainable and prosperous future” for Bodh
Gaya, but has become controversial because such a plan may require the
relocation of whole neighbourhoods (Amar et al. 2007).
This study has been carried out initially to understand peoples’ overall
perceptual and awareness levels about the city and related facets of life,
societal concerns to heritage, and the people’s vision about the future in
terms of preservation, management and realisation of moral duties of
stakeholders. For detailed investigation in this context 100 respondents
from Bodh Gaya were surveyed through questionnaires (April 2009) and
their viewpoints are analyzed. Of course the respondents were selected
without context of any prefixed frame, but attempt were made that their
number may properly represent the share in accordance to the existing
social structure (cf. Table 8.1).
Table 8.1. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Basic information.

Nation- No. Religion No. Hindu No. Occupa- No.
ality (Caste) tion
Indian 80 Hindu 66 Brahmin 18 Business 24
Tibetan 12 Buddhism 22 Rajput 16 Students 18
Thai 6 Muslim 10 Yadava 16 Monk 16
German 2 Others 2 SC 8 Teaching 12
--- -- ----- Others 8 Others 30
TOTAL 100 100 66 100
Source: Personal survey, April 2009; No. , Number of Persons, and same as %.
The statistics (cf. Table 8.1) concerning nationality of respondents

indicate predominance of locality (Indian), followed by the neighbouring
countries/areas of Tibet and Thailand as there predominantly exist the
Buddhist adherents. Many of the Tibetan refugees have taken shelter in
Buddhist places like Dharmashala, Sarnath and Bodh Gaya, and
maintaining good interaction with the local society reciprocally. There
were only two respondents having German nationality, representing
educational tourists paid visit to have direct experience of the sacred place.
In accordance to the overall dominancy of Hindu adherents, the
majority of respondents were Hindus. Of course two Muslims also were
interviews; however they are insignificant in this whole region. The region
is dominated by Hindus, mainly consisting of priestly caste Brahmin,
landlord Rajput and farmer-cum-milkmen Yadava. Scheduled castes and
such allied communities represent the lower (downtrodden) social strata of
Indian society, and are mostly engaged in menial jobs.
The idea of economic status of the respondents can be gained from

their occupations. Because of industries and handicrafts supporting good
mass of national and international tourists, there appeared varieties and
specialised type of shops. Like other small size cities surrounded by
countryside and have major sustenance on tourism, the respondents in
Bodh Gaya also refer their occupation as multifunctional (recording 30),
followed with a broad group of ‘business’ (24). In descending order,
students of Buddhism (18) and the monks (16), together with the previous
ones shared 93 per cent of respondents. The structure of occupations
clearly indicates dependency and transaction based on the heritagescapes
that has special role due to status of Unesco WHS. In fact, most of the
established monasteries, Buddhist institutions and other schools are
running courses in Buddhist philosophy, meditation and vipasana.
Majority of respondents were below 45-years of age (70), representing
their active involvement and control in the economy. These people are
relatively well educated, possessing post-graduate and professional
degrees, which help them manage their jobs efficiently (cf. Table 8.2).
Those engaged in lower categories of jobs (receptions, shop keepers,
vendors, transport, etc), naturally record low educational training.
Table 8.2. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Age group, and Educational status.
Age Group No. Educational Status No.
Less than 30 36 Below 10th Standard 10
31 - 45 34 10th and 12th 12
46 - 60 26 Graduation 18
More than 60 4 Post-graduation 38
---- ---- Professional 22
Total 100 Total 100
Table 8.3. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Duration of stay.

Duration of stay No./ Percentage
Less than 1 year 22
2 - 15 28
16 - 30 20
31 - 45 18
above 45 12
TOTAL 100
Source: Personal survey, April 2009.
Concerning period of stay at Bodh Gaya around one-third have

recorded duration of more than 30-years, indicating their ancestral nativity
at this place or nearby and also span of one generation; such people are
more localised and not having ambition to go out of locality because they
feel happy and satisfied with their job and livelihood. Such people own
their own residences and made space arrangement in way that the house
serves as residence-cum-shop, and sometimes even paying guest house.
Altogether that helps to make the family economy strong. Half of the
respondents were young and migrated here from nearby areas to test their
destiny in business and also working in the monasteries (cf. Table 8.3).
Students, educational or religious tourists stay here less than a year.
3. Respondents’ views on Representation of Heritage

Heritage as multi-faceted, multi-visioned, inherently possessed, exter-
nally exposed, and value-oriented resource for marketing has essentially a
visual representation. Watson and Waterton (2010: 2) empathetically
opine that “The processes that constitute meaning, that frame, reveal and
construct the past that we see around us, are essentially visual. Our
connections with the past are largely tangible, or have a materiality upon
which they depend that makes them objects of heritage, and it is visual
culture that lends these objects the means of representation and
achievement of meaning”. A visitor’s narration gives an idea about the
experiences of visuality and valuation: “Though Tibetan monks and nuns
are predominant, the complex is open to people and practices from all
traditions, and its not uncommon to see Hindu yogis, Indian tourists and
Jesuit priests among the crowds there, all drawn to this “navel of the
earth”, this centre-place of remarkable spiritual insight and attainment. To
the vexation of many visitors, the surrounding town is noisy and polluted,
like many in India, though at Bodh Gaya this is actually due in large part
to the number of pilgrims and tourists who travel there” (Pick 2009).
In Indian condition, the contents and attributes of heritage are so
complex in terms of historicity, cultural connotation, disparate meanings,
different claims and blames― and above altogether making a ‘wholeness’,
i.e. mosaicness that respondents most commonly give answer in multiple
choices and even within that frame of reference no way they could give
intensity of degrees or status in hierarchy, thus the multiple choice
responses gone about three times higher (292) than the actual number, i.e.
100 (cf. Table 8.4). Concerning the question of such multiplicity Indian
identity, linguist Ramanujan (1990: 41) has rightly remarked: “There is no
single Indian way of thinking; there are Great and Little Traditions,
ancient and modern, rural and urban, classical and folk. Each language,
caste and region has its specific worldview. So, under the apparent
diversity, there is really a unity of viewpoint, a single super system”. This

is the unique pattern where various colours meet and make ‘mosaicness’
(chitrakut).
Table: 8.4. Heritage Valuation: Respondents’ view (multiple choices)

Heritage valuation Cumulative No. Percentage
Cultural Landscapes 84 28.8
Tangible (architectural grandeur) 80 27.4
Historical memories/ artefacts 70 24.0
Intangible (rituals and performance) 30 10.2
Traditional 20 6.8
Mixed (Historical + Traditional) 4 1.4
Natural heritage 4 1.4
TOTAL 292 100.0
The multiplicity is well marked in our field survey, with a clear

perceptual representation of cultural landscape, architectural grandeur and
artefacts that together recording 80 per cent of the responses (Table 8.4).
The rituals and performances (intangible resources) had also given
independent choice, and together with traditions the group’s share reached
to 7 per cent, which is befitting representation of the Indian culture. In
strict sense of ‘heritage’ as conceptualised in Eurocentric thought, people
are mostly unaware, mostly due to their strong sense and feeling for the
continuance of cultural traditions that evolved in the remote past and
successfully transferred from one generation to another leading to
maintenance and existence in spite of merger and imposition of several
traditions in different periods of time. The average multiple choice that
each respondent had informed, i.e. 2.92, is itself is indication of the
mosaicness.
Table: 8.5. Bodh Gaya. Respondent’s perception of the heritage

Perceptual view No.
Overall good scene 40
Traditional/ Ancient 24
Serene Environment 16
Sense of proud for glorious past 8
Pride of the Buddha 8
Preserved site 4
TOTAL 100
Having a common mental setup for loving sacrosanct and serene

environment as it promotes spiritual healing, the respondents gave prefe-
rence of such connotation, marking together 66 per cent (Table 8.5). The
sense of historicity and traditions are so strong in beliefs and life
philosophy that it has always given distinct place, representing 24 per cent.
Table: 8.6. Buddha’s related Sites: Respondents’ awareness.

Sites From Bodh Gaya, No. of People %age
direction, and ca. (multiple (each
distance, km answers) group)
Sujata Kuti/Garh [environs] E, 2.5 52 20.8
Sarnath (U.P.) W, 227.0 40 16.0
Lumbini (Nepal) NW, 282.0 38 15.2
Kushinagar (U.P.) NW, 193.0 32 12.8
Dungeshvari hill [environs] NE, 7.0 28 11.2
Rajgir (Bihar) NE, 92.0 18 8.2
Vaishali (Bihar) N, 121.0 14 5.6
Muchalinda [environs] S, 0.40 10 4.0
Nalanda (Bihar) NE, 105.0 10 4.0
Shravsati (U.P.) NW, 315.0 4 1.6
Brahmayoni Hill [environs] N, 9.0 4 1.6
TOTAL ----- 250 100.0
Awareness of people about sites related of the Buddha indicates that

people are well acquainted with the four main sites related directly to his
life, viz. Lumbini (birth), Bodh Gaya (enlightenment), Sarnath (preaching)
and Kushinagar (nirvana); thus respondents’ responses having multiple
choices, on average every person recording 2.5. By such multiple choices
the cumulative frequency reached to 250 (Table 8.6).
Nearness to the sacred city, a natural attraction through a small hill,
dominancy and propagation by the local Hindus, the recent advertisement
by a local NGO, and as alternative new site to attract more visitors, Sujata
Kuti (hermitage of Sujata) has received prominence. It is believed that at
this site Sujata had offered a meal of rice pudding (khir) to the Buddha
(Singh 2003: 79). The other local sites preferred include Dungeshvari
hill/caves where once Buddha did a severe penance as an ascetic for six
long years after his renunciation of all worldly pleasures. This resulted in
the familiar image of him as a skeletal, emaciated figure (Singh 2003: 99).
Muchalinda Lake is the other local choice, where the Buddha passed
his the 6th week; here the serpent king Muchalinda, dwelling at the bottom
of the lake, rose up to protect the Master from a severe storm created by
Maya (the god of chaos) to disturb his meditation. Brahmayoni hill is the
place where the Buddha delivered his celebrated Fire Sermon, the
Adittapariyana Sutta, to the thousands newly ordained monks (cf. Vinaya
IV.34; see ibid.: 115). The other sites respondents referred associated to
the miracles of the Buddha are Rajgir (where the Buddha converted
Saripttta and Mogallana), Vaishali (where the Buddha was offered honey),
Nalanda (the seat of a great monastic university), and Shravasti (where the
Buddha performed great miracles).
Awareness of respondents with reference to the local sites can further
be purveyed in the frame of five-tier hierarchy of spatial taxonomy
(international, national, regional, sub-regional, and local). Here too the
multiple choices were expressed that results to 2.24 choices/per person;
thus the cumulative frequency reached to 224 (Table 8.7).
Table: 8.7. Status of Sites: Respondents’ view (multiple answers)

Sites Inter- Nati- Regi- Sub- Local Cumu- %age
national nal regi- lative (each
onal onal Total group)
Mahabodhi Temple 58 --- --- --- --- 58 25.9
Sujata Kuti/ Garh 8 6 8 6 4 32 14.3
Monasteries --- 12 8 --- 4 24 10.7
Jagananath temple --- 14 2 --- --- 16 7.1
Dunghesvari hills --- 8 4 4 --- 16 7.1
Giant Buddha statue --- 4 6 4 --- 14 6.2
Magadh University --- 4 10 --- --- 14 6.2
Vishnupad Temple --- 8 4 --- --- 12 5.4
Mahant Samadhi 4 4 --- 2 --- 10 4.5
Niranjana river --- --- 8 --- --- 8 3.6
Kalachakra Maidan --- --- --- 2 2 4 1.8
Maya Sarovar --- --- 4 --- --- 4 1.8
Barabar cave --- 4 --- --- --- 4 1.8
Jaiprakash park --- --- --- 4 --- 4 1.8
Meditation park --- --- --- 2 --- 2 0.9
ASI Museum --- 2 --- --- --- 2 0.9
TOTAL 70 66 54 24 10 224 100.0
%age 31.3 29.5 24.0 10.7 4.5 100.0 ---
Quite natural, for international visitors Mahabodhi temple, and for

national and local people Sujata Kuti are the main attractions; together
recoding 40 per cent of responses (Table 8.7). This clearly indicates as to
how ‘locality’ is projected in the frame of ‘universality’ with pride,

dissemination of mythology (seduction of history) and media projection to
promote marketing and alternative choices by such process of place-
making. Both of these places are not only varied and multivocal, they are
often ambiguous or sometimes contradictory that results to contestation,
tension and even conflicts where Buddhists and Hindu adherents interfere
and cross their boundaries to show their power and control. Over half of
the respondents (52) feel that there appeared group conflict and tension
constantly, but only 18 in this group indicated their personal affiliation and
inflict. This reflects to non-seriousness of people, which sometimes turns
to create tension leading to politics and social crises, however in general
people think the overall heritagescapes of the area as harmonious
(frequency was 88).
Of course, the tourism economy attempts to make harmonious
relationship among the contrasting groups and maintaining order, which
would be beneficial in economic returns. In spite of such contradiction, the
dominance of Buddhist sites in terms of common awareness is close to
three-fourths of total responses; this further justifies the overall
juxtaposition of Buddhist cultural landscapes. After passage of time many
new models, sets and choices are introduced, of which degree of
awareness varies according to their status in the spatial hierarchy, e.g.
Magadh University, Archaeological Survey of India museum (ASI),
Jaiprakash Park, Kalachakra Maidan, Maya Sarovar, and Mahant Samadhi
have been recently added in the list. Among the natural heritage still the
Niranjana river has been given reverence and choice of attraction, of
course this is a dry-bedded seasonal stream (Table 8.7).
The latest addition to this list of attractive sites is the Giant Buddha
statue, which is like an icon of tourist image. This, the tallest statue of
Buddha in India was installed by the Daijokyo Sect, Japan. The temple
area spreads over one hectare of land acquired from the Government of
Bihar. This image, in the Japanese Kamakura style, is 24.25m high and is
18.25m wide. Built of pink and yellow Chunar sandstone, the image is
seated on a lotus in the meditation pose with eyes half-closed (Fig. 8.6).
Built on a solid concrete pedestal, the statue is hollow, and has a spiral
staircase going from the ground floor to the chest, which makes four
storeys. Wooden shelves have been provided in the interior walls in the
three storeys of the statue wherein 16,300 small Buddha images from
Japan made of bronze have been enshrined. The construction of the statue
took more than five years from 1984 onwards. It was ‘opened’ by H.H. the
14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso in 1989. The 10th Anniversary of the
Daijokyo Buddhist Temple was held on 9 November 1993, when the
statues of the two chief disciples of the Buddha, Sariputta and Moggallana,
on the two sides of the Great Buddha, were also unveiled.
Fig. 8.6. Giant Buddha (Daijokyo), representing Kamakura’s image.
Respondents’ awareness about the dating and dynasty related to

heritage objects has contrasting results (Table 8.8). In general, people are
well aware (recording around 89 per cent) that this area surrounding Bodh
Gaya and its environs are credited to the Great Mauryan Emperor Ashoka
(268- 233 BCE), however with respect to the historical span of time, they
are confused and having misconception as in terms of dynasty only 15
percent had shown accurate dates, even about that they were not sure.
This is an indication of lagging historical sense in our teaching and
common knowledge.
Table: 8.8. Respondents’ awareness about dating of heritage objects.

Dynasty Freq. % Time (of Freq. %
construction)
Ashoka 62 88.7 268- 233 BCE 6 15.0
Shung, Kanishka 2 2.8 185- 73 BCE 16 40.0
Kumaragupta 4 5.7 CE 415- 455 12 30.0
Harsha 2 2.8 CE 606- 647 6 15.0
TOTAL 70 100.0 TOTAL 40 100.0
Source: Personal survey, April 2009. Freq., frequency of respondents.
The Mahabodhi temple and other ancient shrines represent super-

imposition of various structures, which have always been subject of debate
in the academic arena and public understanding together with many
controversial opinions in the colonial period, therefore the sense of various
periods, their visual icons and related mythologies become issue of
contestation and problematic.
Every heritage record a history of growth, maintenance and conser-
vation. All such processes and activities have been witnessed by the
people, and their stories of success and failures are passed from one
general to another, from one community to another, which helped in
shaping the awareness and conscience to participate and monitor for its
sustainable transfer to the coming generation. The respondents are well
familiar to such activities happened after India’s independence in 1947,
but especially since 1955 when five-year based development plan was
introduced since (cf. Table 8.9). Generally respondents expose to what
happened, and never had been critical to the quality, intensity and
gradation of the repairing and renovations took place. Very commonly
they say that “at least something done, therefore let us accept this and
hopefully expect for better. With this attitude rarely public revolt and
agitation happened in past concerning saving heritage and the cultural
landscapes. In stead they prefer to have individual benefits, in the form of
competition, or just to follow others those achieved monetary gain. Sorry
to say that this is a clear sign of increasing pace of materialism,
individualism and consumerism in the spiritual landscape of Bodh Gaya!
In fact, “in the recent past, we have lost the demarcation line of existence
between right and wrong, moral and immoral, and also the realisation of
the basic dhamma (right action)” (Singh 2009: 415).
Table: 8.9. Respondents’ awareness to Renovations undertaken.

Date What happens Through Status of Renovation Total
CE Mn. Mn. Mj. Mj.
int. ext. int. ext.
1955 to save from Raising heights of -- 4 -- 4 8
-57 flood the wall
1980 improvement, Repairing, wall, -- -- 4 8 12
protection toilet, meditation
park
1994 protection Repairing -- 4 -- -- 4
2000 World Developing internal 8 8 -- 12 28
Heritage, temple, repairing,
development, lightning, park,
beautification, tank cleaning
decoration
2004 amenities, Construction, water 4 4 8 8 24
-05 beautification, supply, chemical
protection, washing, lightning
maintenance red stone, plan of
the HUDCO
2007 beautification, Donation money, 8 8 8 -- 24
protection, repairing, garden,
decoration paint
2008 old form, Lightning, toilet, 8 8 8 -- 24
decoration, repairing, paint
beautification
Total -- --- 28 36 28 32 124
Source: Personal survey (Individual & multiple choices); Mn., Minor, Mj. Major,
int. internal, ext. external. * There are 24 multiple choices.
Since 2000 the degree of involvement and also public awakening

become stronger, because of the fact that preparation for making dossier to
get enlisted Mahabodhi temple in the UNESCO WHL was in process that
successively resulted finally into its inclusion on 26 June 2002. In the
succeeding years on the line of heritage planning and directives from the
government and UNESCO several development and conservation plans
started, with addition of opening the Buddhist monasteries from different
countries, especially the East Asia and the Southeast, including Bangla-
desh. The followed up works include beautification, landscape gardening,
maintenance of environmental sensitivity, etc.
The year 2008 marked the 2552nd birth anniversary of the Buddha,
resulting to performing various development and conservation progra-
mmes and festive performances. The respondents also took care to be
acquainted about such activities. Beautification together with maintenance
of the old form of Mahabodhi Temple was given priority in the renovation
works; additionally amenities like lightning, toilet facility, and painting
were also taken care of. It is obvious from the responses that renovation
works have constantly been in operation, of course at different levels and
various degrees as scheduled and guided by the committees and govern-
mental authorities.
People have strong memory of deserted and destroyed history in the
past. The Buddhist monastery and temple (Mahabodhi) at Bodh Gaya was
built by the king Ashoka in ca 232 BCE and remained an active site till
1192 CE when Muslim invaders destroyed it. Some of the railings are
dated to 150 BCE. During the rule of Mughal King Akbar, from 1590, the
temple was under the control of a Shaiva Hindu priest who managed to set
Shiva Linga in the inner sanctum, which after passage of time turned into
religious conflicts. Even in the British regime attempts were made to
resolve the conflicts between Hindus and Buddhists for possession and
ownership. In 1872 under the patronage of Burmese king the temple was
renovated and re-built. After independence, since 1949 through an Act
both Hindus and Buddhists got authority for worship and joint control. But
Buddhist have not accepted this arrangement, thus a continuous movement
to liberate this temple from the interference of Hindus is noticed, including
peaceful march of around half-million Buddhists from all parts of the
world in October 1992 and November 1995. This contestation is still in
continuance (cf. Singh 2008: 132).
Every year, at Mahabodhi Temple one can witness magnificent
‘Prayer Festivals’ attended by thousands of devotees. Here, His Holiness
the Dalai Lama, His Holiness the Karmapa as well as a number of other
outstanding Buddhist Teachers sit from the early hours of the morning till
noon, and again from mid-afternoon till dusk, for a number of days in
continuity, chanting or delivering discourses. During the Shaiva Hindu
control it has been recorded that some of the original statues of the Buddha
have been defiled and stolen from the Mahabodhi temple, idols of some of
the Hindu Gods have been smuggled inside the temple including Shiva
linga to dilute and defame Buddhism, and all sorts of Hindu rituals and
rites are being followed inside Mahabodhi temple to defame and bring
impurity in Buddhism. In the present century, the Buddhists are peacefully
raising their voice to get their possession nationally and internationally.
While having conversation with respondents and commoners it is also

noted that they are familiar to issues of controversy and contestation
concerning the supremacy and control over the Mahabodhi temple and the
Bodhi Tree. The existence of Shiva Linga in the inner sanctum of the
temple, and the footprints of Buddha (also assumed to be of Hindu deity
Vishnu) in the vicinity of Bodhi tree have been issues of dispute; of course
the common masses are well familiar but rarely they come forward in
search of mutually agreed solutions. Some respondents opine that political
involvement in heritage care and management is required; moreover, it
should not be for individual gain or vested interest. There are also alleged
cases of cutting the branches of the Bodhi Tree, which hurt the Buddhist
adherents.
4. Respondents’ views on other uses, issues and planning

The uses of heritage have multiple levels, layering and contexts that
vary from one place to another, and from one culture to another, varying
from man to men. Maximum of people says that the economic purposes of
heritage is more important then any factor. After this the people said, to
remember our ancestor through heritage is also a purpose of heritage.
Some advocated that this place is the enlightenment place of the Buddha
and it is teaching us till today, so the purpose of heritage is achieved.
Buddhist people see this heritage as philosophically, ideologically and life
related an inspirational attachment is the purpose of their heritage. A local
person looks this as world fame through heritage valuation. Heritage is the
conservational and preservation approach of old monuments called by
some people.
Majority of people think that development of tourism and related
infrastructure (all sort of amenities and facilities) will be boon for the
overall development; however they always feel shame that the major
benefit of return will go to outsiders, and also luxury tourism is threaten-
ing the small businessman and the local people. People also strongly opine
that unplanned growth and expansion of buildings and interference of
mafias are deteriorating the serene environment of this sacred land. Some
opines that the area surrounding Mahabodhi temple should be declared as
pilgrimage zone where touristic or entrainment activities to be completely
prohibited, including use of alcohol, meat, smoking and any form of drug.
Also, the current infrastructure is no way fulfilling the demand of heavy
influx of visitors; in fact now viability and carrying capacity are
threatened, therefore immediate remedies and strategies to be implied.
People are suspicious about the Master Plan 2021 where rarely
emphasis is laid on the issues of heritage-based tourism and pilgrimages.
The City Development Plan, CDP, prepared by HUDCO in 2006 for the
year 2031, visualising Bodh Gaya as a ‘World Buddhist Centre’ ― a
pilgrim destination and a green and healthy place, narrates the ground
story that was taken in the background:
The economic prosperity of this small town is linked with the commerce it
supports. Commercial establishments form an inherent part of a pilgrim town.
In the case of Bodh Gaya, its status as a tourist and pilgrimage centre has
governed the nature of the commerce activities operating in the town. . . . In
Bodh Gaya commercial establishments are concentrated along the central
town road (Domuha road) and near the Mahabodhi Temple Complex.
Considerable commercial activities including informal and formal shops have
come up along the Mahabodhi temple and the intersection of the central spine
and riverside road. The local Bodh Gaya bazaar located close to the
Mahabodhi temple is the makeshift CBD (Central Business District) serving
the commercial needs of the town and outlying areas. A vegetable market is
also located in the same area, which causes considerable nuisance in the area.
Most of the development is highly organic and haphazard in nature. A number
of hawkers also add to the confusion and disorder in the area (CDP 2006: 48).
This is surprisingly noted that no active participation from the local

people, stakeholders and intellectuals (say from Magadh University) was
taken while preparing Master Plan or CDP; this results to develop a plan
from outside and get it imposed upon the people. Such happening create
chaos and crises among the dwellers. Also such development plans should
be flexible and constantly to be revised and updated according to the
situations prevail that time. the respondents also warn that this place to be
developed in the frame of a ‘holy city’ and the life philosophy related to
preserve the environmental sensitivity, serenity of place – where the spirit
of place speak of itself. This is not the place for amusement, entertainment
or merely leisure and tourism.
Following the line of reminder by Massey (1994: 171) that “instead of
looking back with nostalgia to some identity of place which already exists,
the past has to be constructed”, Greary (2009: 227) suggests that “heritage
spaces like Bodh Gaya are not “inherently valuable” due to their physica-
lity but rather reflect the cultural processes and activities that are under-
taken to attribute meaning to places of remembrance. Pasts are made
meaningful through social practice.”
Rituals and religious ceremonies should be performed not for the sake
of celebrations, in stead to awaken the inner spirit of humankindness and
the deeper understanding and messages to serve the humanity. On the hand
environmental cleanliness and aesthetics also to be taken care off. There

should be a heritage and sacred trail linking all the places where once the
Buddha meditated and have discourses. One can easily find predominance
of male visitors, and quite frequently find cases of humiliating females as
reported in the newspapers. The hard truth, whatever painful it may be,
should be accepted and realised in a good sense to get ourselves out of it.
People feel that the development plans prepared under the auspices of
JNNURM or HUDCO are mere theoretical exercise, of course emphasis
is laid on housing, health/hygiene, transport (road), culture, administration,
tourism pressure, and maintenance of the main temple complex. Discour-
ses and interviews of respondents indicate that every person had multiple
choices to explain the problems, and they are rarely sure about the priority
and intensity of the problems in terms of spaces and time. Thus their
cumulative frequency reached to 700, categorised into three categories,
viz. aware to the problem, not aware to the problem, and not sure to
explain (cf. Table 8.10).
Table: 8.10. Respondents’ Perceptions of the problems: multiple choices
Problems Yes (%) No (%) Can’t (%)

say
Health /Hygiene 88 28.00 4 1.50 8 8.69
Roads and lanes 80 24.39 10 3.73 10 9.62
Administrative 74 22.56 12 4.47 14 13.46
Housing 40 12.19 50 18.65 10 9.62
Tourism Pressure 20 6.00 62 23.13 18 18.31
Maintenance 14 4.21 66 24.62 20 19.23
Cultural 12 3.65 64 23.90 24 23.08
TOTAL 328 100.00 268 100.00 104 100.00
Source: Personal survey
Only 47 per cent of the total responses (700) indicate awareness about
the problems together with suggestions and ideas about solutions, while 38
per cent are not aware or not sure, and the rest 15 per cent no way
understand at all. In a traditional country and less developed area like
Bodh Gaya, where exists a big gap between rich and the poor this is a
common pattern. The issues of health/hygiene and related environmental
pollution, including infectious food items, have received high attention.
While walking in the lanes one always passes with open pits, drains and
ditches filled in with sewerage, garbage, plastic bags, traces, solid wastes,
which altogether create obnoxious smell. Lack of dispensaries, proper
hospital, toilet facilities, supply of drinking water are the other related
problems. Similarly the conditions of roads and interlinking lanes are
victims of encroachments, scattered mud and pieces of bricks and piles of

garbage all along. There are no proper parking spaces.
There in fact no institutional and administrative infrastructure that
may facilitates the visitors to have feeling of soothing and serene
environments. The open spaces are encroached by the shopkeepers, who
are master of spatial infilling and manoeuvring for the purpose to improve
their economic gain. The lust of this aim is so high that cheating,
manhandling, humiliation, charging drastically high prices for objects and
souvenirs, selling leaves of Boddhi tree (sometime false and fake), and all
such malpractices are common. The poor devout pilgrims and visitors
have to offer themselves to be victim of all such nuances. Moreover the
luxuriant rich tourists by their gifts, giving bakshish (donation), chocolate,
cookies and souvenirs further add to corrupt the low class shopkeepers and
poor masses. Such activities are good means of amusement and recreation
for many of them; in return they get photographs and feel that they
contributed to promote exotic, excite and under-privileged poor masses –
the so called the other side of India, which is subject of side-show and
quite attractive for the western mind.
The quick receipt and return of some economic benefit encourage
young students of primary and high school to learn a little bit of spoken
English, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese and as side job do the work of
guiding tourists and convincing them that how poor they are and how
their parents survive through beggary. Such convictions persuade innocent
foreign tourists who on the help and support give money to such young
girls and boys. These malpractices further generate other malpractices,
including sometimes sexual relationship! This is one of the stories of the
worst impact of tourism. There are some stories of marriages with Indian
girls or vice versa; of course some people say this is an example of cross-
cultural discourses and interrelationships.
The issues of housing are subject of various categories (residential,
commercial, shops, shop-cum-residence, vendors, hutments, rest-houses,
hotels, high class luxury hotels, monasteries, temples, etc.) and problems
associated with them. Neither these houses had followed some layout or
plan, nor the rules and regulations are in operation to get control over
them. There is no any social/voluntary organisation or cooperative that can
promote strategic plans with common consensus. Non-implementation of
the residential planning under CDP or JNNURM also turns to promote
confusion. Everybody knows that using bribery as ‘grease money’
anything can be done, then why to worry about rules and community-
based comprehensive plans! The middle and low-income classes of people
know that using ‘money’ rich people get their work done even, illegal and
unplanned structures would be certified legal and declared the well suited
part of the neighbourhood. Removal or shifting of the people who settled
in the vicinity of or along the wall of Mahabodhi temple would not be an
easy task! The existence of beggars in masses surrounding the main
temple and other temples shows an example of social pollution and
indicate societal negligence. The people are so habituated and accustomed
that they never realise such problems as black spots on the humanity.
As was already realised in 2006 when the UNESCO team visited the
place, still no way international standard for maintenance of World
Heritage Site is followed; in fact this problem persists and its degree is
increasing! If this tendency will continue UNESCO will take back the
honour of enlisting in the WHL! Bribery, robbery, theft and insecurity are
the common scenes! People say that even police also support such
malpractices, and the victims avoid seeking their help with a fear that their
help will be more torturing that tolerance of the bad happenings. Some
respondents mentioned that ‘there is no administration al all. Neither there
appears civic sense, nor control; but the common masses have to suffer.
Some people feel that we lack the real ethical-valued based education,
and also heritage planning, which should start at the lower level.
Unfortunately there does not exist any courses related to or centre like
Buddhist Studies, Heritage studies, Urban planning or hotel management
in Magadh University, or any private institution. There should be enough
institutes and organisation that may promote reverential (spiritual) frame
of development and prepare cadets for preserving, conserving and
maintaining the spirit of place on the line of the Buddha’s message. This is
difficult and challenging, but not impossible (compare the case of
Shirakawa-mura, a World Heritage Site in Japan, cf. Singh and Fukunaga
2010: 141). Introducing heritage walk on the Buddhist trail and celebration
of heritage week will also be helpful in this respect.
The aspect of cultural performances like the Buddha Mahotsava that
started in 1997 has not yet received attention by the local people and
middle-class shopkeepers. They feel that intense involvement of the
government authorities and foreign-based institutions make it a big
touristic-show for their own economic gain through event tourism. The
celebration of Kalachakra Puja attracts a great mass of visitors that
ultimately turns to chaos in lack of infrastructural facilities.
5. The Memorandum: Public opinion

The three researchers (cf. Amar, Krishna and Geary 2007), based on
their participatory observations, personal experiences and taking in view
the public opinions, have made the following rational and viable
suggestions which were submitted as ‘Memorandum’ to the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of the State of Bihar, and given here as the heritage and sustain-
able development strategy:
• A need for transparency including a suggestion box.

• Proper linkage of railways to Bodh Gaya.
• Publication of annual financial report and minutes that is to be reviewed by
State and Central bodies.
• Implementation of land cap and no exchange for ownership without
permission from specialized body.
• Public institutions including: hospital, women’s college, vet clinic and
research institute that includes a Centre for Dialogue and Peace and a Centre
for Buddhist Studies of international standards. For example the Centre for
Buddhist Studies can liaise with various academic institutions of the world
which organize annual training programmes at Bodh Gaya. It should also
provide research facilities for visiting scholars.
• Greater initiatives for local employment such as availability of foreign
languages, tourism-management courses to the local youth which can
generate employment opportunities and also sensitize locals towards the
needs of the trans-national visitors.
• Local spaces such as auditorium and lecture theatres for organizing cultural
and academic activities in Bodhgaya.
• Heritage trails and connectivity of other Buddhist sites involving a
pilgrimage map [not golf courses, and rope ways]. An appropriate vision of
the landscape that takes into account of its living and ritual component.
• The heritage zone/trails should establish and include green spaces and parks
in the surrounding environs of Bodh Gaya. Also heritage week to be
celebrated.
• The planned Golf-Course should be abandoned. At present the current
Master Plan that involves the construction of an 18 Hole Golf course and
1km Ropeway neither reflects the interests of Buddhist pilgrims, visitors
and impoverished residents nor suits the religious and aesthetic values.
• Tibet culture centre area should be established where annual Tibetan
festivals and ritual-ceremonies can be organized.
• No revenue extracted from meditation areas and parks and should be freely
accessible.
• Preservation of sculptures should include measures such as ensuring no gold
polish to the sculptures of historic value installed within the temple-
precincts, relocation of historical sculptures from the Mahant’s math to
Bodhgaya museum. Votive stupas with inscriptions are lying in awkward
positions at relatively unsafe place within the Math and hence should be
relocated to the museum as well.
• Locals need to be sensitized to the value of heritage and needs of the site.
Like in case of Lumbini, the birthplace of Buddha, in Bodh Gaya also
differences in values, interests, expectations and priorities among stake-
holders, a major source of dissonance, may create conflict in heritage and
can be a challenge for its preservation and management. Similar to
Lumbini, Bodh Gaya is also currently experiencing “latent dissonance,”
which can be reduced through communication, cooperation and collabo-
ration among various stakeholders (cf. Nyaupane 2009: 157).
Let us hope that Geary’s prophecy will turn to be a reality in coming
future: “Unlike the shining model and success of Kerala to the south,
Bihar’s position of alterity and marginality is consistently reproduced in
nation-wide surveys as an example of “backwardness.” While for some,
Bihar remains a site of perpetual backwardness and Bihar-bashing a
nationwide obsession, for others, Bihar is a place of cultural pride in the
heart of India where backward looking views towards Bihar’s glorious
civilizational legacy provides the inspiration for a vibrant and prosperous
future. If Bodh Gaya is to be the “Light of Asia” in the twenty-first century
and a “splendid opportunity” in the words of Sir Edwin Arnold, it will
likely depend more on its relationship with other Asian Buddhist
countries” (Geary 2009: 240).
If the twenty-first century will be an urban century and more
significantly, a century of Asian urbanization where the age long traditions
meet hand-to-hand with modernity making a development model of
sustainable integrity, most likely Bodh Gaya might serve as a model in this
dynamic context of aspiring cities (cf. ibid.). The increasing pace of
infrastructural growth through masses of pilgrims and sensitive tourists
coming from China, Taiwan, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan and
Singapore are already carrying the most significant economic influence at
this World Heritage site today. The enlisting of Mahabodhi temple as
WHS and consequently flow of tourist and capital from many Asian and
European countries supports Ong’s (1999) argument that transnationality
induced by accelerated flows of capital, people, cultures, and knowledge
does not reduce state power, but instead stimulates a new, more flexible,
and complex relationship between people, capital, and governments (cf.
Chan 2005: 78). It becomes now the moral duty (dhamma) for everybody
to contribute in making serenity and spirit of the place alive and useful in
getting realise and revealed the message of the Buddha through

compassion, love and peace.
Remember, while addressing a gathering of over 30,000 people,
including 10,000 Westerners, at Bodh Gaya on 6 January 2010 what 74-
year old H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso said:
“Einstein and several other contemporary scientists have found the Buddhist
way of living as more scientific for it is an exercise to cure and pure the mind
rather than indulging in prayer and recitation. … You should never forget
your original culture and ethos which offer a panacea from the stress and
strain caused by materialistic craving and chaos.”
Let Bodh Gaya not be transformed into a Buddhist theme-park, a kind

of spiritual Disneyland for mass tourism consumption! Let UNESCO and
the recently launched JNNRUM City Development Plan serve as the glue
that holds the culture of peace, compassion and global humanism, together
recognizing the needs of local communities and other interest groups in a
more harmonious way!
7. References
Amar, Abhisek; Krishna, Prabhat and Geary, David 2007 (October).
Memorandum: regarding Bodh Gaya; to the Chief Minister of Bihar.
Web: http:// www.bodhgayanews.net/pdf/BodhgayaMemorandum.pdf
Chan, Selina Ching 2005. Temple-Building and Heritage in China.
Ethnology, Vol. 44 (1), Winter: 65-79.
Doyle, Tara N. 1997. Bodh Gaya: Journeys to the Diamond Throne and
the Feet of Gayasur. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in Religious
Studies. Harvard University, Cambridge.
―. 2003. ‘Liberate the Mahabodhi Temple!’: Socially engaged Buddhism,
Dalit-Style; in, Heine, S. and Prebish, C. (eds.) Buddhism in the
Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition. Oxford
University Press, Oxford: 249-280.
Geary, David 2008. Destination Enlightenment: Branding Buddhism and
Spiritual Tourism in Bodhgaya, Bihar. Anthropology Today, 24 (3),
June: 11-14.
―. 2009. Destination Enlightenment: Buddhism and the Global Bazaar in
Bodh Gaya, Bihar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in Anthropo-
logy, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
HUDCO 2006. Bodh Gaya, City Development Plan for 2031. HUDCO
and Government of Bihar, Dept. of Urban Planning, Patna.
JNNURM 2007. Bodh Gaya: City Development Plan, An Appraisal. Web:
http://jnnurm.nic.in/nurmudweb/cdp_apprep_pdf/CDP_Appraisals_C
EPT/Bodhgaya_CEPT.pdf <accessed on 17 May 2010>,
Kersel, Morag M. 2009. Walking a fine line: Obtaining sensitive
information using a valid methodology; in, Sørensen, Marie L. Stig
and Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches.
Routledge, London: 178-200.
Massey, Dorren 1994. Space, Place and Gender. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis.
Nyaupane, Gyan P. 2009. Heritage complexity and tourism: the case of
Lumbini, Nepal. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4 (2), May: 157-172.
Nyaupane, Gyan P. and Timothy, Dallen J. 2010. Heritage awareness and
appreciation among community residents: perspectives from Arizona,
USA. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16 (3): 225 - 239.
Ong, Aihwa 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of
Transnationality. Duke University Press, Durham NC.
Pick, Austin R. 2009 (Feb.). Aboard the Mahabodhi Express. Northern
India: Along Pilgrim’s Paths. Web: http://www.fudomouth.net/intert
ext/ap_subcontinent05.htm <retrieved on 15 May 2010>
Ramanujan. A. K. 1990. Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal
essay; in, Marriott, McKim (ed.) Indian Through Hindu Categories.
Sage, New Delhi: 41-58.
Singh, Rana P.B. 2003. Where the Buddha Walked: A Companion to the
Buddhist Places of India. Indica Books, Varanasi. Reprinted 2009.
―. 2008. The Contestation of Heritage: The enduring importance of
Research Companion to Heritage & Identity. Ashgate Publishing,
Aldershot Hamp. & London: 125-141
―. 2009. Development in India: Appraising Self Retrospection; in, his:
Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Vision for the 21st
Century. Planet Earth & Cultural Understanding Series, Pub. 2.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne. U.K.: 394-
422.
Singh, Rana P.B. and Fukunaga, Masaaki 2010. The World Heritage
Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama, Japan: Continuing Culture
and Meeting Modernity; in Singh, Rana P.B. (ed.) Heritagescape and
Pub. 6. Shubhi Publications, Gurgaon & New Delhi: 129-150.
Smith, Laurajane 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London and New
York.
Sørensen, Marie L. Stig 2009. Between the lines and the margins:
interviewing people about attitudes to heritage and identity; in,
Sørensen, Marie L. Stig and Carman, John (eds.) Heritage Studies:

Methods and Approaches. Routledge, London: 164-178.
Waterton, Emma and Watson, Steve 2010. Culture, Heritage and
Representation: Introduction; in, their (eds.) Culture, Heritage and
Representation. Perspectives on Visuality and the Past. Ashgate
Publishing Ltd., Hampshire UK: 1-16.
Webb, Jen 2009. Understanding Representation. Sage Publications,
London.
----------------------------------------

Mr. Devesh Kumar

UGC Research Fellow, Department of Geography, Faculty of Science,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.
Email: devesh.sitamarhi@gmail.com
§ Mr. Devesh is a UGC Junior Research fellow, and working for doctoral degree
on the dissertation entitled “The Buddhist Heritage Sites: A Geographical Analysis
of Sacred Landscapes” since August 2008. He has prepared a review report and
presented a few research papers in various national seminars.
9
Revaluation and Restoration of sacred

Sites: the case of Jordon
Sara Mondini
Ca’ Foscari University, Italy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. As country historically constituted by a Sunni majority, at a first
glance, Jordan does not present complexes or sites object of relevant
pilgrimages or rituals like other Islamic countries. Nevertheless, the high
value of its sacred sites, both from an architectural and a religious point of
view, have not to be reinstated and the attention focused on them during
the last fifteen years represents an interesting case of study. In a so small
land, one can count almost fifty Holy sites that consist of tombs and
shrines dedicated to Companions or to Prophets and other few historical
sites. This precious heritage, testimony of the first phases of the formation
of Islam, has been interested by a systematic campaign of restoration and
revaluation. King al-Hussein, in fact, before his death, established a
special Royal Committee for the conservation of this part of the Jordan’s
heritage, promise today carried out by His son, King Abdullah II.
According to the plan of intervention, the Royal committee has selected
the sites and has applied to them a strict procedure of analysis, proceeding
finally with the realisation of a restoration project. The preliminary
documentation allows in some cases reconstructing the evolution of
complexes at least during the last fifty years, while, from an
anthropological and religious point of view, on the light of the first Sunni
orthodox theories against the veneration of burial sites, this campaign
sounds as a reflection and affirmation of the religious identity of the
nation.
Keywords: tombs, shrines, restoration, revaluation, pilgrimage, ziyara.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: “I give you a Book
and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, confirming what is with you; do ye
believe in him and render him help.” Allah said: “Do ye agree, and take this my
Covenant as binding on you?” They said: “We agree.” He said: “Then bear
witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.”
(The Quran, III: 81 – Yusuf ‘Ali’s translation)
288 9. Sara Mondini
Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was
revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books)
given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no
distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our
will (in Islam).”
(The Quran, III: 84 – Yusuf ‘Ali’s translation)
1. Introduction: Sacred Sites and ziyara

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, during the early Islamic age, was
generally referred to as Jund al-Urdun, one of the “military districts” of the
Greater Syria ‒ the Bilad Ash-Sham ‒ annexed to the Islamic Caliphate
during the Khulafa’ Rashidun period.
Besides have been influenced by the direct or indirect sovereignty of
great civilisations, the ground of Jordan was already considered a holy
land by the Christians and has witnessed the rise and the expansion of the
early Islam. This primary role was acknowledged by the Bible and
confirmed by the Quran and the Sunna: here abound the geographical
references and the allusions to many localities that belong today to the
modern state of Jordan and were theatres of crucial historical events or
related to the lives of Prophets and Companions of the Prophet
Muhammad. Thanks to these prestigious mentions, for its importance,
scholars often compare Jordan to the Arabian Peninsula and Palestine. In
fact, despite the role of Najaf and Karbala, in Iraq, can not be forgotten,
these centres, whose importance is testified by the high number of their
sacred shrines, can not claim an equal recurrence and mention in the Holy
Scriptures (Mohammed 1999: 14-15).
Within the territory of the Hashemite kingdom, we can identify and
classify at least four main types of sacred sites: burials ascribed to blessed
personalities, particularly to Companions of the Prophet, or Prophets
recognised by the Islamic tradition; maqamat ‒ from the Arabic maqam
‒ or shrines, places where holy figures have not necessarily been buried,
but that were blessed by their presence, thus places where they have
physically lived or have appeared in form of a manifestation; other
religious sites, mentioned by the Scriptures, and finally places that were
scenes of historical events or battles.
Even not mentioning the large number of Christian sites present in
Jordan too, the recognised Muslim sacred places belonging to the
categories listed above are around fifty: hence, it is quite easy to realise the
high number of martyrs that treaded on and blessed this land.
In 1984, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, according to the will of
His Royal Highness al-Hussein bin Talal, established a Royal Committee
Revaluation & Restoration of Sacred Sites: Jordon 289
instructed for the preservation, maintenance and renovation of the sacred

shrines belonging to the Prophet’s Companions, to Prophets and martyrs,
scattered all over the Jordan land. The project was promoted and realized
in collaboration with the Ministry of Waqf and Islamic Affairs, and later,
since the death of the King al-Hussein, it has been supported by his son
and heir to the crown, King Abdallah II bin al-Hussein.
The Hashemite dynasty was not unfamiliar to this kind of initiatives. In
1924, the Hashemite Sheriff al-Hussein bin ‘Ali, one of the leaders of the
great Arab Revolution, participated for the first time in the reconstruction
of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. This initial interest paved the way to
a growing attention dedicated by the King al-Hussein ‒ since he assumed
the power in 1954 ‒ to Jerusalem and its sacred sites. This concern was
translated in a series of works carried out in Jerusalem that interested both
the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and the whole Haram al-
Sharif between 1954 and 1964, later again in 1969, in 1994, and in 1998.
Thus, the order to form the Royal Committee and to focus also
investments on the shrines of Jordan must be understood in a wider policy
of restoration and re-evaluation of some of the most important Islamic
sacred sites.
Already in the fifties, main purpose declared by the King seems to
have been “to defend the sanctuaries and the Islamic history of Jordan,
land blessed by the Prophet’s foot, and passage of His journey to the seven
Heavens”, a duty strongly felt by the Prophet’s descendants Banu Hashem
(King al-Hussein b. Talal, Royal Message concerning the Construction of
Mosques and Shrines of Prophets and Companions, pronounced the 9 June
1992).
This last ambitious project promoted and supported by the Hashemites
inside their own kingdom should critically be analyzed both from an
architectural point of view and according to a religious-symbolical
approach. Answering to this last necessity, considering that the majority of
sacred sites in Jordan we are going to talk about are mainly burial sites or
shrines, a discourse on their restoration and consequent frequentation
inevitably bring us to an old theological debate.
One of the major Italian Orientalists, Bausani, wrote that “in the
context of a strongly and firmly monotheistic religion like Islam, the
ziyara constitute the most heterogenic and pagan aspect” (Bausani 1999:
55). The ziyara, in fact, intended as a visit or pilgrimage to a sacred place,
is not explicitly approved or regulated by the Islamic Scriptures.
Historians and religion historians often recognised a possible ancestor for
this practice in the Christian customs and Jewish tradition to visit
mausoleums and tombs of pious men and saints. According to the Meri’s
290 9. Sara Mondini
analysis, the term ziyara came to refer not only to the mentioned visit to a
sacred place, but to the whole series of ritual acts performed at efficacious
times, regarded as a form to remember God (Meri 2002: 10). Neverthe-
less, while the hajj, the canonical Islamic pilgrimage, is prescribed and
regulated by the doctrine, the ziyara has often occupied an ambiguous
status in the writings of Sunni and Shi’ite theologians. Following the
spread of the Islam, the practice of ziyara became common and largely
affirmed in its connotation of a visit to the tombs of the deceased, to
mosques or sacred places associated with saints and their life, to Prophets,
mystiques or venerable men, death or still alive. For these same reasons
the ziyara has come to be seen as a liminal phenomenon (Meri 2002: 121).
The opposition to the ziyara in the Islamic world crystallised around
the half of the 9th century with the formation of the Hanbalite School in
Iraq by Ibn Hanbal (d. 855). Together with his disciples, he condemned
the ziyara on the base of the mentioned absence of regulations and of
previous traces of a saints’ veneration, never reported by the Quran.
Thomas Leisten in his article “Between orthodoxy and exegesis: some
aspects of attitudes in the shari’a toward funerary architecture” well focus
on the question, highlighting the juxtaposition between the practice and
the many interpretations of the Scriptures (Leisten 1990: 12-22). Justifying
their position through the canonical Hadith collections, jurists and
theologians, particularly during the 12th and 13th centuries, strongly
condemned the erection of mausoleums and criticised the practices of visit
and worship shrines and graves. The Sunni rigorists, in fact, recognised the
frequentation of shrines and tombs as a reprehensible innovation (bid’a),
as a form of polytheism (shirk), accompanied by rituals, on the occasion of
celebrations, that in their opinion were expressions of immoral behaviours.
At the beginning of the 14th century, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) was one
of the more prolific leaders of this campaign of condemnation against the
ziyara, the erection of funerary architecture and the ritual veneration of
shrines, and he concretised his convictions in the formulations of many
fatwas.
Nevertheless, despite the frequent reference to the Hadiths where the
prohibition to erect mausoleums and worship the shrines is explicit (al-
Muslim 2003: 128-129), Ibn Taymiyya came to a clear distinction between
a “heretic ziyara” and a “legal ziyara”. This first would consist in visits
accompanied by supplications to the deceased or to their graves that,
according to the jurists, would attribute divine power and grace to the
death faithful. Usually associated with Christians and Jewish tradition or
to pagans, according to the Taymiyya’s opinion, this practice has to be
considered as heretic. The concession toward the “legal ziyara”, on the
contrary, does not reject the possibility to visit the graves, but with the
only intention to make a supplication (du’a) in favour of the deceased
(Meri 2003).
It was more recently, during the 20th century, that the anti-ziyara
movement reached its apogee, when the Wahhabites ‒ a rigorist orthodox
Sunni movement adherent to the doctrine of Ibn Taimiyya ‒ destroyed
numerous sacred sites through the Arabian Peninsula and Medina. They
promoted a strong and brave opposition to the saints’ veneration and to the
Sufi brotherhood, condemning the erection and the frequentation of
mausoleums, and prohibiting even the visit to the Prophet’s tomb in
Medina, despite until that time it had been one of the major sites visited by
Muslim pilgrims arriving in the Arabian Peninsula for the hajj.
The Ottomans sovereignty and the protection they guaranteed to the
sacred sites and the pilgrimage routes achieved to contain the Wahhabi
explosion of violence until the beginning of the Great War and the
proclamation of the Turkish Republic, in 1923, when Medina passed in the
hands of the Saudi Dynasty. Since that time, even the larger cemetery of
Medina, the baqi ‘al-garqad, like other sepulchral areas of the city until
now frequented by Muslims, were object of the Wahhabi attacks: the first
and minor destructions at the opening of the 19th century were
transformed in the dramatic campaign of destruction of 1926.
Being Jordan a Muslim country where the Sunni branch is predominant
and according to the purpose of our analysis we will not go in deep
analyzing the conception and practices connected with the ziyara in the
Shi’i context. Nevertheless, this Jordan Sunni majority ‒ coexisting with
other religions minorities, Christians (Melikites, Syriacs Orthodox,
Armenian, and members of the Armenian Catholic Church, of the Roman
Catholic Church, of the Greek Catholic Church, of the Syrian Catholic
Church and of the Syriac Catholic Church), a small number of adherents to
the Druze and Baha’i faith, together with Sufi belonging to different
tariqas ‒ has not been indifferent to the growing importance of this
practice and the relevance of the sacred places.
2. The Jordan’s shrines and their restoration

In the Hashemite kingdom, the founded royal committee was
appointed to catalogue the sites destinations of the ziyara, but also to take
care of the sacred heritage through restoration, renovation, and
information and awareness campaigns.
From an architectural point of view, the committee’s work initially
moved from a careful study of the original structures, their materials and
292 9. Sara Mondini
their structural characteristics and dominant styles. After the election of a

site, this first phase consists in the study of the site’s history and of the
figure to which is dedicated, from an in-depth documentation and analysis
of the available sources, to the study of structures, materials and their
degradation, until a more modern photographic documentation with the
purpose to trace out ‒ when possible ‒ the development of the site. This
not only allows to create a sort of historical “identity card” of sacred sites,
but also to make possible a concrete design of interventions, allowing
renovations and additions that adhere to the basic original characteristics
of sites through the combination of materials and functions. However,
considering the impressive work done and the dramatic state of
conservation of some sites before the interventions, today is very difficult
to make an accurate and critic analysis of the influences that could have
contributed to the shape of original structures and decorations. In the case
of some major and most famous sites the committee have planned and
built new centres for prayer and pilgrimage.
Nevertheless, the analysis of the results already achieved in some of
the sites and the promoted projects of re-evaluation are quite eloquent in
the religious-symbolic and architectural incarnated values.
Among the many sites already interested by the efforts of the
committee, and perhaps one of the most ambitious projects, is the complex
built in Mazar, near Kerak, dedicated to the Companions of the Prophet
who commanded the Muslim army during the Battle of Mu’ta (CE 629):
Ja’far b. Abi Talib, cousin of the Prophet, Zayd b. al-Harith, who was also
among the first Muslims to follow Muhammad, and ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha.
The three leaders died as martyrs during the encounter and were originally
buried in the combat zone, corresponding today to the town of Mazar,
whose same name means “place of visit”. At the date of our visit to
Jordan, only two funerary monuments, dedicated to the first two
mentioned companions, were incorporated in the new erected complex
which comprises a mosque, services, fountains for ablutions, a small
market, and an adjacent housing complex for the Imam, all new structures
that flank the renewed mausoleums.
The mosque, built in stone, can be recognised as the heart of the
complex: the plan is hypostyle, according to the type widespread in the
earlier constructions of the Islamic world during the first expansions. The
prayer hall reaches 1500 metres squared, overlooks a courtyard, is
surrounded by porticos (riwaq) and is marked on the front corners by two
high and slender minarets. The mausoleum of Ja’far b. Abi Talib and Zayd
b. to al-Haritha are placed in a position of great visibility, the first erected
just outside the prayer hall and connected to it by a special corridor, the
second near the eastern entrance of the mosque and flanked by a small
garden. During the development of a second phase of the committee’s
project, the third mausoleum ‒ dedicated to ‘Abdallah b. Rawaha ‒
should be reconstructed, added to the complex and flanked by a school for
the study of Islamic law and a library, and then connected to the old
battlefield, which is expected to be provided with facilities and services for
tourists too.
Similar shrines are no absent even in the northern region, in the Jordan
Valley, where the two famous battles of Yarmouk (CE 634 and 636) and
the battle of Fahl (CE 635) were fought, and where many of the Prophet’s
Companions fell victims of the combats’ fury or of the epidemics that
wiped out the army, and were martyred. Also from a construction point of
view these complexes are not inferior to the shrine of Mazar described
above. Among the emblematic examples is the complex dedicated to Abu
‘Ubayda ‘Amir b. al-Jarrah in the district of Ghor: restored since 1996, in
fact, it has seen to rise a Quranic and Sharia school, a library and small
buildings for the imam and for the administration of the complex
alongside the grave of the Companion, and the mosque dedicated to him.
The small town is today locally known as Abi-Ubeida Ghor for the
presence of the complex.
Again in Ghor arises the tomb of ‘Amir b. Abi Waqqas, a Prophet’s
cousin, and a complex dedicated to Mu’adh b. Jabal (cf. Fig. 9.1), one of
the first Muslims to take part in the battle of Badr (624 AD) and according
to al-Bukhari one of the four ansars who would have written portion of the
Quran when the Prophet was still alive. This latter complex is particularly
interesting for the plan, still visible and unusual, of its funerary structure.
Next to the new mosque, recently added according to the renovation
project, in fact, the committee would have restored the building that
houses the grave of the Companion without changing its original
conception. It consists of a series of rooms arranged in T-shape and
covered by five domes, where the tomb is located at the interior of the last
central domed room. Then, a vast necropolis occupies the surrounding
area, and its thousand simple graves that embrace the complex are the
clear result of the baraka attributed to the site by the believers.
If sites of historical importance - listed among the main categories - are
mainly visited by tourists and travellers, tombs and shrines dedicated to
the Prophets and Companions are the destinations of ziyara, and mosques
associated with them are often regularly used for the five daily prayers by
the residents.
Perhaps due to the awareness ‒ in the Sunni Jordan ‒ of the
prohibition to pray on the grave of a saint, to the visitor’s eyes the number
294 9. Sara Mondini
of pilgrims visiting these sacred sites and the “tone” of their ziyara could
appear generally more subdued than what is known and described for
other areas of the Islamic world. Moreover, the Sunni majority and the
adherence to a moderate Sunni orthodoxy would not have prevented the
emergence of pilgrimage sites venerated and frequented by the religious
minorities present in the kingdom. Often these “minor” complexes do not
stand out for extraordinary architectural structures, but they are quite
simple and essential. In this regards is remarkable the case of the sacred
complex in the area of Kerak, dedicated to Zayd b. ‘Ali b. Hussein and
frequented by the Shiites, especially the Zaydis from Yemen.
Fig. 9.1. Complex dedicated to Mu’adh b. Jabal.
To the Jordan territory, together with the largest number of burials

attributed to the Prophet’s Companions outside the Arabian Peninsula,
also belong lots of places that according to the tradition were blessed by
the appearance of Prophets, and where today sacred shrines testify their
presence. Extremely variable in their typologies ‒ from small natural
places to simple graves ‒ some of them have been interested by the
intervention of the committee, as in the case of the holy places attributed
to Companions. There are many examples that could be mentioned: the
various places where it is supposed that the Prophet Khidr appeared, in the
Kerak area, in Ajlun, Irbid, in Mahis and Bayt Ras, or the supposed burial
place of Prophet Hud in Jerash, marked by simple quadrangular
mausoleum covered by a dome. Frequently, despite the modest
dimensions, these kinds of structures are surrounded by a wall that marks
around them a small courtyard separating them by other simple burials all
around, cemeteries presumably added and enlarged through the centuries
again consequence of the baraka attributed to the site. To confirm this
tendency is, for example, the shrine attributed to Prophet Noah in Kerak
(Fig. 9.2), an extremely simple structure that consists of a squared
chamber covered by a dome and located in a small cemetery, not far from
the Italian hospital.
Fig. 9.2. Shrine attributed to Prophet Noah.
Nevertheless, there are also some interesting exceptions to this

simplicity and the mausoleum of the Prophet Aaron, located in an
extremely isolated position on the rocky mountains of Petra, outside the
tourists’ beaten paths, is a perfect example (Fig. 9.3). Here, in fact, a
sarcophagus with the alleged burial is situated in a squared chamber
covered by a dome, also used as a mosque, but with the interesting
presence of an underground crypt where in a very dark ambient there are
marks of many candles left by the pilgrims. The original structure seems to
296 9. Sara Mondini
date to the Mamluk period, and for this reason its restoration required the
intervention of archaeologists and expert in order to better preserve the
historical importance of the site also from a stylistic point of view.
Fig. 9.3. Shrine attributed to Prophet Aaron.
At the Wadi Shu’aib, on southwest of Salt, are the tomb and the
mosque dedicated to the Prophet Shu’aib. Known as Prophet Jethro in the
Bible, he would have been a descendant of Ibrahim sent by God among the
people of Midian with the purpose to convince them to desist from
terrorising and cheating travellers.
According to the local sources and the documentation collected by the
committee, the two small structures seem not to have any architectural and
historical relevance. The burial consists of a small funeral chamber
covered by a dome and flanked by a mosque, presumably fifty-years-old
and enlarged until recent times. The project of restoration realised by the
committee for this site, would plan to remove the two present structures
and build ex-novo a new complex that would incorporate both the shrine
and the mosque together with other facilities, buildings for the imam and
further halls whose functions have to be defined. All these new edifices
would be organised around a main central courtyard and an adjacent minor
court.
On the hill of Salt again is located the shrine of the Prophet Ushi, a
minor Prophet of the tradition, accompanied by a mosque, which
presumably, even if restructured, dated back to the Ottoman period. Also
in this case the committee decided to preserve and accurately restore the
historical structure considering building also a new mosque, a library and a
small residence for the imam to enlarge the complex.
Last interesting presences among the sites of Jordan are the giant sized
tombs. Generally attributed to Prophets, little have been written on these
long tombs, and despite their frequentation has often been described in
European and Islamic sources. As noticed by Brannon Wheeler in his book
“Mecca and Eden. Ritual, Relics, and Territory in Islam”, similar tombs
are scattered through the whole Islamic world, in the Arabian Peninsula,
on the Swahili coast of Kenya, through the Middle East, in Yemen, in
central Asia, and even in south and south-east Asia. These tombs, some of
those reach the extraordinary length of 175 yards (160 metres), in south
Asia are generally referred to as nau-gaz, or nine-yard (8.23 metres)
tombs. There, as emerged from the first British reports, they are often
associated also to well-known saints, their relatives, converted Hindu,
ghazi or unidentified figures (Wheeler 2006: 106-107).
Fig. 9.4. Supposed tomb of Prophet Joshua.

298 9. Sara Mondini
As marked by Wheeler, the origins of this kind of structures and their

extraordinary length are largely a matter of speculation. He reports, in fact,
many different opinions, from the idea that their dimension related to
nature and fertility cults to the hypothesis of a mistaken identification of
earlier structures (Wheeler 2006: 105-106).
Perfect example of these giant sized tombs in Jordan is the alleged
tomb of Prophet Joshua in the city of Zayy, near Salt (Fig. 9.4). The long
burial is situated in a small complex, interested by the committee’s
restoration. Unfortunately due to the continuous restoration and
modification of the structures through the centuries, that today are leaning
one against another, it is quite hard today to reconstruct the original
settings, and trace out the evolution of the site. John Lewis Burckhardt (d.
1817) visited the sacred place during his travels through Syria and
identifies it as the tomb of the Prophet Hosea:
“The Mezar Osha is supposed to contain the tomb of Neby Osho, or the
Prophet Hosea, equally revered by Turks and Christians, and to whom the
followers of both religions are in the habit of offering prayers and sacrifices…
[T]he tomb is covered by a vaulted building, one end of which serve as a
mosque; the tomb itself in the form of a coffin, is thirty-six feet long, three feet
broad, and three feet and a half in height, being thus constructed in conformity
with the notion of Turks, who supposed that all our forefathers were giants, and
especially the prophets before Mohammed” (Wheeler 2006: 103).
The multifaceted aspect connected to the ziyara resumed here, easily
demonstrated how sacred places and their status constitute a crucial aspect
of the Muslim societies, and the Jordan context does not make any
exception. Despite their adverse sort through the ages, the approach
toward these costumes and traditions by a dynasty or a government can be
charged of important social, political and religious meaning and bring
important implications.
Discussing about the ensemble of the traditions connected to the death
and, for extension, to the ritual practices, Halevi in his book ‘The
Muhammad’s Grave’ refers to the value that we could read in the term
“popular” associated to some of the religious practices.
“[…] Popular (in this chapter) simply refers to practices that were
relatively widespread in social and geographical terms. Traditionalists
did not uniformly oppose such practices; they readily approved of
usages that followed or seemed to follow their prescriptions. Yet they
despised any deviation from the customs they sanctioned and, in the
name of the tradition, decried new practices as contemptible

innovations. Accordingly, the focus at the end of this chapter will be on
the emergence of a productive tension between traditionalists and a
popular Muslim practice. This tensions led not only to the development
of the reactive mentality that came in part to characterise traditionalist
Islam, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to the formation of an
alternative religiosity” (Halevi 2007: 16-17).
Nevertheless, through the centuries, the growing numbers of believers

that embraced these practices and contribute to their diffusion
paradoxically bring to a distance that began to open between the
traditionalist vision of Islam and the reality of popular Islam (Halevi
2007: 41).
According to these interpretations, the modern policy promoted by the
Hashemites of Jordan regarding the shrines and their frequentation could
be read also as the affirmation of an effective religious and political
message. The choice to patronise the restoration and re-evaluation of the
Jordan shrines is primarily an explicit – as denotes the discourse
pronounced by the king al-Hussein and reported by the Ministry of Waqf
and Islamic Affairs – affirmation of an auto-investiture of the Hashemites
as defenders and patrons of Islam and Islamic history of their own
territory. Moreover, retracing all the debates and the disputes resumed
above, the strong effort of the Royal family seems also to bring an
important political message of moderation in the affirmation of their
Muslim faith. Their campaign, their attention to the tombs of Companions
and Prophets could be read, in fact, as the conscious choice of a moderate
Islam, a confirmation of the adhesion to the Sunni Islamic branch, but with
a crucial distance from the rigorous Wahhabi doctrines that we outlined in
this article, or other similar currents. The architectural heritage in the
Jordan case seems to become the ideal vehicle for a re-affirmation of the
religious national identity, confirming again the importance and the power
of the architectural heritage, in this case probably able to reconcile the two
souls of Islam often speared by a gap.
A further aspect to consider, direct consequence of the attention to the
shrines, concerns the implementation of the potentiality of the shrines’
areas and of the religious and cultural tourism.
Since the earlier times of Islam, in Jordan and through the whole Arab
world, the majority of rural areas surrounding shrines and sacred places
were developed not only as pilgrimage centres. The movement of faithful
and their visit to sacred places, in fact, imposed a transformation of many
rural areas in important point of junction in the circulation of ideas and
commerce. Remote areas were transformed in markets for exchange and
300 9. Sara Mondini
contacts, endowed with the necessary infrastructures to welcome pilgrims

and to assure them every kind of support and goods during the ziyara. The
will to implement the numbers of pilgrims and visitors of sacred tourism
have to answer to the necessity of mosques and adequate structures near
enough to the pilgrimage centre, connecting the whole surrounding area to
a wider road network.
The growing importance of these new centres through the history can
be demonstrated thanks to the development of a peculiar literature of the
sacred places, better known with the Arab name of kutub al-ziyarat. Under
this genre are contemplate all the guides for pilgrimage where authors use
to count and describe the main sacred places of the Islamic world,
including in some cases also Jewish and Christians sites. The affirmation
of this new literary genre together with the long and debated affirmation of
the ziyara we described, contributed to the development of oral traditions
and legends connected to the supposed sites of inhumation of the
Prophet’s companions and martyrs fallen during the first expansion of the
Islam. The accent on the sanctity recognised to places and martyrs brought
to the systematic compilation of sources and guides that contributed to the
transmission of their popularity, having a primary role in keeping alive
costumes of frequentation and rituals.
Thanks to its architectural and cultural heritage Jordan is today one of
the most visited destination among the Arab countries together with North
Africa. According to this perspective, the campaign of restoration
promoted by the Hashemite Royal family seems the result and, at the
same, the new source of life for sacred and cultural tourism, for a new
impulse to the development of peripheral areas and the ideal occasion to
reinstate the national religious identity.
All these elements appear perfectly conjugated in the re-evaluation
projects promoted. Today like in the past shrines come to acquire a
renewed and modern importance in the respect of the traditions of Sunna
and Quran and their interpretations, but without forgetting the importance
of popular cult. As a consequence, also the socio-political effects are no
longer different from the medieval implications came from the affirmation
of ziyara. Together with a religious identity reinforced and revitalised
through the restoration of the symbols of faith.
4. References
Bausani, A. 1999. L’Islam. Garzanti Elefanti, Milano.
Halevi, L. 2007. Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of
Islamic Society. Columbia University Press, New York.
Leisten, T. 1990. Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis: Some Aspect of

Attitudes in the Shari’a toward the funerary Architecture; in, Grabar,
O. (ed.) Muqarnas VII: an Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture. E.
J. Brill, Leiden: 12-22.
Meri, J.W. (transl. and annot. by) 2004. A Lonely Wayfarer’s Guide to
Pilgrimage: ‘Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi’s Kitab al-Isharat ila
Ma’rifat al-Ziyarat. Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ.
Meri, J.W. 2003. ‘Ziyara’; in, Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill Academic
Publishers (Web CD edition), Leiden.
Meri, J. W. 2002. The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval
Syria. Oxford University Press, New York.
Mohammed, b.G. (ed.) 1999. The Holy Sites of Jordan. Turab, Amman.
Original edition 1996.
Muslim. 2003. Sahih Muslim. Dar Ibn al-Haytham, Cairo.
Wheeler, B.M. 2006. Tombs of Giant Prophets, in Mecca and Eden:
Ritual, Relics, and Territory in Islam. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
-----------------------------
Prof. Dr. Sara Mondini

Professor of Central Asian and Indian Art History,
Department of Euro-Asian Studies, Ca’ Foscari University,
Palazzo Cappello, 2035, San Polo 30125 Venice. ITALY
Contact: PoBox n°32, Poste Centrali - San Marco, 30124 Venice. ITALY
Email: sara_mond@hotmail.com ; sara.mondini@unive.it
§ After completed her MA magna cum laude in Oriental Languages and Cultures
at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), Sara Mondini concluded her PhD in
Oriental Studies at the Doctoral School of Venice in March 2009. During last years
she carried out researches on the Indo-Islamic and Islamic religious and funerary
architecture, on pilgrimage sites and their artistic, historical and political context.
She already published separate portions of her dissertations and she prepared more
contributions, which have been discussed in various International conferences and
workshop, in Italy and abroad, together with the results of other researches she
carried out during these last years. Since the academic year 2009/2010 she teaches
Central Asian and Indian history of art at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
10
People with Learning Difficulties and their

inclusion within Cultural and Heritage
Sites*
Jonathan Rix and the Heritage Forum
Open University, Milton Keynes, U.K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract. This essay explores the practices of a participatory inclusive
research project in Liverpool and Merseyside, UK. This project involved
the Heritage Forum - 25 people with learning difficulties – making more
than 50 visits to 13 cultural and heritage sites over a 15-month period. The
project serves as a much needed resource as there is both a lack of research
and lack of provision for the intellectual accessibility of cultural and
heritage sites. This essay describes the research process adopted by the
Heritage Forum, presenting a flexible protocol for working with groups
and individuals with learning difficulties. It reports on the Heritage
Forum’s findings about the cultural and heritage sites and offers guidance
on how to facilitate the inclusion of this diverse population.
Keywords: inclusive research; cultural and heritage sites; access; learning
difficulties
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Introduction
It is increasingly recognised that there is a need to involve people with
learning difficulties1 in assessing provision within cultural and heritage
sites (Rayner 1998, Economou 1999, Ruiz 2004, Rix 2005). The value of
cultural and heritage sites to this diverse population and the practitioners
who work alongside them is also acknowledged (Hooper-Greenhill et al.
2002). But there is a lack of resources directed at those who face barriers
in relation to structuring thought, remembering and communicating. The
majority of developments that have enhanced access for people with
learning difficulties have been aimed at improving access for other
disabled users (Ruiz 2004).
This essay reports on the Access to Heritage Project, an innovative
inclusive research project carried out across a 15-month period by 25
304 10. Jonathan Rix & the Heritage Forum
people with learning difficulties, in which they made over 50 visits to

cultural and heritage sites to assess their accessibility. Before the project
began, the members of the research group had little experience of such
sites, if at all. The guidance provided by this group, known as the Heritage
Forum2, will support sites in their engagement with these users as they
seek to enhance their visitor experience.
2. Guidance for cultural and heritage sites

There are few resources to assist Cultural and heritage sites in attracting
people with learning difficulties, in developing their provision for this
audience and in dealing with issues of intellectual access. Inclusive
Information (Playforth 2003) offers half a page of advice, whilst the
Museum Learning Collaborative archives (2003) do not mention this area;
and the National Endowment for the Arts’ mentions people with learning
difficulties three times in their 50-page Accessibility Checklist (NEA
2004).
The enormous range of individuals who can fall within this label
provides a particular challenge for those sites wishing to enhance their
provision for people with learning difficulties, as well as for those trying
to provide clear recommendations of how to do so. For example, a report
from the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office (2006) noted the positive value
of signage which uses both symbols and pictures along with text.
However, it noted that ‘[t]here is no generally accepted definition that
clearly defines different forms or degrees of learning disabilities’ (ODPM
2006: 13) and that the lack of research across the range of individuals with
this label meant the authors could not recommend a single symbol system.
The report turns the problem on its head by recommending that designers
reduce the necessity of having complex signage systems by establishing
simple building layouts, with landmark features and readily identifiable
key facilities, offering good sight lines and clearly defined routes with
limited numbers of choices; such an approach would facilitate the way-
finding for all site users. The challenge of prescribing the ‘needs’ of a
group called ‘people with learning difficulties’ is a reason why cultural
and heritage sites need to consult with individuals with learning
difficulties to evaluate the effectiveness of their current and planned
provision (Rayner 1998; Rix 2005; ODPM 2006).
The guidance available for cultural and heritage sites about how to
facilitate access for this population is limited. It either does not have
people with learning difficulties and/or cultural and heritage sites as its
primary focus, or appears in little known academic papers or reports on
Learning difficulties and Cultural and Heritage Sites 305
small scale research projects. For example, Access in Mind (Rayner 1998)
discusses a range of projects that took place in the mid-1990s and the
lessons that can be learned from them in relation to museum text labels,
audio guides, video and IT, hands-on sessions, publicity materials, visual
arts and consultation, but is out of print; whilst A Tips and Techniques
Table (California State Parks 2003) focuses on a diverse public which
includes people with learning difficulties. Within journals and academic
reports that are not directed at cultural and heritage sites, there is evidence
that food can play an important role in making people feel comfortable,
safe and free to socialise in social contexts in which learning occurs
(Bohata et al. 2002). It is also reported that pictorial additions to signs are
beneficial to people with learning difficulties and that pictograms, symbols
and story-board style pictures have particular benefits (Lines et al. 2004).
This research suggests that sites need to consider how imagery could be
used to help people in understanding text and that everyday symbols
should be used wherever possible. They suggest too the positive role of
colour on signs and for way-finding, but highlight that there needs to be
further research in all these areas.
Within papers reporting on research specifically within the cultural and
heritage context and focussed upon this population, Rix (2005) details best
practice in relation to audio tours, with the aim of providing a clear
starting point for creating and assessing provision. This paper identifies
research-based approaches for: establishing the purpose and process of a
visit or tour; maximising recall of information; making appropriate lexicon
and grammatical choices; using referential material; and mitigating against
processing, response and auditory impairments. Blewitt (2004) mentions,
in passing, the importance of sight, touch and smell to people with
learning difficulties and the reduced need for verbal explanation.
There is mention in a number of papers of the need for comprehensive,
accurate and accessible information, including in on-site interpretation,
marketing and pre-visit details. They identify how simple things would
improve access for many, and the key role played by the personal attitude
of managers and staff and the general lack of awareness of the needs of
visitors with impairments (Goodall et al. 2003; MENCAP 2003, cited in
Ruiz 2004; Hartley et al. 2005; Rix 2005). The tendency to regard
provision for these users as in some way removed from the mainstream
also needs to be faced, and needs a commitment to provide resources
equitably and within the general provision (Goodall et al. 2003; Hartley et
al. 2005).
Fig. 10.1. The background to the access to heritage project
3. Consulting with people with learning difficulties

The Access to Heritage Project in Liverpool and Merseyside was the
first audit within the United Kingdom carried out by people with learning
difficulties on the accessibility of cultural and heritage sites. The
developing awareness amongst cultural and heritage sites that they have to
engage with the whole of the community they serve and remove barriers to
access is evident in the Inspiring Learning for All website (MLA 2004).
On this site there are statements highlighting a general need to consider
underrepresented groups and different learning styles. However, people
with learning difficulties are often sidelined. For example, a 2004 report
for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) noted that of over 12,000
students in research it was not ‘appropriate’ for ‘those from special
schools to be asked to complete these forms’ (Greenhill et al. 2004:125)
and that ‘some groups of pupils with Special Educational Needs did not
complete forms as it was considered inappropriate’. When a follow-up
report was produced (Greenhill et al. 2007), no mention was made of this
issue although the same data was being drawn upon. From a social model
perspective (Oliver 1983) such an approach can be seen as a barrier to
participation.
An important response to the marginalisation of disabled people has
been research that reflects their interests, values and experiences and has
disabled people positioned at its centre. Emancipatory Disability Research
focuses upon the need for research to be open and accountable throughout
to a group run by disabled people, with the knowledge and skills of
researchers being at their disposal (Barnes 2003), with the aim to produce
accessible knowledge, using rigorous methods that place findings within
their cultural and environmental context so that they highlight the
disabling consequences of society (UKDPC 2003).
This emancipatory research model has underpinned the development of
Inclusive research by people with learning difficulties. Walmsley and
Johnson (2003: 16) identify three core principles:
• Research must address issues which really matter to people with
learning difficulties, and which ultimately lead to improved lives
for them;
• It must access and represent their views and experience;
• People with learning difficulties need to be treated with respect by
the research community.
The last point is at the heart of why inclusive research requires ongoing
self-reflection. Conducting and reporting academic research tends not to
be inclusive of people with learning difficulties; it excludes them through
strongly theorised academic debate and complex written academic text
(Walmsley and Johnson 2003). Walmsley and Johnson identify the
integral role played by self-reflection, both by the participants and the
wider research community working with them. In particular the academic
researchers need to reflect on their position relative to others in the

process. The risk is not only that their creativity, social skills, values,
beliefs and identity overly influence the findings (Ball 1990); it is also the
relative ease with which the supporters can dominate proceedings. As
Traustadottir (2001: 26) notes, ‘If we are self-reflective within our
research we will be less likely to run the risk of uncritically reproducing
Othering or oppressions’.
4. The research aims

The Access to Heritage Project began in autumn 2005, under the
direction of the Heritage Forum. The Forum identified three aims:
• to assist and encourage people with learning difficulties to access
Merseyside’s culture and heritage sites – as is their right;
• to enable heritage sites to learn from people with learning
difficulties about how to best make themselves accessible to people
with learning difficulties and therefore benefit everyone;
• to create intellectual access guidance that can be used in heritage
sites everywhere.
Members of the Forum felt strongly that the aims clearly stated their
‘right’ to access sites, even though it was pointed out by others that this
right did not exist in law. The definition of heritage sites was also a broad-
brush term to facilitate the understanding of the participants. In the report
to funders, these sites were described as castles, galleries, museums, old
ships, churches, palaces and old houses, but the Forum has also been
involved with a wildflower centre (see Fig. 10.1).
5. Methods
The establishment of the Forum
The research identified and recorded the experiences of people with
learning difficulties in a way that allowed them to have control, presenting
results to which they have access. As much as was feasible, it was
organised on the basis of decisions made at meetings of the Heritage
Forum, convened to facilitate member attendance at different venues
throughout Liverpool and Merseyside. The Forum mostly came from five
key community groups based in day service resource centres and a school.
Depending on the time and place of the meeting attendance varied from
three or four members to the full Forum. From early 2006, twenty-five
people with learning difficulties were involved in the project, along with a
number of supporting staff. The Forum have continued their work beyond
this first access project.
A project steering group was established in 2004, to raise start-up funds
to employ a project co-ordinator and establish the Forum. It was apparent
that debate was being dominated by people other than those with learning
difficulties and so once the Forum was established the steering group
disbanded. After this, the steering group members attended the Forum
meetings as appropriate.
From the outset, a volunteer project leader has supported the Forum,
creating funding partnerships and links with local administrative networks.
The project co-ordinator, funded from grant income, facilitated meetings,
visits and communications between participants, and helped maintain a
momentum for both the Forum and the project. Gatekeeper personnel
employed by cultural and heritage sites and local organisations also
attended the Forum meetings at different times. A volunteer academic
researcher – the first author – provided support to the Forum, the project
leader and project co-ordinator.
A central aspect of the project methodology involved establishing trust
and respect between participants. During the early meetings, participants
were encouraged to find out about each other and their individual interests.
Since multi-sensory activity is a particularly important communication
tool for people with learning difficulties, participants also described which
senses they preferred to use. Visual images played a key communication
role at all Forum sessions. Drawings, photographs and symbols were used
alongside the spoken and written word to facilitate the sharing and
recording of ideas.
The members of the Forum recognised that most of them had little
experience of cultural and heritage sites; as a result they were unsure about
what to expect from sites and how to engage with them. Individuals
therefore needed a number of visits to varying sites so that they could
move beyond the novelty of the experience and engage meaningfully in
decisions about the nature of project.
The project as originally outlined by the steering committee aimed to
assess the accessibility of the cultural and heritage sites, but a number of
the gatekeeper personnel were keen for the Forum to consider other
possible activities. Meetings were arranged at different venues, so as to
include all members. The Forum considered whether they wished to be
involved in the original access project, an arts based project, or an as yet
undefined alternative. There was a strong consensus to pursue the
evaluative access project.
The Forum decided to consider the whole visitor experience at the

cultural and heritage sites they visited. They wanted to explore issues such
as: how they found out about a venue, how they travelled there; what
happened when they got there; whether they felt welcome, how they found
their way around and whether they could understand what it was all about;
and whether the site was aimed at them and could hold their interest.
6. Arranging visits
Initial contact by the project co-ordinator with sites selected by the
Forum enabled them to demonstrate their preparedness to engage with this
section of the community, and to discuss concerns about the use of
photography and so forth. A staff member was invited to meet the group
during the visit, to explore insights that the visits engendered.
Typically, each site visit involved about four people with learning
difficulties from one or two of the groups involved in the Forum. A
routine was soon established which suited the Forum best; they arrived at a
site at 11am, generally by taxi, then spent an hour going around the site (or
often, part of the site), and then went to the Café for a discussion and
debrief. Their feedback was either given directly to the cultural and
heritage sites during these debriefing sessions or as an accessible written
report.
The Forum also wanted to take advantage of specific activities offered
by cultural and heritage sites. They participated in a hands-on workshop
led by museum education staff, went on the guided tours available at
several venues, and used audio tours which were on offer. The Forum was
also asked to help with the development of provision at St George’s Hall.
They made 18 visits to the Hall, and offering advice to the site designers
on signage and other presentation issues. Additional funds were also raised
by the Forum to develop a temporary multi-sensory exhibition for St
George’s Hall in conjunction with artists; this also involved employing a
film maker to record their work both in creating the exhibition and
carrying out access audits.
7. Creating a record of the experience

From the outset it was important for the Forum to develop effective
ways to record their views on their site visits. The central requirement was
to capture responses as close to the visitor experience as possible.
However, discussing issues in too much detail during a visit impeded the
experience itself, and so discussions were held immediately following.
These debriefing sessions took place just before or during lunch. This
overlap between a social break and a work meeting generally proved
useful, raising energy levels, enhancing social cohesion and facilitating
longer and broader discussions.
A number of tools were trialled to assist with the debriefing sessions.
Video footage was collected, but systematically using and evaluating it
proved to be challenging and it was recognised that additional expertise in
film making or participatory video research was needed. Digital cameras
and disposable cameras were also trialled, but equipment availability and
lack of prior experience restricted use of the former and the latter did not
provide images for use in debrief discussions. On occasion, postcards of
artefacts were obtained, proving to be of some use, though restricting
discussion to predetermined items.
Following the first few visits, the Forum recognised there was a need
for a post-tour questionnaire (see Fig. 10.2) which would allow
participants to note their experiences, their use of different senses and
what they had and had not enjoyed.
Fig. 10. 2. Post-tour questionnaire.
The questionnaires facilitated discussion, enabling participants to

express views through imagery and/or text, in the company of peers and
support staff. These records were not a typical research database, however.
Most comments recorded on these sheets were the result of discussion
with support staff who then acted as scribes. The final text typically
reflected the discussion which had taken place rather than a distinct
statement from an individual. Many members of the Forum rely to a
considerable degree upon visual cues and non-verbal communication
approaches. Therefore, a clear-cut comment such as Angela’s ‘I don’t like
the dark, so I didn’t watch the film’ needs to be considered in the same
context as a visual representation such as the one in Fig. 10.2, which came
from the hands-on session.
Fig. 10.3. Visual notes taken during a debrief session.
Such a representation might follow a series of brief questions and

single-phrase answers, or a series of statements and physical gestures in
response. This was a key reason why the project co-ordinator felt that the
establishment of trust was an essential precursor to the project. Trusting
relationships between the people with learning difficulties, project co-
ordinator and support staff were vital if views were to be interpreted

appropriately and given equal weight.
The Forum also recognised the benefit of support staff being able to
raise issues based on their experience as advocates and so provided them
with their own questionnaire. This also reduced the need to incorporate
their views into the participant’s questionnaires when supporting them.
The project co-ordinator took a participant-observer role during visits too,
not directing the focus of the Forum members, but being involved and
responding to their actions and interests. The project co-ordinator
presented questions to the Forum during the debrief session that had arisen
from her observations. She also reflected on the experience with members
of the Forum, the project leader and the academic researcher. From her
involvement in more than 50 visits, the project co-ordinator reported how
she had gained insight into the perspectives of the individual Forum
members, and had used her insights to help contrast and compare
perspectives during debriefing sessions. Here too, the informality of the
process needs to be highlighted. The project coordinator was not
accompanying individuals so that she might produce a diary of their
experiences or code their reactions to situations.
In identifying their findings and recommendations, the Forum used a
form of theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin 1998) in an ongoing,
informal manner appropriate to the inclusive research process. The Forum
recorded findings on a particular category until they recognised that they
were repeating themselves, and no new relationships, properties or
dimensions were emerging. Terms such as ‘theoretical saturation’,
‘properties’ and ‘dimensions’ were not used however; the first author
encouraged the project co-ordinator to ‘keep on going until there is
nothing more that anyone wants to say about something’. If an issue still
required clarification, discussions and findings from previous visits were
used to frame questions on subsequent visits.
This research aimed to be inclusive throughout. The academic papers,
book chapters and full reports to funders are the inaccessible outputs of the
research. The members of the Forum are identified as authors of this
chapter because it is their work which it supports, not because they have
participated in the write-up. In writing about this research, the academic
author is only too aware that he cannot provide the robust framework
typically sought from an academic text. There are no figures to be
statistically analysed because they were not collected. They would not
have been meaningful to the majority of the researchers. Quotes cannot be
provided, because those which could be presented are not ‘meaningful’
enough, individually robust enough or reflective of how a view was
constructed. The findings come from discussions with the co-ordinator,

with support staff and the Forum, but the discussions have not been
collated or coded in a manner which would exclude the Forum either.
They have been recorded in visual format, accessible versions (see Fig.
10.4) and presented to the Forum for feedback. Comments have been
communicated via the coordinator, support staff and directly in a
discussion with Forum members. In the same that as trust was central to
the process of research, so it is essential when engaging with the research
output.
Fig. 10.4. Accessible, easy-to-read presentation of findings.
8. Findings
The findings are categorised under two main themes. First,
relationships and ways of working: these findings apply to the personnel
encountered at sites and how they are, and can be, involved with these
users (see Tables 10.1a and 1b); second, provision design: these findings
apply to the accessibility of the sites (see Table 10.2). We discuss the
former in more detail as the latter – though of equal importance to the
Forum – contains much that will seem familiar. In addition to these
themes, there were three additional outcomes. The Forum felt that:
• a consultation process should be undertaken involving people with
learning difficulties whenever cultural and heritage sites design and
create new interpretation.
• it is particularly valuable for people to have their work recognised and
showcased, particularly those users’ whose ideas have for so long
been neither recognised nor showcased.
• people with learning difficulties should be supported to produce work
of a high quality, not only to enhance the outcome of a project but
also the motivation, trust and respect that underpin it.
Table 1a. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum – working

with heritage access consultants.
Venue attitudes & ethos

• A consultation process should be undertaken whenever new interpretation is
designed & made for cultural & heritage sites.
• Settings need to identify individuals responsible for initiating & responding to
communication with this community of users.
• Contacting sites about issues of access should not be a drawn out process.
• Staff in settings often promise that they will accompany a group or join them
for a discussion but do not turn up. This seems like bad manners, suggests that
the people with learning difficulties are not important, & is very demotivating.
Arrangements should be kept to … or false promises not made.
• Sites should build up a range of staff with experience of working with these
users.
• When involving users in an access consultation, time scales need to be
realistically planned.
Most people with learning difficulties cannot be rushed.
• People enjoy having their work recognised & showcased.
• These users should be supported to produce work of high quality.
Effective visits
• All visit arrangements must be flexible to the individuals &/or their groups.
• It is appropriate to focus on one contained aspect of a heritage site during each
visit.
• Attention tends to be kept for a maximum of one hour.
• A break for food is important as a social & refocusing opportunity.
• Starting a visit before 11am can cause problems with transport.
• Transport issues will often cause problems for those attending.
• A good pattern for a site visit is:
One hour visit/workshop; Short recall activity
Lunch (with discussion); Longer recall activity
• Discussions about a visit can take place within a site’s café & still be effective.
• At least one member of staff should attend the post-visit recall meeting.
Uncertainties about working with people with learning difficulties
• People in all walks of life find that their views of effective practice are
transformed by their involvement with people with learning difficulties.
• When building a relationship with other organisations, such as funders, the
involvement of people with learning difficulties breaks down barriers &
motivates further engagement.
• Many people working in cultural & heritage sites have no experience of people
with learning difficulties & are uncertain about what to expect & what to do.
Only first-hand experience can teach staff that they have to do very little that is
different or difficult.
• Heritage site staff can be enthused about an upcoming visit by discussions with
an advocate prior to the visit.
Table 1b. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum –

working with heritage access consultants.
How should cultural & heritage sites involve people with learning
difficulties?
• It takes up to 10 visits for people to develop heritage site literacy.
• These users have found it best to work in short bursts across a longer period of
time. An ongoing relationship of regular visits across a period of several
months is appropriate.
• Users intending to carry out access audit projects need to be strong self-
advocates &/or to have an independent individual to facilitate their
advocacy.
• Priorities should be set by the people with learning difficulties.
• Advocates should not be seen as the ‘access expert’ who can speak on behalf
of the people with learning difficulties.
• Strong personal relationships need to be built between group members. Trust
needs to be established across a period of time.
• If others are arranging finances for the project or advising in any other way,
they should attend meetings with the people with learning difficulties.
• The enthusiasm of people with learning difficulties for new experiences, & the
pace at which they work, means that supporters/staff can easily direct a
process with their own ideas, ways of working &/or ambitions without being
aware of it.
• Supporters/staff must always constantly reflect on whether the people with
learning difficulties are directing the process or whether they are being
required to follow.
• Having a social element to projects is beneficial for all involved.
• Cultural & heritage sites need to provide individuals with the opportunity to
assess proposed changes before they are finally implemented.
Involving supporters
• Having consistent supporter presence & engagement is a key factor in the
continued involvement of people with learning difficulties.
• Supporters can easily dominate proceedings, despite having the best of
intentions.
• Providing supporters with a questionnaire allows them to raise issues based on
their experience as advocates, issues sometimes not initially identified by
the person with a learning disability.
• Providing supporters with a voice reduces the incentive to incorporate their
views into the participant’s questionnaires/feedback.
• Supporters often wish/need to leave at set times (e.g. straight after lunch) to fit
in with other activities.
Information gathering
• People should be encouraged to explore different communication forms:
pictures, symbols, signing, speech, written word, recorded word, audio,
video, hands-on, & so forth.
• Views of individuals gathered in a variety of ways: visual questionnaires,
observation, discussion in the moment, discussion retrospectively, drawing

pictures & writing labels, brainstorming activities, taking photographs,
recording with video, using postcards of artefacts, bring artefacts to
individuals, workshops, regular meetings, discussion/interviews/
questionnaires with supporters.
• Digital cameras effectively allow for rapid recall & discussion. However, they
present technical challenges, & raise issues of ownership.
• Accompanying (but not leading) people with learning difficulties as they visit
a heritage site provide invaluable insights & opportunities to explore their
perspective.
• It is valuable to involve a wide range of individuals with learning difficulties
so as to get a fuller picture of access challenges & opportunities.
9. Relationships and ways of working

Typically, people with learning difficulties have not had much
experience of cultural and heritage sites and are not aware of how to
exploit their potential to the full. The Forum recognised that it took up to
10 visits for members to develop heritage site literacy. They noted too that
pre-visit information would help in this process. Few sites make links with
people with learning difficulties and their service providers, or actively
market available workshops to them. Possibly as a result, the supporters
and Forum members were unaware of what was available already, free of
charge, as part of the mainstream and programme specific provision.
The project co-ordinator reported that generally she spent four hours
per visit contacting sites, identifying the appropriate staff member and
making arrangements. Often staff seemed hesitant about working with the
project, giving the impression that they were unsure what to expect when
people with learning difficulties came to the site. Following discussions
with the project co-ordinator some site staff became enthused about visits,
but this enthusiasm did not then permeate the workforce. Mostly, the
Forum did not feel welcomed when they arrived at sites. Few staff
members chose to meet the Forum and explore their experience of a site. A
mere three sites requested feedback. The co-ordinator reported how
frequently staff said they would join the group when they visited but did
not turn up. Nevertheless - and highlighting underlining the importance of
people’s attitudes - the Forum identified the best facilitator of access as
being a tour guide who is involved and interested in the visitors and builds
on their current understanding.
The hesitancy of staff to engage with them did not come as a surprise to
the Forum. Many lack experience of people with learning difficulties and
are therefore unsure about what to expect and what to do. Only first-hand
experience can help staff realise that they have to do very little that is
different or difficult. As a result, the Forum identified Disability
Awareness training, involving people with learning difficulties, as being of
central importance, so that sites build up a range of staff with experience
of involvement with the potential users.
The Forum found that working in short bursts across longer time
periods suited them, providing flexibility, and allowing groups to focus on
a defined aspect of a site during each visit. Making regular visits over
several months was suitable, allowing for the delivery of information a
number of times and in small chunks of an hour or less. Working with the
designers at St George’s Hall, however, demonstrated that practitioners
and funders often create schedules that constrain an inclusive approach.
For example, suggestions from the Forum could not be tested to assess
whether they worked as intended because of time limitations.
Planning to work over longer periods of time is a response to issues of
concentration and the need to make sure people are being understood. It is
also a sensible response to the ways in which the wider community
generally supports people with learning difficulties; for example, issues
around transport means that starting earlier than 11am will exclude many.
Strong, trusting, personal relationships also need to be built across time,
particularly given the important role of social activities within the project.
Forum members recognised that the project co-ordinator and other
independent individuals were able to facilitate their advocacy, but that
they also needed to be strong self-advocates at times. They felt strongly
that priorities should be defined by the people with learning difficulties,
and advocates should not be regarded as the ‘access expert’ who could
speak on their behalf. The project co-ordinator was aware that on occasion
people wanted her to take on this role. For example, the Forum’s work
with designers at St George’s Hall mostly involved her attendance at
design meetings where she attempted to raise issues of access that had
been identified by the Forum. The Forum recognised that if others are
either supporting or being supported by them then they should attend
inclusive, shared meetings.
Levels of attendance at Forum meetings and site visits showed how
consistent supporter presence and engagement is a central factor in the
ongoing involvement of people with learning difficulties. The supporters
recognised too that they need to consistently reflect on whether the people
with learning difficulties are directing the process or whether they are
being directed. For example, supporters often needed or wanted to leave at
set times to fit in with other activities. At meetings, supporters or visitors
could dominate proceedings with relative ease. Recognising the
supporters’ voice within the process – for example through the support
staff questionnaires – alleviated this pressure, as well as identifying issues
around which the project coordinator could focus discussion.
This capacity to dominate proceedings, even with the best of intentions,
was apparent when defining the aims of the project. The enthusiasm of
people with learning difficulties for new experiences, and the pace at
which they work, means that supporters/staff can come to direct a process
with their own ideas, ways of working and/or ambitions without being
aware of what they have done. For instance, the project co-ordinator and
academic advisor both recognised how their interests may have influenced
the project. The academic advisor’s original proposal for an access project
had largely been followed subsequent to the Forum taking over from the
original steering committee; whilst the project co-ordinator interest in
tactile art experiences was reflected when the Forum chose to develop a
multi sensory art work, under the time pressure of the St George’s project.
Does this compromise the Forum’s conviction that they wanted to do this
work, that they have carried it out in the manner of their choosing, and
have gained a great deal from it? Does it compromise the view of the
supporters that working with the Forum had a transformative effect,
changing their ideas about effective practice and breaking down barriers in
a manner which encouraged further involvement?
10. Provision design

The Forum’s findings related to enhancing access to sites do not
involve any dramatic changes from everyday practices within most
cultural and heritage sites (see Table 10.2). The findings focus upon the
need for visual symbols, consistent and accessible way-finding, sensory
experiences, along with simplified texts, materials and designs, accessible
technology, and guides (particularly in costume). Particularly important to
Forum members is the conviction that approaches that benefit them also
benefit many others: for example, their suggestion that heritage site staff
have access to simplified materials within rooms to help when talking
about a site and its artefacts, and their appreciation of the need for sites to
offer plenty of seating.
When considering these points it may be interesting for you to compare
the presentation of findings between those which are intended to be
accessible and easy read (Fig 10.5) and those intended for an academic
audience. Which would be better suited to inform staff of best practice?
Table 10. 2. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum –

making settings accessible.
Providing additional opportunities for communication
• Sites are most effective when more senses are being used.
• More use of sound, not muffled & not too many sounds going on at once.
• Audio text at the press of a button is well received.
• Videos & music create a sense of place & reduce reliance upon reading text to
access information.
• Interactive computer games are popular.
• Hands on exhibits create a very accessible space, but opportunities are currently
limited.
• Exhibits need to have strong contrast in colour & texture to be accessible to all.
Strategies for effective signage

• There is a lack &/or inconsistent use of symbols in interpretation.
• Most sites have unclear way finding.
• There need to be clear, large, symbol-based signs.
• Signs are needed for what can be done in different spaces (e.g. what to touch &
what to sit on).
• Colour coding for directions is helpful. Contrasting colours on floors & walls
help to define a space.
• Signs must be clearly visible. Needs to be evident which artefacts they relate to.
• Signs should not be crowded, & should use large strongly contrasted fonts.
• A simplified text identifying key information should be used with supporting
symbols/ pictures.
People as effective resources

• The most effective access facilitator is a tour guide who engages with people &
builds on their current understanding.
• The use of costumes brings a space to life.
• Providing simplified materials for guides within rooms would help both staff &
visitors in discussing a site & its artefacts.
Strategies to attract people
• Sites should tell people & their supporters about services available at their site,
e.g. workshops.
• Sites should proactively engage with these users, encouraging involvement in
mainstream activities.
• Pre-visit information would benefit this area of the community.
Making people welcome

• On arrival people with learning difficulties need to be made to feel welcome.
• Disability awareness training is needed for staff, involving people with learning
difficulties.
• There needs to be plenty of seating available throughout a site.
General factors
• People with learning difficulties do not usually have wide experience of cultural
& heritage sites, & do not know what is available at venues to use them to their
full potential.
• It often needs lots of shorter visits for people with learning difficulties to get the
most out of a venue.
• Information is best delivered when it is given lots of times in small chunks.
• A solution designed for some is also a solution for many others.
Fig. 10.5. Presentation of findings being accessible and easy read.

11. Discussion
The work of the Forum has highlighted the relevance of the studies cited
earlier in the chapter. It demonstrates that involvement of people with
learning difficulties in assessing provision within cultural and heritage
sites is effective when sites recognise the need to create a relationship
across an extended period of time. It supports the call for improved
signage and some approaches that have been suggested (Rayner 1998,
Lines et al. 2004, ODPM 2006). It underlines the significance of using all
the senses and involving social activities and refreshments (Blewitt 2004).
It reinforces the need for sites to produce accessible information, including
marketing, pre-visit information and on-site interpretation, and for sites to
challenge and improve the personal attitudes and awareness of their staff
(Goodall et al. 2003, MENCAP 2003, cited in Ruiz 2004, Hartley et al.
2005, Rix 2005). Perhaps most significantly, it offers guidance about how
to undertake this consultation process.
This project underlines the relative ease of adopting an inclusive
approach and the practicality of its outcomes. It shows that a commitment
to provide resources equitably and as part of the general provision
(Goodall et al. 2003, Hartley et al. 2005) does not pose a threat to other
services, but provides a reasonable, affordable and valuable opportunity
likely to benefit all users. It supports cultural and heritage sites in
developing resources which enable people to explore through multiple
communication channels.
Sites need to acknowledge different ways of learning, responding to
concerns over cultural and gender equity, and provide many levels of
information. (Majewski n.d.) The nature of this informal research also
demonstrates that working with these users involves practices and
processes with which cultural and heritage sites are already familiar. This
may appear to be an unremarkable finding. Yet, the key issue for people
with learning difficulties is that they wish to be made to feel welcome.
This is all about people skills. Practitioners, however, tend to believe they
need to develop ‘new’ skills to work effectively with people with learning
difficulties, and complain that they lack the experience and/or resources to
be effective (Allday 2009). As a member of staff interviewed by Allday
states:
I think it is the toughest area museums have to deal with. There is hesitancy
about working with such groups – partly out of ignorance of how to work with
them. Exhibiting material generated by projects working with people with
learning difficulties is far easier as you are employing other agencies who are
specialists at working with people with learning difficulties (Allday 2009: 42).
The importance of this ongoing attitudinal barrier was acknowledged in

a paper prepared for the Heritage Lottery Fund in relation to excluded
groups generally:
A resistance to change and an unwillingness to engage with social issues are the
most powerful forces for inertia and present the biggest challenge to this
assessment of sectoral need (Sandell 2002: 5).
The work of the Forum provides clear guidance for practitioners which
can reassure them that they already have the skills required to engage with
people with learning difficulties. They just need to see engagement as a
priority. Once they begin the process they will find that a more positive
attitude will follow (Avramidis et al. 2000, Mittler 2000). The importance
of the personal is a significant outcome of this research. Much is made of
the use of Universal Design and technologies which enhance multi-
sensory experiences (Elliot 2007) and for individual technical solutions to
be effectively tested (Rix 2005). But even though technology was valued
by the Forum, it was interaction with people who were welcoming,
knowledgeable and responsive which offered the greatest access to a site.
The individuality of people with learning difficulties is greater than the
stereotype of their label might lead cultural and heritage sites to believe. If
they want to develop a more complete understanding of access challenges
and opportunities sites need to canvass a wide range of individuals who
come within this label. They need to think too about where they position
these individuals. The work of the Forum has had an impact, but it has
been from the margins. The Forum was largely operating outside of
mainstream provision. Cultural and heritage sites need to confront how
they can best attract the attention of this population without simply calling
upon day centres or special schools or creating ring-fenced art projects.
Perhaps most significant of all, they need to question how they represent
this integral part of our community.
12. Conclusion
This essay reports on an ongoing evaluative process being undertaken
by an ongoing inclusive project. The Heritage Forums in Liverpool and
Merseyside have continued their work. Each site and each exhibition
creates new challenges for users which can be usefully assessed by people
with learning difficulties in a straightforward manner. The Forum
recognise that they have a role to play in meeting this need. They also
want other groups to take up the challenge and to start to evaluate the
provision in their area. Historically, cultural and heritage sites might have
seen this as a threat, but given their changing cultures and the nature of the
results offered by the Forum, this involvement can now be regarded as an
opportunity waiting to be taken.
Acknowledgements
Funding and support was received from: the Liverpool Capital of
Culture Company, Liverpool People First, the Mersey Partnership,
Liverpool CC, Knowsley MBC, the NW Disability Arts Forum,
Merseytravel, National Museums Liverpool, Royal MENCAP Society,
MENCAP Liverpool and Libertas, the RTR Foundation, Liverpool LDDF,
Knowsley LDDF, and the Arts Council.
The following 13 sites around Liverpool and Merseyside were visited:
the World Museum; the Walker Art Gallery; the Maritime Museum; the
National Wildflower Centre; Speke Hall; the Williamson tunnels;
Metropolitan Cathedral; the Anglican Cathedral; the Conservation centre;
Lady Lever; Staircase House, Stockport; St George’s Hall; Tate Liverpool.
---------
Notes
1. The term ‘people with learning difficulties’ is one of many used to describe
people who are identified as having differences in relation to thinking,
remembering and communicating. These individuals are commonly sorted into
a whole raft of label subgroups which change across the years (Rix 2006). In
using the term ‘people with learning difficulties’ this paper adopts the language
advocated by self-advocates such as Simons (1992) and self-advocacy groups
such as People First (1992, 2006). They request that labelled individuals are
recognised as people before anything else, and that we use the term ‘learning
difficulties’ to remind others that they can learn for the whole of their lives like
everyone else.
2. The members of the Heritage Forum:
Royal School for the Blind Old Swan/DoveCot Day Centre

Matthew Heard Antony Doran
Daniel Harwood Linda Sullivan
Christopher Bingham Dawn Newby
Mark Anderson Angela Green
Ricky Bemtham Sheila Letts
Robert Stirrup
Lynda Hogan Halewood Resource Centre
Nichola McGorrin Tom Barton
Eddie Barton
Liverpool 8 Resource Centre Barry Francis

Tina O’Connor Suzanne Faulkner
Philip Foxley June Jenkins
Lila Wilson Geraldine Regan
Sheila Cosgrove
Brenda Walker Project Leader – Alan Griffiths
Liz Gouirah Project Co-ordinator – Ticky Lowe
Parthenon House Project Supporters –

Donald Birchall Jimmy Cullen, Eileen Willshaw,
Lesley Marshall Kate Rodenhurst, & Jonathan Rix
13. References
Allday, K. 2009. From changeling to citizen: learning disability and its
representation in museums. Museum and Society, 7 (1): 32–49.
Avramidis, E., Davies, P. and Burden, R. 2000. Student teachers’ attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the
ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16: 277–293.
Ball, S. 1990. Self doubt and soft data: social and technical trajectories in
ethnographic fieldwork. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 3 (2): 157–171.
Barnes, C. 2003. What difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing
‘emancipatory’ disability research. Disability and Society, 18: 3–17.
Blewitt, J. 2004. The Eden Project – making a connection. Museum and
Society, 2 (3): 175–189.
Bohata, K. and Reynolds, S. 2002. Engaging Communities in Learning.
Learning and Skills Development Agency for Wales, Dysg.
California State Parks 2003. All Visitors Welcome: Accessibility in State
Park Interpretive Programs and Facilities. Accessibility Section,
Acquisition and Development Division. Available from: http://www.
parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22651 [Accessed 4 December 2007].
Economou, M. 1999. Evaluation strategy for the re-development of the
displays and visitor facilities at the Museum and Art Gallery,
Kelvingrove. Available from: http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/research/
KelvinEval/KelvEvStrategyFinal.PDF [Accessed 7 August 2007].
Elliott, A., 2007. Developing accessible museum curriculum: the research,
development and validation of a handbook for museum professionals
and educators. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Kansas State University.
Goodall, B., Pottinger, G., Dixon, T. and Russell, H., 2003. Heritage
property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act. Property
Management, 22 (5): 345–357.
Goodley, O., 2001. Learning difficulties, the social model of disability and
impairment: challenging epistemologies. Disability and Society, 16 (2):
207–231.
Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Creaser, C., Sandell, R., Jones, C. and Woodham,
A., 2007. Inspiration, Identity, Learning: the Value of Museums
Second Study. RCMG. Available from: http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/
research/pub1100.html [Accessed 2 August 2009].
Greenhill, E., Dodd. J., Philips, M., Jones, C., Woodward, J. and O’Riain,
H., 2004. Inspiration, Identity, Learning: The Value of Museums.
Available from: http://www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/Reports/inspiration/
Inspiration,% 20Identity,%20Learning_Section%205.pdf [Accessed
17 December 2007].
Hartley, K., Millar, S., Edmonstone, A. and Whitaker, S., 2005. Not in
college, unemployed and not much fun: barriers to further and higher
education, employment and leisure and cultural opportunities, for
people with communication impairment in Scotland and Suggested
Solutions. Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists
Submission to Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Disabilities
Inquiry.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., O’Riain, H., Clarke, A. and Selfridge, L.,
2002. The Impact of the Dfes Museums and Galleries Programme.
Available from: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/27/1/learningthrou
ghcult.pdf [Accessed 6 August 2007].
Lines, A., Sims, D., Powell, R., Mann, P., Dartnall, L. and Spielhofer, T.
2003. Bigger Pictures, Broader Horizons: Widening Access yo Adult
Learning in the Arts and Cultural Sectors. National Foundation for
Educational Research, Report 394.
Majewski, J., n.d. Smithsonian Guideline to Accessible Exhibition Design.
Available from: http://www.si.edu/opa/accessibility/exdesign/start.htm
[Accessed 4 August 2009].
Mittler, P. 2000. Working towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts.
David Fulton, London.
Museums, Libraries, Archives (MLA) 2004. Inspiring Learning for All
Website. Available from: http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk/
[Accessed 17 December 2007].
Museum Learning Collaborative 2003. Museum Learning Collaborative:
homepage. Available from: http://www.museumlearning.com/
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) 2004. Evaluate Your

Organization’s Accessibility: The Arts and Humanities Accessibility
Checklist. Available from: http://www.nea.gov/resources/Accessibil
ity/Planning/Step6.pdf [Accessed 30 December 2007].
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2006. Final Report for
Signage and Way Finding for People with Learning Difficulties
Building Research Technical Report 6/2005. Building Research
Establishment for Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
Oliver, M. 1983. Social work With Disabled People. Macmillan-
Tavistock, London.
People First 1992. Letter to Mencap News, May.
―. 2006. People First: homepage. Available from: http://www.people
first.org.uk/whoarewe.html [Accessed 9 June 2006].
Playforth, S. 2003. Inclusive Information: Resource Disability Portfolio
Guide 6. Resource, London.
Rayner, A. 1998. Access in Mind: Towards the Inclusive Museum. Intact
(The Intellectual Access Trust), Edinburgh.
Rix, Jonathan 2005. Checking the list: can a model of Down syndrome
help us explore the intellectual accessibility of cultural and heritage
sites? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11 (4): 341–356.
―. 2006. Does it matter what we call them? Labelling people on the basis
of notions of intellect. Ethical Space: The International Journal of
Communication Ethics, 3 (4): 22–28.
Rix, Jonathan and Lowe, Ticky and Heritage Forum 2010. People with
learning difficulties in cultural and heritage sites. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 16 (3), May: 207- 224.
Ruiz, J. 2004. A Literature Review of the Evidence Base For Culture, the
Arts and Sport Policy –Scottish Executive Education Department. The
Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
Sandell, R. 2002. Museums, Galleries and Social Inclusion. A paper
prepared for the Heritage [unpublished].
Lottery Fund. Available from: http://legacy.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DF2
FCDA8-85B3-4A28-B68A-A59E2796951F/0/needs_inclusion.pdf
[Accessed 4 August 2009].
Simons, K. 1992. ‘Sticking Up For Yourself’: Self-Advocacy and People
with Learning Difficulties. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Traustadottir, R. 2001. Research with others. Reflections on presentation,

difference and othering. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research,
3 (2): 9–28.
United Kingdom’s Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC). The social model
of disability and emancipatory disability research – briefing document.
Available from: http://www.bcodp.org.uk/about/research.shtml
Walmsley J. and Johnson K. 2003. Inclusive Research with People with
Learning Difficulties: Past, Present and Future. Jessica Kingsley
Publisher, London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
* This paper is based on a recent publication, and reproduced here with updating
and minor changes, see Rix and Lowe 2010.
Dr. Jonathan Rix

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Language Studies,
Department of Education, Open University, Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA. U.K.
§ Jonathan Rix is a Senior Lecturer in inclusion, curriculum and learning at the

Open University (UK). His research interests focus upon: policies, practices and
language that facilitate inclusion within the mainstream; capturing diverse
perspectives; and developing models to facilitate our thinking about the form and
function of education.
APPENDIX 1
UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CITIES, LIST
September 2010: 227 Cities
A
Acre, Israel C
Alcalá de Henares, Spain Cáceres, Spain
Aleppo, Syrian Arab Rep. Cairo, Egypt
Algiers, Algeria Caltagirone, Italy
Andong, South Korea * Camaguey, Cuba
Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal Campeche, Mexico
Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala Capriate San Gervasio, Italy
Aranjuez, Spain Carcassonne, France
Arequipa, Peru Cartagena, Colombia
Assisi, Italy Catania, Italy
Avila, Spain Cesky Krumlov, Czech Rep.
Chengde, China
B Chingetti, Mauritania
Baeza, Spain Chorá of Patmos, Greece
Baku, Azerbaijan Cidade Velha, Cape Verde
Bam, Islamic Rep. of Iran Cienfuegos, Cuba
Bamberg, Germany Colonia de Sacramento,
Banska Stiavnica, Slovak Rep. Uruguay
Bardejov, Slovak Rep. Cordoba, Spain
Bath, United Kingdom Corfu, Greece
Beemster, Netherlands Coro, Venezuela
Berat, Albania Cracow, Poland
Bergen, Norway Cuenca, Spain
Berlin, Germany Cuenca, Ecuador
Bern, Switzerland Cuzco, Peru
Bhaktapur, Nepal
Biertan, Romania D
Bordeaux, France Dakar, Senegal
Bosra, Syrian Arab Rep. Damascus, Syrian Arab Rep.
Brasilia, Brazil Derbent, Russian Federation
Bremen, Germany Diamantina, Brazil
Brugge, Belgium Djenné, Rep. of Mali
Brussels, Belgium Dubrovnik, Croatia
Budapest, Hungary
Bukhara, Uzbekistan E
330 UNESCO World Heritage Cities, List, 2010
Echmiatsin, Armenia *
Edinburgh, United Kingdom K
Essaouira, Morrocco Kairouan, Tunisia
Évora, Portugal Kandy, Sri Lanka
Karlskrona, Sweden
F Kashusha, Democratic Republic
Ferrara, Italy of the Congo *
Fez, Morrocco Kathmandu, Nepal
Florence, Italy Kazan, Russian Federation
Khiva, Uzbekistan
G Kotor, Serbia-Montenegro
Galle, Sri Lanka Kutná Hora, Czech Rep.
Genoa, Italy Kyoto, Japon
George Town, Malaysia
Ghadames, Libyan Arab L
Jamahiriya L'viv, Ukraine
Ghardaïa, Algeria Lalitpur (Patan), Nepal
Gjirokastra, Albania Lamu, Kenya
Goiás, Brazil Le Havre, France
Goslar, Germany Le Locle, Switzerland
Granada, Spain Lijiang, China
Guanajuato, Mexico Lima, Peru
Guimarães, Portugal Liverpool, United Kingdom
Luang Prabang, Lao People's
H Democratic Republic
Hallstatt, Austria Lunenburg, Canada
Harar Jugol, Ethiopia Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Havana, Cuba Lübeck, Germany
Hoi An, Viet Nam Lyon, France
Holasovice, Czech Rep.
Hué, Viet Nam M
Macao, China
I Mantua, Italy
Ibiza, Spain Marrakesh, Morrocco
Island Mozambique, Matera, Italy
Mozambique Mazagan (El Jadida), Morrocco
Island of Saint-Louis, Senegal Meknes, Morrocco
Istanbul, Turkey Melaka, Malaysia
Mérida, Spain
J Mexico, Mexico
Jerusalen, Jerusalem Militello Val di Catania, Italy
Modena, Italy Quito, Ecuador

Modica, Italy
Mont-Saint-Michel, France R
Morelia, Mexico Ragusa, Italy
Moscow, Russian Federation Rauma, Finland
Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina Regensburg, Germany
Rhodes, Greece
N Riga, Latvia
Namur, Belgium * Rome, Italy
Nancy, France Røros, Norway
Naples, Italy
Nara, Japon S
Nessebar, Bulgaria Sabbioneta, Italy
Noto, Italy Safranbolu, Turkey
Novgorod, Russian Federation Salamanca, Spain
Salvador de Bahia, Brazil
O Salzburg, Austria
Oaxaca, Mexico Samarkand, Uzbekistan
Ohrid, Macedonia San Cristobal de La Laguna,
Olinda, Brazil Spain
Oporto, Portugal San Cruz de Mompox,
Ouro Preto, Brazil Colombia
Oviedo, Spain San Gimignano, Italy
San Marino, Republic of San
P Marino
Palazzolo Acreide, Italy San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
Panama, Panama Sana'a, Yemen
Paramaribo, Suriname Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Paris, France Santo Domingo, Dominican
Pienza, Italy Rep.
Ping Yao, China São Luis, Brazil
Potosi, Bolivia Scicli, Italy
Potsdam, Germany Segovia, Spain
Prague, Czech Rep. Shakhrisyabz, Uzbekistan
Provins, France Shibam, Yemen
Puebla, Mexico Shirakwa-Go and Gokayama,
Japon
Q Siena, Italy
Quebec, Canada Sighisoara, Romania
Quedlinburg, Germany Sintra, Portugal
Querétaro, Mexico Sousse, Tunisia
332 UNESCO World Heritage Cities, List, 2010
Split, Croatia Vatican City, Holy See

St George, Bermuda Venice, Italy
St. Petersburg, Russian Verona, Italy
Federation Vicenza, Italy
Stralsund, Germany Vienna, Austria
Strasbourg, France Vigan, Philippines
Sucre, Bolivia Ville de la Chaux-Fonds,
Syracuse, Italy Switzerland
Vilnius, Lithuania
T Visby, Sweden
Tallinn, Estonia
Tel Aviv, Israel W
Telc, Czech Rep. Warsaw, Poland
Tétouan, Morrocco Weimar, Germany
Timbuktu, Rep. of Mali Willemstad, Netherlands
Tlacotalpan, Mexico Antilles
Toledo, Spain Wismar, Germany
Torun, Poland
Trebic, Czech Rep. Y
Trinidad, Cuba Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
Trogir, Croatia
Tunis, Tunisia Z
Zabid, Yemen
U Zacatecas, Mexico
Ubeda, Spain Zamosc, Poland
Urbino, Italy Zanzibar, United Republic of
Tanzania
V
Valetta, Malta * Observer Member
Valparaíso, Chile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organisation of World Heritage Cities

http://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=Ovpm&func=liste&mm=1034
<retrieved on 23 September 2010>
APPENDIX 2
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF
THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session
Paris, 16 November 1972
Web: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage
The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization meeting in Paris from 17 October to 21 November
1972, at its seventeenth session,
Noting that the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly
threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but
also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the
situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction,
Considering that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural
or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all
the nations of the world,
Considering that protection of this heritage at the national level often
remains incomplete because of the scale of the resources which it requires and
of the insufficient economic, scientific, and technological resources of the
country where the property to be protected is situated,
Recalling that the Constitution of the Organization provides that it will
maintain, increase, and diffuse knowledge by assuring the conservation and
protection of the world's heritage, and recommending to the nations concerned
the necessary international conventions,
Considering that the existing international conventions, recommendations
and resolutions concerning cultural and natural property demonstrate the
importance, for all the peoples of the world, of safeguarding this unique and
irreplaceable property, to whatever people it may belong,
Considering that parts of the cultural or natural heritage are of outstanding
interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of
mankind as a whole,
Considering that, in view of the magnitude and gravity of the new dangers
threatening them, it is incumbent on the international community as a whole to
participate in the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding
universal value, by the granting of collective assistance which, although not
taking the place of action by the State concerned, will serve as an efficient
complement thereto,
334 UNESCO Convention for World Heritage 1972
Considering that it is essential for this purpose to adopt new provisions in

the form of a convention establishing an effective system of collective
protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value,
organized on a permanent basis and in accordance with modern scientific
methods,
Having decided, at its sixteenth session, that this question should be made
the subject of an international convention,
Adopts this sixteenth day of November 1972 this Convention.
I. Definition of the Cultural and Natural Heritage

Article 1
For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as
“cultural heritage”:
monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and
painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave
dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of history, art or science;
groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which,
because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape,
are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or
science;
sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas
including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from
the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as
“natural heritage”:
natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of
such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or
scientific point of view;
geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas
which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation;
natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.
Article 3
It is for each State Party to this Convention to identify and delineate the
different properties situated on its territory mentioned in Articles 1 and 2
above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTRIBUTORS
Di Giovine, Mr. Michael A.
Ph.D. candidate, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Chicago,
1126 E. 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. U.S.A.
Tel.: (USA/ Italy): (+001) 773 634 9786; Fax: (+001) 631 850 5789.
E-mail: digiovim@uchicago.edu
Fukunaga, Prof. Masaaki

[Managing Director: International Research Forum on SAARC, Tokyo, Japan].
Professor & Assoc. Director, Centre for South Asian Studies,
Gifu Women’s University, 80 Taromaru, Gifu-shi,
Gifu 501-2590. JAPAN.
Email: office@fukunaga.cc
Kumar, Mr Devesh
UGC Junior Research Fellow, Dept. of Geography, Faculty of Science,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi UP 221005. INDIA.
Email: devesh.sitamarhi@gmail.com
Kuroda, Prof. Ms. Nobu

Associate Professor, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences,
World Cultural Heritage Studies Center; University of Tsukuba,
1-1-1Tenno-dai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8574. JAPAN.
Tel. : +81-29-853-5992. E-mail: kuroda@heritage.tsukuba.ac.jp
Logan, Prof. William

UNESCO Chair of Heritage and Urbanism, & Alfred Deakin Professor
School of History, Heritage and Society, Faculty of Arts and Education
Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Victoria 3125. AUSTRALIA
Tel.: +613 3 9244 3911. Fax: +613 9251 7158.
Email : william.logan@deakin.edu.au
Mondini, Prof. Ms. Sara

Professor of Central Asian and Indian Art History, Department of Euro-
Asian Studies, Ca’Foscari University, Palazzo Cappello, 2035,
San Polo 30125 Venice. ITALY
For correspondence: # San Marco, 5457, IT- 30124 Venice. ITALY
Email: sara_mond@hotmail.com ; sara.mondini@unive.it
336 Contributors
Rana, Dr. Pravin S.

Lecturer in Tourism Management, Faculty of Arts,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005.
Res.: # New F - 7 Jodhpur Colony; Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.
Cell Ph.: (+091)-9336 913652. Email: psranabhu@gmail.com
Rix, Dr. Jonathan

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Language Studies,
Department of Education, Open University, Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA. U.K.
Email: j.r.m.rix@open.ac.uk
Singh, Prof. Rana P.B.

Professor of Cultural Geography & Heritage Studies,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005.
Res.: # New F - 7, Jodhpur Colony; Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA.
Cell Ph.: (+091)-9838 119474. Email: ranapbs@gmail.com
Vargas-Hernàndez, Prof. Josè G.

Profesor Investigador miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores
Departamento de Mercadotecnia y Negocios Internacionales,
Centro Universitario de Ciencias Económico Administrativas
Universidad de Guadalajara, Periférico Norte 799 Edificio G-306,
Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45100. MÉXICO.
Tel./ Fax: +52(33) 3770 3343 ext 5607. Email: jvargas2006@gmail.com
INDEX
A tourists’ guide 280,
Akbar 276 Kalachakra Puja 281,
Angkor, Cambodia 62-67, 84, memorandum 281-283
Khmer king 62, 63, 76, 77, Buddha, bhumisharsha mudra
bodhisattva-king 63, Angkor 258, 261, Buddhahood 256,
Wat Thailand 64, 2552nd birth anniversary 276,
repatriation 66, World mahotsava 281,
Heritage 74, restoration 75, Buddhist pilgrimage 263, sites
preservation 76 life-related sites 270, 271
Anima Mundi, Jung 91 Burra Chapter 33
Archaeological Survey of India C
ASI 98, 118, 121, 272, chronosequence 218
UNESCO recommendation City Development Plan CDP
107-108 120-121, 278, 280, 284
archetype 88 civic culture, civic sense 22
Ashoka 218, 256, 274, 276, communitas 60, 69, 73
axes mundi 61 cosmic order 6
B cultural capital 205, coexistence
being and belonging 92 2, memory 122
Bodh Gaya, India 255-284, cultural landscapes 1, 2, 3, 4, 25-
historical perspective 255- 29, 84, 85, 98, Schlüter’s
264, Mahabodhi temple 255- view 25-26, Sauer’s view 25-
256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 27, 28, 29, semiotic
263, 264, 271, 272, 274, 275, approach 28, three categories
276, 277, 278, 281, 283, 39-31
Hsüan-tsang 256, 259, culture of cultures 71
sacred landscape 257, D
Anagarika Dharmapala 259, Dalai Lama 272, 276, 284
Bodhi tree 260, 261, 277, Davis’s normal cycle 27, 28
280, World heritage criteria decontextualise 60,
260, Alexander Cunningham dhamma 259, 260, 275, 283
263, orientation and dharma 90-91, 123, 145
respondents’ background dharohara (heritagescapes) 8-9,
264-268, 271, insideness 68, 88-89, 90, 123,
265, adherents 266, wholeness 89, metaphysics
representation of heritage 90
268-277, Giant Buddha 273, E
planning 277- 281, World eco-ethics 46, Buddhist 145
Buddhist Centre 278, eco-tourism 108
338 Index
emancipatory research, inclusive Panchakroshi 237, water

research 307 ponds 237, I phase 234-237,
enshrinement 21 II phase 237-238, public
environmental ethics 91 awakening 248-249, 251,
Eurocentric thought 269 threatening issues 249,
existence-maintenance- alarming issues 249-250,
continuity 89, 91 sustainable development 251
F Heritage Forum 303-325, right
feng shui 3, 308, establishment 308-310,
fragmentary re-presentations 64 post-tour questionnaire 311,
G non-verbal communication
Gandhi, Mahatma 140 312, theoretical saturation
Ganga river 313, findings presentation
Ghat/ ghats 222, inscription 314-316, ways of working
story 243-248 317-319, provision design
globalisation and tourism 57-61, 319-321, recommendations
epistemic communities 58, 320, guidance 323
geo-cultural affinities 58, heritage resource 20, intrinsic
unity in diversity 60 nature model 21,
grease money 280 sustainability 22, geography
H 47, habitable-humane-
Hadiths 290 heritage 48, vision and
Heidegger’s metaphysics 90 guiding principles 106-108,
heritage awareness 265, 273- heritage strategy 106, primary
274, 275, meaning 268, concern 106-107,
attributes 268 recommendation India 107-
heritage contestation, religion 108
context 33-38, sacrosanct heritage tourism, cultural 108-
built forms 34-35, 111, urban planning 108,
memorialisation 35, master plans 108, 119, place
monumental ambivalence 36, identity 109,
dissonance 37, 55, holistic interconnections 109, WTO
approach 105 109-110, four steps 111,
heritage cultural resource 102- Golden rules 111,
104, conservation 104-106 Heritage zones, Varanasi 209-
heritage development plan 222, Riverfront Ghats 209-
Varanasi 233-238, Chet 211, 216, 225; Durgakund-
Singh Palace 236, Sankatmochan 208,
Dashasvamedh Ghat 235, Kamachcha-Bhelupura 208-
drawback 238, drastic 209, Kabir Math 212,
problems 235, halt station on Sarnath 212-213, other
heritagescape 213-214; India, heritagescapes 87-123,

development plan 234-238 ASI 98, 107-108, ethical
heritage: context 87, ecology 84, views 111-112, resource
94, 122-123, 126, religion conservation 112- 114,
88, spatial phenomenon 88, spatial elements 113,
temporal product 88, tourism tentative list 97, 98, World
4, 108-111, psychological heritage sites 93-96;
state 88, resourceful whole Intangible Cultural heritage
88, human condition 92, 98- 102, Ramman 98-99,
representation 92, Kutiyattam 99-100, Ramalila
repositories of knowledge 100-101, Vedic Chanting
92, ritual attachment 92, 101-102, CSIR 102;
landscape 93, spatial India, JNNURM 120-121, 126
elements 113, healing the INTACH 95, 112, 116, 119-120,
earth 122-123, meaningful 121, 233, 234, Varanasi 238-
future 123, meaning in Japan 244, 250
141 intangible cultural heritage 13-
heritage-scape 8, 57-80, 82, 84, 20, ICH Convention 13-14,
67-69, 82, 90, 91, 124, 15, 16, model 14, oral
landscape 67, being-and- traditions 15, performing arts
becoming 68, patrimony 68, 15, music 15, theatre 15,
90, monolithic conception social practices and rituals
68, centre-periphery model 15, knowledge and practices
69, insider-outsider 69, 17, traditional craftsmanship
universalising meaning 77- 17, Convention 18-19,
80, juxtaposition 77, 78 safeguarding 18
heritagescapes 1, 2, 3, 6, 82, 84, intangible resources 269
85, 206; India 87-123, J
ethical view 111-112 JNNURM 223-226, 234, 279,
hierophany 41 280, 284, reformation 223,
historic city, network model 23 focus 223-224
Historic urban landscape, HUL Jordon, sacred sites 287-302,
1, 5, universal value 12 ziyara 288-291, 293, 294,
historical geography 122 298, 300, 301, Wahhabi 291,
HUDCO 278, 279 299, restoration 291-298,
human coexistence 2 identity card 292, complex
human right 42-43, cultural right built 292, Jordon Valley 293,
43, religious minorities 294,
I Prophet Joshua 297, Mezar
ICOMOS 1, 2, 44, 83, 187 Osha 298
imagined community 46, 61, 67 K
340 Index
Khajuraho 114-116, 126, World 179, 180, 199, Minera

Heritage criteria 114-115, Xavier project 179-181, 182,
spatial view 115 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189,
Konark 116-120, map 117 190, 192, 193, 195, 198,
Kulturlandschaft 25 Wall Street 180, social
L movement 180-181,
landscape and memory 47 Government 181, conflict
Landschaftskunde 25 181-186, cooperation events
learning difficulties, cultural 186-198, World heritage site
heritage 303-328, guidelines 187, Agrarian Tribune 193,
for heritage 303-306, 194, community
disabilities 304, 326, best participation 200-201
practice 305, access monuments and mediation 61-
background 306, 62, authenticity 62,
marginalisation 307, self- monumentality 62,
reflective 307, 308, imaginable 61
arranging visits 309, multiplicity, Indian context 268-
recording experience 310- 269
311, representation 312, N
meaningfulness 313, findings Nalanda 270
314-316, ways of working O
317-319 Oriental ethics 91
lifeways 90, 91, 144 Our Common Future 110-111
Light of Asia 283 P
Linkages and past 20-25, performative dimensions 24
commodification 20, person-place-marker 66
Lux ex Oriente 65 physicality 279,
M pilgrimage 82, 85, 88, texts 66,
Marrakech root 14 routes 142, 219
mass awakening 44 place identity 43-44
MDG, Millennium Development place-making 20, 21, 61, 62,
Goals 40, place-marketing 45
mediascape 57 Plato’s Atlantis 64
México, cultural heritage of post-colonialism 46
Cerro de San Pedro 173-204, pressures 214, 221, 222, 226,
localisation 174-176, 231, 247, 249
historical antecedents 176- Q
179, legal background 179, Quran, the Holy 287, 288, 290,
Ejidatarios 173, 179, 186, 293, 300
188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, R
196, 197, 199, 201, NAFTA Ramalila 220
reproducible re-presentation 66 (1976, 2009) 153, 154,

resource conservation 104- , farmland 157, forest 157,
basic themes 104, paddy fields 158, water
communication issues 104- system 159, stone walls 159-
105, environmental felicity 160, transition of landscape
105, methodology 105, value 160, residents’ consciousness
judgement 105, 165, landscape plan 168,
ritual process, narrative 72-77 current movement 168-169,
S tangible element 169
sacralisation 21 Shravasti 270
sacred place 114 SNS, Sacred Natural Sites 38-
sanatana 89, dharma 91 42, IUCN 38, heritage value
-scape, cloud- 67, tree- 67, 39, sustainable lifestyles 39,
piano- 67, life- 67, ecosystem management 39,
Ghatscape 235, Façade 235 connectiveness 40,
seduction of history 272, conservation management
self-realisation 87, 40, constituent values 41
Shirakawa-gō, Japan 129-150, spirit of place 93
151-172, Gassho-style spirituality/ spiritual landscape
houses 129-131, 133, 139, 2, 37, 42, healing 270
151, 153, 155-156, non- splendid opportunity 283
Gassho-style houses 156- sui generis 70
157, heritage tourism 136- sustainability and heritage 22,
140, 166-169, traditional 23, 87, 92, 127
system, personality of place T
129-136, location of villages Tagore, Rabindranath 140
136, story of experienced Thoreau, Henry D. 141
person 140-141, concern for tourist gaze 60, 84, 85
future 141-144, strategies for Transnationality 283
future 142, vision 144-146, U
rules for visitors 145, meisho UN Conference on Tourism &
133, minshuku 133, WH travel 58-59
Listing 134, 139, 141, 152, UNDESD 5
153, 165, WH area 135, UNESCO Convention 1, 9-13,
buffer zones 136, landscape 29, 85, heritage criteria 10-
protection 143, cultural 11, meaning 11, value 11,
landscape 151-169, Intangible Cultural Heritage
conservation 151-152, 160- 98,
166, conservation history UNESCO cultural heritage
161-162, conservation criteria 215-216, 225, 248,
system 162-164, photographs 251
342 Index
UNESCO views cultural JNNURM and CDP 223-

landscape 29-33, WH 226, 251, environmental
Committee 29, personality deterioration 226, heritage
32, deterioration 226-233, peri-
UNESCO WHS 266, 267, 275, urban 251
team visit 281, Varanasi, WHL criteria 216-
UNESCO World Heritage 220; human creative genius
criteria 73, 78, outstanding 216-217, human values in
universal value 74, map 78, architecture 217, cultural
127, sites 87, 187 tradition 217-218,
unity in diversity, heritage-scape architectural ensemble 218,
69-72, 77, 78, 80, identity traditional habitat 218, living
69, constitution 70, re- tradition- intangible 219,
appropriation 70, natural phenomena 219,
monumentality 70, world aesthetic importance 219-
system 70, cultural diversity 220, environmental theatre
72 220
Urlandschaft 25 Vedic texts 89
V W
Varanasi, India, Master plan & World Heritage Cities List 329-
heritage zones 205- 216: 332.
Urban Agglomeration 206, World Heritage Convention/
Development Authority 206, Committee 1, 2, 7, 8, 44, 61,
215, 234, Development 74, 78.
Region 206, 207, land use World Heritage WHL List, 7,
changes 207, Development 30, 31, 98, 114, 129,
Plan 208, Master Plan 2001- universal value 70, site 137,
11 214-215, 222, 226, 243, 139, 141, 166.
247, Banarasian 217, World Tourism Organisation,
Banaras Gharana 219, Old UN 59, 109.
city and riverfront 220-223, World War II 58.
------------------------------------------------------
THE EDITOR
RANA P. B. SINGH (b. 15 December 1950), PhD (1974), Professor of Cultural
Geography & Heritage Studies at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (India), has
been involved in studying, performing and promoting the heritage planning, sacred
geography, pilgrimage studies, Eco-tourism and development in the Varanasi
region for over last over three decades as consultant, project director, collaborator
and organiser. He has been Visiting Professor of Geography at Virginia Tech
(USA), Japan Foundation Scientist at Okayama, Indo-Swedish Visiting Professor
at Karlstad, Ron Lister lecturer at University of Otago, NZ, Linnaus-Palme
Visiting Professor at Karlstad University, and Gothenburg University (Sweden),
and Indo-Japanese Exchange Professor at Gifu University, Japan. As visiting
scholar he gave lectures and seminars at many universities in Australia, Austria,
Belgium, China PR, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, USA (also Hawaii), and USSR. He is a Member, UNESCO
Network of Indian Cities of Living Heritage, and also a South Asian representative
to the IGU initiative on ‘Culture and Civilisation to Human Development’
(CCHD), since 2005. He is honoured being an academic Fellow of the Accademia
Ambrosiana Milan, Italy (F.A.A.I.), the first one from South Asia, and Member,
A.A. Istituzione del Comitato Scientifico (Milan, Italy), 2010-2012.
His publications include 13 monographs, 26 books, and over 190 research
papers, including articles in reputed journals like GeoJournal, Architecture &
Behaviour, Erdkunde, Geoscience & Man, Pennsylvania Geographer, The Ley
Hunter, Place, and also in series from Routledge, Ashgate, Longman, Oxford, and
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, CSP UK. His notable publications include The
Spirit and Power of Place (1994), Banaras Region (2002, 2nd ed. 2006, with P.S.
Rana), Where the Buddha Walked (2003, 2nd ed. 2009), Banaras, the Heritage City
of India (2009). He is also the Series editor of the ‘Planet Earth & Cultural
Understanding Series’, and published eight volumes in this series: Uprooting
Geographic Thoughts in India (2009 CSP UK), Geographical Thoughts in India:
Snapshots and Vision for the 21st Century (2009 CSP UK), Banaras, Making of
India’s Heritage City (2009 CSP UK), Cosmic Order and Cultural Astronomy:
Sacred Cities of India (2009 CSP UK), Sacred Geography of Goddesses in South
Asia (2010 CSP UK), Heritagescape and Cultural Landscapes (2010, Shubhi,
New Delhi), Sacredscapes and Pilgrimage Systems (2010, Shubhi, New Delhi),
and Holy Places & Pilgrimages: Essays on India (2010, Shubhi, New Delhi).
Contact address:
Res.: # New F - 7, Jodhpur Colony; Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, UP 221005. INDIA
Tel: (+091)-542-2575843 (Res.); (+091)-542-6701387 (chamber).
Cell: (+091-0)-9838 119474. E-mail: ranapbs@gmail.com

06 PeCu Heritagescapes - Cul Sys BK, 2 Oct 10 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 PeCu Heritagescapes - Cul Sys BK, 2 Oct 10 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heritagescapes

and Cultural Landscapes

1. Uprooting Geographic Thoughts in India: Toward Ecology and

2. Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Vision for the

enriched with metaphysics, literature, lifeworld, village life, landscape,

3. Banaras: Making of India’s Heritage City.

4. Cosmic Order and Cultural Astronomy: Sacred Cities of India.

5. Sacred Geography of Goddesses in South Asia.

6. Heritagescapes and Cultural Landscapes.

7. Sacredscapes and Pilgrimage Systems.

8. Holy Places and Pilgrimages: Essays on India

Sponsored by the ‘Society of Heritage Planning & Environmental Health’

Copyright © 2010 by Rana P.B. Singh, and the contributors

This book first published on 2 October 2010

Cover image: Taj Mahal at the dawn

Printed in India by Aegean offset Printer, Noida, UP

“These [essays] promise to make a valuable contribution to the evolution

“Professor Rana P. B. Singh accompanies us on an intriguing tour of case-

“This is a valuable and timely collection. It includes a range of case

“This well-selected collection of essays is an important contribution to

“As the twenty-first century develops, the business of defining

“This collection of ten essays draws together a range of interesting

“This collection of essays is a most welcome addition to the burgeoning

“Under the editorship of Professor Rana P.B. Singh, a passionate and

“This is a challenging and helpful collection of papers which collectively

VIEWS ON THE BOOK ....................................................................vii

Chapter 4 ...................................................................................... 129

Chapter 5 ...................................................................................... 151

Chapter 6 ..................................................................................... 173

Chapter 7 ...................................................................................... 205

Chapter 8 ..................................................................................... 255

Chapter 9 ..................................................................................... 287

Chapter 10 ................................................................................... 303

Appendix 1 ................................................................................... 329

Appendix 2 ................................................................................... 333

The CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................................... 335

3.1. UNESCO World Heritage Properties; January 2010 ........................ 94

4.1. Shirakawa-Mura: Distribution of Cultural Heritage areas ............... 136

8.1. Bodh Gaya. Respondents’ Basic information .................................. 266

10.1a. Findings and recommendations of the Heritage Forum ............... 315

1.1. Referring the Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH, UNESCO 2003..... 14

2.1. Scale model of Angkor Wat in Bangkok .......................................... 64

3.1. India: Unesco World Heritage sites, January 2010 ........................... 96

4.1. Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama Heritage sites, Japan ...................... 130

5.1. Ogimachi Village in 1976 ............................................................... 154

6.1. Location of Cerro de San Pedro, México ........................................ 175

7.1. Varanasi, Development Region: Development Plan, 2011-2021 .... 207

9.1. Complex dedicated to Mu’adh b. Jabal ........................................... 294

10.1. The background to the access to heritage project ......................... 306

supported me by following editorial instructions and making changes in

This strategy has not been entirely successful as can be seen by

Heritage List. European countries have been quick to nominate cultural

by the terms heritagescape, cultural landscape, sacredscape and historic

In other words, through careful management, cultural landscape

― Prof. WILLIAM S. LOGAN

Heritagescapes & Cultural Landscapes:

a: 86-87). As a representation of the memories and glories of the past a

2. Towards Conceptualising Heritage: UNESCO

It is realised that taking in view of population pressure, cultural historical

viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s

The enlisting of a ‘property’ as defined above, in UNESCO’s World

system of selecting and managing sites; that is why it is considered the

3. Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH: the perspective