DOI
https://doi.org/10.7275/2jrf-ar45
Biographical Information // Informations biographiques
Dr. Junjie Su PhD(Deakin, Australia), Associate Professor at Cultural Development Institute, Yunnan University, China, Expert Member of the International Committee on ICH of ICOMOS. Dr. Su holds M.A. in Cultural Heritage and Museology (Fudan, China) and B.S. in Cultural Heritage Conservation (XJTU, China). His research interests concern ICH, protection and use of heritage, heritage tourism, cultural industries, World Heritage, Critical Heritage Studies, Chinese heritage management.
Mohamed Badry Kamel Basuny Amer is a Ph.D. candidate in Heritage and Museum Studies at FTH, HU. He is a founder of "HeritageForAll" initiative. He has an extensive background in the field of heritage management and marketing. He holds M.A. in HCSM from Helwan Uni. and BTU Cottbus (2015); a Guidance Diploma, FTH, HU (2011); and a B.A. in History, Faculty of Arts – Cairo Uni. (2009),. He held numerous internships with UNESCO Cairo office & GoUNESCO.
Xuanlin Liu holds M.Phil. in Archaeology at University of Cambridge and M.S. in Sustainable Heritage at UCL, UK, and she is now a PhD Candidate in Archaeology at the University of York, UK. She worked as an Intern in Cultural Unit at Bangkok Office, UNESCO in 2018. Ms Liu’s is a member of ICOMOS China and her research concerns ICH, living heritage, Critical Heritage Studies, Inner Mongolian heritage and World Heritage.
Keywords
Cultural landscapes, rural heritage, intangible cultural heritage (ICH), living heritage, rural heritage, continuity, commodification, musealization, China, Egypt
Abstract // Résumé
Rural areas is the place where rural intangible heritage is found rich and diverse, whereas vulnerable to fast social, cultural, political and economic transformations, in particular in developing and underdeveloped areas. Although the concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) has been established in UNESCO and accepted by many ICH Convention signatories, it has not been consistently adopted and implemented from international level to local level without divergencies. An analysis of rural ICH is to analyse how rural traditional culture, memories and past are used by different stakeholders for current society. (Re)defining rural ICH is a way to both rethink and develop the existing concepts of cultural heritage held by national and institutional discourses. This panel, which investigates three cases in China and Egypt, will provide evidence and theoretical rethought on the making and use of the concept of ICH in developing countries where the tangible heritage discourses have been well established and the intangible heritage discourse is polemical. These three papers will present diverse and emerging uses and discourses of ICH in terms of conservation, exhibition, commodification, education and musealisation from various perspectives.
In particular, this panel will address these issues:
1. How is ICH, or intangible heritage, used in rural areas in the fields of heritage tourism, museum, cultural industries, community development and other purposes?
2. How tourists, (non)-local visitors and other stakeholders contribute to the making of ICH through their cultural practices?
3. How can tangible and intangible heritage be understood and managed in an integrated/holistic approach such as the living heritage approach?
4. Are existing tangible-centred mechanism and managerial tools still useful for rural ICH which relates to local community, tangible elements and the landscape? If not, what improvements should be made?
Bibliographic References // Références Bibliographiques
UNESCO: Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH, 2003.
Smith, L: Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge, 2006
Smith, L and Akagawa, N (eds): Intangible Heritage, London: Routledge, 2009.
Akagawa, N and Smith, L (eds): Safeguarding Intangible Heritage: Practices and Politics, London: Routledge, 2018.
Poulios, I: The Past in the Present: A Living Heritage Approach, London: Ubiquity Press, 2014.
Included in
Cultural Resource Management and Policy Analysis Commons, Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons, Landscape Architecture Commons, Museum Studies Commons, Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons
Panel 5 Rural Intangible Cultural Heritage
Rural areas is the place where rural intangible heritage is found rich and diverse, whereas vulnerable to fast social, cultural, political and economic transformations, in particular in developing and underdeveloped areas. Although the concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) has been established in UNESCO and accepted by many ICH Convention signatories, it has not been consistently adopted and implemented from international level to local level without divergencies. An analysis of rural ICH is to analyse how rural traditional culture, memories and past are used by different stakeholders for current society. (Re)defining rural ICH is a way to both rethink and develop the existing concepts of cultural heritage held by national and institutional discourses. This panel, which investigates three cases in China and Egypt, will provide evidence and theoretical rethought on the making and use of the concept of ICH in developing countries where the tangible heritage discourses have been well established and the intangible heritage discourse is polemical. These three papers will present diverse and emerging uses and discourses of ICH in terms of conservation, exhibition, commodification, education and musealisation from various perspectives.
In particular, this panel will address these issues:
1. How is ICH, or intangible heritage, used in rural areas in the fields of heritage tourism, museum, cultural industries, community development and other purposes?
2. How tourists, (non)-local visitors and other stakeholders contribute to the making of ICH through their cultural practices?
3. How can tangible and intangible heritage be understood and managed in an integrated/holistic approach such as the living heritage approach?
4. Are existing tangible-centred mechanism and managerial tools still useful for rural ICH which relates to local community, tangible elements and the landscape? If not, what improvements should be made?