contested townscapes - the walled city as world heritage (oliver creighton)

8/13/2019 Contested Townscapes - The Walled City as World Heritage (Oliver Creighton)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/contested-townscapes-the-walled-city-as-world-heritage-oliver-creighton 1/17

Contested Townscapes: The Walled City as World HeritageAuthor(s): Oliver CreightonReviewed work(s):Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 39, No. 3, The Archaeology of World Heritage (Sep., 2007),pp. 339-354Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026204 .

Accessed: 20/12/2011 04:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026204?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026204?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis



Contested townscapes: the walled cityas world heritage

OliverCreighton

Abstract

Walled owns nd cities eaturerominentlyn the ist f UNESCO WorldHeritage ites.But,whilefundamentaluiding rincipleftheWHS list s thatpropertiesredesignated or hebenefitfall,thesehistoric alled ommunitiesan beconceptualizeds a particularlydissonant' orm fheritagewhere hepast s contested rdisputedn thepresent.Many uchplaceshaveviolent istoriesnd have

changed olitical r national llegiancenthepast.Moreover, itywalls,while utwardlymbracingpopulations, lso inevitablyerveto exclude or marginalize ther ocial groups.The identities fwalledheritageities remulti-layerednd far romtatic, eing usceptibleore-invention.ensionsandcontradictionsre also apparentnthefact hatheritage genciesworknnational ontexts n the

managementf sites that are designated s an internationalesource, nd the agendasof these

organizationsan meanthat ertain eriods r nterpretationsfthepastareprioritizedboveothers.All these actors resentonsiderablehallenges o thoseresponsibleor onservingndresearching

heritageites hat re simultaneouslyiving ommunities.gainst hisbackground,hepracticalitiesand politics fdesignatingnd delineating istoricwalled communitiess WorldHeritage ites rereviewed,s arestrategiesormanaginghe rchaeological esource. hepaperdraws nexamples fwalled communitiesnscribed s UNESCO WorldHeritageSites,with a particular mphasison

Europe,NorthAfrica nd theMiddleEast.Keysites ncludeAcre Israel),Avila Spain),Carcassonne

(France),Conwy UnitedKingdom),DubrovnikCroatia)and Jerusalem.

Keywords

Walledtown;dissonantheritage;UNESCO WorldHeritage ite.

Introduction

Walledurban settlementsepresent quintessentialorm f WorldHeritage ite WHS):'gemtowns' uchas Carcassonne, oledo and Valettafeature rominentlyn a UNESCOlistthat s bothdominated y tangible'heritagend displays n undeniable urocentricbias.Thispaperexamines riticallyhe oncept f dissonant eritage' that s,tension nd

D RoutledqeWorldArchaeology Vol. 39(3): 339-354 TheArchaeology f WorldHeritage

l\ Tayior Franciscroupoutledqe © 2007 Taylor Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/ 470- 1375 online

DOI: 10.1080/00438240701464822



340 OliverCr ightn

discordbetweenpopulations nd theirheritage: unbridge nd Ashworth 996),usinghistoricwalled towns and citieson the WHS list as a case study.While a fundamental

guiding rinciple f theUNESCO list s that sites re designated orthe benefitf all'(although ot nterpretediterally),t s arguedhere hat heparticular hysical nd socialcharacteristicsf historicwalled urban communities reateunusuallyhighpotential orthepast to becomecontested r disputed n thepresentn someway.Contestationan

operate at various scales and between differentnterestgroups - includinghost

communities,ourists,rchaeologistsndheritage gencies and creates thical ilemmasthat compound the considerablepractical challengesof conserving, reservingnd

researchinghemulti-layeredastsof theseplaces.A growing odyof literatures addressing he histories nd archaeologies f historic

walledcommunities, hether ocused n particularountriesfortheUK, seeCreightonand Higham2005), regions forNorthAfrica, ee Slyomovics 001), continentsforEurope, see Perbellini 000) or viewing he phenomenonglobally Tracy 2000). The

legaciesforpresent opulations nd other takeholders fhaving oengagewith walled

heritagehat an be divisive nd contentious emain elativelyittle tudied, owever,nd

under-acknowledgedn archaeologicaldiscourse see Bruce and Creighton 006). Whilecase studies f thedisputed eritagesf ndividualwalledWHS citieshave beendeveloped(e.g. forQuebec,see Evans 2002; forJerusalem, bu El-Haj 2002), thispaperadoptsamorebroadlybasedand comparative pproachthat ttemptso identify ider ssues nddraw out general essons.Addressing n area of interface etweenarchaeology nd

heritagetudies,t also extends eyond he builtheritage fcitywalls and the settlements

they ncircle o acknowledgemore ntangible imensions o thisheritage. rbanwalls are

also mental constructs nd criticalcomponentsof the multi-layeredelf-images fcommunities,nd it is perfectlyegitimate o consider some urban communities s

psychologically alled evenwhere hephysicalfabric f defences as been removed r

compromisedn someway.

Walledheritages worldheritage

The phenomenon fthe walledheritage ity s examinedherewith particular ocuson

Europe, heMiddle East andNorthAfricaFig. 1;for epresentativelansseeFig.2). It isalso restrictedo historic rbansites nscribed s UNESCO

WorldHeritageSites thatpersist s living ommunities. lobally, hisdistinctiveroupof sites to which hemostrecentddition stheEthiopian ortifiedesert ity fHararJugol 2006)- compriseswellover100 of the660cultural ropertiesn theUNESCO list.Moreover, or ountries uchas Albania,Morocco and Yemen,walled townsrepresentheonlycategory fWHS site

represented.rucially,hemonumentalityfupstandingemains s a strongereasonforthe nclusion fa siteon the ist han rchaeological otential rsignificance.t isdifficultto envisage arthworkomplexes ainingWHS status, or nstance,while he istremainssite-centrict theexpenseofwider andscapesand, significantlyor thesubjectof this

paper,thehinterlandsnd settingsfsettlementsndmonuments.In terms f the riterianderwhich hesewalled owns re udgedas having outstanding

universal alue',all have ncommon nscriptionnderUNESCO's criterioniv),meaning



Contestedownscapes 341

Figure Walledtowns nd cities nscribed s WorldHeritage ites nEurope,NorthAfrica nd theMiddle East. Cities are labelledalongside heyearof theirnscriptionn to the UNESCO World

Heritage ite List.



342 OliverCr ightn

Figure Plans and topographies f selectedwalled cities n the UNESCO WorldHeritage ite ist

(source:based on ICOMOS 1985a;Amiel2000; Hopkinson2000; Dumper2002; Creighton nd

Higham2005,with dditions).



Contestedownsapes 343

that each constitutesan outstanding xampleof a typeof building, rchitectural r

technologicalnsemble r landscapewhich llustratesa) significanttage(s)in human

history'UNESCO 2005: 20). Variations re apparent, owever.A minorityf siteshasbeen nscribedlsopartly ecause of theirintangible' eritageandthesemeet riterioni):'humancreative enius', s withValetta's inkto theOrderof theKnights f St John f

Jerusalem).Other sites additionallymeet criterion iii) (and 'exhibit an importantinterchangef humanvalues',where he walled ensemble emonstratesiverse ultural

influences,.g. Graz; L'viv) and/or iv) ('exceptional estimonyo a cultural radition',where he own mbodies single ocial, thnic rreligiousnfluence,.g.AvilaorShibam).Finally, hephysical abric fwallsvaries onsiderablyn ts mportanceo the nclusion f

sites, rom ases wherewalledheritages ntegraloWHS statuse.g. HistoricWalledTownofCuenca', Old Cityof Jerusalemnd itsWalls') to placeswherewalls arevestigialndincidentalo inscriptione.g.Bath,Edinburgh, alzburg).

Ifheritages, in essence, 'personal ffair'Tunbridge nd Ashworth 996:70), then

potential ordissonance s arguably reatern the case of theWHS given hevariety fscalesat which elationshipsetween takeholdersndheritage perate, anging rom helocalto theglobal.A critical ointhere sanunderlyingncongruityt thevery ore of theWHS inscription rocess.Whileproperties re ostensiblynscribed or the benefit f

humanityregardlessf where hey resituated), hey renominated or nclusion otbyUNESCO, butbythegovernmentsfsponsoringtates, nd it s consequently uiteclearthat he volvingWHS list s used as a tool for hapingnational dentitiesseevan der Aa

2005). Also potentiallyontestables theprinciple hat t is thegovernmentsurrentlycontrollingerritoriesithinwhich ropertiesiethathavethedominant laimwith egard

to nomination, espitethefluidnatureof state-makingn the late twentiethnd earlytwenty-firstenturies. he exemplars Jerusalem thearchetypalcontested ity' Klein2001).The city's olitical tatushavingbeen uncertain ince1967,JerusalemsuniqueontheUNESCO list nnotbeing isted nder 'host'country;twas inscribedlongwith tswalls n 1981following (muchdisputed) roposalfromJordan, espiteying eyond heborders f thesponsoringtate UNESCO 1981:6-15).

Theprocesses hrough hichwalledtowns nd citieshave been added to theUNESCOlist also betray hanging ensibilitiesegardingheperceptionnd definition f World

Heritage'.Manyweredesignated elativelyarlynthehistoryf the ist nd, nEuropeat

least,theyhave fallen out of favouras a 'brand' of WHS. The case of Carcassonne

(Plate 1)is instructive.he CiteMedievalwas denied

nscriptions a WHS in 1985 not

only s Europeanwalledtowns lready eatured eavily n the ist, ut because Viollet-le-Duc's internationallyamousrestorationsf the nineteenthentury ere udgedto have

compromisedhe authenticity'f ts historic abricICOMOS 1996:30). UNESCO's re-

appraisalof thepropertylevenyears ater bserved he 1994Nara declaration's ssertionthat uthenticityhouldnot be udgedon fixed riteria ut within he cultural ontext owhich a sitebelongs ICOMOS 1994). Accordingly, arcassonne's nscriptionn 1997

portrayedhecity'srestorationwhichplayedan iconic role in theemerging uropeanheritagemovement: ee Ashworth nd Howard 1999: 38) somewhatdifferently.atherthancompromisinghe site'shistoricntegrity,he massive restorations ere viewed sanother istinctiveayer n its cultural tratigraphya case of theheritage ndustrytself

becoming eritage.



344 OliverCr ightn

Plate 1 Thewalled ity fCarcassonne, howing les ices' the onebetween he nner nd outer itywalls cleared of occupationduringrestorationn the nineteenth nd early twentiethentury(photograph: . Creighton).

Inclusion and exclusion

The management f citywalls as heritage ites poses particular hallengesas theyconstitute niquely civic'monuments,n terms f both theirpast histories nd (veryoften)theirpresent-daytatus. As much as walls originally ncircledpopulationsforreasons of defence, heirroles as symbolsof commercial dvantage, ndividualitynd

separateness ave been moreenduring. he Renaissance scholar Leon BattistaAlberticonsidered citywithout wall naked' 1986:72): city efences avealwaysdefined heircommunitiesnan iconic s well s a physical ense.But,whilehistoricallyitywallsmight

be thoughtf as unambiguousmarkers ftheurban imits, efining here he ountrysidestopped nd thetownscape tarted,his ppearancecan be illusory. itygatesrepresentnotsimply arriers ut transitionalpacesbetween ifferentpheres,within nd without

(for xample, ee Ratte 1999)on thegatesof Florence ndSiena).The urban dgewas nota linemarked igidlynstonebuta liminal one ofthe ownscape haracterizedy specificsocialor ethnic roups, ctivities nd architectureCreightonnd Higham2005: 32-50).The critical ointhere s thaturbanwallsdivided s well as united ommunitiesand in

many ases continue o do so), servingo create rexacerbate ractureddentities.n these

senses,while he mageof thewalledcitymight e outwardlye one ofenclosure,ohesionandprivilege,qually mportantut underestimateds the nduringoleof walledheritageinexcludings well s embracing opulations nd inmediationwith heworldbeyond he

urban area.




Thewalls ofDerry/Londonderrynota WHS) arethevery mbodiment f thenotion f

citydefences s an arena for ontestation.n this ase it is not thephysical abric f the

wallsthat s disputed o much as rituals ssociated with he celebration f theirmartialpast- in particular esistance o thesiegeof 1689- as an expression ftheheritage fUnionism see MacGiolla Chriost 1996; Kelly 2001). In the late twentieth nd earlytwenty-firstentury,hisheritages notonlycommemoratedhrough he annual marcharoundthe stillLondon-owned)walls but also contestedhrough hallenges o the routeof theparadeand ultimatelynthe courts f Northern relandoverthe name of thecity.

The potentially ivisive onsequences fwalledheritage s a symbol fpartitionre

againexemplifiedyJerusalemPlate 2). In thewake ofthecity's ccupation n the 1967Arab-Israeliwar, former sraeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurionadvocated the

dismantlingf thewalls to eradicate he ong-standingivision hey mbodied Abu El-

Haj 2002: 178-9).Walls could be attacked s symbols f a squalidor unpopular ntiqueheritagewell nto thetwentiethentury. or example, argesections f the monumental

claywalls of thedesert ityof Sana'a weredismantled y the local population n theimmediateftermathf the 1962Yemeni revolution. he destructionymbolized breakwith heauthoritynd isolationoftheprevious mamicregime nd, in the voice of one

resident, erved to break the 'handcuffs' f the past (Al-Sallal 2004: 99). Withina

generation, NESCO's development lan for heWHS included he reconstitutionf ts

Plate2 The citywalls of Jerusalem. utwardly ating o the sixteenthentury utfollowingmuchthe same ine as an earlier ircuit,he walls have a

particularlyomplexnd multi-layereddentity

(photograph: . Barry).



346 OliverCr ightn

walls Lewcock1986:116).Yet a salutaryesson ofthedangers foversimplifyingrban

society's ttitudes o walledheritagesprovided ythecomplexityf ocal reactions fter

thedismantlingf theBerlinWall in 1989,which ncluded wallnostalgia' inEast as wellas WestBerlin) nrecognitionf ts ost benefitsBaker1993:730-1).Attitudes o walled

heritagean also turn ull irclenremarkablyhort eriods ftime. he WHS ofBeijing'sForbiddenCityrepresentshe focalpointof the former alled mperialCity,whichwasuntil the 1950s the world's largestand best-preserved istoric walled community,comprisinghierarchicalrrangementf vast nner nd outer ircuitsround he mperialpalace ICOMOS 1986).But,while irtuallyhe ntirewalled nsemblewas torn own as a

state-sponsoredradication f an evocative ymbol fthe Old China' within ittlemorethan decade,the wenty-firstenturyswitnessingherebuildingnd restorationfpartsof thedemolished ircuitsand eventheirncorporation ithin randedheritage arks) nadvance of the 2008 OlympicGames (see Shatzman Steinhardt 000: 422; Chang and

Halliday2005: 542).While the heritage ndustrymightportraywalled townsas unified elebrations f

nationalheritage, he histories f theseplaces frequentlyemonstrate ivisionwithin

society.Many circuitswere built not as genuine ommunalenterprisesut to control

populationsnsomeway.This s true, or nstance, fmanywalledheritageowns lantedas appendages o castles, s withEdward Fs bastides nNorthWales. In a very ifferentcultural ontext,while ntraditionalslamichistory alled cities refrequentlyortrayedas lying n frontierones- in particular etween slamic ands (dar al-Islam)and non-Islamic erritoriesdar al-harb) the ndividual istories f these laces frequentlyonfirm

walling gainst nternal hreatswithin ociety Bloom 2000: 221). Indeed, n the case of

many slamicwalledcities henotion fa historicingle corporate dentity's often alse.Wemightvenquestionwhether heir ortrayal ytheheritagendustrys unified ntitiesis entirelyppropriateonsideringhat,historically, edieval slamicurbanplacestendedto lack thecorporate nstitutionsnd self-identitiesf those n the ChristianWest,the

majorwalledcities eing atherollections fcomposite nitsLassner2000: 123-30).Theintra-muralatesand wallsthatdefinedhesehistoric uarterswere ritical o a sense of

placethatmaybe lostthroughnterventionndtheir emoval n theface ofdevelopment,as thecases ofTunis and Cairo exemplifysee Akbar 1988: 165-72).

Typically ocated on the edges of, or immediately eyond,enclosedzones, Jewish

quarters epresentnotherpotentiallyontestable spectof theheritage f walled cities

(Ashworth 997; see also Silberman 005: 96-7). The Jewish eritage f a city uch asCordoba,where a Juderia uarter clusteredharacteristicallynthe hadow of the itywalls - symbolizes population dispossessed n the fifteenthentury,s relativelyuncontroversialCaceres, Evora and Provinsare comparablecases of walled towns

preservingangibleJewishuarters), ut other ases are ess so. For example, conditionofthe nscriptionfSana'a as a WHS in 1986was that heJewishuarter ucked ntothesouth-westartof the itywallsandinitiallyxcluded rom heproposalwasencompassedwithin hedesignated one, the citywalls otherwise nclosing sacredspace with an

exceptionally igh density fmosquesand recognized s a keycentre or thespreadofIslamfromhe eventhenturyICOMOS 1985b:3). Bardejovwassimilarlynscribed iththerecommendationhat hedesignatedrea focused n thewalledcitywas expanded o

embracethe smallJewish istrict,ncluding ynagogue nd baths (mitve), utside the




fifteenth-centuryalls ICOMOS 2000: 133). ssues of dissonance ome nto harper ocusinsuch Central ndEasternEuropeanWHS cities, ue to thetwentieth-centuryistoryf

their ewish ommunitiesnd the ncongruityf theneartotal bsenceof this ocialgroupfromplaces thatpreserve distinctive ewishbuiltheritage.The heritage f Cracowembodies issonance f anotherevel.Here,theJewish azimierzdistrict,ocatedbeyondthe ore andrecognized rom hefifteenthenturys a legally eparate ntity ith ts ownwalls (now largelydemolished),had by the end of the twentiethentury ransformed

throughSchindlerourism'nto 'memorializedhetto', heplace's identityn the yesofa massivetransient ourist opulationhaving ittle esonancewiththe hostcommunity(Ashworth 002: 366-7).

Notwithstandingheirenduring symbolic significance,own walls also representundeniablymartialpasts. They have been characterized s representing branch of

'atrocity' eritageTunbridge nd Ashworth 996: 115-16),where pisodesof violenceand bloodshedfeaturing rominentlyn local socialmemoryan forcepopulations andtourists) o negotiate n uncomfortableast. Many walled cities on the WHS list areborder owns nd havechangedpoliticalor nationalallegiance n thepast: Caernarfon/Caernarvon nd Mazagan/ElJadida are two ofmany xampleswhere lternative ames

betray colonial heritage hatis contestable.Other WHS cities have been contestedinthemartial enseoftheword since nscription,hemostrecent ase being hemedievaltowers at Byblos damaged as an (indirect) esult of Israeli aerial bombing n 2006.Otherwalled WHS citieshave been targeted pecificallyecause WHS status dentifiesthem s perceived ymbolsof nationalheritage, s withthe shelling f Dubrovnik n1991-2.While the material nd humandamage wroughtwithin he walled area was

inconsequentialelative o thesuburbs,t was theplight f the conic walled Old City'andWHS that aught heworld's ye Larkham1994:263-4). Ifthemilitaryargetingfthesixteenth-centuryalledcityof Mostar in 1992-5 was a 'political ct', then o toowas its inscriptions a WHS in 2005 as an emblemof reconciliation. he WHS was

designated s an historic nsemble entred n the Ottoman Stari Most bridge, ebuiltalmost in its entiretywith UNESCO and World Bank funding, ven if the focalmonument ould not meet any conventional riteria f authenticityGrodach 2002;Jokilehto006: 10).

Delineation f walledheritage

The walledtownsdepictedn Figure1 embrace n enormous angeoforigins, izes and

plan formsfor typology,ee Hopkinson2000: 55-62). At Siena,7 kilometres fextant

walls,originallyiercedby thirty-sixates,define heheartof a thriving odern ity. n

sharp ontrastre small time-frozen'ownscapes uch as Caernarfon nd Urbino,wherestuntedurban growthhas preservedwhat are essentially ossilizedurban ensembles,circled n stone.These communities ave divergent istoriesn terms f their ttitudestowardswalledheritage hrough pisodesof disrepair nd lack of interesthrough oconservation nd sometimes econstruction.What unitesthem, however, s that,as

monuments, itywalls have biographiesthat are cyclical in some way: originally

constructeds iconicmonumentso urban dentity, ostwallshaveundergone pisodes f



348 OliverCr ightn

degradation, efore e-emergings cherishedymbols f civicprestigend vitalitynthecontextof the heritage ndustry. requently, he lines of walls - whether xtant or

fossilizednthetownscapensomeway mark heboundaries fdesignatedWHS zones,although ariations re apparentfor nstance, ighteenth-nd nineteenth-centuryxtra-mural settlementsre encompassed t Riga). What is important ere s that decisions

regardinghe delineation f walled cities s WorldHeritageSitesbydefinitionmbracecertain eriods f thepastand reject thers. rioritizationf thepastcan also be reflectedin the branded' titles f inscribed ites the Roman walls ofLugo' and 'Islamic Cairo'

beingclear cases in point, despitethemulti-phase ature of the urban ensembles n

question.The conceptof the buffer one' (a protected nvelopeof surrounding pace that s

mandatory orWHS inscription: NESCO 2005: 25-6) has particular mportancen thecase of walled towns. Effective onservation olicieswithinbuffer ones are essentialto control he scale of extra-muralevelopmentnd preserve herelationship etweenwalledcity ndsetting. iewsofwalledtowns rom utside anbe importanto the mageof a cityas heritage ite: at Gjirokastra, an Gimignano nd Sana'a, forexample, n

sharply ontrastingultural ontexts t is the ntensityf historic owered evelopmentwithina tightly onstrained walled) area that definesthe urban image. Shibam'sremarkablearly slamictownscapewas inscribedwith herecommendationhat he oneofprotection as extended nto thesurrounding alleyof theWadi Hadramawt,with tsconcentration fpre-Islamic rchaeological ites ICOMOS 1981:2). Similarly,t Avilatheoriginal roposalwas amended o thattheWHS extended o embraceRomanesquechurchesand their associated squares that formed distinctive xtra-muraletting

characteristic f the region ICOMOS 1985a). Elsewhere, ites such as Acre, Lyons,Jerusalemnd Urbino were nscribed n condition hatmoreeffectivextra-muralufferzoneswere ncluded.DesignatedWHS zones also need not remain tatic.The area ofRome initiallyncluded n the 1980 bid (coincidingwith the Aureliancity wall) was

rejected s it ignoredthemedieval urban enceinte,nd was consequentlyxtended oembrace hewall ofUrbanVIII, only obeexpandedfurthern 1990to include dditionalextra-muralropertiesICOMOS 1990).WHS zones can also be extended s knowledgeofthe rchaeological otential f theirmmediate nvironsncreases,s at Dubrovnik ndButrint, here rchaeologicalnvestigationevealed rbanremains xtendingarbeyondthewalls,so thatthearea re-designatedn 1999 ncluded substantial xtra-muralrea

(Bowdenet al.

2004).

Conservationndcontestation

Effective anagementfthisheritage f courserecognizeshat ownwallsare indivisiblefrom hetownscapeswithinwhich hey reembedded.Yet a long-standingension xistsbetween he restrictiveualitiesof walls and gates (and their onservationwithin hebranded heritage ity')and thedynamic orces f urbanchange,which an exacerbateissues of dissonance see Tunbridge nd Ashworth1996: 27-34). In certain ontexts,uncontrolled evelopmentndangers heintegrityf inscribedwalled cities: t Shibam

and Zabid, it is transformingivingheritagento dyingmonuments'Cernea2001: 31),




resultingnthe nscriptionfthe atter n to the istof WorldHeritage ites ndanger n2000. Equally extremes the clash withmodernityxperienced y manywalledWHS

medina towns in the Maghrib of North Africa (includingMarrakesh,Sousse andTetouan). Here 'traditional' ettlements f narrow roads behindcitywalls can facemassive challenges of deprivationand overcrowding, nd tensions between the

(potentially onflicting)mperatives f urban revitalization nd heritage onservationcanbe all too obvious.Manyare polynuclear'ities includinghe rchetypalmedina ityofFez), where hedichotomy etweenwalledmedinas nd their ccompanyingolonialcentres betweencolonizer and colonized - highlightsnotherdimension to thisdissonance Slyomovics2001: 1-5; see also Rghei and Nelson 1994: 143). In a verydifferentontext,the time-frozenendency f the classic European 'gem city' (seeAshworth nd Tunbridge1990:2) carries he riskof a heritage hat s dissonant n a

contrasting ay.The imageof thewalled townfrozen n time s given fficialecognitionin UNESCO's inscription f the 'Museum City of Gjirokastra',for example,and

exemplifiedy placessuch as Quedlinburgnd Urbino.Atworst, henurturingf walledenclavesas brandedheritage uarters an transformocal communitiesntoincidental

players n stagesets'whereheritages commodified or conomic xchange a criticismlevelled t theWorldHeritage itesofBrugge ndCarcassonne, or xample seeGraham2002: 1007).

As they rephysicallymassiveforms f material ulture omprisingong, inuous andoften iscontinuous)monuments hoseprecise wnerships frequentlyebatable, ssuesofprotectionnd conservationan be unusually omplexfor town walls.Moreover, smonumentsclosely connected to the self-images f communities nd sometimes

referencingontested eriodsof thepast,so their resentationnd interpretationhrowsup philosophicalndideological uestions. his sparticularlyhecase where hephysicalfabric fcitywalls exhibits tangiblymulti-layeredistory,nd treatmentan neverbe

entirely eutral. or example, t has beencontended hat the selective reservationnd

presentationfdefensive alls nJerusalem'sewish uarter mphasizes he sraelite ast,as in the 'IsraeliteTower', whereheritagedisplaysfashion a history f sieges andthreatened ationaldestructionAbu El-Haj 1998: 178,2002: 208-9). The city's xtant

ramparts ssentiallyate to thesixteenthentury, eing ttributable o Sultan SuleimantheMagnificent,uttheirntangible eritagesmulti-layerednd mutable seeAsali 1997:

201;Boas 1999:13-21).The state-sanctionedestruction,ythe sraelimilitaryn1967, f

structures ithin he MagharibaQuarter' o create plaza atthe base of the

Herodianblocksof the WesternWall shows how widelyperspectivesf 'host' communities andiffer.While from ne perspectivehese ctions afforded sacred monumentbreathingspace' and a less cluttered hysical setting, rom nothertheyremovednot only anessentialpartof the WesternWall's sense of place but also a Muslimresidential reawhose social memory xtendedback to the twelfthentury Abu El-Haj 2002: 164-6;Dumper2002: 78-80).

Populationsneed notalwaysfeel ffinityith hewalledheritagehat urrounds hem.While thepresentwallsofthe Old CityofAcrerepresentn eighteenth-centuryurkishconstructionPringle1995: 81-4), the built environment f the Ottoman settlementoverlies walledCrusader-periodity urrentlyeing nvestigatedythe sraelAntiquities

AuthorityBoas 1999: 32-42; Stern2000). Here, issues of dissonanceare bought nto



350 OliverCreighton

sharp focus because of the 'placeless' nature of the present-dayommunity, hich

comprises alestinianmigrantsf thepost- 948periodwith ittle ultural ttachmento

the city.Continuous urban development requentlynsures that citywalls becomeenmeshed n the iving abric f cities.At Zamosc, inscription as conditional pon the

adoptionof a policythat would ensuredemolition f unsympathetic'tructures ithinthedesignated ufferone (ICOMOS 1989:2). But a blurred istinctionxists etween he

judiciousremoval f structuresncumberingr obscuringmonumentalemains o revealanddisplay hemosthistoricallyaluable fabric nd a sanitization fwalledheritagehateradicates the contribution f communities hemselves o the urban palimpsest.The

epitome of the latter possibility s Carcassonne (Plate 1), where Viollet-le-Duc'srestorations f the second half of the nineteenth enturyextendedbeyond thereconstructionfmedieval fabric o removeover 100 vernacular uildings nd homesoftextile orkers lusterednthe quartier es ices\between he nner nd outer itywalls

(Amiel2000: 11-12). In a late twentieth-centuryontext, hepopulationof Old Bagan,Burma's city fpagodas',was transplanted eyond newly esignated eritageone bythemilitaryuntaintheearly1990s, stensiblyo facilitaterchaeological xcavation ut

undoubtedly lso forheritage ourism, nd the sitehas been refused dmission o theWHS list Taylorand Altenburg006: 278-80).

It goes without ayingthat such actions can cause a long-termislocationbetweencommunities nd theirhistoric nvironment. he late thirteenth-centuryownwall of

Conwy (Plate 3) is partlythe productof mid-twentieth-centuryconservation' hat

Plate 3 The town walls of Conwy. n severalareas immediatelyutside the walls encumbering'structures ere removed nd a town ditch reconstitutedn the 1950s and 1960s (photograph:O. Creighton).



Contested ownsapes 351

extended arbeyond he treatmentfmasonry o include hereconstitutionfpartofabankand ditch nd theremovalof structures uilt gainst t (Taylor 1995).Whilesuch

actionsmight improve'the view of the site forexternal ppreciation, heycan alsoexacerbate he dissonantheritage f an unambiguously nglishmonumentn a present-dayWelshcontext,s thefeatures emoved rguably epresentedartof thecommunity'sown contributiono the town's identity,ncluding ndustrial nd nineteenth-centuryvernacular uildingsAustin1997). n other ases,removal f structuresuilt gainst itywalls has continued fterWHS inscription,s at Tarragonaand Lugo, Spanishwalledtownswhoseofficiallyecognized istoricvalue' relates rimarilyo theirRomanheritagedespite onger-termrbancontinuity. t the formerrchaeologicalresearch trategiesnurturedythemunicipalityave focused n Romanbuildingst theexpense fmoderninfrastructurend renovations aveseenpartsof themedieval nner itypulleddown;atthe atter, he Galician governments pursuing policyof thesystematiclearanceofhousesbuilt gainst he Roman wall (van de Aa 2005: 123-4).A moreworryingase isthatof Bosra where,untilrecently,heClassical periodruinshoused a 'squatter-type'communityhat while gnored r written ut ofguidebooks was a component f thesite's enseofplace since heeighteenthentury.WhiletheWHS inscription eport otedthat xcavation nd 'reclamation'was endangeringhecommunity'sxistence,001 sawtheexpulsion f thepopulation ICOMOS 1980:2; Rowney2004: 61-2).

Conclusions

Central o thispaperhave beenthe twin uestions fhow urban dentitiesre shaped bywalledheritage nd how walledheritage s used, consciously r unconsciously,n the

fashioningf dentities.or thepurposes fthe nternationaleritage ndustryitywalls

essentially efinea product,and organizations uch as the Organizationof World

HeritageCitiesand theWalled Towns Friendship ircle are accordingly ecognizinghevalue of walled urban communitiess among the world's foremost eritage ourismassets.Butfrequently,t seems,walls are a cloak concealingdentities hat are fracturedrather hancohesive, nd the arguments resented erecan be equally applicabletowalled communities ot inscribedon the UNESCO list. The 'enclave heritage'of

dispossessedgroups, the layered identitiesof walls and their oftenvery tangible

referenceso disputedperiodsof the

past,and their

omplex nterrelationshipiththe

built environment ll create extraordinarily omplex philosophical challengesfor

heritagemanagement. he meanings f citywalls and the identitiesheyrepresentrenotpassivebutactive, nd have inherentotential o be written nd re-writtenhroughtheir reatmentnd presentations heritage.No matterhow sensitive he actions of

agenciesresponsible orthefabric fmonuments, eutralhandling f citywalls whichare the veryembodiment f 'living'heritage s simply mpossible, nd manyof thecase studies xaminedhere xposethedifficultiesfconvertingntopractice heprincipleof the1994 Nara Declarationthat The culturalheritage f each is the culturalheritageof all'.

Schoolof Geography, rchaeologynd EarthResources,UniversityfExeter



352 OliverCr ightn

References

Abu El-Haj, N. L. 1998. Translating ruths:nationalism, he practiceof archaeology, nd the

remakingfpastand presentncontemporaryerusalem. merican thnologist,5(2): 166-88.

Abu El-Haj,N. L. 2002. Facts on theGround:Archaeologicalractice nd Territorialelf Fashioningin sraeliSociety.Chicago, L: UniversityfChicagoPress.

Akbar,J. 1988. Crisis n theBuiltEnvironment:he Case oftheMuslimCity.London:Routledge.

Alberti, . B. 1986. Ten Books onArchitecture,ranslatedntoEnglish yJames eoni. NewYork:Dover.

Al-sallal,K. A. 2004. Sana'a: transformationf theOld City nd the mpacts f themodern ra. n

PlanningMiddleEasternCities:AnUrbanKaleidoscopena GlobalizingWorlded.Y. Elsheshtawy).London:Routledge, p. 85-113.

Amiel,C. 2000. De la placeforte u Monument: a restauratione la cite de Carcassonne u XIX~'siecle.Paris: Editionsdu Patrimoine.

Asali,K. J.1997.Jerusalem nder heOttomans, 516-1831. nJerusalemnHistory: 000BC tothePresent ay. London:Kegan Paul, pp. 200-27.

Ashworth,G. J. 1997. Jewishculture and holocaust tourism. n Cultureand Tourism ed.M. Robinson).Newcastle:CentreforTourism tudies.

Ashworth,G. J. 2002. Holocaust tourism: he experience f Krakow-Kazimierz.nternationalResearchnGeographicalndEnvironmentalducation, 1(4):363-7.

Ashworth,G. J. and Howard, P. 1999. European Heritage Planning nd Management. xeter:Intellect.

Ashworth, . J. and Tunbridge, . E. 1990. The Tourist-Historicity: Retrospectnd Prospect fManaging heHeritageCity.London: Belhaven.

Austin,D. 1997.Devolution, astles nd Welsh dentity. ritish rchaeology,9.

Baker,F. 1993. The BerlinWall: production, reservationnd consumption f a 20th-centurymonument. ntiquity,7: 709-33.

Bloom,J.M. 2000. Walled cities nIslamicNorthAfrica nd Egyptwith articular eferenceo theFatamids 909-1171). In CityWalls: The UrbanEnceinte nGlobalPerspectiveed. J. D. Tracy).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress,pp. 219-46.

Boas,A. J. 1999.CrusaderArchaeology:heMaterialCulture ftheLatinEast. London:Routledge.

Bowden,W.,Hodges,R. andLako, K. 2004.Byzantineutrint:xcavations ndSurveys 994-1999.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

Bruce,D. andCreighton, . H. 2006. Contesteddentities:hedissonant eritagefEuropeantownwallsand walledtowns. nternational ournal fHeritage tudies, 2(3):234-54.

Cernea,M. M. 2001. Cultural eritage ndDevelopment: FrameworkorAction ntheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica.Washington, C: WorldBank.

Chang,J. and Halliday,J.2005. Mao: The Unknowntory.London:Cape.

Creighton, . H. andHigham,R. A. 2005. TownWalls:A SocialHistoryndArchaeologyfUrbanDefence. troud:Tempus.

Dumper,M. R. T. 2002. ThePolitics fSacredSpace: The Old City fJerusalemntheMiddleEastConflict.ondon: LynneRienner.

Evans,G. 2002. Living n a worldheritage ity: takeholdersn thedialectic f the universal nd

particular.nternationalournal f Heritage tudies, (2): 117-35.




Graham,B. 2002. Heritage s knowledge: apitalor culture.Urban tudies, 9: 1003-17.

Grodach,C. 2002. Reconstitutingdentitynd historyn post-warMostar,Bosnia-Herzegovina.

City:Analysis fUrbanTrends, ulture, heory, olicy,Action, (1): 61-82.Hopkinson,M. F. 2000. Living in defendedspaces: past structures nd present andscapes.Landscapes, (2): 53-77.

ICOMOS 1980. WorldHeritageEvaluationReportNumber 2, The Old City of Bosra. Paris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1981. WorldHeritageEvaluationReportNumber 92, The Old WalledCity ofShibam.Paris: UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1985a. WorldHeritageEvaluationReportNumber 48 Rev.,CityofAvila withts ExtraMuros Churches. aris: UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1985b. WorldHeritage valuationReportNumber85,Old City fSana'a, ArabRepublicofYemen. aris: UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1986. The mperial alace oftheMingandQing Dynasties. aris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1989. WorldHeritageEvaluationReportNumber 64, The Old TownofZamosc. Paris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1990. WorldHeritage valuationReportNumber bis,Rome. Paris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1994. The Nara Document nAuthenticity.aris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 1996. WorldHeritageEvaluationReportNumber 45 rev.,Carcassonne, rance. Paris:UNESCO.

ICOMOS 2000. WorldHeritage EvaluationReportNumber973, Bardejov,Slovakia. Paris:UNESCO.

Jokilehto,. 2006. Considerationsn authenticitynd integritynWorldHeritage ontext. ity ndTime, (1): 1-16.

Kelly,W. 2001. TheSieges of Deny. Dublin: Four Courts Press.

Klein,M. 2001. The Contested ity.London: Hurst.

Larkham,P. J. 1994.A newheritage or a new Europe. In Building New Heritage:Tourism,Culture, nd Identityn the New Europe (eds G. J. Ashworth nd P. J. Larkham). London:

Routledge, p. 260-73.

Lassner,G. 2000. The MiddleEast Remembered:orged dentities,ompeting arratives,ontested

Spaces.AnnArbor,MI: UniversityfMichiganPress.

Lewcock,R. 1986. The Old WalledCityofSana' a. Paris: UNESCO.

MacGiolla Chriost,D. 1996. Northernreland: ulture lash and archaeology.n Nationalism nd

ArchaeologyedsJ. A. Atkinson,. Banks and J.O'Sullivan). Glasgow:Cruithne ress,pp. 128-34.

Perbellini, . (ed.) 2000. The TownWalls n theMiddleAges:Les Enceintes rbaines u moyen ge.The Hague: EuropaNostra BI BulletinNo. 53.

Pringle,D. 1995. Town defences n the Crusaderkingdomof Jerusalem.n FortificationndSettlementn Crusader alestineed. D. Pringle). ondon:AshgateVariorum, p. 69-121.

Ratte,F. 1999. Architecturalnvitations:magesofcitygates nmedieval talianpainting.Gesta,38(2): 142-53.

Rghei,A. S. and Nelson,J. G. 1994. The conservation nd use of thewalledcityofTripoli.The

Geographical ournal, 60: 143-58.

Rowney,B. 2004. Charters nd the ethicsof conservation: cross-culturalerspective. octoral

dissertation,niversityfAdelaide.



354 OliverCr ightn

ShatzmanSteinhardt,N. 2000. Representationsf Chinese walled cities in the pictorialand

graphicalrts. n CityWalls: The Urban nceinte nGlobalPerspectiveed.J.D. Tracy).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress,pp. 419-60.

Silberman,N. 2005. Jewish nd Muslimheritagen Europe: the role of archaeologyn defendingcultural iversity. useum nternational,7(3): 95-100.

Slyomovics, . (ed.) 2001. The WalledArabCity nLiterature, rchitecturendHistory:TheCityMedina n theMagrhib. ondon and Portland,OR: Frank Cass.

Stern, . 2000. The center f theHospitaller rder nAkko. Qadmoniot, 19:4-12.

Taylor,A. J. 1995. The town and castle of Conwy: preservationnd interpretation.ntiquariesJournal75: 339-63.

Taylor,K. and Altenburg, . 2006. Cultural andscapes nAsia-Pacific: otential orfilling orldheritage aps. International ournal fHeritage tudies, 2(3):267-82.

Tracy,J. D. (ed.) 2000. City Walls: The Urban Enceinte n Global Perspective. ambridge:

CambridgeUniversityress.

Tunbridge, . E. and Ashworth, . 1996.DissonantHeritage:Managing hePast as a Resource n

Conflict.hichester:Wiley.

UNESCO 1981.ConventiononcerningheProtectionfthe WorldCultural ndNaturalHeritage,WorldHeritageCommittee irstExtraordinaryession, Paris, 10 and 11 September 981. Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO 2005. OperationalGuidelinesor the mplementationfthe WorldHeritageConvention.Paris:UNESCO.

van derAa, B. 2005. Preservingheheritage fhumanity? btainingworldheritagetatus nd theimpacts f isting. octoraldissertation,niversityfGronigen.

Oliver Creighton s Senior Lecturer n Archaeologyat the University f Exeter.

Specializing n the studyof medievalbuildings, andscapesand townscapes,he has a

particularnterestn thearchaeology f status nd authority. is recent ooks includeMedieval TownWalls:A Social History nd Archaeology f UrbanDefence 2005) andCastles andLandscapes:Power,CommunityndFortificationn MedievalEngland 2005).

contested townscapes - the walled city as world heritage (oliver creighton)

Documents