the tangible and the intangible: diversity promotes democratic cultural conservation

8/19/2019 The Tangible and the Intangible: Diversity Promotes Democratic Cultural Conservation

1/17

The Tangible and the Intangible:Diversity Promotes Democratic Cultural Conservation

Debborah Donnelly15200636

University College DublinWorld Heritage Conservation

February 19, 2016

Feb 13, 2016


2/17

DA Donnelly 1

Introduction

In 2003 UNESCO defined the distinction between tangible and intangible cultural heritage by

producing the Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.1 This document

was created out of the necessity to cultivate a process to ensure that those parts of human

culture that cannot be clearly understood in a physical, tangible way like artefacts and sites,

are still protected. The importance in the conceptual differences between intangible and

tangible culture has been revised and clarified with subsequent international conventions

which will be reviewed herein. This concept of tangible and intangible heritage will be further

illuminated with examples from both Egypt and Canada, which are countries whose culture

this author is most familiar with.

The idea of a democratic approach to cultural heritage conservation is both valid and

particularly important in that governing bodies do not dictate which culture (tangible orintangible) should be safeguarded and which is not. The concept of cultural diversity is

paramount for ensuring the protection of culture of all people. This paper will explore the

principle of why cultural diversity is essential to achieving a democratic approach to cultural

heritage conservation.

Evolution of the Definition of Culture

According to Deacon, et al (2004: 1) Japan was a leader in enacting legislation to preserve

their ‘intangible’ as well as tangible culture by way of its 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural

Properties. Under Article 71, The Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

Technology may designate an element as, “Important Intangible Cultural Property” (UNESCO,

1950), but they do not specifically define the concept ‘intangible’ within. This national

development was later followed by other nations defining and including the term in their own

cultural heritage documents.

The Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies (UNESCO, 1982) was one of the first to use

the term ‘intangible’ in an international context.

‘The cultural heritage of a people includes the works of its artists, architects, musicians,writers and scientists and also the work of anonymous artists, expressions of the people'sspirituality, and the body of values which give meaning to life. It includes both tangible andintangible works through which the creativity of that people finds expression: languages, rites,beliefs, historic places and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries.’(UNESCO, 1982: Item 23)

1 This convention specifically references prior documents on which it is built, including the UNESCO

Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore of 1989; the UNESCO Universal

Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2001; and the Istanbul Declaration of 2002 adopted by the Third

Round Table of Ministers of Culture.


3/17

DA Donnelly 2

Subsequently followed by the 25th Session of UNESCO (1989) inscribing its Recommendation

on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore.

‘Folklore (or traditional and popular culture) is the totality of tradition-based creations of acultural community, expressed by a group or individuals and recognized as reflecting theexpectations of a community in so far as they reflect its cultural and social identity; itsstandards and values are transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means. Its forms are,

among others, language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals, customs,handicrafts, architecture and other arts’ (UNESCO, 1989: 239).

From this very early definition, recommendations were made to encourage Member States to

develop a national inventory of such folklore, to create identification and recording systems,

and a standard typology. “Certain countries, often by means of presidential decrees, have set

up national mechanisms of identification and of enhancement of intangible cultural property,

founded on the institution of distinct inventories, records or listings,” (UNESCO, 2002: 6).

This conceptual framework of culture was further established by the idea of ‘heritage as a

human right’, which was articulated in the 1998 Stockholm Declaration of ICOMOS Marking

the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document stipulated

that,

‘the right to cultural heritage is an integral part of human rights considering the irreplaceablenature of the tangible and intangible legacy it constitutes, and that it is threatened to in aworld which is in constant transformation’ (ICOMOS, 1998).

The Stockholm Declaration also provided for five specific rights to ensure global cultural diversity.

The right to have the authentic testimony of cultural heritage, respected as an expressionof one's cultural identity within the human family;

The right to better understand one's heritage and that of others;

The right to wise and appropriate use of heritage;

The right to participate in decisions affecting heritage and the cultural values it embodies; The right to form associations for the protection and promotion of cultural heritage.

(ICOMOS, 1998)

The concept of cultural diversity was additionally expanded under the Universal Declaration

on Cultural Diversity adopted by UNESCO in 2001; it recognized that diversity comes in a

variety of cultural expressions and forms of heritage.

‘Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in theuniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind’.(UNESCO, 2001, Article 1)

‘Heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generationsas a record of human experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its diversity’.

(UNESCO, 2001, Article 7)

All of these changes led up to the UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible

Cultural Heritage (2003) which defined intangible cultural heritage as follows:

“Intangible Cultural Heritage” 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. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is

constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their


4/17

DA Donnelly 3

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...’ (UNESCO,

2003, Article 2).

The convention entered into force on 20 April 2006, after 30 Member States had ratified it. To

date, there are 166 Member States who have ratified the 2003 Convention,2 and an approved

list of Intangible Heritage is maintained by UNESCO (2015) which currently contains some

391 elements from 108 countries.3

The map below shows the distribution of recognised elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage

(UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Website – accessed 12 February 2016).

It is visually apparent from this map that Asia has led the world in the recognition and listing

of intangible cultural heritage with China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea with the most

items approved by UNESCO to date.4

However, the concept and evolution of the idea of culture does not stop there, and will likely never

cease to be readdressed, particularly with the change and development in technology and the

expansion of the sharing of knowledge and ideas that sees culture constantly morphing. Along with

education and access to information, cultural groups otherwise unacknowledged or ignored by

states will be able to demand their rights to have their cultural heritage recognized.

2 Accessed on 12 February 2016 http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=17116&language=E ;

Notable is that the UK, USA and Canada have not ratified it, Ireland recently did however in December 2015.3 UNESCO 2015 – accessed on 12 February 20164 China with 38, Japan with 22, and the Republic of Korea with 18 elements listed.


5/17

DA Donnelly 4

These basic rights became principally evident, at least for Europe, with the Council of Europe’s

Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005) known as The

Faro Convention.5 To date some 17 member states have ratified the convention.6

In the Aims of the Convention (Section 1, Article 1), the Parties of the Convention agree to:

a) Recognise that rights relating to cultural heritage are inherent in the right to participate incultural life, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;7 b) Recognise individual and collective responsibility towards cultural heritage;c) Emphasise that the conservation of cultural heritage and its sustainable use have humandevelopment and quality of life as their goal;d) Take the necessary steps to apply the provisions of this Convention concerning:

- the role of cultural heritage in the construction of a peaceful and democratic society, andin the processes of sustainable development and the promotion of cultural diversity;- greater synergy of competencies among all the public, institutional and private actorsconcerned.’ (Faro Convention - Council of Europe, 2005)

UNESCO also created the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of

Cultural Expressions in 2005, which provided a new definition on cultural diversity.

‘Cultural diversity’ refers to the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societiesfind expression. These expressions are passed on within and among groups and societies.

Cultural diversity is made manifest not only through the varied ways in which the culturalheritage of humanity is expressed, augmented and transmitted through the variety of culturalexpressions, but also through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination,distribution and enjoyment, whatever the means and technologies used. (UNESCO, 2005: 4)

The idea of distinct cultural heritage as classified into either tangible (e.g. monuments,

buildings, artefacts, and sites), or intangible resources (e.g. values, traditions or skills) is not

precise.

Cultural heritage may have originally been classified into the broad categories of tangible (e.g.

monuments, groups of buildings, and sites) and intangible resources (e.g. values, traditions,

and skills), but with the ICOMOS Québec Declaration on the Spirit of Place (2008), “it is useful

to think of the intangible cultural heritage as interdependent, not separate, with the tangible

heritage” (Cave et al, 2015: 3). The Québec Declaration clarifies the inclusion of tangible items

associated with intangible cultural elements. It defines both place and spirit as the tangible

and intangible components that work together.

Québec Declaration on the Spirit of Place (2008)

‘Recognizing that the spirit of place is made up of tangible (sites, buildings, landscapes,routes, objects) as well as intangible elements (memories, narratives, written documents,

5 The Faro Convention entered into force on 1 June 2011.6 Parties to the Faro Convention – In addition to the 17 states that have ratified, five states have signed the

convention: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and San Marino.

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Identities/parties_en.asp accessed 17 February 2016.7 The Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948

under General Assembly resolution 217 A.


6/17

DA Donnelly 5

festivals, commemorations, rituals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors,8 etc.), which all significantly contribute to making place and to giving it spirit, we declare thatintangible cultural heritage gives a richer and more complete meaning to heritage as a wholeand it must be taken into account in all legislation concerning cultural heritage, and in allconservation and restoration projects for monuments, sites, landscapes, routes andcollections of objects.’ (ICOMOS,2008).

The division between state recognition and indigenous engagement on intangible culture is

something that Kearney addresses, and should not be overlooked.

“The UNESCO Convention, like other instruments developed to identify, protect andmanage cultural heritage, is formulated and administered by state and global powers.State parties are responsible for taking the necessary measures to identify ICH 9 andto ensure the safeguarding of ICH. Bestowing ultimate discretionary power onto thestate renders Indigenous owners of ICH mere stakeholders,” (Kearney, 2008: 217).

With the advent of twitter and YouTube, the concept that direct, personal development of

‘digital intangible heritage’ being streamed, saved and changing the idea of intangible heritage

has not been recognised or clearly defined yet by UNESCO. “As YouTube is in large part

produced by user-generated content, it has the potential to continuously store heritage as it

occurs in lived circumstances, to a certain extent capturing the shifting nature of embodied

practice,” (Pietrobruno, 2014: 742). Even twitter discussion on what is intangible culture (cover

page) contribute to the ever-changing concept. Thus the debate on what is and what is not

culture goes on.

Clearly what constitutes intangible culture is complex and, “identifying what constitutes

heritage and assigning heritage value is thus a deeply subjective process. It happens in the

context of current national and international social trends and politics, and often favours certain

groups over others” (Deacon, et al, 2004: 9). This position therefore requires a

recommendation therefore to be as inclusive as possible in designating who has the right to

say what is, or is not intangible culture.

Tangible vs Intangible Culture

While the list of tangible cultural heritage has a requirement to meet the concept of

‘outstanding universal value’, this is not true for intangible cultural heritage, which is

community-based. “Intangible cultural heritage can only be heritage when it is recognized as

such by the communities, groups or individuals that create, maintain and transmit it – without

their recognition, nobody else can decide for them that a given expression or practice is theirheritage,” (UNESCO, 2011: 5).

8 As an aside, as a Canadian I note that because this document was drafted in Québec, that they chose the

American version for the terms ‘colors’ and ‘odors’, over the British spellings which include the ‘u’ and which

are more commonly used in English areas of the country. This could be construed as Québec making a political

statement about their preference to disassociate with English culture (British history). I t is always difficult to

separate politics completely from culture in this country.9 ICH – Intangible Cultural Heritage


7/17

DA Donnelly 6

The selection of examples from Egypt and Canada to illustrate are based on the close

academic and personal relation the author has to these two particular regions.

Egypt

Egypt ratified the 2003 Convention in August 2005,10 but according to the UNESCO List of

Intangible Culture Heritage (2015) Egypt has to date only inscribed one element, the Al-Sirah

Al-Hilaliyyah epic , which was inscribed in 2008. It is an oral poem, known as the Hilali epic,

which “recounts the saga of the Bani Hilal Bedouin tribe and its migration from the Arabian

Peninsula to North Africa in the tenth century.” 11

It should be noted that Egypt has also submitted a nomination for the 2016 UNESCO ICH

review, the ‘Tahteeb stick game’ which is an ancient game dating back to the 5th Dynasty

(Egyptian CDF, 2015: 4) that has continued to be played up to the present, primarily in Upper

Egypt. It has been variously described as a martial art, a ‘cane dance’, a ‘stick game’, or a

performing art.

Fig. 1 Taktib photo, 1959 – by Farida Fahmy.12

Following are included select examples I consider as being particularly expressive in defining

the differences between tangible and intangible culture.

10 The States Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003)

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/states-parties-00024 accessed 11 February 201611 http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/al-sirah-al-hilaliyyah-epic-00075 Accessed 9 February 201612 (note alternate spelling of tahteeb) http://faridafahmy.com/gallery.html accessed 9 February 2016


8/17

DA Donnelly 7

The wonderful examples of Egyptian beautifully carved alabaster 13 from the New Kingdom

have been admired and considerably described regarding the technology used, drawn from

both literary and tangible evidence (tools, artistic scenes, and actual objects) by modern

scholars (Lucas and Harris, 2011; Shaw, 2012; Stocks, 2003 for example).

Fig. 2 Drinking Cup14 in

the shape of a Lotus

(replica), Exhibition

Frankfurt/Main 2012 –

By Sat Ra - Own work,

CC BY-SA 3.0

[original from the Tomb

of Tutankhamun, KV 62,

alabaster – displayed in

the Egyptian Museum,

Cairo]

What has not been adequately described, or inscribed on the list of intangible culture is the

continuing technical skill that has been passed on (and modified) and is used by many still

making handmade alabaster bowls and vases in modern Qurna (ancient Thebes).

13 Alabaster in Egypt is a, “compact crystalline form of calcium carbonate” (Lucas, et al 2011: 59).14 An interesting Irish connection shows that the Belleek company created a ceramic copy of this alabaster cup

sometime between 1922 (when it was first discovered in Tutankhamun’s tomb) and 1930, for which there is

evidence given by Fox (2005). This Belleek cultural heritage object would therefore be considered as part of

the ‘Tut-mania’ phenomena described by Tim Masters (2014).


9/17

DA Donnelly 8

Fig. 3 Mostafa Mohamed, master

alabaster artist, Qurna, Egypt (29

May 2015 – photo D.A. Donnelly)

Canada

According to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2015), surprisingly, to date

Canada is still not a signatory to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural

Heritage (2003). Gauthier (2011: 2) provides an opinion on why this is so, “this abstention

relate [sic ] to the argument that the Convention contains a definition of ICH that is too vague,

and creates significant obligations for the state that are almost impossible to fulfill [sic ] (i.e.inventories and their regular updating), especially due to Canada’s multicultural population.”

However, Deacon, et al, (2004) does draw a distinction about Canada compared to other

countries. “The federal Department of Canadian Heritage is unusual compared to other

national governments in that it deals with both tangible and intangible heritage. There is a

growing interest in that Department in ‘bringing issues of ecological integrity and diversity

[together] with those of cultural integrity and diversity, and exploring the relationships between

natural and human ecology ” (Deacon, et al, 2004: 62).

Several Canadian provinces and the British Columbia First Peoples’ Cultural Council15

haveall commenced creating inventories of intangible cultural heritage. Their efforts are briefly

outlined below.

15 The First Peoples’ Cultural Council serves: 203 B.C. First Nations; 34 languages; 61 language dialects; First

Nations arts and culture organizations; Aboriginal artists; Aboriginal education organizations

http://www.fpcc.ca/about-us/


10/17

DA Donnelly 9

British Columbia enacted the First Peoples’ Heritage, Culture and Language Act in 1996 in

order to:

(a) protect, revitalize and enhance First Nations heritage, language, culture and arts,

(b) increase understanding and sharing of knowledge, within both the First Nations andnon-First Nations communities, and

(c) heighten appreciation and acceptance of the wealth of cultural diversity among allBritish Columbians;

The First Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC) defines intangible culture for B.C. First Nations as

including, “traditional knowledge, practices and skills. These things that define the culture—

language, oral history, art techniques, rituals, stories and place names,” (FPCC website,

2013).16 Notably, they also stipulate the following exclusion:

“It’s important to note that not all intangible cultural heritage can be shared with the generalpublic. Some includes secret or sacred information that must follow traditional customs thatlimit who can hold the knowledge. Regardless, it still needs to be safeguarded. Secretknowledge must still be passed from one generation to the next, and doing so means theknowledge is safe and the heritage is protected.”

Newfoundland and Labrador was the first province to recognise the importance of intangible

cultural heritage, and produced a Cultural Blueprint in 2006 entitled Creative Newfoundland

and Labrador with the aim of making the province a, “national leader in the recognition and

support for ICH which includes traditional knowledge, skills, languages and the tradition-

bearers who perpetuate them,” (Procius, 2010: 44). This was followed by a Strategic Plan that

was issued by the provincial government in April 2007.

In 2008 the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador (HFNL) was designated as

the agency responsible for pursuing the strategy on intangible cultural heritage in the province.

This strategy not only encompasses settler and indigenous groups of the region but also “new

Canadians who have come” to the province (Jarvis, 2014: 1). The strategy stipulates four

major goals: documentation, celebration, transmission, and sustainability.

Memorial University17 maintains an Intangible Cultural Heritage website for the province and

includes the provincial ICH inventory,18 searchable by topic. Topics include:

1. Oral traditions and expressions;

2. Performing arts;

3. Social practices, Rituals and Festive Events;

4. Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;

5. Knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts; and

16 http://www.fpcc.ca/culture/heritage-toolkit/Intangible-Cultural-Heritage.aspx accessed 12 February 201617 In St. John’s Newfoundland18 http://www.mun.ca/ich/inventory/ICHtopic.php


11/17

DA Donnelly 10

6. Ephemera19

Ephemera include retaining (hard and digital) copies of things like this 2009 poster 20 of a

hooked rug event in Shoal Brook, Newfoundland (Fig. 4 below).

In 2008, the Province of Nova Scotia issued a Heritage Strategy document that clearly defined

their heritage priorities including intangible culture (Nova Scotia, 2008: 4).

“Heritage is that which society inherits from previous generations and deems worthy of taking

special measures to preserve for future generations, including our tangible and intangible

cultural and natural heritage.

Tangible cultural heritage includes artifacts, buildings, and records.

Intangible cultural heritage includes folklore, language, oral history, music, skills, and belief

systems.

Natural heritage includes land, water, air, and wildlife.”

19 Ephemera, in an archival context, usually refers to transitory written and printed matter not intended to be

retained or preserved.20 http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/ich_other/id/15/rec/14


12/17

DA Donnelly 11

Quebec’s Cultural Heritage Act was adopted on October 19, 2011 and came into effect one

year later. “Quebec has included clauses inspired by the 2003 Convention and by its

Sustainable Development Act. This makes it the first Canadian province to recognize ICH at

the legislative level,” (Gauthier, 2011: 2).

While Ontario has not yet addressed the issue of intangible culture, I propose the following as

an excellent example that should be protected.

The Black Donnellys

One cannot speak of Irish-Canadian heritage without mentioning the Donnellys. The story of

the ‘Black Donnellys’ revolves around an Irish emigrant family who moved to Ontario in 1842.

In 1880, five of the family were brutally murdered by an armed mob, and their family farm was

burned down. No one was ever convicted of these grisly murders, despite two inconclusive

trials and an eye-witness to the burning of the house and the murder of the first four.

There have been books21 and numerous articles, a (fictional) television series,22 plays,

music,23 a band,24 paranormal investigations,25 a museum,26 an ‘official’ website,27 alternate

websites,28 Facebook,29 YouTube,30 and twitter pages, and walking tours,31 all dedicated to

the folk history of the massacre of the Donnelly family from Lucan, Ontario in 1880.

With the patronym, I grew up with the tales and relished the notoriety (at times) of being loosely

associated with this unfortunate clan of Irish immigrants. It is a story heaped in murder and

intrigue that continues to garner significant interest to the present day. The actual historical

site, the homestead and gravestones, the original police and other archival documents are all

part of our Canadian tangible heritage.

21 Including a recent (2014) book by Peter McKeown, A Donnelly Treatise - After the Massacre; and the (2013)

The Donnelly Album: The Complete & Authentic Account of Canada's Famous Feuding Family by Ray Fazakas.22 The Black Donnellys was a (fictional) television series that ran for a single season in 2007 based on an Irish

criminal organisation in New York. It was touted as based on the criminal characters of the original Black

Donnellys from Lucan, Ontario. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805661/ 23 Stompin’ Tom Connors wrote two songs: Black Donnelly’s Massacre and Jenny Donnelly

http://www.shazam.com/track/98749824/black-donnellys-massacre 24 The Black Donnellys (Dublin) https://www.facebook.com/theblackdonnellys/timeline ;

https://twitter.com/thepowerrooney ; @blackdonnellys25 http://www.torontoghosts.org/index.php?/20080820313/South-Western-Ontario/Lucan-The-Donnelly-

Homestead.html 26 http://www.donnellymuseum.com/ 27 http://www.donnellys.com/mainpage.html 28 http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/donnellys/home/indexen.html 29 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Donnellys/103722482999279?fref=ts 30 Spirit Seekers – The Donnellys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdgB9hY5XRo 31 The owner of the land today, J. Robert Salts, offers walking tours of the property.

http://home.quadro.net/~donnelly/?q=~donnelly


13/17

DA Donnelly 12

Fig. 5 (below, left) The original Donnelly tombstone which was removed in 196432 (courtesy of

London Free Press)

Fig. 6 The replacement Donnelly headstone (Canadian

Mysteries)

On the other hand, the oral tales, the ongoing interest that seemingly, continuously produces

new material (both fiction and non-fiction), and theories, and offshoots of media continue the

intangible heritage of our macabre interest in this gruesome massacre. Perhaps it can be

considered an early example of a Canadian ‘traumascape’ as defined by Tumarkin (2005: 13).

While Canada may not have become a signatory to the 2003 Convention many federal and

provincial initiatives have already started the inventory and preservation of Canadian

intangible cultural heritage.

Conclusion

It is only in the idea of inclusivity (i.e. diversity) that culture can be fully recognised and

understood. Humans are constantly making comparisons to understand their own position in

the world (social comparison theory), and without the protection and conservation of all culture,

we may lose the ability to understand ourselves. As an archaeologist it may seem obvious to

me that we should want to conserve all culture so we can learn from our collective path, but it

is readily apparent that there are many social and political forces at play which choose to

define culture in their own terms as a means of power. Having international conventions and

32 Erected in 1889 by William Donnelly, the original Donnelly tombstone stood in St. Patrick's Cemetery for 75

years. It was removed in 1964 by descendants of the family following vandalism.

http://www.donnellys.com/Gallery.html


14/17

DA Donnelly 13

the ability to enforce them are the most powerful tools we currently have to protect past,

present and future culture.

I have endeavoured to describe the process of determining intangible culture from the

perspective of two very different nations, Egypt and Canada. One with an extraordinary

ancient history which is also confined by religious and political (and I daresay economic)strictures, the other by the fact of its own diversity. The examples chosen and illustrated were

to distinguish the differences between tangible and intangible culture, but to also provide a

glimpse into our changing concepts of what is intangible culture, particularly with the addition

of the internet and digital media.

It is unlikely that there will ever be a universal definition of ‘intangible culture’ because it is

inherently fluid and a definition would be too restrictive. However, it is in that idea that the need

to protect and conserve elements of our intangible heritage that is necessary to ensure that

the entirety of human culture is preserved, whether openly shared or not.


15/17

DA Donnelly 14

REFERENCES

Ahmed, Y. (2006) ‘The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible’,

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, May 2006, pp. 292–300.

Arizpe, L. (2004) ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage, Diversity and Coherence’, Museum

International , Vol 56, Issue 1-2, pp. 130-136.

Brown, M.M. (2004) ‘The UNDP’s Commitment to Defend Cultural Diversity with UNESCO’,

Museum International , Volume 56, Issue 4 (December), pp. 4-105.

Cave, C. and Negussie, E. (2015) Module 2 Cultural Heritage Conservation - Session 1

Introduction to Cultural Heritage [Session Notes 1 to World Heritage Conservation] F040:

WorldHeritage Conservation. University College Dublin. 25 November.

Council of Europe (2005) Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural

Heritage for Society . Faro, 27.X.2005.

http://www.kpd.lt/uploads/Teises%20aktai/Konvencijos/Konvencija%20d%C4%97l%20kulturo

s%20paveldo%20vert%C4%97s%20visuomenei.pdf

Deacon, H., Dondolo, L., Mrubata, M., and Prosalendis, S. (2004) The Subtle Power of

Intangible Heritage: Legal and Financial Instruments for Safeguarding Intangible Heritage.

Cape Town: HSRC Publishers.

Dempsey, H.A. (1956) ‘Social Dances of the Blood Indians of Alberta, Canada’, The Journal

of American Folklore, Vol. 69, No. 271 (Jan. - Mar., 1956), pp. 47-52.

Egerton, D. (2000) ‘Review: This Side of Heaven: Determining the Donnelly Murders, 1880 by

Norman N. Feltes’, The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp.

160-161.

Egyptian Cultural Development Fund (2015) Representative List of the Intangible Cultural

Heritage of Humanity – ICH-02 – Nomination Form – Tahteeb, stick game. Dated 8

September, 2015. File Reference 1189. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/files-2016-

under-process-00774 Accessed 9 February, 2016.

Fox, T. (2005) ‘The Belleek Wishing Cup’, UK Belleek Collectors’ Group Newsletter 26/2 July.

http://www.belleek.org.uk/Research%20Page/Research%20Wares/wishing%20cup%20Jul%2

02005.pdf

Gauthier, A. (2011) Intangible Heritage in Canada: Political context, safeguarding initiatives,

and international cooperation. Quebec Council for Intangible Heritage (CQPV).

http://patrimoinevivant.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Intangible-Heritage-in-Canada-

ICHCAP-publishing.pdf

Greenhill, P. and Narváez, P. (2002) ‘Introduction: Folklore in Canada’, The Journal of

American Folklore, Vol. 115, No. 456, (Spring, 2002), pp. 116-128.

ICOMOS (1998) Declaration of ICOMOS Marking the 50th Anniversary of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. Stockholm, September 11th, 1998.

http://www.icomos.org/charters/Stockholm-e.pdf

ICOMOS (2008) Québec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place - Adopted at

Québec, Canada, October 4th 2008.

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-646-2.pdf


16/17

DA Donnelly 15

Jarvis, D.G. (2014) Resilience of Tradition: Intangible Cultural Heritage Programs in

Newfoundland and Labrador . St. John’s: Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

https://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/sites/www.heritagecanada.org/files/Resilience%20of%20T

radition.pdf

Kearney, A. (2008) ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage: Global Awareness and Local Interest’. In

Smith, L. and Akagawa, N., eds., Key Issues in Cultural Heritage: Intangible Culture. New

York: Routledge. Ch 11, pp. 209-226.

Kila, J.D. (2013) ‘Inactive, Reactive, or Pro-Active?: Cultural Property Crimes in the Context ofContemporary Armed Conflicts’, Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & HeritageStudies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (2013), pp. 319-342.

Kurin, R. (2004) ‘Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention:

a Critical Appraisal’, Museum International , No. 221-222, Vol. 56, no. 1-2, pp. 66-77.

Limbertie, C. (2015) Intangible Cultural Heritage and why Ontario needs ICH . Commentposted on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport website December 6, 2015.https://talk.ontario.ca/culture/idea/intangible-cultural-heritage-and-why-ontario-needs-ich

Lucas, A. and Harris, J.R. (2011) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Mineola, NY:

Dover.

Masters, T. (2014) ‘Tutankhamun: How 'Tut-mania' gripped the world’, BBC , 24 July 2014.

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-28403598 [11 February 2016].

Munjeri, D. (2004) ‘Tangible and Intangible Heritage: from difference to convergence’,

Museum International , Vol 56, Issue 1-2, pp. 12-20.

Pietrobruno, S. (2014) ‘Between narratives and lists: performing digital intangible heritage

through global media’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol 20, Issue 7-8, November,

pages 742-759.

Pocius, G. (2010) ‘The Emergence of Intangible Cultural Heritage Policy in Newfoundland and

Labrador’, Newfoundland Quarterly , Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 43-45.

Province of British Columbia (1996) First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act [RSBC

1996] Chapter, Victoria: Queen's Printer. http://www.fpcc.ca/files/PDF/fphlcc-act-2011.pdf

Province of Nova Scotia (2008) A Treasured Past - A Precious Future: A Heritage Strategy for

Nova Scotia 2008-2013. Nova Scotia Tourism, Culture and Heritage.

https://cch.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/documents/heritagestrategy.pdf

Robson, D. (2016) ‘The secret “anti-languages” you’re not supposed to know’, BBC , 12

February 2016. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160211-the-secret-anti-

languages-youre-not-supposed-to-know [13 February 2016].

Seitel, P. (Ed.), (2001) Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment, Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.

Shaw, I. (2012) Ancient Egyptian Technology and Innovation: Transformations in PharaonicMaterial Culture. London: Bloomsbury.

Stocks, D.A. (2003) Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge.


17/17

DA Donnelly 16

Stone, P. (2012) ‘Human rights and cultural property protection in times of conflict’,International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 18:3, pp. 271-284.

Tumarkin, M. (2005) Traumascapes? The Power and Fate of Places Transformed byTragedy. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.

UNESCO (1950)Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties

(Law No. 214, May 30, 1950).Japan.http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/japan/japan_lawprotectionculturalproperty_engtof.pdf

UNESCO (1982) ‘Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies’, World Conference on CulturalPolicies, Mexico City, 26 July - 6 August 1982.http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/12762/11295421661mexico_en.pdf/mexico_en.pdf

UNESCO (1989) ‘Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore’,Records of the General Conference 25th Session, Paris 17 October to 16 November 1989,Vol. 1 Resolutions, Annex I Part B, pp. 238-243.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000846/084696e.pdf#page=242

UNESCO (2001) ‘The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’, Records of the GeneralConference 31st Session, Paris 15 October to 3 November 2001, Vol. 1 Resolutions, SectionV Programme for 2002-2003, Item 25, pp. 61-64.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001246/124687e.pdf#page=67

UNESCO (2002) ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage – a Mirror of Cultural Diversity’, IIIrd RoundTable of Ministers of Culture, Istanbul, 16-17 September 2002.http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00073-EN.pdf

UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris:UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf

UNESCO (2005) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of CulturalExpressions. Paris, 20 October 2005.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf

UNESCO (2006) Intangible Cultural Heritage ITH/06/1.EXT.GA/CONF.203/3 Paris, 28

September 2006 - General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention for the

Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00017-EN.pdf

UNESCO (2011) What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf

UNESCO (2015). UNESCO Intangible Heritage Lists [online]http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/lists [Accessed 9 February 2016].

van Zanten, W. (2004) ‘Constructing New Terminology for Intangible Cultural Heritage’,Museum International , Vol 56, Issue 1-2, pp. 36-44.

Yoshida, K. (2004) ‘The Museum and the Intangible Cultural Heritage’, Museum International ,

Vol 56, Issue 1-2, pp. 108-112.

Word count – excluding footnotes and References = 4,190

the tangible and the intangible: diversity promotes democratic cultural conservation

Documents