7.1 Origin of Cultural Landscape Notes
Introduction
Welcome to week seven, focusing on cultural landscapes.
Acknowledgement of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation as the traditional custodians of the land.
Recognition that the University of Sydney stands on land that has always been a place of learning for Indigenous peoples.
Topic: the origin and evolution of cultural landscapes within the context of the World Heritage Convention.
Introduction of Emma, a PhD student specializing in cultural landscapes in Australia, particularly the Gondwana Rainforest, to provide deeper insights.
World Heritage Convention Recap (1972)
Articles 1 (cultural heritage) and 2 (natural heritage) initially presented a dichotomy, which the convention seeks to bridge.
Highlighted as the most successful and extensively ratified international convention treaty in heritage preservation.
Initial separation of natural and cultural heritage in articles aimed for unification but presented practical challenges.
World Heritage Listing Process
Process begins with nomination to a state party's tentative list (e.g., by the Australian government).
Properties must remain on the tentative list for at least one year before an official nomination can proceed.
Preparation of a detailed nomination dossier involves substantial resources and time (typically one or more years).
Stakeholder involvement is crucial, encompassing various community, governmental, and expert perspectives.
Each state party can nominate only one property annually, necessitating strategic selection and interstate negotiation.
Advisory body evaluations are conducted by IUCN for natural heritage and ICOMOS for cultural heritage; joint evaluations occur for mixed nominations.
The World Heritage Committee, comprising representatives from state parties, makes the final decision, ensuring that nominated sites meet at least one of the ten selection criteria.
Australia maintains a tentative list of nine sites, reflecting ongoing efforts in heritage recognition.
World Heritage Site Selection Criterion
Six cultural and four natural criteria define the conditions under which a site can be listed.
Although listed 1-10, the criteria retain some separation, reflecting historical distinctions between natural and cultural heritage.
Nature Culture Binary
ICOMOS and ICCROM are responsible for assessing cultural heritage, while IUCN evaluates natural heritage, often with limited collaborative interaction.
UNESCO report (ninth session) acknowledged that cultural heritage includes combined works of nature and humans, with natural features essential to the setting of cultural elements.
Natural heritage is defined as features largely unmodified by human intervention, reflecting a wilderness ideology that often conflicts with realities of human-environment interaction.
Cultural definitions allow for the recognition of human-nature interaction, offering a more inclusive approach.
Mixed Site Category
Mixed sites meet criteria for both natural and cultural heritage, recognizing intrinsic connections between humans and their environment.
The World Heritage Committee emphasized the study of mixed sites and rural landscapes in the 1980s, advocating for integrated conservation approaches.
Operational guidelines have evolved from simply combining natural and cultural features to requiring properties to contain significant aspects of both, assessed independently by ICOMOS and IUCN.
Separate evaluations can lead to complexities where IUCN might approve natural criteria while ICOMOS rejects cultural criteria, potentially leading to inscription based solely on natural aspects.
Rural Landscapes
Rural landscapes highlight human-environment interactions that create outstanding universal value, emphasizing sustainable land production and habitation, such as rice fields.
Often described as biocultural mosaics, they represent integrated systems of human and natural elements.
While offering a valuable starting point, initial definitions were criticized for predominantly focusing on agrarian societies, overlooking other forms of cultural landscapes.
World Heritage Committee (1987, eleventh session)
Discussions centered on integrating natural and cultural heritage more effectively, seeking sites where these elements are harmoniously intertwined.
The UK nomination of the Great Lakes District was considered for mixed purposes but was deferred to allow for further development of criteria and definitions, highlighting the challenges in assessing such integrated sites.
Biocultural Heritage
The broader academic community recognized that existing definitions inadequately addressed the inseparable nature of natural and cultural heritage.
Biocultural heritage acknowledges the co-evolution of biodiversity and cultural diversity, emphasizing the intrinsic links between them.
Inclusive of intangible heritage and living practices, this approach supports the conservation of both cultural traditions and natural resources.
Academics advocate for the widespread application of biocultural values, noting that most biodiversity has been influenced by human activities over long periods.
A 2021 UNESCO report argued that dividing natural and cultural heritage is artificial and counterproductive for sustainable development, promoting integrated approaches.
Non European Indigenous World Views
Increasing emphasis on incorporating non-European Indigenous perspectives into World Heritage recognition.
Spatial disparities exist in World Heritage listings, with a disproportionate number of sites located in Europe compared to other regions.
The focus on tangible heritage and European scientific assessment models (ICOMOS) presents challenges for recognizing diverse cultural values.
Protected area models often struggle with the need for clear spatial boundaries, which can conflict with Indigenous land management practices.
Recognizing the significant spiritual, cultural, and ceremonial values of First Nations groups is difficult within conventional boundary-focused approaches.
The inscription of Willandra Lakes for natural heritage occurred without adequate involvement or awareness of First Nations groups, highlighting past oversights.
The cultural landscapes category was adopted partly to address underrepresentation of state parties with sites that did not meet conventional European criteria.
What is Cultural Landscape?
Cultural landscapes remain underrecognized, particularly on the World Heritage List, despite their significance.
Carl Sauer introduced the concept in 1925, defining it as "fashion[ed] from a natural landscape by a cultural group," where culture acts as the agent, the natural area as the medium, and the cultural landscape as the outcome.
Officially introduced in 1992 under Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention, the category was already widely used by landscape architects and planners.
World Heritage Culture Landscapes
These landscapes recognize the intertwined interactions between humans and nature, encompassing both tangible and intangible heritage.
Considered exclusively within the cultural heritage category, they are referred to as combined works of nature and humankind that express long-term, intimate relationships.
Approximately 10% (121 out of 1,199 properties) are listed as cultural landscapes, indicating a potential underutilization of the category.
Budj Bim Cultural Landscape in Victoria, one of the world's oldest aquaculture sites, exemplifies the social, spiritual, and economic connections interwoven with the environment.
Three Types of Cultural Landscapes
Designed landscapes: Intentionally created by humans, such as gardens, parks, and vineyard landscapes, reflecting specific aesthetic or functional designs.
Organically evolved landscapes: Result from initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperatives that have developed in response to their natural environment, categorized further as:
Relic/fossil landscapes: Those in which an evolutionary process came to an end.
Continuing landscapes: Those that retain an active social role in contemporary society and exhibit material evidence of their evolution over time (e.g., rice paddy fields in Thailand).
Associative cultural landscapes: Defined by powerful religious, cultural, or artistic associations with the natural environment, without necessarily requiring significant tangible physical heritage; these sites are valued for their intangible qualities and cultural significance.
Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)
Became the first World Heritage site listed under the revised cultural landscape category in 1993, originally recognized for its natural heritage in 1991.
Its reinscription as an associative cultural landscape reflects its unbroken associations with Maori culture and the profound cultural significance as a gift from Horonuku.
Serves as a key case study and model for the associative landscape category, illustrating how cultural values can be integral to heritage recognition.
Justification for associative cultural landscapes lies in powerful religious, artistic, and cultural associations, rather than solely on material cultural evidence, challenging Western archaeological norms.
Australia's World Heritage Sites
Australia boasts 20 World Heritage sites, including 12 natural, 4 mixed, and 4 cultural sites, reflecting the country's diverse heritage.
Only a small fraction of these sites are explicitly recognized for Aboriginal cultural heritage, indicating an area for potential growth.
Currently, five sites in Australia recognize Aboriginal heritage values, highlighting the ongoing recognition of Indigenous connections to the land.
Two sites are classified as cultural landscapes: Budj Bim and Uluru, showcasing different facets of Australian heritage.
Cultural Landscapes of Australia
Uluru was initially nominated as a mixed site in 1986 but was inscribed solely for its natural values in 1987 due to ICOMOS concerns.
It was later reinscribed as an associative cultural landscape in 1994 under criteria five and six, acknowledging its living representation of traditional Anangu practices.
Budj Bim, recognized as one of the world's oldest aquaculture systems, was inscribed in 2019 under Article 1, reflecting its outstanding cultural significance.
The nomination of Budj Bim termed the area an "ecocultural landscape" to emphasize its biocultural values and the integration of ecological and cultural systems.
This marked the first Indigenous-led World Heritage nomination in Australia, spearheaded by the Gunditjmara people, and now serves as an exemplar for other Indigenous heritage nominations.
Despite these successes, the cultural landscape category remains underrepresented in Australia, suggesting opportunities for further recognition.
Muru Juga Cultural Landscape
Located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, Muru Juga has been nominated for World Heritage Listing solely for its cultural heritage values under Article 1.
This area contains over a million petroglyphs, illustrating a profound and ongoing connection with the land spanning millennia.
Recognized nationally for its outstanding heritage value since 2007, the site was added to the tentative list in 2020 through a collaborative effort between the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW), and the Australian federal government.
Although the initial nomination faced denial in 2023 due to a technicality, it was promptly resubmitted and accepted for further consideration, underscoring its significance.
EcoMass Cultural Landscape Symposium (2023)
The Environment Minister's address at the symposium indicated a potential shift towards increased interest and investment in cultural landscapes.
Acknowledgment that much of the existing World Heritage estate was developed based on outdated attitudes and limited knowledge highlights the need for reassessment and updated perspectives.
Cape York Peninsula
In 1982, the IUCN suggested that Cape York Peninsula could potentially be listed for its significant natural heritage values.
The Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act (2007) provides a legislative framework to identify and protect cultural and natural values, supporting conservation efforts.
This act allows for joint management of national park land by traditional owners, empowering Indigenous communities in conservation governance.
Cape York Peninsula was added to the National Heritage List in 2018 and the tentative list in June, paving the way for World Heritage consideration.
Proposed as a serial property, Cape York represents an exceptional example of a large, complex, and diverse cultural landscape with immense heritage value.
Great Australian Bight
The Wilderness Society is actively campaigning for the Great Australian Bight to be nominated as a World Heritage Site, emphasizing its outstanding natural and cultural heritage values.
Reassessing Natural Sites as Cultural Landscapes
A significant opportunity exists to reevaluate and potentially reinscribe Australia's natural heritage sites as cultural landscapes, enhancing their recognition and protection.
UNESCO already acknowledges Kakadu National Park and the Tasmanian Wilderness as cultural landscapes, partly recognizing the intertwined cultural and natural values present.
An apology was issued for historical references to Aboriginal people in the Tasmanian World Heritage listing as "extinct," acknowledging past insensitivities and promoting inclusive representation.
There is a long history of underrecognizing intangible cultural heritage aspects and the interconnectedness of humans and nature in heritage assessments, highlighting the need for more holistic approaches.
Main Takeaways
Cultural landscapes are not a recent concept but have gained increasing recognition in heritage management and conservation.
The inclusion of cultural landscapes has facilitated a more holistic and representative approach to site protection, embracing diverse cultural values.
Efforts aim to reduce the artificial nature-culture binary in regulatory settings, promoting integrated conservation strategies.
Tomorrow's discussion will focus on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and the Gondwana Rainforest of Australia, exploring specific examples of cultural landscape management and conservation efforts.