ABSTRACT
Heritage practice has been signifi cantly broadened recently by incorporating emerging discourses based on contexts, landscape and intangible culture, as compared to earlier material-and history-centric approaches (Chapagain 2013a, 11). While these new discourses – particularly the one on intangible cultural heritage – have helped in making explicit those neglected aspects, there is also the risk of overemphasizing the thin boundary between the tangible and intangible as well as natural and cultural heritages. Though Munjeri (2004) points out that the division has already been bridged, the prevalent practice is still stuck within the limits of the divided mentality provided by these ‘instruments’ of ‘World Heritage’. It is so because developing programmes and instruments separately to deal with tangible and intangible heritage gives an impression that they are two different worlds, implying that they need to be tackled in isolation. Moreover, despite the recognition of broader concepts such as cultural landscapes, it is evident that it takes much time to put concepts into practice.
