ABSTRACT
Few-if any-areas of specialisation in archaeology are likely to be more deeply affected by complex and contradictory forces of ‘globalisation’ and ‘risk society’ than those relating to the expression ‘lived cultural heritage’. This is especially the case in contexts where controversies are enmeshed in deepening inequalities with regards to exposure to techno-science hazard, unsustainable development and political conflict (e.g., Friedman 2001). Writing on challenges posed by these contexts, in his contribution to an edited volume on A Future of Archaeology (Layton et al. 2006), Henry Cleere (2006: 65) notes that for many researchers, the UNESCO World Heritage Convention represents both ‘the best and the worst of contemporary perceptions of and approaches to the tangible and intangible legacy of countless generations of ancestors. One of the most serious charges levelled against the Convention (or those who implement it) is the way in which it is often seen to ride rough shod over the rights and aspirations of local and indigenous communities.’ Different categories of World Heritage have different implications for the question ‘management for and by whom’ (Cleere 2006). This is especially the case for the three main categories of ‘cultural landscapes’:
‘the most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape designed and created’ as such intentionally, such as ‘garden and parkland landscapes,’ ‘the organically evolved landscape’ that ‘results from an initial social, economic, administrative and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment,’ the two major sub-categories of these are: ‘a relic or fossil landscape, in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time it the past’ but distinguishing features have remained, and ‘a continuing landscape that has an active role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress,’ ‘the associative cultural landscape’ frequently defined in terms of ‘the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material or cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent’ (Cleere 2006: 68-69).
