Patrimonio y valores de la arquitectura en tierra de los Paisajes Culturales.

September 28, 2017 | Autor: Jorge Aching | Categoría: Cultural Landscapes, Earthen Architecture, Archeology
Share Embed


Descripción

HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Maria Isabel KANAN (*), Jonathan S. BELL (**) (*) Freelance Architect, Av. Afonso Delambert Neto 978/104, Florianopolis, Brazil 88062-000, +55 48 99690793, [email protected], (**) UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Lecturer and Heritage Consultant, 1738 Barry Ave., #6, Los Angeles, CA 90025,+1.310.497.4473, ,[email protected]

Abstract This paper presents a research design developed by the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Earthen Architectural Heritage (ISCEAH) to define and identify earthen cultural landscapes. A survey methodology has been implemented collaboratively by ISCEAH members in order to elicit responses from academics, professionals, and policymakers regarding concepts and definitions of cultural landscapes. The questionnaire used as the survey instrument focuses on key concepts and components of cultural landscapes generally and landscapes comprising built earthen heritage, more specifically. Included in the paper are motivations for the research, consideration of principal terms and concepts, description of the collaborative process used to develop the questionnaire, and analysis of preliminary results. Keywords: Heritage, Earthen architecture, Cultural landscape, Landscape analysis, Survey design, Qualitative research

Introduction/ motivation to develop the research The International Scientific Committee on Earthen Architectural Heritage (ISCEAH) of ICOMOS is committed to the protection and conservation of the world’s earthen architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage. Through its activities and broad membership, the committee provides a forum for sharing professional experiences and contributes to a number of fields of study related to the earthen built environment. Since 2008, ISCEAH’s cultural landscape research group has focused on the definition and identification of Earthen Cultural Landscapes (ECLs), presenting outcomes at the international Terra conferences.1 The current stage of the group’s research, since Terra 2012 and the Paris WHEAP (World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme) colloquium, employs a qualitative approach to contribute to the general understanding of ECLs and their most important defining characteristics. An ongoing challenge for the group has been refining the general concept of ‘cultural landscape’ and adapting this concept to landscapes comprising earthen architectural heritage. The group determined it was necessary to review existing terminology and consider the implications of earthen heritage on the concept of cultural landscape in order to inform both theory and practice. Reconciling a wide spectrum of interpretations, experiences, and regional differences relevant to defining cultural landscapes has been the central focus of much of this phase. Collaboration across ISCEAH has facilitated the definition of terms and the development of a viable research approach and survey instrument. The research aims to develop an expert understanding of cultural landscapes that include earthen architecture and implicates researchers, professionals, and policymakers involved in cultural resource management and protection. How participants in the study perceive the role of earthen architecture in 































































Mali, 2008 and Peru, 2012 (papers are listed in the bibliography) 


1

HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

2


the definition and protection of cultural landscapes is integral to the research. ISCEAH members worked together to develop a survey methodology and relevant questionnaire to formalize language around the key concepts and establish the parameters for earthen cultural landscapes that could be communicated to a wide array of researchers and practitioners. Subsequently, the group disseminated the questionnaire to ISCEAH members and other professionals across the cultural heritage spectrum. The final group of survey respondents included academics, practicing conservators and preservationists, planning professionals, and government officials. The current paper presents three phases of the current study. The first phase comprises the definition of principal concepts and development of the survey instrument. During the second phase, the committee disseminated the questionnaire first to ISCEAH members, and then to academics, practitioners, and others outside the committee. In the third phase, data compilation and analysis resulted in identification of the principal concepts and terminologies around cultural landscapes, generally, and those integrating earthen architectural elements, specifically. The preliminary findings contribute broadly to the definition and identification of ECLs and inform next steps the ongoing research.

Methodology/ Process for the research The research approach began with compilation and review of cultural landscape theory and definitions developed by academia and professional organizations, followed by identification of ECLs by ISCEAH members.2 The identification, designation, and protection of these significant landscapes still require increased attention and resources. Comprehensive surveys are rarely available, resulting in the loss of authenticity and integrity of significant earthen cultural places.3 (fig.1) In order to establish clear criteria for the identification of earthen cultural landscapes and begin to define parameters, ISCEAH members worked collaboratively to develop a survey methodology that could involve a range of dedicated professionals. This approach was chosen as the most practical method of compiling opinion on cultural landscapes from a cross-section of international experts, professionals, academics, and related networks involved in earthen architecture and cultural landscape research and preservation. The use of a survey further aided in defining criteria for the assessment and conservation of associated earthen architecture, and protection of these cultural and geographical spaces.4 From the first phase of discussions it was clear that committee members held extensive expertise and divergent views on the definitions, interpretations, and approaches to the protection of earthen cultural landscapes. Given the complexity of the topic, a number of multiple perspectives came to light. A selection of comments is included below: • •



At the simplest level, one can relate landscapes with the presence of earthen construction to the “colour and texture” of the built structure integrated to the environment. There are cases in which magnificent earthen buildings and structures are highly visible components of the cultural landscape. However, the presence of earthen architecture within cultural landscapes “has added important aspects to the landscape beyond the merely visual aspect”. The widespread and thoughtful recognition of cultural landscapes, together with the rapid, ongoing, and highly visible destruction or modifications of many traditional cultural heritage landscapes around the world, have added impetus to landscape conservation planning efforts.






























































 2

Kanan, Cooke, and Bell, 2012. Jerome Pamela, 2012. 4 
Correia, 2009; CRAterre-ENSAG, 2007-2017. 3



2


HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES



3


These may be huge areas and the challenges in attempting to define boundaries of a cultural landscape nearly insurmountable.

The compilation of comments and concerns like the ones listed above informed the development of the survey, ensuring that key concepts and challenges were integrated into a draft questionnaire to solicit feedback from the ISCEAH members. The following paragraphs describe the process of questionnaire development: 1) First step: drafting of a document representing all the questions and concepts discussed during and after the Terra 2012 meeting in Lima regarding this topic. This involved additional background research and consideration of cultural landscape definitions and terminology. The first draft was distributed among the ISCEAH members for evaluation and critique. 2) Second step: compilation and review of comments and relevant data. Reviewers of the survey and research approach identified gaps and suggested ways to improve the overall approach and the specific questionnaire. In summary, the following criticisms were expressed: - the questionnaire was too extensive/ exhaustive; - it had too many open-ended questions; - some questions were broad, entirely subjective, and difficult to quantify; - several questions were ambiguous or unclear and difficult to analyze; - efforts to define terminology and explore concepts were overly repetitive; - consideration of professional/researcher perspectives in contrast to residents and key stakeholders within landscapes was lacking; - principal terms and concepts required clarification and definition. Integrating these comments and referring to principles of questionnaire design,5 the authors drafted a viable questionnaire designed to elicit responses from a professional audience and distributed to ISCEAH members for final comment. 3) Third step: the group again reviewed the questionnaire and further streamlined the document, refining its layout and enhancing its presentation and clarity as a survey instrument. 
 Although the original scope of the survey was limited to ISCEAH members, it became clear during the questionnaire development that the survey should be extended to other networks and professionals outside the group. Extending the survey beyond the committee would increase the sample size and ensure inclusion of multiple perspectives and areas of experience, including tourism, geography, and regional studies. This would also increase the likelihood that study that could have impact across fields, an important consideration given that cultural landscapes are by their nature multidisciplinary. After finalizing the questionnaire, we distributed it first to ISCEAH members and then through other professional networks using a snowball sampling method that relied on the authors’ connections and those of survey participants to disseminate the questionnaire and recruit additional respondents. A total of 54 completed questionnaires have been compiled and analyzed in time for this paper, but the survey is still ongoing and the group continues to receive completed questionnaires. There were also requests to translate the questionnaire into other languages in order to increase its accessibility to certain groups of professionals. We are considering these requests and hope to be able to provide translated questionnaires in later stages of the research and vastly increase current sample size of 53. For this reason, the current findings are considered preliminary.






























































 5



See Groves, et al., 2009 for detailed information on questionnaire design and survey implementation.

3


HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

4


Results/ layout of the questionnaire and analysis The final questionnaire design resulted in five thematic sections. Part one focuses on demographics of respondents, namely the professional disciplines in which they work, geographic areas where they have experience, amount of earthen materials involved, and nature of their experience with cultural landscapes. Data from this section have provided key insight into the geographic and professional diversity of respondents. For instance, a majority of respondents have worked with some combination of vernacular architecture, cultural landscapes, historic towns and villages, and traditional settlements. Nearly half of respondents indicated having professional experience with archaeological sites, bringing to light a broad diversity of experience with distinct types of heritage. The geographic distribution of experience favored Europe and North Africa, with nearly half of all respondents highlighting professional experience in these regions. Slightly less indicated having experience in South America and the Middle East, while all parts of Asia were poorly represented by the sample. Future phases should aim to integrate participants with experience in different parts of Asia. Part two highlights key defining concepts of cultural landscapes, asking respondents to rank on a Likert scale the importance of specific concepts, factors, and statements in the definition and protection of cultural landscapes (figs. 2 and 3). This part of the survey questionnaire was the most difficult to develop, considering the broad range of theoretical and practical concepts related to cultural landscapes and the need for thoroughness. There was also an effort to standardize the language around the concepts of cultural landscapes and to compile principal existing definitions and terms from multiple sources.6 The final questionnaire integrates terminology and concepts derived from institutional and academic sources and the professional perspectives of ISCEAH members in the three questions. The most popular defining concept for cultural landscapes in the survey was “combined works of nature and humans”, ranked as most significant by over half of all respondents, reflecting the definition set forth by the World Heritage Convention.7 Additional concepts highlighted were “successive social, economic, and cultural layers of significance”, “cultural property”, and “vernacular architecture”. Respondents ranked as most impactful on the identification and management of cultural landscapes the concept of uniqueness and the process of interaction between humans and nature. Part three focuses on defining factors of and threats to earthen cultural landscapes in order to preserve the complexity of values this heritage comprises. Among the most significant findings are the perceived importance of spatial relationships between built and natural features, interactions between humans and nature, and the transmission of knowledge. The most highly ranked threats include changing land use and climate change, urbanization and loss of vernacular traditions, and high cost of conservation and loss of viability. The findings underscore that the most severe threats to earthen 




























































 6

Three sources for the definition of Cultural Landscape were used (See the references at the bibliography): World Heritage Convention “Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the ‘combined works of nature and of man’ designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.” US National Parks A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or that exhibit other cultural or aesthetic values. Academic Debate In multiple fields of academic research, the term 'cultural landscape' encompasses the concept of an expanse of land that has been modified by human action and, through this activity, undergone physical change and been overlaid with new significance. Despite near universal agreement on this core concept, many scholars insist that the term is inherently imprecise and impossible to define with clarity.
 7 Cf. footnote 7.



4


HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

5


cultural landscapes are those that directly undermine and ultimately destroy their most significant components and factors, e.g. spatial relationships, and intangible knowledge. Parts four and five focus on the development of the Global Atlas for Earthen Cultural Landscapes and ask respondents to rank criteria for inclusion and provide suggestions, as well as any additional sources of information. The most important criteria selected were authenticity, geographical location, and representativeness of typology. These suggestions still require tallying and comparison to the sites included in the earliest draft of the Atlas compiled within the ISCEAH landscape group. Future phases of the research will aim to include additional landscapes in the Atlas and engage interested survey respondents in providing relevant information.

Final Considerations There is a need to develop productive tools and approaches to contribute to the effective definition, identification, and protection of cultural landscapes. The study presented aims to provide the means for meaningful dialogue around these challenges and compile reliable data to inform ongoing and future preservation and management efforts. Preliminary findings of the survey have verified the usefulness of the approach and survey instrument in identifying the principal aspects of significance of cultural landscapes with earthen components and the most imminent threats to their protection. The authors, together with the ISCEAH group, intend to continue the analysis of this survey and continue to disseminate the questionnaire to expand the sample size and distribution. Additional data and analysis will serve to refine the definition and understanding of earthen cultural landscapes. Final results will further inform the continued compilation of the Global Atlas for Earthen Cultural Landscapes, which will include review of key terminology, discussion of concepts around cultural landscapes, and consideration of the most serious threats to effective management and protection of these places. The survey has already served to broaden our understanding of cultural landscapes and provided a list of additional landscapes for inclusion in the Atlas. We look forward to expanding and refining this work and invite all interested parties to contact the authors.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to specially thank all ISCEAH members who contributed to and supported this survey. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals who provided important commentary and suggestions throughout the research program: John Hurd, William Remsen, Erica Avrami, Tara Sharma, Jorge Aching, Shao Yong, Ali Ould Sidi.

Bibliography Correia, Mariana. 2009. Conservation Intervention in Earthen Heritage : Assesment and Significance of Failure, Criteria, Conservation Theory and Strategies. PhD Thesis.. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Brookes University. Language: English, p.294-296 CRAterre-ENSAG, Questionnaire PAT 2007-2017 Groves Robert M., et al. 2013. Survey methodology. Hoboken, United States: John Wiley & Sons. Kanan Maria Isabel, Correia Mariana, and Hurd John. 2011. “The Conservation of Earthen Architectural Landscapes: A Preliminary Reflection and Review of Concepts.” In Terra 2008: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Study and Conservation of Earthen Architectural Heritage, Bamako, Mali, February 1–5, 2008. Edited by Leslie Rainer, Angelyn Bass Rivera, and David Gandreau. J. Paul Getty Trust. pp 74-79. ISBN 978-1-60606-043-8 (pbk.) Kanan Maria Isabel, Cooke Louise, Bell Jonathan. 2012. “The research work of the landscape group of ISCEAH: Identifying and discussing case studies.” In Terra 2012, Lima, Peru. The 11th International Conference on the Study and Conservation of Earthen Architectural Heritage. Jerome Pamela. “Vernacular built heritage in the context of the Arabian-oasis cultural landscape: the 


5


HERITAGE AND VALUES IN ARCHITECTURAL EARTHEN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

6


case of Wadi Do’an, Yemen.” CIAV-ICOMOS 2012 Al Ain, The Place of the Vernacular Built Heritage in a Rapidly Changing Context,18th to 21st November 2012 Michael Jones. 2003. "The Concept of Cultural Landscape: Discourse and Narratives." Chap. 3 In Landscape Interfaces, edited by Hannes Palang and Gary Fry. Landscape Series, 21-51: Springer Netherlands. Page, Robert R., Gilbert, Cathy A., Dolan, Susan A. 1998. A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Washington, DC UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 08/01, January 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Paris

Figure 1 – Pachacamac in Peru illustrates a valuable geo-cultural area, representative of a pre Hispanic culture site with earthen heritage. These assets present similar problems of overpopulation and growth without territorial planning when not recognized as cultural landscapes. (credit: Jorge Aching)

Figure 2 – Chemday monastery, Ladakh, northern India and the adjoining settlement. The 17th century core and old fortification as well as some of the older monk’s residences are in adobe and rammed earth. The relation with the landscape is largely retained, as it shows next figure (credit: Tara Sharma). Figure 3 – The agricultural fields around Chemday monastery highlights traditional land use patterns in these settlements. (Credit: Tara Sharma)




6


Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentarios

Copyright © 2017 DATOSPDF Inc.