A Question on Relevance: The Role of and History to Heritage

JERONE AVEL S. CANSINO, 

MAED Social Science

Diploma in Archaeology

In this article, I am going to discuss the role of "History" in "Heritage" and its relevance. But before we jump to that, we must understand what we mean when we say History and Heritage. After comparing the definitions of History and Heritage, we can see for ourselves the overlaps between these two terms, and from that, we can conceptualize the role of History in Heritage. And from that, I will present various examples from the heritage literature. This concept is often used interchangeably, but Heritage and History are two different but related things. Understanding the meanings and definitions of these two terms could help us understand their relationship.

What is History?

For starters (which I know you are not), the term history is etymologically related to "historie" which means "to see." In other languages, History tells a "story" or a narrative  (Le Goff, 1992, as cited by Tucker, 2004). When I was in High School, my history teacher told us to memorize the definition of History. As I remember, "History is a written record of past events, people, places and is arranged in chronological order."

Another definition of History that is worth reflecting on is the definition of Dr. Zeus Salazar. For him, History is a "narrative that is relevant" (mga salaysay na may saysay). This definition of History is more inclusive and a breakaway from the Rankean Doctrine of Historiography.

There have been many meanings of History in the compilation made by (Szasz, 1974; Szasz, 1974b)

[History] may be called, more generally still, the Message, verbal or written, which all mankind delivers to ever (Thomas Carlyle)

History is the essence of innumerable biographies. (Thomas Carlyle)

History is the self-consciousness of humanity. (Droyson)

In its amplest meaning, History includes every trace and vestige of everything that man has done or thought since he first appeared on the earth. (James Harvey Rob)

The value of History is, indeed, not scientific, but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society but ourselves . . . it prepares us to live more humanely in the present . . . and to meet the future. (Carl L. Becker)

[Some historians hold that History] is just one dumb thing after another. (Arnold Toynbee)

I am far too much in doubt about the present, far too perturbed about the future, to be otherwise than profoundly reverential about the past. (Augustine Birrel)

"History" is the name we as human beings give to the horizon of consciousness within which we live. (Harvey Cox)

If History is a collection of events that come to life for us because of what some actors did, some recorders recorded, and some previewers decided to retell, a clinician attempting to interpret a historical event must first get the facts straight. (Erik Erikson)

History, by appraising ... [the students] of the past, will enable them to judge of the future. (Thomas Jefferson)

History is only a catalog of the forgotten. (Henry Adam)

Of course, the debate about the definition of the term history is much deeper and broader than what I aim to present here. The reason I present this is to illustrate the point that History and Heritage have always been similar but yet different. In the definition of History I have presented, we can see that every definition of History has the following concepts:

1.         Time depth (past),

2.         Human experience,

3.         It is a narrative (story),

4.         Its subject includes people and places.

What is Heritage?

The definition of Heritage has been problematized for years. Cage  (1996, as mentioned by Merriman, 1996) mentioned, "there is still a no better approach to the word than that of Humpty Dumpty, for whom a word meant what he decided it should mean, neither more nor less. The problem is each of us is our own Humpty Dumpty, and there is no consensus". This comment reflects a theoretical problem on Heritage. The terms are vague and inexact. Technically, anyone can speak about Heritage, and this term can mean almost anything.

In recent years, there have been developments in the standardization of the term. Here, I will present two common definitions of "heritage" as agreed upon by the community of professionals working in the Heritage field. 

Heritage is defined as "a version of the past received through objects and display, representations and engagements, spectacular locations and events, memories, and commemorations, and the preparation of places for cultural purposes and consumption (Waterton & Watson, 2015: 1)

Heritage is a broad concept and includes the natural as well as the cultural environment. It encompasses landscapes, historic places, sites, built environments, biodiversity, collections, past and continuing cultural practices, knowledge, and living experiences. It records and expresses the long processes of historic development, forming the essence of diverse national, regional, indigenous, and local identities and is an integral part of modern life. It is a dynamic social reference point and a positive instrument for growth and change. The particular Heritage and collective memory of each locality or community are irreplaceable and an important foundation for development, both now and into the future. (ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2002)

Heritage, in its broadest sense, is anything that is perceived to be important. It could be natural or cultural. It has anything to do with people, places, built structures, things that were made, or ideas. The following are the things that define Heritage:

1.         Heritage is collective memories

2.         It could be natural, historical, cultural, tangible, and intangible.

3.         It could refer to a place, a material thing, or an idea (abstract).

4.         It could be a reference to identities.

The intersections between the two concepts

A sense of connection with the past. The emergence of new schools of thought in History has brought the concept of the connection of the past to the present and the future. The rigidness of the Rankean doctrine has been challenged by new thinking, specifically the emergence of the Annales school led by Mac Bloch. As rational beings, we humans tend to give importance to knowing the things that have happened in the past. This could be traced to the concept of "memory."  Both History and Heritage are manifestations that we as humans want to be remembered. This desire "to see" or have access to a window to the past is what makes up History and Heritage or the sense of nostalgia (Davis, 1979; Lynch, 1972: Tuan, 1974, as mentioned by Merriman, 1996). As we can see from the definitions of both History and Heritage, both things include places, materials, or ideas that are perceived by people to be important or relevant. We can see that both History and Heritage have implications in the present and the future. Given this, we could safely say that the connection between History and Heritage was never absent.

The Role of History in Heritage

Now, the question that remains is the difference between these two terms. If History and Heritage have so many things in common, why are these two considered different? There are various reasons why History is not necessarily Heritage. We can see that the main difference between History and Heritage is "the reason why it is done." While History is concerned with piecing together the puzzle of the past to give us knowledge, an understanding of the present, and the means to direct the future, Heritage is primarily concerned with the protection and conservation or use (consumption) of the remnants of the past.

History verifies Heritage

One of the critiques of Heritage that was raised by Merriman (1996) is the fact that since human beings are interested in the sense of memory or the sense of nostalgia about the past, there is a possibility that Heritage could be commercialized. The danger of commercialization might lead to a decrease in concern for historical accuracy. For example, in the contemporary world, when we are becoming more globalized, heritage tourism is becoming a thing. In fact, in a study conducted by McGrath, Primm, & Lafe (2017) it was estimated that the heritage attractions in the State of Pennsylvania alone have made 2 Billion US Dollars in purchasing goods and services that are attributed to heritage tourism. Su & Lin (2014) saw a positive relationship between tourist arrivals and heritage sites. It was also found that there is a U-shaped relationship between the number of world heritage sites in a country and tourist numbers.

While History remains largely among academics, Heritage is becoming more engaged in development... The sense of the past or the shared memory has been used around the world as one of the driving forces of development. This made the concerns of Merriman valid in his criticisms of Heritage. Here, I will try to answer the question of the role of archaeology in Heritage. I will echo what Merriman has pointed out. The role of History in Heritage is to verify Heritage. History gives context to Heritage. It helps in establishing collective memory and, in the process, Identity.

This is especially important because one of the Philippines' strongest industries is heritage tourism. Vigan in Ilocos Norte and Cebu have been the favorites. Intramuros, the Spanish Era churches, and the Spanish forts have been tourist attractions. The discovery of old human fossils in the Tabon Cave Complex and Penablanca in Cagayan paved more opportunities for heritage tourism.

History creates Heritage through Identity.

On another level, Merriman also mentioned the connection of Heritage to Identity. Merriman mentioned in his critique that the openness of the definition of Heritage made it accessible to the public. Unlike the "mainstream history," Heritage became a platform for "academics" and interested parties. Heritage and Identity became almost synonymous. In public discourse, the creation of local, regional, and National Identities. It cited examples from the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where there is apparent diversity in the population. Of course, the case of the Philippines is no different. We are a diverse population, and our nationhood was a creation of recent historical events. I would like to borrow the term that was used by Ben Anderson, "imagined communities" (Anderson, 2006).

Before the Spaniards came to our shores, there was no such thing as a  Filipino nation. All we have is a confederation of barangays. This was utilized by the Spanish Conquistadores when they utilized a divide-and-conquer strategy to subdue the islands. The archipelago that is now known as the Philippines was united under the banner of Spain. The idea of Philippine nationhood was advanced by the Illustrados around 300 years after the whole Philippine island was colonized. Here nationhood was created, and I would like to say that the idea of Filipino Heritage was conceived (Ikehata, 1968). Here, we could directly see how History can complement Heritage. It is a fact that the whole concept of Filipino Heritage is a creation of recent historical developments and that historical accounts would contribute to the formation of the concept of Heritage (Cruz, 2019). The idea of a post-colonialist identity is also discussed by Goh (2014) based on the experience of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. Here is another manifestation of how History was used to create a post-colonial identity.

History makes Heritage relevant to current social issues that were already observed in the past.

Merriman also pointed out that English heritage is influenced by the class structure and imperial History. This will lead to what I believe is another role of History to Heritage- the promotion of human rights and social justice. One example case that I can present is an article published by Baird (2014). It takes on the issue of Heritage and the issue of human rights and inequalities. Though Heritage was viewed as a positive concept that is shared, there is a clear incident when heritage sites became places of violence, especially in inter-ethnic conflicts, as these heritage sites are often targeted in times of conflict. A case was presented on the heritage work in the Altai mountains of Mongolia. A survey was conducted in the Bayan Olgy province. This region includes several impressive collections of standing stones and stone figures, stone altars, burial and ritual mounds, and petroglyphs that could be used as evidence of symbolic cultural practices. This region was occupied by the Kazakh nomadic pastoralists and their connection to the region since the 1800s; however, these groups of people were stigmatized as outsiders by the native Mongolians. This exemplifies the basic problem of "ownership of the place." It begs the question, "Whose heritage was it?"

In the case of the former British colonies such as New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, there have been issues related to colonization. History, Heritage, and politics play an important role in the preservation of Heritage. Here is the question: "What is heritage?". It is important to ask because the longstanding idea of Heritage is the European Heritage and in contrast to it there is the indigenous people's Heritage. With a  Marxist approach to the interpretation of History, Heritage can always remind mankind of the current issues of colonialism, inequality, human rights, and social justice (Gentry, 2015). Heritage, with the aid of History, could remind us of the injustices made to the indigenous people during the times of European Colonization, the large-scale land grabbing and murder committed just to advance imperialist interests (McNiven & Connaughton, 2019).

In the same manner, the Philippines. According to Majul (1971), the development of Filipino Nationalism began as a process that was initiated by an ethnic group exerting an effort to transform itself into a national community motivated by the oppressive and exploitative colonial master. History gives context to Heritage and reminds mankind of the social issues in the past. 

Conclusions

At the start of this lecture, I aimed to at least differentiate History from Heritage, and from that, the role of History to Heritage will be deconstructed. The difference between Heritage and History is its aim. History is more concerned with the knowledge about the past, while Heritage is the protection, conservation, and consumption of Heritage. History is an academic discipline. It seeks to answer questions about the past using the historiography method. Heritage, on the other hand, is a more open platform. It does not only require historical facts but also community engagement. To sum up, I have mentioned in this lecture three roles of History to Heritage:

1.     History verifies Heritage

2.     History creates Heritage

3.     History makes Heritage relevant to current social issues that were already observed in the past.

I would also like to clarify that while it is true that History gives Heritage relevance, in social issues, Heritage is one of the activities that makes History relevant. This is the power of memory. Heritage and History are products of our longing to be remembered, but its power is only dependent on the ability of our species to appreciate the past.

 

References

 

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvgs0c0q.10

Cruz, G. R. C. (2019). A Review of How Philippine Colonial Experience Influenced the Country' s Approaches to Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Presented at the 12th DLSU Arts Congress.

Davis, F (1979) Yearning for Yesterday: A Sociology of Nostalgia. London: Collier Macmillan.

Gentry, K. (2015). History, Heritage, and colonialism. In A. S. Thomsson & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), Studies in Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester Uiversity Press.

Goh, D. P. S. (2014). Between History and Heritage: Post-Colonialism, Globalisation, and the Remaking of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 2(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2013.17

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites. Principles and Guidelines For Managing Tourism At Places Of Cultural And Heritage Significance. , (2002).

Ikehata, S. (1968). Jose Rizal: The development of the national view of History and national consciousness in the Philippines. The Developing Economies, 6(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1968.tb01123.x

Le Goff, Jacques, (1992). History and memory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lynch, Kevin (1972) What Time is this Place? London: MIT Press.

Majul, C. A. (1971). Social background of revolution. Asian Studies, 9(1), 1–23. Retrieved from http://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-46-2010/Social background of revolution.pdf

McGrath, J. M., Primm, D., & Lafe, W. (2017). Heritage tourism's economic contribution. Tourism Economics, 23(5), 1131–1137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816616674589

McNiven, I. J., & Connaughton, S. P. (2019). Cultural Heritage Management and the Colonial Culture. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_1222-3

Merriman, N. (1996). Understanding Heritage. Journal of Material Culture, 1(3), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000245

Page, J. (1996)' Heritage: Philosophy, Policy, Practice', in Annual Report 1995. Society of Antiquaries of London: 13-29.

Su, Y.-W., & Lin, H.-L. (2014). Analysis of international tourist arrivals worldwide: The role of world heritage sites. Tourism Management, 40, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.005

Szasz, F. M. (1974a). The Many Meanings of History , Part I. The History Teacher, 7(4), 552–563. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/492061

Szasz, F. M. (1974b). The Many Meanings of History , Part II. The History Teacher, 8(1), 54–63. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/491438

Tucker, A. (2004). Our Knowledge of the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. Palgrave Macmillan.