safeguarding our cultural heritage essay

Find anything you save across the site in your account

UNESCO ’s Quest to Save the World’s Intangible Heritage

On December 7th, at a safari resort in Kasane, Botswana, Ukraine briefed the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO ) on an endangered national treasure. It wasn’t a monastery menaced by air strikes. Nor was it any of the paintings, rare books, or other antiquities seized by Russian troops. It was borscht, a beet soup popular for centuries across Eastern Europe. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine , in February, 2022—as fields burned, restaurants shuttered, and expert cooks fled their homes—Kyiv successfully petitioned UNESCO to add its culture of borscht-making to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Now, despite setbacks on the battlefield, the state of the soup was strong. A Ukrainian official reported on her government’s new borscht-related initiatives, such as hosting gastronomic festivals and inventorying vulnerable recipes. She looked forward to borscht’s graduation from Urgent Safeguarding to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (I.C.H.) of Humanity—which grew, that session, to include Italian opera singing, Bangladeshi rickshaw painting, Angolan sand art, and Peruvian ceviche.

UNESCO is best known for its prestigious list of World Heritage sites. But its most interesting endeavor might be a survey of humanity’s cultural practices. For two decades, the U.N. agency has been cataloguing the world’s intangible heritage, a label that it has applied to everything from truffle hunting to capoeira. There are more than seven hundred “elements” on the I.C.H. lists—kaleidoscopically arrayed in an interactive tool on UNESCO ’s Web site—and browsing them can feel a bit like wandering through a World’s Fair organized by magical realists. Who knew that Mongolian herders could coax camels to adopt orphaned calves by serenading them at twilight? Or that a dozen Belgian families made their living by shrimp-fishing on horseback? The oddball entries alternate with those whose familiarity is even more uncanny. If you’ve ever eaten kimchi, danced bachata, or owned a Swiss watch, you may have participated unawares in UNESCO -protected activity.

A cynic might suspect that “intangible heritage” is a meaninglessly broad category. The lists include carnivals, alphabets, and equestrian games; traditions of boatbuilding and polyphonic song; systems of irrigation, navigation, divination, and conflict remediation; and at least one constitution—the Manden Charter, proclaimed eight centuries ago in present-day Mali. But the eclecticism rests on a solid foundation of international law. The 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage defines I.C.H. as a phenomenon that is transmitted from generation to generation and constitutes an important aspect of a community’s identity. There are five categories: crafts, oral traditions, performance arts, rituals or social customs, and “knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe.” (Religions and languages are notably excluded, though religious festivals and linguistic practices are eligible.) Capaciousness is a feature of the treaty’s non-hierarchical ethos. While UNESCO ’s World Heritage sites must demonstrate “outstanding universal value,” the value of intangible heritage is determined by the communities that keep it alive.

Today, more than a hundred and eighty countries are party to the 2003 convention—Great Britain recently announced plans to join them—while “inscription” on the I.C.H. lists has become a coveted prize. Indonesia declared a National Batik Day to mark the recognition of its iconic textiles. Emmanuel Macron devoted an entire speech to the baguette’s consecration, brandishing a loaf of the bread onstage. Newspapers even publish consumer recommendations based on the intangible-heritage program. (“Global Shopping with UNESCO as Your Guide” is the headline of one article in the Times .) Last year, UNESCO took a victory lap to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the convention, organizing panels and performances from Namibia to South Korea. But the agency is still learning what it means to “safeguard” some of the most elusive and complex phenomena in human life. Nations feud over the right to define shared customs. Experts struggle to preserve traditions without commercializing their practice. Perhaps the greatest challenge is that UNESCO ’s budget allocates only ten million dollars a year to protecting humanity’s intangible heritage from oblivion. What can it tangibly accomplish?

“Thirty, forty years ago, intangible cultural heritage—or what in other parts of the world we call living heritage—barely existed as a concept at the international level,” Ernesto Ottone, UNESCO ’s assistant director-general for culture, told me in a recent call from the organization’s headquarters, in Paris. Ottone is a suave former actor who previously served as culture minister of Chile, and he takes avuncular pride in the growing recognition of I.C.H. He excitedly mentioned a board game showcasing Mongolia’s intangible heritage, as well as recent meetings with groups interested in producing cultural-heritage video games. The widespread enthusiasm was a testament to the convention’s elasticity and inclusiveness. “Instruments should be alive,” Ottone said, of the treaty. “Not like Stonehenge.”

UNESCO ’s embrace of the intangible began as a corrective to its monumental bias. Founded in the wake of the Second World War, the organization cut its teeth on campaigns to preserve historic structures, from flood-damaged Venetian palazzos to ancient Egyptian temples threatened by the damming of the Nile. In 1978, it began listing World Heritage sites. Yet most were in Europe and North America, and complaints soon arose that focussing on the built environment threatened to sideline societies whose achievements were, quite literally, less concrete . Such objections were memorably articulated, in another context, by the St. Lucian poet Derek Walcott . “Where are your monuments, your battles, martyrs?” he writes in “The Sea Is History” (1979), ventriloquizing a prejudiced equation of “civilization” with castles and cathedrals. His answer was in the know-how of sailors and fishermen, in Caribbean performances derived from African masquerades and Hindu epics—in other words, intangible cultural heritage.

The phrase débuted in the early eighties, progressively replacing “folklore,” as UNESCO took a more holistic view of heritage. Culture, it declared, was both “tangible and intangible,” encompassing languages, modes of living, and spiritual beliefs. Nevertheless, decades passed before the organization established a system for protecting these expressions. Part of the issue was that living traditions couldn’t simply be “conserved” like obelisks. They are, in many ways, continuous with the social and ecological networks that sustain them. In the nineties and early two-thousands, UNESCO began recognizing “living human treasures,” “cultural spaces”—practices centered on real or symbolic spaces, such as the Arab custom of seated gatherings called majlis —and “masterpieces” of oral tradition. But a consensus emerged that documentation and awareness weren’t enough. Under the leadership of Koichiro Matsuura, UNESCO drew up a treaty that would empower communities to enact and define their own I.C.H.

Fumiko Ohinata, a UNESCO official tasked with managing the convention’s statutory processes, reverently explained its workings, praising the powerful feelings that the “normative instrument” can excite in the world’s peoples. Nations that have adopted the treaty may submit nominations every other year, which must prove that the proposed elements satisfy various prerequisites. One is the consent and participation of a tradition’s “bearers.” Another is compliance with human rights. (Not one but two Belgian carnivals of medieval origin have been stricken for including racist and antisemitic caricatures.) Nominations also come with videos, which range from slick documentaries to extravaganzas of patriotic kitsch; in Turkmenistan’s showcase of Akhal-Teke horse breeding, stirring music plays as herds thunder across an open field and children in riding costume dance in formation. The overarching criterion is social significance. “We didn’t inscribe soup,” Ohinata said, of borscht’s recognition. “We inscribed what it means to share this food among Ukrainian people.”

Up to sixty files are considered annually by a rotating committee of nations, with successful applicants inscribed on one of three lists: the Representative List, the Urgent Safeguarding List, or the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, which recognizes effective heritage initiatives. The committee also reviews reports on previously inscribed elements, assessing risks and allotting funds. “Living heritage is a wonderful resource,” Ohinata explained, but it is also uniquely vulnerable to circumstance. “Sometimes, youths are no longer interested. Sometimes, an earthquake doesn’t allow them to continue. Sometimes, it’s the political situation.” Viability is another requirement. UNESCO is committed to protecting endangered traditions, but it also helps those who help themselves; skimming rejections, I felt pity for the Zimbabwean poncho deemed to have “lost much of its function and meaning,” and the Ethiopian oral tradition whose transmission has “almost ceased.”

More fortunate are the traditions that UNESCO deems to have a fighting chance. The diving fisherwomen of South Korea’s Jeju Island, who harvest shellfish from the seafloor without breathing equipment, were a dwindling, elderly bunch when the agency recognized them, in 2016. Now, Ottone said, they number in the hundreds, as young girls—and a few boys—reinvent the subsistence livelihood of their elders as a form of recreation. (Safeguarding I.C.H. means letting it evolve.) Another success story is the bandoneón , an accordion-like instrument that Ottone described as “the soul of el tango .” Before the agency’s intervention, which cost only a hundred thousand dollars, there were a mere handful of bandoneón makers left in South America. “Practically no one was playing it anymore,” he said. “Today, you have three academies of bandoneón , where seventy per cent of the musicians are women,” and dozens of luthiers in the region. Ottone proudly informed me that UNESCO has “never had one element inscribed that has disappeared from the practice of people. But it could happen. Why not?”

My favorite element on the I.C.H. lists is Ijele, a masquerade associated with the Igbo people of Southeastern Nigeria. It’s one of the largest masks in Africa, a towering assemblage of colorful textiles and tiny fabric figures arranged over a bamboo skeleton in wedding-cake tiers. Ijele is regal and imposing, appearing only at the most important ceremonies, and triumphing, in one story, over witches who try to destroy its house. Yet Ijele is also considered “dead” when it touches the ground. If the dancer who carries the mask lets this happen for even a moment, he surrenders his lineage’s claim to the tradition. It’s hard to imagine a better illustration of intangible heritage—a whirling entity, painstakingly fashioned by an entire community, that must be kept in motion lest it cease to be.

Who could possibly object to the celebration of calligraphy and glassblowing, of dragon boats, abacus calculation, and mariachi? Physical heritage sites are infamously contentious—consider Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Buddhas, or the Old City of Jerusalem—and their very singularity leaves them susceptible to zero-sum conflicts. (In her book “ A Future in Ruins ,” the scholar Lynn Meskell argues that UNESCO designation might even increase the risk of iconoclastic attacks.) Traditions, by contrast, don’t have an occupancy limit, and are open to as many interpretations as they have bearers. Still, in the cutthroat world of international relations, even the intangible is difficult to share.

Nations, the least lovable genre of intangible heritage, regularly bicker over I.C.H. Iran and Azerbaijan have feuded over polo. Russia denounced Ukraine’s supposed failure to “share” borscht as a form of cultural “Nazism,” a threat to the culinary freedom of “every housewife in every region.” Last year, Morocco complained that Algeria was trying to steal its bridal dress, when one of Algeria’s nomination files reportedly cribbed a caftan from Fez. (Algeria vowed to respond with “solid arguments.”) UNESCO ’s inscriptions aren’t exclusive, which means that states are free to nominate their own versions of elements that have already been recognized. The lists are dotted with petty duplicates submitted by neighbors, often with slightly different spellings. Yet many still treat the distinction as a kind of trademark, a framing often echoed in the press.

An even more vexing issue is the intangible heritage of national minorities. China, which boasts more inscriptions than any other country, has controversially registered practices associated with its Mongolian, Korean, Kyrgyz, Tibetan, and Uyghur populations, whose cultural expressions it strictly controls. One of them is muqam , a Uyghur musical tradition closely tied to Sufi Islam. It was one of the first elements of intangible heritage recognized by UNESCO . But, in the past decade, China has reportedly suppressed traditional muqam while promoting secular alternatives that appeal to tourists and glorify the state. (China has denied cultural destruction against Uyghurs.) Official commemoration masks ongoing erasure; on a recent visit to Xinjiang, Xi Jinping posed for pictures with Uyghur musicians in traditional garb, a cruel irony when so many Uyghur musicians and scholars have been imprisoned. (Some have emerged from reëducation camps as champions of state-sponsored ethnic harmony, providing China with a fig leaf of community consent.) The Uyghur Human Rights Project has called on the world’s governments to challenge China’s inscription of muqam and other Uyghur traditions on the I.C.H. lists.

At the other extreme are countries that would prefer to keep UNESCO ’s paper-pushing hands off their intangibles. You won’t find New York bagels, Navajo sandpainting, or—despite the lobbying of Herbie Hancock—jazz on the I.C.H. lists, because the United States has never ratified the 2003 convention. Richard Kurin, a former director of the Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, attributes this partially to a national distrust of state meddling in culture. (The U.S. has quit and rejoined UNESCO twice since its founding, and began withholding dues from the agency when it accepted Palestine as a member state, in 2011.) Israel, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are other major holdouts, and it seems pertinent that all of them have intractable relationships with Indigenous and minority populations. Recognizing a people’s intangible heritage might be uncomfortably close to recognizing a people.

Ottone still believes that I.C.H. can alleviate conflicts within and between countries. One mechanism for doing so is encouraging them to nominate heritage jointly. Switzerland and Austria share avalanche risk management, while nearly the whole Maghreb—including bitter adversaries Morocco and Algeria—joined hands to claim custody of couscous. The program’s most diversely sponsored element is midwifery, which was submitted last year by eight countries on four continents. But Ottone said that the multinational inscription he’s proudest of was North and South Korea’s for ssirum / ssireum , a form of wrestling, in 2018. UNESCO spent months negotiating the nomination. “People will say, ‘O.K., they continue to have divisions, they have borders, they have different visions of the world,’ ” he told me. “But, for one moment, we were able to put them together to recognize that tradition cannot be separated.” It would be a mistake to view I.C.H. solely as a matter of list-making, he told me, or even conservation. “We are talking about trying to change, through culture, political issues that have divided countries.”

Among the new elements inscribed in December was dabkeh , a fast-paced Levantine dance. It is performed by a string of dancers who grab onto one another as a leader twirling a stick, handkerchief, or beads sets the pace. The dance is popular in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, but it was nominated by Palestine, whose representative informed the assembly that other members of his delegation were trapped in the Gaza Strip. Amid Israel’s horrific assault on the territory, which has killed more than thirty thousand people and destroyed or damaged more than half of its buildings—hundreds of ancient sites among them—he affirmed that his country’s living heritage “can’t be erased by air strikes or bombing.” Then, in lieu of the Palestinian dabkeh troupe meant to perform at the gathering, representatives watched the nomination video, which opens in a sunlit courtyard. Dancers wearing kaffiyehs and colorful embroidery—another Palestinian I.C.H. element—do kicks as old men and women rhythmically lift their canes. “My children and I roamed al-Aqsa Mosque,” a performer sings. “My children and I shall go.” ♦

New Yorker Favorites

An Oscar-winning filmmaker takes on the Church of Scientology .

Wendy Wasserstein on the baby who arrived too soon .

The young stowaways thrown overboard at sea .

As he rose in politics, Robert Moses discovered that decisions about New York City’s future would not be based on democracy .

The Muslim tamale king of the Old West .

Fiction by Jamaica Kincaid: “ Girl .”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

Operational principles and modalities for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in emergencies

The operational principles for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in emergencies were developed following an expert meeting held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris May 2019. They provide guidance to States Parties and other relevant national or international stakeholders on how best to ensure that intangible cultural heritage is most effectively engaged and safeguarded in an emergency in line with the principles of the 2003 Convention.

The operational principles and modalities were endorsed by the Intergovernmental Committee at its fourteenth session in Bogota, Colombia, December 2019 ( Decision 14.COM 13 ) and adopted by the General Assembly at its eighth session in September 2020 ( Resolution 8.GA 9 ).

Text as adopted by the General Assembly

Download the Operational Principles and Modalities :

• English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese

Cultural heritage throughout the world is increasingly affected by emergency situations, including conflicts and disasters caused by natural and human-induced hazards (‘natural disasters’). These situations include threats to the transmission and viability of intangible cultural heritage, which provide a foundation for the identity and well-being of communities, groups and individuals hereafter ‘communities’ . The safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage has a dual role to play in the context of emergencies: on the one hand, intangible cultural heritage can be directly threatened by emergencies, and on the other hand, it can effectively help communities to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies.

Emergencies present a complex field of operation due to the variety in nature and scale of armed conflicts and natural disasters and the range of stakeholders involved. The following operational principles and modalities offer guidance to States Parties and other relevant national or international stakeholders on how best to ensure that intangible cultural heritage is most effectively engaged and safeguarded in the context of various types of emergencies.

The operational principles and modalities below are in line with the Strategy for the reinforcement of UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict and its Addendum concerning emergencies associated with disasters caused by natural and human-induced hazards, as well as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017). They should also be considered in tandem with the relevant provisions of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and its Operational Directives, notably Chapter VI on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level, as well as the Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage.

The following principles shall underpin all interventions aimed at safeguarding and/or engaging intangible cultural heritage in emergencies:

• Intangible cultural heritage exists only in its enactment by the communities who practise and transmit it , and is inseparable from their social, cultural and economic life. Its safeguarding is therefore indivisible from the protection of the lives and well-being of its bearers .
• Communities whose intangible cultural heritage may be affected by an emergency include people in the natural disaster or armed conflict area, displaced persons and their host communities , as well as other people and groups connected with this intangible cultural heritage.
• In all phases of emergency, the communities shall play a primary role in identifying their intangible cultural heritage . This requires the direct inclusion of the communities in identifying how their intangible cultural heritage might have been affected by the emergency and what measures are needed to safeguard it, as well as how they might draw on it as a resource for enhancing their resilience, facilitating recovery and re-establishing trust and peaceful coexistence within and between communities.
• With reference to Article 11 of the Convention, States Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage present in their territory . This provision applies in all contexts , including when intangible cultural heritage is affected by an emergency. In so doing, States Parties shall endeavour to ensure the widest possible participation of communities in safeguarding actions, including refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants present in their territories.
• National and international stakeholders involved in emergency management – including disaster preparedness and relief specialists, humanitarian actors, non-governmental organizations and armed forces – have an important role to play in safeguarding affected intangible cultural heritage and supporting concerned communities to draw on this heritage in preparing for and responding to emergencies.
• Intangible cultural heritage is dynamic and adaptive in nature , constantly being recreated by communities in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, including emergencies. In all situations, efforts to safeguard or engage intangible cultural heritage should take into account and respect this dynamic and adaptive nature.

The following modalities integrate the above principles and identify actions appropriate to the three main phases in an emergency management cycle of preparedness, response and recovery, acknowledging that each phase can vary in duration and may overlap with other phases. Local circumstances and conditions will determine which of these actions would be most relevant and appropriate to a particular intangible cultural heritage element or situation.

Preparedness

• Raise the awareness and build the capacities of relevant stakeholders regarding the dual nature of intangible cultural heritage in emergencies and the present principles and modalities .
• Provide resources and support for the capacity of communities to engage in all aspects of risk reduction and emergency preparedness in consultation with other stakeholders, especially in regions and countries prone to emergencies.
• Integrate into inventories of intangible cultural heritage, as provided for in the 2003 Convention, information on the vulnerability of elements to potential emergencies . This should include the mitigation capacity of these elements, as well as details of the concerned locations and communities to facilitate identification and access during emergency response.
• Include emergency preparedness in the safeguarding plans of specific elements. This can include preventive measures to address their potential vulnerability during an emergency, preparatory measures to enhance and engage their mitigation capacity, and a methodology to evaluate the situation of the element during the emergency response phase.
• Incorporate relevant intangible cultural heritage in local, national, sub-regional and regional risk reduction and emergency preparedness .
• Establish links between bodies safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage and those in charge of emergency preparedness.
• Identify, locate and reach out to communities whose intangible cultural heritage is known or likely to have been affected by the emergency, as early as possible.
• Prioritize resourcing and supporting the capacity of concerned communities to identify and address, through a community-based approach , their immediate safeguarding needs and to draw upon their intangible cultural heritage in mitigating the immediate effects of the emergency (community-based needs identification). In some contexts, it will only be possible to implement this set of actions during the recovery phase.
• Share information within and between affected States Parties and other stakeholders, particularly humanitarian actors, relevant non-governmental organizations and/or armed forces, to determine the nature and extent of the disruption to intangible cultural heritage and the scope for engaging it in mitigation. This is also to ensure that relief operations take full account of the existing intangible cultural heritage and contribute to its safeguarding.
• Whenever a post-disaster or post-conflict needs assessment is undertaken, notably in the framework of multiparty international crisis response mechanisms, ensure that intangible cultural heritage is incorporated . Involve communities in the assessment of the effects of the natural disaster and/or armed conflict on their intangible cultural heritage as well as of related economic damage and losses, and human development impacts.
• Carry out the community-based needs identification if this could not be performed earlier.
• Based on the outcomes of the needs identification process, provide resources and support for communities to develop and undertake safeguarding measures or plans to enhance the mitigation capacity of their intangible cultural heritage . This engagement should be sustained throughout the recovery phase and into the following preparedness phase, as well as in the transition from dependence on humanitarian assistance towards development.
• Engage intangible cultural heritage in fostering dialogue, mutual understanding and reconciliation between and within communities, including between displaced populations and host communities.

Note : Resources and financial support shall be sought under the various emergency-related funds, including the UNESCO Heritage Emergency Fund and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund (emergency International Assistance). The listing mechanisms under the 2003 Convention may provide an opportunity for promoting and enhancing the visibility of elements that contribute to preparing for, responding to and recovering from the effects of natural disasters and/or armed conflicts (the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, as well as the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices), and/or to draw the attention of the international community to elements particularly threatened by a natural disaster and/or armed conflict (for the possibility of the accelerated procedure for a nomination to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, see criterion U.6 under Chapter I.1 of the Operational Directives of the 2003 Convention).

Password forgotten?

Safeguarding Cultural Heritage in the Digital Era – A Critical Challenge

• Published: 21 August 2023
• Volume 36 , pages 1915–1923, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Anne Wagner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6362-9023 1 &
• Marie-Sophie de Clippele 2  

9052 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper explores the disruptive impact of digitization on cultural heritage preservation, focusing on the challenges posed by intellectual property rights, access, and enforcement. It emphasizes the need to balance innovation and preservation in the digital landscape, addressing issues such as copyright complexities, the commodification of cultural knowledge, and the Western-centric bias in policy shaping. By fostering global cooperation, cultural sensitivity, and public awareness, we will aim at achieving an inclusive and sustainable approach to safeguarding our diverse cultural heritage in the digital era.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Understanding Cultural Heritage and the Digitization Process

Cultural heritage is the embodiment of our shared human history, encompassing the tangible artifacts, intangible traditions, Footnote 1 languages, rituals, and knowledge that have been passed down through generations. It reflects the essence of who we are, where we come from, and the collective experiences that have shaped our societies. Preserving and safeguarding this rich tapestry of cultural heritage has always been a critical mission, allowing us to connect with our roots, foster a sense of identity, and learn from the lessons of the past.

In the digital era, safeguarding cultural heritage has become a vital concern. As technology advances and societies digitize vast repositories of historical artifacts, works of art and (in)tangible traditions, the preservation of our diverse cultural heritage takes on new facets and challenges. Digital initiatives are opening up considerable horizons for wider access, interactive experiences and the dissemination of knowledge. Furthermore, propelled by the pandemic, culture has wholeheartedly entered the digital world [ 14 ].

Digitization of cultural content, such as museum collections or libraries, digital broadcasting of artistic performances, or digital born art and heritage are happening at a fast pace. The digital revolution offers unprecedented opportunities for cultural heritage preservation. By digitizing artifacts, artworks, historical documents, and traditional practices, we can ensure their wider accessibility to people around the world, regardless of geographic boundaries or physical limitations. Virtual museums, 3D reconstructions of archaeological sites, and immersive experiences using augmented reality (AR) have the potential to transport audiences to distant civilizations and historical moments, allowing them to connect with the past in ways never before imaginable.

In their paper, Klinowski and Szafarowicz [ 11 ] use the notion of “virtual museum” to acknowledge this “virtual space created by a cultural institution”, which allows wider access to the public of their collections. Operating as powerful semiotic entities, these virtual museums utilize symbols, signs and representations to artistically and skillfully communicate cultural meanings and ideologies ascribed to them. As such these museums serve as dynamic augmented reality (AR) mediators to generate and even create new heritage narratives which further impact visitors’ emotions, reinforcing cultural values and encouraging introspection.

In the digital age, participatory digital cultural practices have experienced remarkable growth, enabling users to actively participate in the creation, utilization, and transmission of culture and cultural heritage. These practices, such as crowd sourcing, storytelling, and citizen science, have surged in popularity, facilitated by digital tools interwoven with artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented reality (AR) capabilities. Crowdsourcing harnesses collective wisdom to undertake diverse cultural projects, while storytelling democratizes the sharing of personal and community narratives [ 12 ]. Citizen science engages individuals in the monitoring and preservation of cultural treasures. By integrating these practices with AI and AR technologies, participatory digital initiatives empower people to forge a more inclusive and immersive cultural heritage experience while safeguarding our shared heritage for generations to come [ 2 , 18 , 19 ].

However, this digital transformation also presents unique challenges. As we transition from traditional preservation methods to digital repositories, we encounter issues related to data integrity, interoperability, and long-term sustainability. The rapid pace of technological advancements also raises concerns about digital obsolescence, where digital files become unreadable or unusable due to outdated formats or hardware. Moreover, the ease of digital replication poses ethical considerations regarding the representation and ownership of cultural artifacts, especially when dealing with sacred or sensitive materials.

To safeguard this rich collective heritage for future generations, advanced digitization techniques, robust data management strategies and collaborative efforts between governments, institutions and communities are essential. Footnote 2 By adopting responsible digital preservation practices and fostering a deep appreciation of cultural heritage, we can ensure that the echoes of the past will resonate powerfully, enriching the present and inspiring the future. Footnote 3

In our Special Issue guest edited by Marie-Sophie de Clippele and Anne Wagner entitled “ Towards Digitization of Cultural Practices and Contents: Issues, Limits and Legal Tools ”, the advent of the new online reality prompts a focused exploration of relevant legal issues. Our Special Issue consists of fifteen thought-provoking papers contributed by experts in the field. These papers offer valuable insights into the legal ramifications and complexities brought about by the digital landscape. Through comprehensive analyses and discussions, the contributors to our Special Issue delve into the challenges posed by the ever-evolving digital world.

2 Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Cultural Content

The emergence of new digital cultural content has highlighted the inadequacies of existing intellectual property rights regimes in effectively addressing the challenges posed by the digital era. Traditional copyright laws and frameworks often struggle to accommodate the unique complexities of digital cultural assets, such as user-generated content, virtual reality experiences, and digital reproductions of historical artifacts. Issues related to ownership, licensing, and attribution become more intricate in the digital realm, leading to uncertainties and legal disputes. As technology continues to evolve, it is essential for policy-makers and legal experts to explore innovative solutions and updates to intellectual property laws that strike a balance between protecting creators’ rights and fostering wider access to and preservation of our diverse digital cultural heritage. Digitizing in 2D or 3D an artwork does not mean it is copyrightable for instance, the digital version should be an original work in itself which is not often the case. Other intellectual property rights are also conditional (novel invention for a patent, competition for a database protection, etc.), and therefore leave digitized cultural content in limbo [ 6 ].

Our Special Issue, part I “ Inadequate Intellectual Property Rights for Digital Cultural Content” , aims to unravel the complexities surrounding copyrights in the digital age. By examining the intricacies of cultural artifacts, the role of collective management organizations, and the challenges posed by hybrid artistic expressions, our contributors will highlight the path policy-makers can take to create a copyright framework that encourages creativity, facilitates fair remuneration and maximizes access to our rich cultural heritage. Only through collaborative efforts and innovative legislative measures can we navigate between public and private law mechanisms and nurture a thriving ecosystem for generations to come.

As Peña, Jaramillo et al. [ 16 ] argue for Colombian law, digital heritage is not easily protected by intellectual property rights (IPR). The authors therefore provide recommendations to improve Colombian IPR in four aspects: respect for the variety of copyrights, exceptions and limitations, collective management of rights and authorizations, clear usage and access policies. A similar finding is observed by Markellou [ 13 ] concerning the outdated Greek legal framework for digital cultural heritage. She insists on maximizing access at a lesser cost – Greek procedures are heavily bureaucratic and costly – and actively investing the notion of public domain to that effect.

Hybrid artistic objects, i.e. artistic performances that are digitally broadcasted, also impact IPR and, as de Brogniez and Vandenbulke [ 3 ] point out, raise issues of effectiveness of related rights for performers, of creating new models of exploitations and new authors and of considering the recording as a new original work. These changes in turn disrupt the categories of public funding, as for instance a theatre play does not fall in the same funding category as an audio-visual work.

European Union law certainly attempts to take these new developments into consideration with recent legislations on data as digital single market. However, Klinowski and Szafarowicz [ 11 ] consider that recent EU legislation is still lacking effective and satisfying tools for digitization and sharing of museum collections. They analyze thoroughly the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790 Footnote 4 to demonstrate that there are still shortcomings: a limited scope of application, ambiguities of the concept of “works of visual art”, focus on reproduction and not sharing, the possibility of preventive censorship. According to both authors, copyright has even a chilling effect on sharing collections online as museums fear liability and infringement on contract law or data protection.

Some culture-related cases raise specific IPR questions. Aroni [ 1 ] wonders if user-generated content from digital games creates new copyright. The game itself is most often protected by copyright but the interplay between users (players) and game developers, also called an avatar, is not necessarily covered by copyright. Yet through a licence system, user’s rights may be clarified, with the help of authorial tools and contractual instruments, such as the End User Licence Agreement or the Terms of Service Agreement.

The inking culture of tattooing also challenges traditional copyright regimes. If it is now clear, at least in UK law, that an original tattoo is copyrightable work, it seems not to be the case for AI-generated tattoos. Closely looking into the practices of the tattoo community, Stockton-Brown [ 21 ] argues that the community should develop “extra-legal norms” to decide who is the author of an AI-generated tattoo. She builds further on models of inclusive property rights from Dusollier and the Public Open Collaboration Creation (POCC) of Mendis to substantiate her argument for shared and open copyright ownership and authorship.

De Clippele [ 4 ] also draws further on models of shared rights, following the movement of the cultural commons. But she wonders if they are necessarily culturally diverse, especially with regards to platforms sharing cultural content.

3 Cultural Right to Access Digital Content: Enforcement and Western Bias

The cultural right to access digital content and practices is a fundamental aspect of cultural heritage preservation and knowledge dissemination. However, this right often faces challenges in terms of proper enforcement, limiting its effectiveness. Additionally, there is a prevailing Western-centric approach in shaping policies and frameworks around digital cultural content, which may not adequately reflect the diverse cultural perspectives and needs of communities worldwide. Achieving a more inclusive and robust implementation of this cultural right requires global cooperation, sensitivity to local contexts, and proactive measures to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that all individuals can fully participate in and benefit from the digital cultural landscape.

In Part II of our Special Issue, titled “ Cultural Right to Access Digital Content: Enforcement and Western Bias ”, our contributors will critically examine the assertion that developing a digital strategy to enhance access and participation in culture and cultural heritage promotes democratization and a sense of collective belonging among citizens. Despite the crucial role of access to digitized culture in upholding cultural rights, its implementation often falls short, particularly for marginalized communities. While digitization is valuable, it can inadvertently reinforce structural barriers, further exacerbating challenges faced by vulnerable groups.

This is what Higgins, Ferri and Donnellan [ 7 ] found out after broad interviews in twelve European countries. Vulnerable groups (minorities and people with disabilities) still face stereotypical and negative portrayals when developing access to digital content. The authors insist on implementing effective policies to “bridge the digital divide” and fulfil cultural rights in an inclusive way.

Outside Europe, discrimination may happen with regards to First Nations, debauched of their land, traditions and knowledge, due to the commodification of knowledge. Focusing on the situation in Australia, Keeney and Jones [ 10 ] strongly warn against appropriation of native rites and rights by considering their knowledge as cultural capital to be exploited by public institutions and private companies. Similarly, Paul [ 15 ] demonstrates, through a linguistic analysis of international documents, that indigenous peoples and colonized communities are left out when their traditional knowledge is digitized and fails to be properly protected. She denounces the neoliberal policies in international trade and IPR mechanism and calls for a decolonial approach. Hofman and Villagran [ 8 ] warn for privacy protection when putting libraries online on third party platforms. This might generate digital surveillance, particularly of the queer community in the United States, who then risks suffering discrimination. To the authors, datafication of our online lives also impacts on sexual privacy.

4 Disruptive Impact: Digitization of Cultural Content and Legal Principles

The digitization of cultural content and practices has introduced significant disruptions to fundamental legal principles. As cultural heritage transitions into the digital realm, traditional legal frameworks face new challenges in effectively addressing issues of copyright, ownership, and cultural preservation. The ease of digital replication and distribution has complicated traditional notions of intellectual property rights (IPR), leading to ongoing debates over fair use, licensing models, and proper attribution. In the digital age, it becomes increasingly challenging to strike a balance between promoting creativity and innovation while safeguarding the rights of creators and the interests of cultural heritage custodians.

Moreover, the digital landscape raises pressing concerns regarding the protection of indigenous knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and intangible heritage. Many indigenous and local communities fear that the digitization and dissemination of their cultural practices may lead to misappropriation, exploitation, or cultural commodification. Existing legal mechanisms struggle to adequately address these issues, resulting in a perceived Western-centric bias in shaping digital cultural content policies. The need to incorporate diverse cultural perspectives and ensure equitable representation and participation in the digital cultural space is essential to honor the cultural rights and heritage of all communities.

In Part III of our Special Issue, titled “ Disruptive Impact: Digitization of Cultural Content and Legal Principles ”, our contributors will tackle the complex challenges posed by digitization, necessitating a comprehensive reassessment and adjustment of legal principles. This process will entail fostering international collaboration, promoting cultural sensitivity, and implementing forward-thinking regulations to ensure responsible and inclusive digitization of cultural content. By adopting these measures, we can safeguard the valuable heritage for the benefit of both present and future generations.

Digitization is happening at such a wide speed and spread, it is almost colonizing human activity, as Jansen and Schreiner [ 9 ] note. Law is somehow captured by digitization, digit after digit, taking its own course, even if basic legal institutions remain. Comparing the evolution to the mechanization of art by Walter Benjamin, the authors argue that law coming from a machine ( lex ex machina ) cannot exist and digitization can neither replace judges, institutions nor lawyers as such. Otherwise, who would control machine-made law? They are therefore circumspect about the development of NFTs, Footnote 5 regarding the lack of instrumental power control: who controls the digits for the art collector if not a blockchain AI?

Rochford [ 17 ] points out the specific challenge of state sovereignty and jurisdiction when confronted to online communication. Cyberspace has nothing to do with State borders and thereby specifically challenges law enforcement.

Disrupting classical views on ownership of (digital) cultural goods is also at stake in the restitution debate, especially of colonial collections. Stec and Jagielska-Burduk [ 20 ] provide an original working model to help solve the issue: based on dual ownership, a digital copy of the artwork would be minted with a NFT (therefore used in another context than purely speculative), and a new property right would be created which recognizes shared ownership.

Finally, examining closely the interaction between public and private law mechanisms, Galdia [ 5 ] argues copyrightable content should be redefined through legislative tools, to better cover the online world, especially for cultural content, and foster cooperation with new technology tools.

5 The Way Forward: Balancing Innovation, Preservation and Environmental Challenges

Cultural heritage preservation lies in striking a delicate balance between conservation of the past and transition to the future. The rapid advancements in technology offer exciting opportunities for digitizing, documenting, and disseminating cultural heritage, providing broader access and immersive experiences for global audiences, present and future. Virtual reality, artificial intelligence, 3D scanning, and interactive platforms present powerful tools to engage people with cultural artifacts and historical sites in unprecedented ways. Embracing these innovative technologies can breathe new life into cultural heritage, fostering a deeper appreciation and understanding among diverse communities.

Balancing innovation with the preservation of cultural heritage’s authenticity and integrity is crucial, necessitating ethical digitization practices, respectful representation, and the protection of rights for communities and indigenous peoples. This delicate tapestry of traditions, practices, and identities, embodying the wisdom of our ancestors, as expressed by contributors in this Special Issue, must be safeguarded against exploitation and misrepresentation. To achieve this, an inclusive approach that involves local communities in decision-making processes for digitization initiatives is essential, fostering sustainable preservation through citizen science, crowdsourcing, and community-driven projects, thus ensuring collective stewardship and reverence for cultural heritage.

Furthermore, in the face of climate change, protecting cultural heritage becomes imperative as the world faces increasingly severe environmental challenges. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and temperature fluctuations threaten to erode and destroy cultural artifacts and heritage sites. If the stones disappear, the culture that underpins them is equally susceptible to oblivion. Therefore, protecting cultural sites from climate change goes hand in hand with safeguarding the digital (and even intangible) facets of such heritage. Research, mitigation strategies, and adaptation measures are essential for preserving our rich cultural heritage and ensuring its relevance in the digital age.

Preserving cultural heritage in the face of climate change also requires the integration of climate resilience strategies into preservation efforts. This involves adopting sustainable practices in the management and maintenance of cultural sites, using environmentally-friendly materials for conservation, and implementing adaptive measures to protect heritage from climate change. In the face of ever-changing climatic challenges, our approach to preserving cultural heritage must constantly evolve, incorporating new research, new (digital) technologies and new policies to respond effectively to evolving threats. A comprehensive and collaborative approach to (intangible) property rights, shared responsibilities and climate protection is becoming essential to safeguarding the legacy of our diverse cultural heritage. By recognizing the need for continuous adaptation and learning, we can secure the legacy of our rich cultural heritage in the midst of the dynamic challenges of climate change. The International Journal for the Semiotics of Law will soon organize a Special Issue around this topic over the next few years. Footnote 6

2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (CICH): https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention .

See https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/cutting-edge-protecting-and-preserving-cultural-diversity-digital-era?TSPD_101_R0=080713870fab2000fde13fd9f5fbf17c2668615e5174470201dc98c50125b69c9b6f2860d551b5390847b32266143000b9870882765fdb4dcc7c97cccc66063ff8dce01c74e070d7ac4792898571b7b53c4e633cdcf6ba5dfbab7e638d9d40bd Accessed 15 July 2023.

https://www.digitalmeetsculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ReportonCulturalHeritageDigitisationOnlineAccessibilityandDigitalPreservation.pdf Accessed 26 July 2023.

See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj .

NFT stands for Non Fungible Tokens.

Please visit IJSL at https://www.springer.com/journal/11196/updates .

Aroni, G. 2023. Games as Authorial Platforms? An exploration of the legal status of user-created content from Digital Games. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09976-z .

Article   Google Scholar  

Cecotti, H. 2022. Cultural Heritage in fully immersive virtual reality. Virtual Worlds 1: 82–102. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds1010006 .

de Brogniez, M., and A. Vandenbulke. 2023. The Audiovisual Broadcast of Performing Arts: from the stage to the screen—legal issues. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09983-0 .

de Clippele, M. S. 2023. Are Digital Cultural Commons culturally diverse? International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10020-3 .

Galdia, M. 2023. Cooperation or Confrontation between New Technologies and Law of Information. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09978-x .

Blackwell Christopher, W. 2013. Hijacking Shared Heritage: Cultural Artifact and Intellectual Property Rights. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 13(1): 137–164.

Google Scholar  

Higgins, N., D. Ferri, and K. Donnellan. 2022. Enhancing Access to Digital Culture for vulnerable groups: the role of public authorities in breaking down barriers. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09959-6 .

Hofman, D., and M. A. L. Villagran. 2023. Queer privacy protection: Challenges and the fight within libraries. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09994-x .

Jansen, B., and A. Schreiner. 2023. Captured by digitization. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09958-7 .

Keeney, G., and D. S. Jones. 2023. The debauched Commons: a Dark Parable. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09972-3 .

Klinowski, M., and K. Szafarowicz. 2023. Digitisation and sharing of collections: Museum Practices and Copyright during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09986-x .

Marek, H. M. 2022. Navigating intellectual property in the landscape of digital cultural heritage sites. International Journal of Cultural Property 29(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739122000054 .

Markellou, M. 2023. Cultural Heritage accessibility in the Digital Era and the Greek Legal Framework. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10027-w .

Noehrer, L., A. Gilmore, and C. Jay et al. 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on digital data practices in museums and art galleries in the UK and the US. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8: 236. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00921-8 .

Paul, J. 2023. Traditional knowledge Protection and Digitization: a critical decolonial discourse analysis. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09989-8 .

Peña, K. I. C., Y. A. M. Jaramillo, and Peña. 2023. A.M.C. Instruments for the Legal Protection of Digitized Cultural Heritage in Colombia. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09980-3 .

Rochford, F. 2023. Mind-forg’d Manacles’: virtual experience and innocent publication. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09971-4 .

Roussou, M. 2001. “Immersive Interactive Virtual Reality in the Museum”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2861971 .

Shehade, M., and T. Stylianou-Lambert. 2020. Virtual reality in Museums: exploring the Experiences of Museum Professionals. Applied Sciences 10/11: 4031. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10114031 .

Stec, P., and A. Jagielska-Burduk. 2023. Digital Restitution of Cultural Goods: in search of a Working Model. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09973-2 .

Stockton-Brown, M., Ghosts, and Punks. 2023. The Aesthetics of Copyright Law in Graphic Novels and Comics. International Journal For The Semiotics Of Law 36: 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09961-y .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Marie-Sophie de Clippele and Anne Wagner (Guest Editors) would like to express their sincere thanks to the many authors who contributed to this unique Special Issue on the “Digitization of Cultural Practices”.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ULR 4487—CRDP—Centre de recherche Droits et perspectives du droit, University of Lille, Équipe René Demogue, France

Anne Wagner

Université Saint-Louis—Bruxelles, Boulevard du Jardin botanique 43, Brussels, 1000, Belgium

Marie-Sophie de Clippele

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Wagner .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wagner, A., de Clippele, MS. Safeguarding Cultural Heritage in the Digital Era – A Critical Challenge. Int J Semiot Law 36 , 1915–1923 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10040-z

Download citation

Accepted : 08 August 2023

Published : 21 August 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10040-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cultural Heritage
• Inclusive Culture
• Digitization
• (In)Tangible Heritage
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Enforcement
• Cultural Rights
• Digital Content
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

British Council

Cao Trung Vinh

The essay collection is available to download below.

The essays in this collection were originally commissioned by the British Council and Nordicity as independent thematic studies during the pilot phase of the Cultural Heritage for Inclusive Growth programme . They have since been updated by their authors and edited for the British Council by Inherit .  

Cultural Heritage for Inclusive Growth is a British Council action research programme which, since 2018, has been exploring ways in which local culture can improve the lives of individuals around the world. 

The essays are published as part of the British Council’s What Works Cultural Heritage Protection programme which is designed to support better outcomes for cultural heritage protection and local communities by bringing the best available evidence and learning to practitioners and other decision makers across the international heritage protection sector.

Together, the essays explore the role of cultural heritage in a sustainable future, and the principles and approaches that can guide action to realise the potential of heritage for human development. From different perspectives, and with reference to examples from around the world, the essays look at major themes including people-centred approaches to heritage, and transparent, accountable and participatory governance.

Introduction

Cultural heritage and human development Chris Dalglish

In his introduction to the collection, the series editor Chris Dalglish of Inherit places the essays in context by looking at the co-evolution of global cultural and sustainable development agendas in the 20th and 21st centuries. He discusses how cultural heritage relates to the purpose of development – understood in terms of human wellbeing and dignity – and at how heritage helps to create conditions in which human development can occur.

Cultural heritage for inclusive growth John Samuel, Abraham George and Pallavi Rachel George 

Samuel, George and George of the Centre for Communication & Development Studies in India connect culture to ‘inclusive growth’ with reference to the human development approach which has become embedded in the UN sustainable development agenda. They analyse global policy frameworks and the work of global development actors and look at the implementation of inclusive growth at the national level, with examples from India, Columbia, Kenya and Vietnam.

Culture on purpose: sustainable development opportunities for culture Ben Sandbrook 

Ben Sandbrook of World Pencil writes about Culture on Purpose, or the deliberate deployment and harnessing of culture in relation to major societal challenges. Sandbrook looks at the question ‘what are the challenges and opportunities in the world, and what help, if any, could culture provide in responding to those?’ and discusses the contribution of culture and heritage across the economy, education, health, wellbeing and other areas, with examples from India, Spain, the UK and the USA.

The role of cultural awareness and participation in sustainable development Leandro Valiati  

Leandro Valiati is a lecturer in Arts & Cultural Management at the University of Manchester. In his essay, he discusses the relationship between participation in cultural activities and wellbeing, especially in disadvantaged areas. Valiati provides a theoretical argument for looking beyond contribution to GDP as a measure of the value of culture and for considering other indicators associated with human development. He grounds these ideas by exploring the case of cultural participation in Complex da Maré, a conglomeration of 16 favelas in Rio de Janeiro.

Principles and approaches 

People-centred approaches to cultural heritage and sustainable development Anne Torreggiani and Sophia Woodley 

Anne Torreggiani and Sophia Woodley of the Audience Agency look at the philosophy and practice of People-centred Approaches to Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development. They review the use of people-centred approaches in a variety of contexts around the world. From there, they identify the defining characteristics of people-centred working and key lessons relating to good practice.  

Governance principles for inclusive heritage James Doeser 

James Doeser - a freelance researcher, writer and consultant –uses the UN-Habitat’s New Urban Agenda (NUA) as a starting point for exploring how to embed cultural heritage in sustainable development and connects the NUA with the wider trends in global policy. He concludes that a practical synergy is possible between current discourses in the fields of heritage and development, and that greater, deeper and fairer community impacts can be achieved by adopting eight governance principles.

Narrating heritage: oral history and inclusive growth Suzanne Joinson 

Suzanne Joinson’s essay Narrating Heritage looks at the relationship between oral history and inclusive growth. In her essay, she provides an overview of oral history as a discipline and practice, and presents examples from Malaysia, Turkey, the UK, the USA and Vietnam. She draws conclusions about the value of oral history for cultural relations and people-centred, community-led development.

Case studies 

Pedro Affonso Ivo Franco is a Brazilian researcher and consultant who is based in Germany and works across the cultural, creative and development sectors. He presents two case studies exploring the participatory governance of heritage and development from two different perspectives, one community led and the other institution led.

The Cambinda Estrela Cultural Centre and the preservation of Maracatu intangible heritage

In his first essay, Ivo Franco looks at Maracatu – a living carnival tradition with roots in the period of enslavement – and how this is being mobilised by the Cambinda Estrela Cultural Centre in Recife, Brazil, as part of their wider efforts to boost community self-esteem and help people to further their education, develop skills and networks, and enhance their economic prospects.

The Trafo programme and the distribution of power among its stakeholders

In his second essay, Ivo Franco analyses the TRAFO programme, an initiative of Kulturstiftung des Bundes in Germany, and how this has created conditions through which regional stakeholders can share power in the planning, implementation and monitoring of cultural projects.

Conclusion 

Cultural heritage, self determination and community development Chris Dalglish 

In conclusion to the essay collection, Chris Dalglish identifies the threads that run through the collection and distinguish it as a contribution to the wider body of knowledge and thought on cultural heritage and sustainable development. He presents key messages which emerge from the collection as a whole, and recommendations relating to cultural rights, self determination, community development, inclusion and exclusion, cultural relations, and the transfer of learning about ‘what works’ from one place to another.

Key messages from the essay collection 

Three overarching conclusions emerge from the collection as a whole:  

• Cultural heritage is at the heart of human development. The fulfilment of people’s right to cultural life is an essential part of sustainable development because cultural life, in all its forms, is essential to human wellbeing and dignity.  
• Cultural relations create conditions for human development. Cultural relations activities bring people together within the space of culture and civil society to build relationships based on the principle of mutuality.  For relationships which cross national and cultural boundaries to flourish and be equitable, a deep understanding of cultural differences is needed.
• Alongside the evidence for what works, analysis of how it works is critical to the spread of good practice. While human development is context specific, analysis of how positive change has been achieved in particular circumstances can generate learning which is of wider relevance, when the focus is on identifying the underlying principles which characterise successful and ethical human development processes.   

Inherit — York Archaeology’s Institute for Heritage & Sustainable Human Development — supports community development through cultural heritage. Inherit helps people to safeguard their heritage and transmit it to future generations. They provide practical support to communities so that they can fulfil their cultural rights and use their heritage for the collective good. They carry out purposeful research and advocate evidence-based policy change which enables people to sustain their heritage and achieve their development goals. Inherit works with communities, non-profit organisations, public bodies and experts around Europe, the Mediterranean and Asia.

Watch the Perspectives on Cultural Heritage and Development event recording to learn more about the essays.

Subscribe to our research and insight newsletter

Receive the latest research and insight on arts and culture, education and English language and their contribution to soft power, trust, peace, and prosperity.

British Council Worldwide

• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Czech Republic
• Hong Kong, SAR of China
• Korea, Republic of
• Myanmar (Burma)
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Macedonia
• Northern Ireland
• Occupied Palestinian Territories
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Switzerland
• United Arab Emirates
• United States of America

Intangible Heritage Committee inscribes six cultural elements and highlights two Good Safeguarding Practices

Bogota, 12 December—During its afternoon session on Thursday, the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage meeting in the Colombian capital inscribed six more elements to the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. It also selected two projects for inclusion on the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices and allocated funds for a capacity building in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage programme in Burkina Faso.

Elements inscribed on the Representative List during the afternoon:

Gnawa , Morocco Gnawa refers to a set of musical events, performances, fraternal practices and therapeutic rituals combining secular and sacred features including all-night therapeutic possession rituals in cities, and communal meals offered to marabout saints in rural areas. Originally practised by groups and individuals from slavery and the slave trade dating back to the 16 th century, Gnawa now forms part of Morocco’s multifaceted culture and identity. The number of fraternal groups and master musicians is constantly growing in Morocco’s villages and major cities and Gnawa groups hold festivals all year round.

Traditional Turkish archery , Turkey Traditional Turkish archery – practised both on foot and on horseback – encompasses principles, rituals and social practices, the craftsmanship of traditional equipment manufacture, archery disciplines and shooting techniques that have evolved over centuries. Traditional archery equipment, generally decorated with calligraphy, ornaments and marquetry, is also a key component of the element, requiring specific skills and knowledge. Bearers and practitioners ensure the continued viability of the element by adapting it to contemporary conditions, and there has been a remarkable increase in female archers and trainees in recent years.

Traditional turkmen carpet making art in Turkmenistan , Turkmenistan Traditional Turkmen carpet making art in Turkmenistan relates to the production of traditional, beautifully ornamented, hand-woven woollen Turkmen carpets and carpet products. The carpets are dense in texture and ornamented with coloured patterns pertaining to one of the five main Turkmen tribes, serving as a sign of cultural identity. The context in which the carpet weaver lives, including local flora and fauna, is reflected in the carpet design. The carpets serve both as floor coverings and wall decorations, and special carpets are also woven for specific occasions.

Tradition of Kosiv painted ceramics , Ukraine The tradition of Kosiv painted ceramics – dishes, ceremonial items, toys and tiles – arose in the 18 th century and has a practical and artistic value. Made of local clay, the ceramics are characterized by their figurative designs, with the motifs depicting the history, life, folklore, beliefs and customs of the Hutsuls. Another characteristic feature of the ceramics is their traditional green, yellow and brown colours. Masters of the craft work in small, often family-owned workshops. The Kosiv College Department of Art Ceramics bears a special responsibility for sustaining the tradition.

Khorazm dance, Lazgi, Uzbekistan The movements of the Khorazm dance, Lazgi, exemplify human creativity in reflecting the sounds and phenomena of surrounding nature, feelings of love and happiness. Centuries-old, the Lazgi dance represents real life in all its movements, informed by the social life and activities of local communities. Two types of the dance exist: the ‘scenery’ dance, involving concrete movements, and its interpretive form, focusing on improvisation and more changeable movements. Lazgi is a key form of self-expression transmitted over the generations through the creation of new versions of performances.

Practices of Then by Tày, Nùng and Thái ethnic groups in Viet Nam , Viet Nam Then , an essential ritual practice in the spiritual life of the ethnic groups Tày, Nùng and Thái, reflects concepts about human beings, nature and the universe. Then ceremonies describe a journey in which the Master controls ghost soldiers travelling from earth to heaven to present items of worship and prayers for peace, good crops, health, etc. During the practice, the Then Master sings and plays a tính lute, wearing ceremonial dress. Then is always transmitted orally while the rituals are conducted, reflecting its succession across the generations.

The Representative List seeks to enhance visibility for the traditional practices and know-how of communities without recognizing standards of excellence or exclusivity.

Additions to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices:

Safeguarding strategy of traditional crafts for peace building , Colombia The safeguarding strategy of traditional crafts for peace building addresses the weakening of traditional crafts through a system of intergenerational transmission of knowledge between a master and apprentice based on the ‘learning by doing’ method. Training is combined with work, guaranteeing apprentices’ future employability. The strategy thus aims to train different sectors of the population, establish labour connections and foster entrepreneurship, giving priority to apprentices in situations of vulnerability. It also helps communities recognize the cultural and societal value of safeguarding different traditional skills and crafts.

Biocultural programme for the safeguarding of the tradition of the Blessed Palm in Venezuela , Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) The activities associated with the biocultural programme for safeguarding the tradition of the Blessed Palm in Venezuela involve the gathering of several palm species in a specific mountain chain. After attending a religious ceremony, the ‘palmeros’ climb the mountain where they undertake various activities, including planting and pruning palm trees. Thirty years ago, the tradition appeared threatened by deforestation but the palmeros have modified the way the palm trees are collected and initiated a series of innovative educational measures. The programme has encouraged hundreds of children and young people to get involved.

The Register of Good Safeguarding Practices allows States Parties, communities and other stakeholders to share successful safeguarding experiences and examples of how they surmounted challenges faced in the transmission of their living heritage, its practice and knowledge to the future generation. These methods and approaches should be useful as lessons and models that can be adapted to other circumstances, including those in developing countries.

International assistance of US$387,770 from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund granted to:

Capacity building for stakeholders involved in safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in Burkina Faso A 24-month project in Burkina Faso which aims at building the capacities of stakeholders involved in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in Burkina Faso. To be conducted in two stages, the project is directed at a process of training trainers, which is expected to lead to the establishment of a team of ten national facilitators who will train 225 local stakeholders. These stakeholders are then expected to work with their communities to safeguard living heritage at the local level and help ensure its effective sustainability.

More information and webcast of Committee session: https://ich.unesco.org/en/14com

Media contacts:

Lucía Iglesias Kuntz, UNESCO Press Office, l.iglesias@unesco.org +33680240729

Roni Amelan, UNESCO Press Office, r.amelan@unesco.org

Follow the meeting on Twitter: @unesco, #IntangibleHeritage #LivingHeritage

More on this subject

Other recent news

Cultural Heritage on the Frontline: the destruction of peoples and identities in war

The brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia provoked international condemnation and media attention. As the war slashed its frontline across ideals,  identity and cultural heritage became the target of attacks and was mobilised as a weapon. 

Just as the destruction of cultural heritage can drive conflict, its protection and restitution can serve as a driver of resolution and post-war recovery. Military preparedness and the preservation of life and wellbeing requires an understanding of the role of cultural heritage in warfare.

By Dr Timothy Clack , Chingiz Gutseriev Fellow in Archaeology and Anthropology.   

The Russian invasion has precipitated humanitarian challenges not seen in Europe since the Second World War. It has also seen the deliberate damage of hundreds of places of worship, museums, historic buildings, and memorials. Cultural heritage has also been destroyed and weaponised at scale in recent conflicts in Ethiopia, Mali, Myanmar, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somali, and Syria.

The systematic destruction of heritage often forms part of strategic acts of ‘culturecide’. The obliteration and theft of cultural heritage from Jewish and Roma peoples throughout Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War was such an offensive, compounding the drive to dehumanise and delegitimise entire ethnicities. More recently, a campaign of malicious cultural ‘unfixing’, accompanied by extreme physical and sexual violence, was prosecuted by  Daesh  (Islamic State) against the Yazidi and other communities in Iraq and Syria. Women, specifically, were brutalised and left bereft of gender-specific cultural norms.

The systematic destruction of heritage often forms part of strategic acts of ‘culturecide’. The obliteration and theft of cultural heritage from Jewish and Roma peoples throughout Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War was such an offensive, 

There are many reasons why conflict actors – from the forces of large states to lone wolf terrorists – train their sights on cultural heritage. Attacks on both tangible (buildings, monuments, and artefacts) and intangible (practices, customs, and knowledges) heritage are not only forms of propaganda by deed, but serve to deny people their very identities – their sense of self.

This loss is particularly egregious as cultural heritage is central to a person’s sense of belonging and attachment to place. It anchors, orientates, and locates a person, a people, in time and space. In short, this destruction disrupts and dislocates, often leaving victims psychologically adrift and emotionally hopeless.

Cultural heritage is central to a person’s sense of belonging and attachment to place....destruction disrupts and dislocates, often leaving victims psychologically adrift and emotionally hopeless

International Humanitarian Law, including The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), to which 133 state parties – including Russia – are currently signatories, require states to ensure heritage is not damaged or misappropriated in war. The exception to such protection is military necessity. Thus, forces are permitted to damage heritage, if an adversary is utilising it to present a threat. It is legitimate, for example, for a military force to use proportionate means to neutralise a sniper in a church spire.

Despite these legal protections, however, cultural heritage remains a strategic target in war and conflict. There are, in fact, many reasons why these attacks occur. They are often intended to impact self-identity and denude the will to fight (for instance in ‘The Blitz’, 1940-1), or they can be the means to punish an adversary (for instance, the ‘carpet bombing’ of Hamburg, 1943). Other motivators include: iconoclasm, the removal of symbols of legitimacy and authority (e.g. the targeting of the Four Old Things during the Cultural Revolution in China, 1966-7); generation of publicity in order to provoke support, outrage, or other response (such as the Taliban’s ruination of the Bamiyan Buddhas, 2001); wanting to gain access to spoils (e.g.  sacking of the City of Benin, 1897); and opportunistic and organised looting (including thefts from the Iraq National Museum, 2003). During war, there is often also considerable collateral, inadvertent, and neglectful damage caused by armed forces.

Irregular warfare actors and terrorist organisations are often equally destructive of cultural heritage. Islamic terrorist attacks on the West, for example, are primarily focused on ‘soft targets’ that will attract considerable media attention and are deemed justifiable – if only to the perpetrators and facilitators – on the basis of being stages of decadence, degeneracy, and impurity. The result is, a terrorist attack profile that includes music concerts, nightclubs, sporting events, economic hubs, and magazine offices. These often go unrecognised as heritage, officially, and in popular consciousness, but they are, individually and collectively, emblematic of Western liberal democracies.

Cultural heritage is also used as a stage to amplify propaganda. During its hold on the World Heritage Site of Palmyra, for instance, Daesh routinely used the ancient architecture publicly to execute prisoners and otherwise terrorise locals. With time being a dimension of power, the site was mobilised to intimidate and as a symbol of their (self-perception of) legitimacy.

Military forces are also increasingly involved in the humanitarian response to natural disasters around the world. As climate change takes its toll – through rising sea-level, heatwaves, and wildfires, as well as in driving displacement and conflict – the need to protect heritage will escalate.

Protecting heritage can, thereby, play a prominent role in safeguarding human security and the return to ‘normality’ in the aftermath of conflict. Heritage can help people find home again

Understanding the character of the heritage and conflict relationship better equips states to deliver peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction missions, mitigate threats, generate soft power advantage, as well as protect cultural heritage directly.

Heritage is a human rights issue, insofar as it relates to freedom of expression, thought, conscience, and religion. Protecting heritage can, thereby, play a prominent role in safeguarding human security and the return to ‘normality’ in the aftermath of conflict. Heritage can help people find home again.

Western military forces are increasingly conscious of these issues and are acting to build relevant capabilities. Examples include the US Army’s Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command’s 38G/6V Heritage and Preservation Officer Program and the British Army’s Cultural Property Protection Unit. These modern day ‘monuments men and women’ not only protect heritage in conflict theatres, but support operational readiness through related planning, training, and intelligence work.

This familiarity between soldiering and heritage is long-standing, and derives, in part, from the shared features of mapping, fieldwork, and the large-scale deployment of people and equipment. T.E. Lawrence (‘Lawrence of Arabia’) was an archaeologist before he was a soldier, and Augustus Pitt-Rivers, whose founding collection was the genesis of the Pitt Rivers Museum, made the opposite transition.

An escalation in heritage targeting and weaponisation [is intended] to either reinforce or erode people’s identities in and around conflict zones. Destruction in such contexts is often a matter of domination

Reflecting changes in modern warfare – from conventional wars of attrition and exhaustion to hybrid and subthreshold hostilities – state and non-state actors continue to deploy or destroy cultural heritage for political ends. Indeed, the current trajectory indicates an escalation in heritage targeting and weaponisation as part of strategies to either reinforce or erode people’s identities in and around conflict zones. Destruction in such contexts is often a matter of domination, and protection of resistance.

The Russian invasion is a case in point. President Putin has made clear that he believes Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russian history and culture. Despite these assertions, the targeting of Ukrainian cultural sites indicates an internal recognition of the robust and distinct character of Ukrainian identity. As the destruction goes on, however, the cultural affinity that remains between Russia and Ukraine is under threat as both become increasingly defined in opposition to one another. The Orthodox Church in Ukraine, for example, became autocephalous in 2019, meaning it split from the Moscow Patriarchate Church.

President Putin has made clear that he believes Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russian history and culture....[but] the targeting of Ukrainian cultural sites indicates an internal recognition of the robust and distinct character of Ukrainian identity

The display of burnt-out Russian armoured vehicles in cities across Ukraine, including Kyiv and Lviv, adds a modern twist to the conflict and heritage nexus. This material debris of combat is being transported from the battlefield and effectively converted into heritage for public consumption in almost real time. Together with viral memes on social media, most recognisably perhaps of Ukrainian farmers towing Russian tanks with their tractors, this heritage embodies an emotional truth for Ukrainians.

This physical and digital debris resonates with, and further informs, cultural narratives of independence and warrior ancestry. Ukrainians at once immortalise and are immortalised by Volodymyr the Great, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Taras Shevchenko, and the Zaporizhian Cossacks riding horseback with sabres blazing through Gogol’s legends of Taras Bulba.

Cultural heritage cannot be separated from people – it is people. When we protect one, we protect the other.

Read here about current attempts to save Ukrainian heritage from Russian attack. On Hearing and Not Hearing Air-Raid Sirens is about Dr Olena Styazhkina, a Ukranian historian and writer, currently working to save historical documents in her homeland. Her story, translated by Oxford languages expert, Professor Polly Jones, can be read  here

These topics are explored further in Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict: Past, Propaganda, Parade (Tim Clack and Mark Dunkley editors) published by Routledge.

  Dr Timothy Clack is the Chingiz Gutseriev Fellow at the School of Anthropology & Museum Ethnography (SAME) and School of Archaeology. He is also a Senior Research Fellow of Oxford’s Changing Character of War Centre. He Tweets as @AnthroClack

DISCOVER MORE

• Support Oxford's research
• Partner with Oxford on research
• Study at Oxford
• Research jobs at Oxford

You can view all news or browse by category

Essay on Cultural Heritage

Students are often asked to write an essay on Cultural Heritage in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Cultural Heritage

Understanding cultural heritage.

Cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes inherited from past generations. It includes traditions, languages, and monuments that are important to our identity.

Types of Cultural Heritage

There are two types: tangible and intangible. Tangible heritage includes buildings and historical places, while intangible heritage includes folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge.

Why is it Important?

Cultural heritage helps us understand our past and shapes our future. It gives us a sense of belonging and understanding of our community and others.

Preserving Cultural Heritage

We must respect and preserve cultural heritage, as it’s a bridge between the past, present, and future. It’s our responsibility to pass it on to future generations.

250 Words Essay on Cultural Heritage

Significance of cultural heritage.

Cultural heritage provides a sense of identity and continuity, offering a link from the past to the present and paving the way to the future. It is a mirror that reflects societal values, beliefs, and customs, serving as a valuable educational tool. It also contributes to social cohesion, fostering a sense of belonging and promoting mutual respect among different cultural communities.

Preservation of Cultural Heritage

The preservation of cultural heritage is crucial for maintaining cultural diversity in the face of growing globalization. It involves safeguarding significant cultural items and intangible aspects from threats such as natural disasters, conflict, and neglect. This task necessitates the collaboration of local communities, governments, and international organizations.

Cultural Heritage in the Digital Era

The digital era has brought new opportunities and challenges for cultural heritage. Digitization can help preserve and disseminate cultural heritage, making it accessible to a wider audience. However, it also raises issues related to copyright, authenticity, and the potential loss of context.

In conclusion, cultural heritage is an essential part of our shared human experience. It holds significant value for both individuals and societies, and its preservation is vital for our collective future.

500 Words Essay on Cultural Heritage

Introduction.

Cultural heritage, a term that signifies the wealth of physical artifacts and intangible attributes inherited from past generations, plays a crucial role in shaping societal identity. This heritage, passed from one generation to the next, encompasses practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values. It is a mirror reflecting the historical journey of a civilization, offering insights into its evolution, achievements, and challenges.

The Tangibility and Intangibility of Cultural Heritage

Intangible cultural heritage, on the other hand, refers to traditions or living expressions passed down over generations. This includes oral traditions, performing arts, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature, and traditional craftsmanship. The Flamenco dance of Spain, the tea ceremony of Japan, and the storytelling tradition of West Africa are examples of intangible heritage that shape the cultural identities of these regions.

The Importance of Preserving Cultural Heritage

Preserving cultural heritage is of paramount importance for several reasons. Firstly, it promotes a sense of identity and continuity in a fast-changing world, offering a source of pride and belonging for communities. Secondly, cultural heritage serves as a bridge between the past and the present, providing valuable lessons and guiding societal progress. Lastly, cultural heritage is an important driver of tourism, contributing to economic growth and sustainable development.

Challenges in Cultural Heritage Preservation

In conclusion, cultural heritage is an invaluable asset that offers a window into the past, shapes present identities, and guides future progress. It is a testament to human creativity, resilience, and diversity. As such, it is incumbent upon us, as custodians of the past for future generations, to safeguard and preserve our cultural heritage. This requires concerted efforts at local, national, and international levels, as well as the integration of heritage conservation into broader socioeconomic development strategies.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *