Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage
1. The origins of the term
As the concept of the nation state took shape in Europe, people recognised the potential of cultural assets to foster national and collective identity amongst peoples. Following the destruction of significant cultural treasures during the French Revolution, the view gained ground that cultural heritage must be protected by the state. In Germany, the institutionalisation of heritage conservation began in the early 19th century. The ‘Heimat’ movement, which emerged around 1900, advocated not only the preservation of monuments but also nature conservation and the upholding of traditions.
Well into the second half of the 20th century, the terms ‘monuments’, ‘artistic monuments’ and ‘monumental structures’ were used, and increasingly also the term ‘cultural property’. The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) marks the first mention of ‘cultural heritage’ in a German-speaking context. It seems likely that the term originated in connection with international protection agreements, drawing on its English (cultural heritage) and French (patrimoine culturel) equivalents. Since the mid-1980s, the term ‘cultural heritage’ has become increasingly established in German-speaking countries, finding its way into everyday language and undergoing expansions in meaning. Nevertheless, academic engagement with the concept of cultural heritage in Germany remained relatively limited by international standards. The interpretation of ‘heritage’ during the Nazi era, but also during the GDR period, had apparently brought the term into disrepute in Germany,[1] which is why it was used with hesitation.
2. Definition
The term ‘cultural heritage’ refers to the totality of tangible and intangible cultural assets. It stands as a testament to human creativity and ingenuity and is of historical, social, artistic, economic or scientific significance; it is therefore protected, maintained, preserved and, where possible, made accessible to the public.
The concept of cultural heritage is flexible and may be interpreted differently depending on the country and the time.[2] In international law, it usually appears as a collective term that is not defined in further detail. For example, the 1954 Hague Convention states that cultural property is ‘movable and immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of all peoples ’.[3] Under the 1972 World Heritage Convention, monuments, groups of buildings and sites are regarded as cultural heritage.[4] However, this Convention is not limited to built heritage, but also includes natural heritage. In 2003, the scope of the World Heritage List was expanded to include intangible cultural heritage.[5]
The interdependencies between intangible cultural heritage and tangible cultural and natural heritage are explicitly mentioned. Furthermore, a definition is provided for the first time, referring to the characteristics and functions of intangible heritage for communities. Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the concept of cultural heritage as defined by international bodies has been expanded several times over the past decades.
Tangible heritage comprises immovable and movable objects. These include cultural landscapes, architectural monuments and ensembles, archaeological sites, and museum and library collections. Beyond their physical nature, they possess an ideal value, a meaningful symbolic significance. This makes it clear that the tangible and intangible components of cultural heritage are closely intertwined. Intangible heritage refers to cultural and social practices, techniques, knowledge and oral traditions. These include folk songs and dances, fairy tales, myths, legends, festivals, customs, rituals, games, dialects, culinary traditions, craft techniques, etc. Intangible heritage is carried on by individuals or groups and is also referred to as ‘living cultural heritage’.
Cultural heritage plays a role in shaping identity and is also described as the ‘cement of identity’[6]. It provides people with points of reference in space and time. Cultural heritage can stem from everyday life as well as being extraordinary. It is handed down from the past, is significant in the present and is to be preserved for the future. The concept of heritage implies this continuity across generations. It is by no means a matter of elements to be preserved and admired in a static form, but rather a heritage that is constantly reinterpreted and embraced anew, and is therefore subject to constant change.
3. Discourses and controversies
Outside the German-speaking world, the concept of cultural heritage has been experiencing a boom since the 1990s. Owing to the broadening of its scope, some authors criticise the fact that ‘everything and nothing’ is being declared cultural heritage. Consequently, there is a risk that the concept will lose its significance through overuse. The UNESCO World Heritage List comprises 981 sites (as of June 2013) of outstanding universal value, 759 of which are cultural properties.[7] Given this large number, the degree of uniqueness of all these sites may be called into question. On the other hand, the broad concept of cultural heritage allows for more individualised approaches and identification with cultural heritage; for although cultural heritage is, by definition, a collective heritage, different people may associate very different feelings and memories with it. The term ‘personal cultural heritage’[8] is used to emphasise this subjective interpretation. In this context, a World Heritage site can become ‘personal cultural heritage’ provided that the observer associates it with feelings and memories that are unique to them.[9]
Although the concept of cultural heritage is, in principle, detached from ownership,[10] the question of a heritage’s origin – and thus of its ownership and the responsibility for it – can give rise to issues of ownership, particularly when individuals or groups regard themselves as owners in a figurative sense. This can occur in the case of shared heritage, which can have a divisive effect if, amidst the coexistence and interaction of peoples, it becomes the focus of conflicting historical-political concepts and conflicts. However, most bodies, particularly UNESCO, advocate a unifying conception that regards cultural heritage as the ‘intellectual property of all humanity’[11], which connects people and brings them closer together. At the same time, cultural heritage is regarded as a testament to cultural diversity. The multidimensional nature of the concept and its multifaceted interpretations are characteristics that the tourism industry has also embraced, for which cultural heritage represents a resource.
There are differing views on the inventorying of cultural heritage for the purposes of recording, protecting and, where appropriate, marketing it. On the one hand, registrations and listings reflect the understanding that the totality of cultural assets is not only a heritage but also a mandate, which makes it a duty to work towards their preservation. Institutionalised conservation bodies focus on highlighting the specific characteristics that make this heritage worthy of protection. The necessity of protection is rarely questioned. On the other hand, it is argued that cultural heritage is subject to natural processes of change, whereas its listing – and, above all, certain restrictions – endanger it, as they lead to the cultural heritage being fixed in time at a specific point.
More recent research suggests that the primary focus need not be on locating heritage in monuments, sites, artefacts, knowledge and traditions. Of greater significance, it is argued, is how it is embedded in society,[12] how it engages people and how people engage with it. This perspective is gaining in significance against the backdrop of the constant expansion of the spectrum of cultural heritage and its omnipresence, as it is reasonable to assume that individuals and groups must make a selection from the vast ‘range of cultural heritage’ to determine which elements appeal to them, and that this selection is based on reflections and arguments that can be scientifically examined.
4. ‘German cultural heritage in Eastern Europe’ – ‘shared cultural heritage’
After the Second World War, a series of measures were taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to research and protect the cultural heritage of Germans from Eastern Europe. In 1953, the Federal Government and the Länder undertook to promote the cultural heritage of Germans in Eastern Europe (promotion of culture and science under Section 96 of the Federal Displaced Persons Act [BVFG]). In the German Democratic Republic, by contrast, this cultural heritage was systematically denied by the state. The SED regime recognised the loss of the eastern territories as early as the late 1940s and attempted to erase these territories from the collective memory. The treatment of the displaced persons – referred to in the GDR as‘resettlers’– can be characterised by ‘political disenfranchisement’ and ‘compulsory cultural assimilation’.[13] There was no public discussion of flight and expulsion; any associations of displaced persons were banned. Consequently, memories and both intangible and tangible cultural heritage could, if at all, only be preserved and passed on within the family circle. It was not until the 1980s that the subject was explicitly addressed in literature.[14]
In Germany, which has been reunified since 1990, society and academia have been increasingly engaged with the cultural heritage of Germans in Eastern Europe. State museums established specifically for this purpose are entrusted with researching, preserving and communicating this part of German cultural history. Numerous organisations representing displaced persons are committed to preserving the cultural heritage of Germans from Eastern Europe and maintain it through heritage rooms and collections, local history books and letters, as well as through reunions. In doing so, they build on this heritage, keep it alive and develop it further. Similarly, the German minorities who remained in their regions of origin are endeavouring to preserve their cultural heritage. New cultural heritage has also been created since 1945. For example, numerous memorials have been erected in both the old and new homelands of refugees and displaced persons, commemorating forced migration and serving as a reminder of the need for peace. They bear witness to positive cooperation between the displaced persons and the local authorities.
The cultural heritage of Germans from Eastern Europe is a heritage shared by the whole of Germany. Today, however, it is also the heritage of those population groups who remained in or were resettled in regions formerly populated by Germans after 1945, and for whom it can at times represent a ‘difficult’ legacy.[15] Germany’s tangible cultural heritage in Eastern Europe was treated in highly varied ways, both politically and socially, after the Second World War: in some cases, there were processes of cultural takeover and appropriation; in others, cultural assets were left to fall into disrepair; and in yet others, they were destroyed.[16]
The rapprochement that has taken place since the political upheaval of 1989 has led to greater awareness of the cultural legacy of the Germans. The cultural heritage of the Germans in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe is increasingly understood as a European legacy and regarded as an opportunity to bring the divided – and at times divisive – heritage and its stakeholders closer together once more. To academics, the term ‘German’ cultural heritage seemed problematic, as the concept of nationhood emerged relatively late and many regions of Eastern Europe were, or remain, ethnically heterogeneous.[17] Furthermore, the question arises as to what extent a cultural heritage located, for example, in present-day Poland, ‘has not long since become a shared heritage of Germans and Poles…? A heritage that younger people born in these regions now rightly regard as their own?’[18] What was formulated in 1994 at a conference as a question and a possible perspective soon gained acceptance in academic circles under the guiding principle of ‘shared cultural heritage’.[19] This term, coined by Andrzej Tomaszewski, focuses attention on the heritage of bi- and multicultural territories.[20] According to this perspective, the concept of ‘shared cultural heritage’ stands for ‘shared interest and shared responsibility’.[21] The conservation, restoration, reconstruction and maintenance of cultural heritage therefore also constitute a shared responsibility.[22]
Tangible and intangible cultural heritage is thus accorded a bridging function in Europe. In the course of this development, the heritage can be symbolically re-energised. One example is the former Three Emperors’ Fountain on the market square in Osterode/Ostróda in East Prussia, which was rebuilt and inaugurated as the ‘Europe Fountain’ in 2004 to mark Poland’s accession to the European Union. Alongside the emblem of the European Union, the fountain displays the coats of arms of the town of Osterode in East Prussia and its twin town, Osterode am Harz.
Such successes in bilateral cooperation demonstrate “that the term ‘shared cultural heritage’ finally stands for an idealistic concept that is harmless to artistic monuments […]”.[23]
Bibliography
- Moritz Csáky, Monika Sommer (eds.): Cultural Heritage as a Sociocultural Practice. Innsbruck et al., 2005 (Memory – Remembrance – Identity 6).
- Shared Cultural Heritage as an Opportunity. The Germans and their Neighbours in Eastern Europe. Symposium organised by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media. Berlin, 20 September 2004. Edited by Eckhard Grunewald and Jens Stüben. Oldenburg, Potsdam 2005.
- Shared Cultural Heritage in Eastern Europe. The Federal Government’s Commitment to Heritage Conservation 1993–2003. Published by the Federal Institute for Culture and History of the Germans in Eastern Europe P.p. the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM). Oldenburg, 2004.
- Peter-Oliver Loew, Christian Pletzing, Thomas Serrier (eds.): Reclaimed History. On the Appropriation of the Past in the Interstices of Central Europe. Wiesbaden 2006 (Publications of the German Poland Institute, Darmstadt 22).
- Anja Peleikis: ‘Whose Heritage? Legal Pluralism and the Politics of the Past. A Case Study from the Curonian Spit’. In: Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 53/54 (2006), pp. 209–238.
- Birte Pusback (ed.): Country Estates in the Regions of the Shared Cultural Heritage of Germans and Poles. Origins, Decline and Preservation. Warsaw 2007 (The Shared Cultural Heritage 4).
- Markus Tauschek: Cultural Heritage. An Introduction. Berlin 2013.
Web links
- www.kulturgutschutz-deutschland.de/ (Protection of cultural property as a joint project of the federal and state governments, primarily to prevent the export of significant cultural property)
- www.unesco.de/kulturerbe.html
Notes
[1] Étienne François: ‘Writing a history of German places of memory’. In: *Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps* 55/56 (1999), pp. 83–87, here p. 84. The historian emphasises that there was no German equivalent to the triad ‘mémoire, identité, patrimoine’ [memory, identity, heritage], which dominated debates in France in the late 1990s.
[2] Marie-Claire Hoock-Demarle: Introduction: Part Three. Heritage in Germany: issues of memory. In: Jean-Pierre Vallat (ed.): Mémoires de patrimoines. Itinéraires géographiques. Paris 2008, pp. 219–221, here p. 219.
[3] The full text of the Convention can be found in the booklet ‘Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’. Published by the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance. 6th ed. Bonn 2007, pp. 24–43. URL: www.unesco.de/fileadmin/medien/Dokumente/Bibliothek/Schutz_von_Kulturgut_bei_bewaffneten_Konflikten.pdf (accessed 11 June 2014).
[4] The “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” was ratified in Paris in 1972. To date, 190 states have signed the Convention. URL: www.unesco.de/welterbe-konvention.html (accessed 11 June 2014).
[5] ‘Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’, adopted by UNESCO in Paris in 2003. To date, 160 states have signed the Convention, including Germany in 2013. The text of the Convention: URL: www.unesco.de/ike-konvention.html (accessed 11 June 2014).
[6] Maria Gravari-Barbas: ‘Le “sang” et le “sol”. Le patrimoine, facteur d’appartenance à un territoire urbain’. Lecture text, 1995, pp. 1–9, here p. 7. URL: horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers08-09/010014865-69.pdf (accessed 11 June 2014).
[7] UNESCO World Heritage List: URL: www.unesco.de/welterbeliste.html (accessed 11 June 2014).
[8] Yaniv Poria, Arie Reichel, Avital Biran: Heritage Site Management. Motivations and Expectations. In: Annals of Tourism Research 33/1 (2006), pp. 162–178.
[9] J. Dallen Timothy: ‘Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience’. In: Annals of Tourism Research 24/3 (1997), pp. 751–754.
[10] Ernst-Rainer Hönes: Cultural Heritage. In: Natur und Recht 31 (2009), pp. 19–23, here p. 20.
[11] www.unesco.de/kulturerbe.html (accessed 23 May 2014).
[12] Bernard Schiele: ‘Les trois temps du patrimoine. Note sur le découplage symbolique’. In: Bernard Schiele (ed.): Patrimoines et identités. Collection Muséo, Québec. Sainte-Foy 2001, pp. 215–248, here p. 218.
[13] Michael Schwartz: The Historical East in the Culture of Remembrance of the GDR. In: Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation (ed.): The Expulsion of Germans from the East in the Culture of Remembrance. Berlin 2004, pp. 69–84. Available at: www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_7309-544-1-30.pdf (accessed 11 June 2014).
[14] In particular, Ursula Hönsch-Harendt. *Wir Flüchtlingskinder*. East Berlin 1985; cf. Louis Ferdinand Helbig: *Der ungeheure Verlust*. Flight and Expulsion in Post-War German-Language Fiction. 2nd edition, expanded to include an index and the current state of research. Wiesbaden 1996 (Studies by the Centre for Research on East-Central Europe at the University of Dortmund 3), pp. 201–204.
[15] The epithet ‘difficult’ is frequently used to describe the legacy of the Nazi era; see Sharon Macdonald: *Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond*. London 2009. The term also appears apt in the context of the German legacy and its reception by the new heirs, and is therefore applicable to this context.
[16] These processes are particularly well documented in post-war communist Poland. See Dieter Bingen, Peter-Oliver Loew, Dietmar Popp (eds.): Visual Cultures of Memory and Historical Constructions in Germany and Poland since 1939. Warsaw 2009 (Das Kulturerbe 5). Demolition processes are examined in the essays of the following conference proceedings: Dieter Bingen, Hans-Martin Hinz (eds.): Demolition. Destruction and Reconstruction of Historic Buildings in Germany and Poland. Wiesbaden 2005 (Publications of the German Poland Institute, Darmstadt 20). It is also mentioned therein that the demolition of identity-forming monuments and sites has been employed in the context of conflicts since antiquity.
[17] Michaela Marek: Can old walls be ‘German’? On the problem of ‘German’ architectural monuments in Poland: between nostalgia, politics, academia and heritage conservation. In: Hans-Jürgen Karp (ed.): German History and Culture in Contemporary Poland. Questions of Subject Matter and Methodology. Marburg 1997 (Conferences on East Central European Research 2), pp. 103–117.
[18] Hans Lemberg: On the Development of the Debate in the Federal Republic of Germany on ‘German Cultural Heritage in the East’. In: Karp (ed.): German History (note 17), pp. 73–82, here p. 75.
[19] In 1995, the working group of German and Polish art historians ‘Das gemeinsame Kulturerbe’ (The Shared Cultural Heritage) was founded, with the primary aim of fostering academic co-operation between the two countries: URL: www.bkge.de/arbeitskreis (accessed 11 June 2014).
[20] Andrzej Tomaszewski: The Shared Cultural Heritage of Germans and Poles in Europe and its Preservation. A Joint Task. In: Andrzej Tomaszewski, Dethard von Winterfeld (eds.): The Shared Cultural Heritage. German–Polish Cooperation in Heritage Conservation 1970–2000. Osnabrück 2001, pp. 11–30.
[21] Beate Störtkuhl: The Image of Silesia in Accounts of Art and Cultural History after 1945 – from ‘Recovered Land’ to ‘Shared Cultural Heritage’. In: Bingen, Loew, Popp (eds.): Visual Cultures of Memory (note 16), pp. 47–66, here p. 58.
[22] Andrzej Tomaszewski in a transcribed concluding discussion in the conference proceedings edited by Bingen and Hinz: Die Schleifung (note 16), pp. 199–208, here p. 208.
[23] Störtkuhl: *Das Bild Schlesiens* (note 21), p. 60.
Citation
Gesa Bierwerth: Cultural Heritage. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2014. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p32713 (accessed 16 June 2014).
Terms of use for this article
Copyright © University of Oldenburg and the Federal Institute for the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe (BKGE), all rights reserved. This work was produced as part of the project ‘Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe’ and may be reproduced and published provided the rights holders’ consent has been obtained. Please contact:
If you have any specialist comments or additions to the text, please contact the editorial team, citing relevant literature and source references.