1 Introduction
Heritage territories are complex and diversified from both the environmental-landscape and sociocultural points of views. Profound can be the differences of tradition, life and culture between, for example, coastal and mountain places, or small villages and great historical centres, and there can also be significant divergences in the strategies and practices of defining, protecting and enhancing them as heritage.
Traditionally, the concept of heritage solely referred to âmonuments and sitesâ (see the Venice Charter in 1964) encompassing only the material aspect of culture, however, it slowly expanded towards the more immaterial expressions of it (see the Recommendation on the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore, adopted in 1989). Today, both tangible and intangible heritage are unambiguously seen as core elements of cultural heritage: the former refers to physical objects including built heritage, artistic creations and other products that are assigned with a cultural significance, and the latter includes âthe practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills â as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith â that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their Cultural Heritageâ (UNESCO, 2003). While the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage was construed along the lines of a dichotomous understanding, in 2003 UNESCOâs assistant director general for culture, Mounir Bouchenaki already argued for a certain kind of interdependency between the two (Bouchenaki, 2003).
Corresponding to these tendencies, during the recent years, there has been a number of scholarly works that â instead of viewing tangible and intangible heritage as entirely separate entities â hint at an approach that not only acknowledges the intimate ties between the two, but also stresses their unambiguous embeddedness in social, political, cultural and even psychological contexts (e.g. Winter, 2013; Waterton & Watson, 2015). Heritage became understood âas a process, or a verb, related to human action and agency, and as an instrument of cultural power in whatever period of time one chooses to examineâ (Harvey, 2010, p. 327). It is also important to note that â as Kevin Lynch remarks in his book, What Time Is This Place? â âChoosing a past helps us to construct a futureâ (Lynch, 1972, p. 64), which emphasizes the constructed nature of heritage, as well as the cultural and political aspects of identifying with place. Similarly, Harrington (2004) argues that heritage as a process can be very much connected to placemaking: to the discussion of how sites of heritage are articulated, used and experienced. Besides Harrington, several other researchers elaborate on the linkages between heritage and placemaking, but the emphasis is usually put on the aspect of tourism (e.g. Samir et al., 2019; Luger & Ripp, 2020; Rezaei et al., 2022). Nevertheless, when Harrington argues that âheritage is itself a process of placemakingâ (Harrington, 2004), he is interested in how places are socially constructed by various actors (including, but not solely by tourists) and how specific practices contribute to the identity formation of places. Placemaking is constituted through diverse and dynamic processes: through ongoing activities, which bring life to specific sites.
In our chapter, although the point of departure in all of our cases is intangible heritage, we similarly aim to bridge the distance between tangible and intangible heritage through focusing on various practices of placemaking: practices that we will interpret as narrations or performances. Several authors discuss heritage through the notions of narrativity or performance emphasizing that heritage is dynamic, and that it is being continually recreated and reinterpreted through specific narrative and performative acts. Russell Staiff (2014) argues that there is an inherent relationship between heritage and narration âbecause stories are representations of heritage places and because heritage sites can be apprehended and comprehended through narrativeâ, and concludes that âon one level the story really is the thingâ (Staiff, 2014, p. 113). On the other hand, according to Haldrup and Baerenholdt (2015), cultural heritage is enacted, embodied and transmitted through social practices. Identifying three aspects of âheritage as performanceâ, they differentiate between performances of heritage (re-enactments), performances at heritage sites (re-creations) and performances with heritage (re-usages). As they argue, heritage is âabout the unpredictable, creative and non-stable, arriving out of the dramas, improvisations and remakings of heritageâ (Haldrup & Baerenholdt, 2015, p. 66). At the same time, even though Staiffâs (2014) and Haldrup and Baerenholdtâs (2015) approaches certainly differ in their emphasis concerning heritage as narration or performance, both understandings are closely interrelated in the sense that they enable discussions on making and remaking of heritage, questions of inclusion and exclusion, and on conflicts.
Accordingly, in our understanding heritage can be interpreted as a resource capable of dis/connecting people and places, de/constructing a sense of belonging and a certain kind of identity. Tangible and intangible heritage can represent various â sometimes conflicting â desires of a society. Indeed, the images and imaginaries related to places are important factors in creating and defining paths, routes and public sites. Expectations of a particular view, sightseeing or a natural event can induce people to choose specific paths or routes instead of others. If that place is situated or surrounded by heritage, this can enhance its identity and create a wider attention of the population around it because it represents a certain kind of history (Fyall & Leask, 2006).
Nevertheless, as Harrington also emphasized, it is essential to take into account that âthe privileging of the powerful and the monumental in heritage discourse has promoted a hegemonic construction of place and landscape that prioritizes particular interpretations and valuesâ (Harrington, 2004). Heritage should be understood as a living cultural system, sustained by the contemporary expectations and interpretations of communities. Examples of the different notions of ethnological, intangible, ethnographic, living heritage are also often secured by legal provisions, defining specific kinds of heritage, but the foremost impact on particular national cultural heritage agendas comes from UNESCO heritage-related policies. Nonetheless, we should not forget to look into how less powerful communities create and reinforce their own stories, histories and meanings (Harrington, 2004).
Starting from these premises, this chapter focuses on various forms of cultural heritage, transforming, expanding, representing, imagining place, beyond its physical attributes. Our case studies from Turkey, Italy and Hungary will specifically show how the strict boundaries between tangible and intangible heritage can be broken down through processes of placemaking connected to geographical, religious, historical and cultural sites, where heritage becomes defined and acknowledged through different strategies by divergent actors. Through our case studies of (1) the Bosphorus in Istanbul, Turkey, (2) the Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo, Italy, and (3) the Bloomsday Festival in Szombathely, Hungary, we will investigate (1) narratives and stories, (2) traditions and rituals, as well as (3) performances. While our case studies feature different stages in the process of heritagization significantly differing through the dominance of top-down or bottom-up strategies, they will also underline our interpretation of heritage as a living system. In some cases, the processes of placemaking will foster belonging and identification, bringing communities together beyond time and any religious, ethnic or national frames, in others it will create conflicts. In some, they exemplify narrative making and storytelling practices, in others performative acts in relation to places, activating communities in claiming in/tangible heritage.
The objectives of this chapter are to do the following:
Discuss the function of placemaking in relation to heritagization in various urban settings
Problematize the straightforward relationship between tangible and intangible cultural heritage
Discuss the role of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in creating narratives and performances
Shed light on processes of community building and senses of belonging by different â top-down and bottom-up â actors
Elaborate on the potential conflicts embedded in the processes that the linkages between placemaking and heritage can reveal in specific sociocultural contexts.
This chapter, thus, focuses on placemaking in the framework of how urban citizens associate with cultural heritage, and how heritage is bounded with place. Discussing three cases from an interdisciplinary point of view â including contributions from urban history, architecture, art history, globalization studies and human geography â it highlights the complexity of definitions of heritage and seeks to understand the socio-spatial practices in understating tangible and intangible cultural heritage.
2 Heritage and Placemaking in the Bosphorus, Viterbo and Szombathely
2.1 Case 1 â a World of Inspiration for Narrations (the Bosphorus)
The Bosphorus is the sea channel passing through Istanbul that connects the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. It has its own flora and fauna and many types of human-made and natural characteristics. In addition to tangible heritage assets, the Bosphorus has been a source of inspiration for centuries by continuously generating stories, ideas, legends, emotions; it is an inspiration source for artworks, in addition to many traditions and ways of living.
In many cultural narratives, such as poems, novels, paintings and articulations of communities, the Bosphorus and all the practices tied to it are defined as a âworld on its ownâ. In BoÄaziçi Mehtapları (Bosphorus by moonlight, 1942), a novel by Abdülhak Åinasi Hisar, the Bosphorus is so particular in its own nature that it is âa civilization that is separate from all the civilizations found in the city of Istanbulâ (Hisar, 1997). According to Åinasi, âthe Bosphorus generates common emotions and understandings that combine many tastes and creates a communityâ (Hisar, 1997). In another narrative, Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar describes the city watching the Bosphorus: âThe city itself, the architecture that belongs to us, the music and the life, and in the end overcoming all our particular emotions, sadnesses, joy and dreams in a specific time and calendarâ (Tanpınar, 2004).
The Bosphorus was nominated as a site for UNESCO World Heritage List in 2012. Before the application, a list of its tangible heritage sites â around 4,000 â were listed. These included buildings and constructions with specific architectural styles, fountains, bridges, towers and cisterns. It was claimed as heritage in accordance with the World Heritage List criteria, such as âto be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible changeâ (Beylerbeyi, 2012).
This claim was initiated (and the consequent application to the UNESCO World Heritage List was submitted) by a non-governmental neighbourhood federation BoÄaziçi Associations Platform, involving 11 neighbourhood organizations near the Bosphorus. In their letter to the local municipality, they announced the âurgency to preserve the Bosphorus and its natural and cultural heritage for the coming generationsâ, mentioning the already lost species and the ones under threat specific to it, such as the âvegetable gardens, meadows, wisteria flowers, Judas trees and Arnavutköy strawberryâ (Beylerbeyi, 2012). The application to UNESCO soon after was made by Sarıyer municipality. The application did not succeed. However, the claim demonstrated the desire of local citizens and a bottom-up interest in maintaining the Bosphorus as heritage. This demand included the tangible as well as the intangible heritage of the Bosphorus region, and the emphasis on its human-made and natural assets as part of this heritage. It was also about the plants and the skills, knowledge and rituals correlated with it. Associated with the Bosphorus, the erguvan (Judas tree) announces the arrival of spring to the city with its fragile, short-lived blossoms, as a recent invitation by Erguvan Turları (Judas Tree Tours), organized by Åehir Hatları, one of the cityâs ferry lines, declares (Åehir Hatlari, 2023) (Figure 6.1). The Erguvan Turları took place between 9 and 31 May in 2023, for example, in that short period of time when the blossoms were still on the tree. There is also a long-standing fish culture associated with the Bosphorus, involving lüfer (bluefish), âthe queen of the fish in Bosphorusâ (Güler, 2019), and istavrit (horse mackerel), the fish of the ordinary people (Erkebay & Rigel, 2019). The same platform initiated an official protocol with Bosphorus University in Istanbul in 2012 for a project titled âThe Bosphorus Cultural Routeâ, as a part of the Cultural Routes programme of the Council of Europe (Council of Europe, n.d.). In the protocol, the emphasis was on making known âthe historical and the cultural assets of Istanbulâs Bosphorusâ. The letter was signed by 11 neighbourhood associations: BoÄaziçi Arnavutköylüler DerneÄi, Bebekliler DerneÄi, Beylerbeyililer DerneÄi, BoÄaziçi Arnavutköylüler DerneÄi, Büyükdere Ãevre Kültür ve GüzelleÅtirme DerneÄi, Emirganâı Sevenler DerneÄi, Kandilli DerneÄi, Kuzguncuklular DerneÄi, Rumelihisarı DerneÄi and Sarı Platform DerneÄi (Beylerbeyi, 2012).
Photo of erguvan (Judas tree) blossoms near the Bosphorus
Source: Yorulmaz (2020)
The platform defines the Bosphorus as a âcivilizationâ and its specific neighbourhoods as carrying the âtracesâ of this civilization (Anadoluhisarı Turizm Kalkındırma DerneÄi, 2014). The video of contemporary artist Volkan Aslan, With My Best Wishes (2019) (Figure 6.2), signifies the loss of nature and the soil in Istanbul, and gives place to the widespread play of shooting colourful balloons on the coast; what is lost is not the balloons but home, signified here by the Bosphorus.
Still from the video With My Best Wishes by Volkan Aslan (2019)
With permission of the artist
As with the following two cases, the case of the Bosphorus complicates the definitions and the interrelations between tangible and intangible heritage discussed within the frame of placemaking. These assets strengthen the sense of belonging to the place and its cultural heritage and identity and in return generate various â in this case â narrative acts of preserving the place. The Bosphorus was not accepted as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Nevertheless, this case exposes the bottom-up claims of communities and the ways they associate with place through the conceptualizations of heritage as discussed above. UNESCO (2012) states that intangible cultural heritage makes people and communities distinguishable in terms of their history, nationalities, languages, ideology and values. The case of the Bosporus allows recognizing heritage, tangible and intangible, as well as its relation to the placeâs identity and sense of belonging.
2.2 Case 2 â Creating, Enhancing and Experiencing a UNESCO Heritage Site (Viterbo, Italy)
The UNESCO General Conference â since 17 October 2003 â has created a list of intangible heritage with âthe aim of safeguarding these masterpieces to prevent their disappearance, preserving the extraordinary set of languages, rituals, social customs, and practices concerning the knowledge related to craftsmanshipâ (UNESCO, 2003). Accordingly, this case study focuses on the âMacchine dei Santiâ intangible UNESCO heritage and, in particular on the Macchina di Santa Rosa in Viterbo, Italy, in the Lazio region (Fyall & Leask, 2006; Siravo, 2015; Yang & Lin, 2011).
As with the other case studies (the Bosphorus and Bloomsday) in this chapter, intangible heritage â in its close correlation with tangible heritage â also represents an important resource capable of improving the sense of belonging and identity of people. Nevertheless, the status of the Macchina di Santa Rosa is solidified as a UNESCO Heritage Site, which also raises significant questions in relation to its official enhancement.
The data collection of the case study was carried out with the original HeritED (Heritage Experiential Design Method) database aimed at identifying both positive and problematic factors in the enhancement of these sites, including the results of a questionnaire administered to users of the territories in question focusing on the material and immaterial aspects of their usages connected to placemaking (Sepe, 2013).
Catholic parades are characterized by processional structures of large dimensions and take place in many parts of Italy and, in particular, in the historic centres (Figure 6.3). The importance of the celebrations stands in the mix of all the tangible and intangible components, moreover the related places they cross, which are transmitted over the years. Although maintaining the traditions, the machines change every five years, giving to the artisans the possibility to create different artefacts (Figure 6.4).
La macchina di Santa Rosa âGloriaâ in Viterbo, Italy
Source: Marichela Sepe, 2018
Palazzo dei Papi, Viterbo
Source: Marichela Sepe, 2018
As regards the Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo, during the evening of September 3, a hundred porters (called the Facchini di Santa Rosa) elevate the 30-metre-high tower reconstructed in honour of the patron saint of Viterbo to transport it through the streets and squares of the medieval centre of the city (Macchina di Santa Rosa, 2022). Locals â in a perspective of inclusion â before, during and after the period of preparation of the celebration participate in the realization of the event, strengthening their sense of belonging to the place, its cultural heritage and identity, sharing different experiences of the event in order to make the next one even better.
The storytelling of the celebrations in the different years and both the design and building of the projects of the machine and the performative work of porters â that lasts all the year â are exhibited in the Museum of Porters in the historical centre of Viterbo.
Examining the public spaces which are dedicated or built around the Machine of Santa Rosa, whose transport is the main annual event of the city of Viterbo and happens through the historical centre contributing to its enhancement, one observes that the transport begins at the Porta Romana, and en route there are five stops in which the machine is placed on special frames. The last part of the path has a considerable slope and stops at the Church of Santa Rosa; to counter the effect of the slope, the machine is pulled by people using ropes until it reaches the correct position. The machine is exhibited in front of the pilgrimage chapel of Santa Rosa for a few days after the event (Mecucci, 2004; Touring Club Italiano, 2007; W).
Another element of the procession is its accompanying signage, which, in this case, is particularly evident. At each stopping place along the journey the presence of UNESCO (via its symbol) is associated with that of the Machine of Santa Rosa by five special iron plaques that have been installed on the pavement. Each plaque features the UNESCO symbol and the stop number of the procession.
As regards the maintenance level of the place, the observations were mainly focused on the pedestrian paths: here monuments and historic façades are well maintained, and the sidewalks are comfortable and made of quality materials.
After the surveys and the collection of data, a questionnaire was administered to 70 local people aged 18 to 80 and visitors, in particular, from Italy, England, Spain and the US. To the question, âWhich elements strike you most?â, 100% of the interviewees â regardless of age and origin â reported their great surprise to see the height of the machine and the action of the porters. As regards the question, âWhich elements produce a particular sensation?â, 70% of the interviewees answered the lights, the beauty of the White Car and the stopping points on the streets, while the other 30% added to these responses the general atmosphere that this celebration is capable of creating. To the question, âWhat is the symbol of this site and of the area?â, 80% answered the Machine of Santa Rosa and the chapel. The remaining 20% responded that it was the historical centre in general, with particular attention to the Palazzo dei Priori and the Palazzo dei Papi.
In 2020 and 2021 the celebration was stopped for the Covid-19 pandemic emergency â the next will take place in September 2023 â but both the Viterbo sites of the machine of Santa Rosa and the Museum of Porters were visited virtually, and via the social networks the remembrance has always been present, keeping the suggestions and memory of that procession and the places where it happens alive.
2.3 Case 3 â Performative Heritage amidst Cultural Conflicts: Bloomsday in Szombathely (Hungary)
The yearly organized event of Bloomsday in Szombathely, Hungary, not only shows the interrelatedness of tangible and intangible heritage â as in the cases of the Bosphorus and the Machine of Santa Rosa parade â but also reveals certain conflicts within the process of redefining space and cultural identity through heritage.
Szombathely â one of the oldest cities in Hungary â was founded by the Romans between 41 and 54 AD under the name of Colonia Claudia Savariensum, which became marked as the capital of the province of Pannonia Superior in the Roman Empire. During antiquity, the city functioned as the religious centre of the region, with a palace, baths and amphitheatre. This importance was also reinforced by the 1955 discovery and then gradual renovation of the heritage site of the Iseum, a Roman temple dedicated to the goddess Isis.
At the same time, the concept behind Bloomsday rests on a literary fact: in James Joyceâs well-known novel Ulysses (1922), Rudolf Virág, the father of the protagonist Leopold Bloom, is supposedly from Szombathely. Even though this fictional biographical element was also transformed into real urban reference points in the city reinforcing the interrelatedness of tangible and intangible heritage (in 1997 the city inaugurated the Blum House along with a memorial plaque, whereas in 2004 a statue dedicated to Joyce was also erected), the postmodern world of the Ulysses also inspired various art initiatives, including Bloomsday.
The history of Bloomsday in Szombathely is embedded in the context of the post-1989 period, when James Joyce suddenly became part of the cityâs cultural life. Even though the local college had organized an international James Joyce seminar in 1993 that referred to the location of the conference as âthe birthplace of Leopold Bloomâ, the real breakthrough came in 1994 when a group of friends including artists, literary historians, and cultural managers celebrated the first Bloomsday on June 16th (Péter Abajkovics, Balázs Barták, László Farkas, Ferenc Kassai, Sára Kaszap, Ferenc Masszi, József Rasperger, Péter Schütz, Ãkos Székely). All these spoke at least as much about the euphoria of post-socialist countries after the regime change, as it did about joining a European story. (Bloomsday has been celebrated worldwide since 1954 on June 16th to commemorate the novel that narrates the events of that very day in 1904.)
The location of the first Bloomsday was the heritage site of the Iseum, and it remained a central stage of happenings until at least 2000. Introducing the world of Ulysses to the representational space of the remains of the Roman temple, not only meant the redefinition of the heritage site from a religious to an artistic site (interestingly Ulysses is in itself a postmodern reinterpretation of the ancient Greek epic poem The Odyssey by Homer), but also the creation of a bottom-up, alternative, informal initiative vis-Ã -vis the political appropriation of the urban space by the previous â socialist â regime.
While in 1994 this change was symbolized by a huge white canvas with the image and name of James Joyce stretched out between the columns of the ancient temple, in later years various avant-garde performances, actions and concerts took place with the participation of artists who during socialism were often exiled into the âsecond public sphereâ: to the sphere of the underground. While some of these happenings directly played with the heritage site â like e.g. the performance of István Kovács, who, standing naked on top of the remains of a column like a god, held a lampshade towards the sky (after all, Isis was a goddess of healing and magic) â others used the ruins of the shrine as a stage recreating the original setting â e.g. in 1996 Katalin Molnár held a literary performance with a bucket on his head (Figure 6.5), in 1997 István Elek recited his poems from within a dustbin and in 1998 Katalin Ladik and Endre Szkárosi put on a voice poetry performance with a mirror and a glass of water. The Bloomsday events were not restricted to the site of the Iseum; later its location became more diverse, occupying various sites in the city, including the reutilization of existing spaces, such as a flower shop, which was turned into a temporary pop-up gallery.
Katalin Molnárâs literary performance in 1996 on Bloomsday in front of the Iseum
Source: Laszlo Farkas, 1996
At the same time, the episodes and the reception of Bloomsday also show some ambiguities alongside the process: the aim of redefining space and cultural identity gave rise to certain conflicts. The history of Bloomsday, which began as a spontaneous art action of many participants, quickly divided into several, parallel programmes initiated by various organizers in accordance with different âtastesâ (see Bourdieu, 2010) and perspectives. While the avant-gardist events started to be perceived by many as disturbances of orders, others were being condemned because of their conservatisms. Sharon Zukin (1995) extensively analysed how culture can become a radical site of conflict: it is not by accident that she is talking about the âcultures of citiesâ in a plural sense.
The Bloomsday âstoryâ in Szombathely has always had several actors, but the history of Bloomsday in Szombathely unambiguously divided in the middle of the 2000s. While in 2004 some of the original initiators decided to say farewell to Szombathely, the history of Bloomsday in Szombathely continued, even if differently. Although the bottom-up, experimental and avant-garde-ish events have faded over time, Bloomsday has by now, in a much more formalized way, become an officially branded and supported event of the city. Bloomsday is now part of the programme calendar of Szombathely.
3 Discussion
This chapter focused on three cases in different cities in order to discuss the place boundedness of intangible cultural heritage and its interrelatedness with tangible heritage. The three cases significantly differed from the perspective of the presence of top-down or bottom-up actors, however, our aim was also to illustrate the various stages of heritagization, where only the Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo gained the status of being a UNESCO Heritage Site.
The first case of this chapter, Bosphorus in Istanbul, exemplifies the presence of the sea, its flora and fauna and its historical artefacts: the human-made and natural tangible heritage, the stories, representations and the imaginary articulations that have been produced to narrate the city for centuries, including the emotional connection of the citizens expressed in literature, art and popular media. The distinction between tangible and intangible disappears in the case of the Bosphorus: the fish and the fishing culture, the skills, knowledge and rituals associated with it, cooking and sharing at homes and as a community, practicing by the coastline, craftsmanship related to fishing on the land and on the sea, as well as diverse articulations of the Bosphorus in narratives, poems, novels, paintings and artworks, are indivisible parts of the heritage as a whole. It combines people, animals and plants with the environment and produces collective imaginings: a space binding the diverse subjects in a nation, but furthermore in the region, connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Balkans and Asia, Europe and Asia, and Africa and Asia, leading transnational imaginaries. It motivates storytelling out of time and in different cultural contexts of history. Its tangible and intangible heritage are claimed by the people, its communities.
The Bosphorus case illustrates the involvement with place, despite the complexity of urban living. Peopleâs experience and feelings of belonging to a place, being âinsideâ or âoutsideâ of the place exemplify place boundedness of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in multicultural urban environments. Storytelling is a way to bring communities together despite the ethnic, religious or identity differences in a society. Consequently, highlighting local identity by focusing on cultural heritage and identifying its values is becoming increasingly important. Heritage is a key aspect of how communities form collective memory and belonging to spaces. Catalina Ortiz (2022) makes a close examination of storytelling for the imagination and ânon-discursiveâ stories play. In this sense, storytelling through in/tangible cultural heritage is a way to pin down the forms of collective memory and belonging to spaces.
In contrast to the Bosphorus case where the status of the UNESCO Heritage Site has not been granted in spite of bottom-up initiatives, the Machine of Santa Rosa illustrates a case where this status has already been solidified. There are several aspects that make the Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo a case of the enhancement of intangible â as well as tangible â cultural resources. The identity and historical memory of Viterbo are well preserved, and the city in itself is well maintained, contributing to the enhancement of the intangible aspects of heritage. Furthermore, over the years, the hospitality was improved, which also strongly introduces the aspect of tourism: bed and breakfasts, apartments for rent and hotels were constantly increasing after the 2013 UNESCO recognition, making it easier to stay in Viterbo for the period of the celebration and following days.
Indeed, most people come here independently from the fact that the machine is a UNESCO product, although, if better enhanced, this could represent one of the main reasons for the visit. There are no specific itineraries which could improve the tourism demand related to the machine, although Viterbo is a historical city with many interesting monuments and public spaces. The General Plan does not specifically include the enhancement of the machine routes and the 3 September event is organized as an annual event, but it is not included in a wider context of events which concern other periods of the year.
The machineâs identification as a UNESCO Heritage Site is widely present in social networks and especially as a hashtag â testifying to peopleâs great interest in this heritage â but this is less present on its own page (on social networks). On the other hand, both on the booking site and on TripAdvisor, the machine as a UNESCO Heritage Site is often mentioned.
Accordingly, a general action could be carried out to enhance the UNESCO brand to improve the knowledge of the machine and the reasons for visiting Viterbo and all the routes related to its transport. Further organization of cultural events, itineraries and social networks could improve the knowledge of the different machines; the sustainable enhancement of its intangible and material aspects linked to Viterbo and its surroundings; and the visitor requests in the rest of the year.
Intangible heritage has an impact on places if the benefit is connected with territories in a tangible way. Indeed, the Machine of Santa Rosa is not only related to the porters but also to the streets which the procession crosses. The metal plaques that have been installed on the pavement at these five spots allow visitors to the area when the procession is not happening to connect with and enjoy the spaces and the heritage around the procession.
While both the Bosphorus and the Machine of Santa Rosa cases can be discussed from the perspectives of their embeddedness in UNESCOâs World Heritage programme, the yearly organized event of Bloomsday in Szombathely is not at all part of it. Yet, Bloomsday does join a European trend by commemorating June 16th: Ireland, Italy, France and the Czech Republic all have annual celebrations. Similarly to the previous cases, Bloomsday creates various linkages between tangible and intangible heritage. On the one hand, the fictional reality of Joyceâs novel brought about the construction of specific urban heritage sites, such as the Blum House or the public statue of James Joyce on the Main Square of the city. On the other hand, the cultural event also reinterpreted the ancient heritage of Szombathely through references to the postmodern world of the novel. The event â highlighting the complex nature of the various performative acts of heritage (Haldrup & Baerenholdt, 2015) â redefined and reidentified the place through reenactments, recreations and reusages.
At the same time, while the Bosphorus case and Machine of Santa Rosa case demonstrate the various stages of heritagization and its consequences, the Bloomsday case also illustrates potential conflicts and challenges within this process. While Bloomsday represents the rivalry between aesthetic values, it also shows the difficulties with bottom-up placemaking activities (see also Patti & Polyak, 2016), such as the dangers of these being appropriated and instrumentalized by top-down actors throughout the process.
The recognition, definition and acknowledgement of specific cultural elements as heritage is a complicated process: if theoretically all culture could be heritage, the question of why only some cultural elements are held as heritage is the specific point of ethnographic departure for small-scale enquiries into local heritage construction processes. Through our cases â shedding light on the interrelatedness of tangible and intangible heritage through placemaking â we argued that various cultural elements can be perceived as heritage based on narrative or performative interactions among various people, objects, nature and institutions.
4 Conclusion
The field of heritage studies today encompasses a wide range of disciplines (from architecture to archaeology), institutions (from political to scientific), professionals (from marketing managers to interpreters), and other actors (from locals to tourists). Geertz, revitalizing Taylorâs all-encompassing and universalist view, interpreted culture as âan historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward lifeâ (Geertz, 1973, p. 89). Heritage is a particular outcome of human universals such as tradition, memory, history and time, being always reformulated and reinterpreted in accordance to present social, political and cultural needs. That is to say, cultural heritage is a particular type of collective memory narrative or performance, cultivated in particular societies by specific actors.
This chapter underscored the:
Complexity of the heritage construction process, in which various cultural elements can play an essential role
Multifaceted relationship between tangible and intangible heritage
Importance of placemaking within the process of heritagization, with a special focus on narratives and performances
Potential of heritage of uniting communities and shaping their future
Presence of possible conflicts and risks in the process
Through presenting three cases from different cities we explored the interconnectedness of intangible and tangible cultural heritage and its relation to place: the distinction between tangible and intangible heritage was blurred (1) by the Bosphorus case in Istanbul through the intertwining of the sea and its species with the stories and representations associated with it, (2) by the Machine of Santa Rosa case in Viterbo through the close interrelation between the ritual of honouring the patron saint of Viterbo with the route of transporting a 30-metre-high tower through the streets and squares of the medieval centre of the city, and (3) by the Bloomsday case in Szombathely through the performative reinterpretation of a literary work in the urban spaces of the once ancient city.
At the same time, while the Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo showcased a successful example of enhancing both intangible and tangible cultural resources, leading to its UNESCO Heritage Site status, the Bosphorus case and the Bloomsday case illustrated the potentials and risks behind bottom-up initiatives of shaping collective memory and local identity. While the Bosphorus case served as a space that connected diverse subjects and cultures, fostering a sense of belonging among communities, the Bloomsday case revealed potential conflicts between bottom-up placemaking efforts and appropriation by top-down actors.
In accordance with all these, we argued that intangible cultural heritage should be seen in its relationship to time, as a vector of memory, to space as a geographical identifier and to a group or society as an indicator of belonging. According to Madman (2005), Identity is a construction, a consequence of a process of interaction between people, institutions and practices. This position embodies the ideas of change, flexibility, fluidity and negotiation of identity in relation to social change and dominant cultural elements. This link is made up of material and immaterial components which are related to a wide variety of fields, including history, architecture, arts, culture (languages, songs, stories, music, dance), techniques, food processing skills, the environment, the fauna and flora as well as natural and built landscape and therefore complicates the definitions tangible and intangible heritage, reiterating their interrelatedness.
In this chapter, the selected cases showed how the cultural element in turning space into place determined the heritage, complexified in its meanings and practices. Heritage is not only about the conservation of the past but is also a means to bring communities together, for the future. The chapter highlighted the relationship between the human and non-human, the material and social, and the enduring and ephemeral, to make place and emphasize diverse meanings and articulations of tangible and intangible heritage. It emphasized the power of intangible and tangible heritage in building up communities, fostering practices of placemaking and empowering the claims on public spaces belonging to people, plants and animals.
Acknowledgements
The Machine of Santa Rosa in Viterbo case study was realized in the framework of the Sapienza Università di Roma Laboratory âInhabiting the Cityâ, the FOCUS Interdepartmental Research Center, and the research project PRIN2020 #20209F3A37.
References
Anadoluhisarı Turizm Kalkındırma DerneÄi. (2014, February 20). BoÄaziçi Ãniversitesi ile BoÄaziçi Dernekleri Platformu Protokol Ä°mzaladılar. https://web.archive.org/web/20150216090916/http://anadoluhisari.org.tr/bodep/bogazici-universitesi-bogazici-dernekleri-platformu-bodep-ile-protokol-imzaladi.
Aslan, V. (2019). With my best wishes [video].
Beylerbeyi. (2012, September 5). BoÄaziçi Dernekler Platformu, UNESCO Dünya DoÄa ve Kültür Mirası için baÅvurdu. Beylerbeyi Blog. https://web.archive.org/web/20150810095753/http://beylerbeyi.org/2012/09/05/899/.
Blake, J. (2015). International cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press.
Bloomsday. (N.d.). https://bloomsday.hu/.
Bouchenaki, M. (2003, October 27â31). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage [Conference session]. ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/468/1/2_-_Allocution_Bouchenaki.pdf.
Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Taylor and Francis.
Council of Europe. (N.d.). Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe programme. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes.
Erkebay, C., & Rigel N. (2019). Fish culture and blue fish in the civilization of Bosphorus. EtkileÅim 2, 28â52.
Farkas, L. W. (1996). Molnár Katalin. https://bloomsday.hu/index.php/blooms-day/timeline/11-lang-hu-programok-lang-lang-en-programs-lang/26-1996jun#sigplus_1004-3.
Fyall, A., & Leask, A. (Eds.). (2006). Managing World Heritage Sites. Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
Güler, R. (2019). Lüfer: BoÄaziçi Åehrayini [Blue fish: Bosphorus ornament]. Küre Publications.
Haldrup, M., & Baerenholdt, J. O. (2015). Heritage as performance. In E. Waterton & S. Watson (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research (pp. 52â68). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293565.
Harrington, J. (2004). âBeing hereâ: Heritage, belonging and place Making. PhD diss., James Cook University. https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/71/1/01front.pdf.
Harvey, D. C. (2010). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319â338.
Hisar, A. Å. (1997 (1943)). BoÄaziçi mehtapları [Bosphorus moonlights]. BaÄlam.
Luger, K., & Ripp, M. (Eds.). (2020). World heritage, place making and sustainable tourism. Studien Verlag.
Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place? MIT Press.
Macchina di Santa Rosa. (2022). http://www.macchinadisantarosa.viterbo.it.
Mecucci, F. (2004). Viterbo. Laborintus Graphics & Editors.
Ortiz, C. (2022). Cultivating urban storytellers: A radical co-creation to enact cognitive justice for/in selfâbuilt neighbourhoods. Urban Planning, 7(3), 405â417. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5430.
Patti, D., & Polyak, L. (2016). Building informal infrastructures: Architects in support of bottom-up community services and social solidarity in Budapest. In K. Melcher, B. Stiefel & K. Faurest (Eds.), Community-built: Art, construction, preservation, and place (pp. 155â171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545066.
Rezaei, N., Ghaderi, Z., & Ghanipour, M. (2022). Heritage tourism and place making. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 17(2), 204â221.
Samir, H., Samargandi, S., & Farisha, M. (2019). Placemaking as an approach to foster cultural tourism in heritage sites. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 191, 321â338. https://doi.org/10.2495/STR190281.
Åehir Hatları. (2022, July 4). Baharın Müjdecisi Erguvan Turlarımız BaÅlıyor. https://www.sehirhatlari.istanbul/tr/duyurular/baharin-mujdecisi-erguvan-turlarimiz-basliyor-882.
Siravo, F. (2015). Planning and managing historic urban landscapes. In F. Bandarin & R. van Oers (Eds.), Reconnecting the city: The historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage (pp. 161â178). Wiley Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118383940.
Sepe, M. (2013). Planning and place in the city: Mapping place identity. Routledge.
Staiff, R. (2014). Re-imagining heritage interpretation: Enchanting the past-future. Ashgate.
Tanpınar, A. H. (2004). BeÅ Åehir. Dergah.
Touring Club Italiano. (2007). Lazio. Touring Editore.
UNESCO (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention.
UNESCO (2012). Culture: a driver and enabler of sustainable development. Thematic Think Piece. Available from: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/2_culture.pdf â 26.3.2014 (Last accessed 4 July 2024).
Vecco, M. A. (2010). Definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(163), 321â324.
Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293565.
Winter, T. (2013). Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 532â545.
Yang, C. H., & Lin, H. L. (2011). Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang, Lin and Han: Reply. Tourism Management, 32(2), 455â456.
Yorulmaz, G. (2020). Mihrabat grove. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Mihrabat_Korusu.jpg.
Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.