**5. Tangible heritage listing criteria (monuments, ensembles and sites)**

To understand the basis of heritage being considered and listed, the study further expounds on the various criteria necessary to list a building, monument or site in this section. Similarly, a clear understanding of the architectural heritage features as being different from the monument, ensembles and sites is undertaken. Here heritage features are considered as physical or immaterial attributes identifiable with a society, monument is however mostly multidimensional structure with art historical, political, technical or architectural relevance to a people [11, 12]. The key ingredient for heritage listing based on the concept of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is anchored on authenticity, integrity and universal value significance [19]. By authenticity, it is meant as the quality of being genuine to be acceptable or even believed. There must be no pretensions, but serving as original based on some honest essential features [21].

Based on the concept of authenticity, the credibility of truthful information is significant in value attributes. It is worthy to state here that the value attribute does vary from one culture to another and even within a culture. Therefore, the use of OUV in determining monumental heritage could be questioned even more emphatically. In examining heritage value within the cultural context the attributes for consideration are; "materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors" ([19], pp. 53–54). Correspondingly in establishing heritage integrity, the main concern is concerning the material integrity of the heritage feature specifically. To assess the extent of heritage integrity the OUV elements, their size and any effect of advertising development or neglect are established for a heritage. It is usually framed up as a statement of integrity that shows physical fabric condition, that could be the impact of controlled deterioration and the dynamism of the heritage function within the cultural landscape. Ultimately, the very critical factor for listing heritage is its value significance whether it is based on historical, art, science, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological viewpoint ([19], p. 10).

#### *(In)tangible Heritages: A Critical Review for an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD)… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99601*

The actual component units of heritage as monuments, ensembles and sites had been established in the definitions of cultural heritage as discussed in the 1972 charter and detailed earlier [19]. Heritage management strategy is, therefore, a critical part of the criteria required for its listing. There is also the concern for heritage future maintenance of its outstanding value after it has been inscribed. The need for long term legislation, the role of regulatory agencies, institutional and traditional protection as well as heritage effective boundaries is paramount. There is the need for the allowance of a buffer zone to shield the actual property being protected is quite significant. For an effective management system of protected properties, the stakeholders should have a common understanding, maintain planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback succession. Equally, the stakeholders should always be involved in any strategy or action, allotment of basic assets, capacity building and functionally accountability.

As argued by ICOMOS [22] heritage listing were initially evolved around three (3) major frameworks of Typological, Chronological-Regional and Thematic frameworks. The World Heritage Committee(WHC) being strengthened by Global Strategy later esteemed the thematic style to heritage listing, this has since remained the accepted framework in use. The typological framework considered the various types of cultural heritage, while the chronological-regional framework has the world heritage viewed in term of time and space. It is worthy to state here that the thematic framework in listing heritage based on Outstanding Universal value (OUV) criteria did also utilised the typology of creative responses and continuity as indicated in **Table 4**. It is significant to state here that it was from the thematic framework as shown in the table that current heritage perception evolved to ultimately incorporate the concept of tangible and intangible heritage perspective being currently conversed, as the emphasis of the chapter's contribution. It, therefore, calls for a reassessment of the heritage discourse perspective that is holistic in terms of thematic, chronological-regional and typological nature. ICCROM 1976 report written by its director, similarly argued that the different heritage values that should be considered are the artistic, historic and typological values [22]. The artistic value here was concern with original and unique creation with exceptional universally acknowledged quality according to the experts. The historic value is a concern with the verification of the feature in terms of uniqueness/rarity, novelty, inspiration exercise in time and space by the heritage as well as status for the comprehension of development comparative to historic events. The typological value*:*

*"… would seem to require explicit identification and distinction compared to the historic value, under which it would normally be considered, to guarantee that the characteristic works of a certain tradition menaced by disappearance due to development of modern life, could be saved and conserved in the form of typical examples, representative of a culture that risks disappearance, as well as in cases where these types of works do not represent the unique character that qualify works recognized universally from the artistic or historic point of view" ([22], p. 11).*

Heritage typological classification, therefore, encourages a variety of heritage features across the different cultural settings which essentially could ensure that threatened heritages or those at risk of disappearing are appropriately identified, documented and conserved for transgenerational benefits. In short there should be develop an integrated framework for heritage identity and listing process that is all encompassing and holistic inconsideration of all cultures and peoples.

In the course of listing various heritage features, UNESCO with the technical support of the World Heritage Committee utilised some criteria to arrive at the


*Note: In most instances scientific value and ethnological or anthropological values could be combined with different criteria as they are being assessed. These OUV are variously presented in the different countries' protection laws as a reflection of their cultural heritage features that are mostly identified as monuments. However, they are usually an expression of the classical historical values, aesthetic/artistic values in their wide-ranging form. Authenticity and integrity are core requirement that are reinforced by the OUV in heritage listing. Source: Variously adapted from [11, 19, 22, 23].*

#### **Table 4.**

*Framework of criteria for cultural heritages listing based on OUV.*

selected features and based on its recommendation the features are treated as being of significance to be protected for the benefit of the global community. **Figure 1** graphically illustrated the various criteria that were used in listing the different heritage features from 1978 to 2007. The Orange colour indicated criteria six (6),

*(In)tangible Heritages: A Critical Review for an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD)… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99601*

#### **Figure 1.**

*The different criteria used annually for cultural heritage listing. Source: ICOMOS ([22], p. 16).*

Light Blue colour stood for criteria five (5), Purple for criteria four (4), Green was for criteria three (3), while the red colour stands for criteria two (2) and Deep blue stood for criteria one (1). A further look at the graph showed that the most commonly used criteria were six, while the least used was criteria one. However, as a general guide, there are ten (10) criteria that are used, which were derived from the ICOMOS operational guidelines ([22], pp. 13–14). For a heritage feature to be listed, the selected and documented feature is expected to meet any one or more of the value criteria in addition to integrity and authenticity. Since these value criteria deal with significant value in terms of OUV, detail and contextualised further discussion shall be undertaken on the actual placement of value in examining the architectural heritage on other related studies.

However, it has also been opined that though geo-cultural balancing of heritage list may not necessarily lead to an immediate and automatic paradigm shift; it will nevertheless ensure heterogeneity of the list and broader value-based perception for all heritage regardless of the current stereotyped concept of their monumentality [10]. It is the argument that has further inflame the study's passion towards a broad base architectural heritage categorisation that could serve as an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) that is sensitive to indigenous cultural resources.

## **6. Intangible cultural heritage listing criteria (convention on safeguarding)**

To understand the placement of the thesis argument it will be important to also understand the criteria used in the assessment of intangible heritage features. The basis for the safeguarding of these ICH features is as stated in the convention which is either as representative list or those in need of urgent safeguarding. The selection committee meets and proposed criteria for their listing on receipt of a nomination from member countries and forwards selected ones to the general assembly of UNESCO for ratification [15]. There does not seem to be specific criteria enumerated for the listing of the ICH, indicating that there seems not to be definitive particulars that can be universally applied. It seems the ICH option was just brought up to satisfy agitations rather than setting them on the same pedestal with the tangible heritage features. However, according to the Convention on Safeguarding ICH, article 13(c),

which has to do with other measures of safeguarding; it argued on the need to; "*foster scientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as research methodologies, with a view to effective safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage, in particular the intangible cultural heritage in danger*" ([15], p. 6).

The convention document, however, gave room for further research and could effectively aid in safeguarding the ICH. The thesis argues that the surest safeguard is to identify heritages (tangible and intangible) as the same and undertake relevant studies that would substantiate its integrative nature. Since the enactment of the Convention for Safeguarding ICH, about 508 elements within 122 countries have been listed as intangible cultural heritage as of 2018 [24]. Accordingly, Nigeria had only four elements listed as part of the ICH, amongst which are Argungu International Fishing and Cultural Festival in 2016, Ijele Masquerade in 2009 and Ifa divination System in 2008, the Oral heritage of Gelede in 2008 (also found in Benin and the Togo Republic) were listed as a representative list of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity. It shows that none is listed due to the need to safeguard them, could then be argued that no ICH in Nigeria is threatened or in danger of being lost that is worthy of being listed. This position will need to be re-evaluated for substantiation or otherwise which, is what this study sort to highlight.
