**3. Tangible cultural heritage categorisation (1964 to 1972)**

The International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Venice charter of 1964 was a product of the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technician of Historic Monuments (ICATHM) held on 25th to 31st May 1964, further derived from the Athens Conference of 1931 and Italian Restoration Convention of 1932. During the congress, it was agreed that monuments and sites protection should be towards achieving social usefulness within the heritage historical setting and maintaining its original scale. However, since the Venice conference declaration, not much has been heard of the instrumentality of social value as the commanding light for global architectural heritage conservation. It became particularly Eurocentric and materially oriented with the promulgation of the 1964 Venice charter. The International Charter of Venice of 1964 first article did considered heritage as;

*"The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a* 

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

*particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance over time" [11].*

Unfortunately, cultural significance with time in most indigenous Africa cultural setting might mean nothing but an expression. After all, the concept of OUV that is supposed to guarantee authenticity, material integrity, universal significance and management practices is nebulous and ineffective in the application within indigenous cultural landscapes.

#### **3.1 The Venice charter of 1964 (international charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites)**

Athens Charter of 1931 laid the earliest principles that later give birth to the 1964 Venice charter that has sixteen articles commencing with the assertion that it was;

*"Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their age-old traditions. People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity"* ([11], p. 1)*.*

Considering that a message from the past in form of historic monuments abound in virtually all cultures and communities through time; there is therefore the concern of which message is more dominant and how does preserving it preserves other people's historical past. What is being argued here is that each people have a message for their future generation and based on their cultural values. It, therefore, becomes quite difficult to segregate some features as the sole witness of the traditional past and as a unique representative of human civilization. Similarly, though there is an observed unity of human value, they cannot be said to be the same or the listed heritage as the only representation of the common heritage for all cultures. For a fully rich authenticity assessment of heritage features, all parameter of the various heritage culture and tradition should form the core framework (tangible and intangible).

The second paragraph of the charter argued that "… with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions."([11], p. 1). The concern however is that how could each country apply the plan base on the framework of its culture and tradition when in the first instance their unique culture and tradition were not fundamentally the basis of the charter. This concern ultimately was realised when the intangible heritage argument was adopted. Unfortunately, the ICH was also treated as just an alternative heritage rather than considering them as an integral part of the process of heritage development.

#### **3.2 1972 convention for protection of cultural and natural heritage**

As preliminary procedures for the convention held in Paris from 17th October to 21st November 1972 the 17 sessions of the UNESCO congress noted that; heritage features are continually being threatened and often destroyed as a result of traditional causes and socio-economic dynamics, thereby aggravating the concerns of these occurrences [12, 19]. Further consideration was made concerning the deterioration and its effect on the cultural and natural global heritage. Similarly, the consideration and concern for lack of adequate resources and technical know-how amongst nation towards protecting these heritages led to the adoption and promulgation of the convention. The charter is made up of eight sections and 38 articles According to article 1 of the charter it categorised Cultural heritage as being;


