**Table 3.**

*Other selected charters, conventions and recommendations on heritage conservation and restoration.*

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

*"(i) monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; (ii) groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; (iii) sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view" ([12], p. 2; [19], p. 10).*

While article 2 of the charter considered natural heritage as;

*"(i) natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; (ii) geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; (iii) natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty." ([12], p. 2; [19], p. 10).*

These natural heritage features in most instances are an integral part of the cultural landscape of indigenous communities' heritage. Therefore, even when such heritage categorisation is established, they do not necessarily affirm a definite demarcation. This is where the indigenous heritage features of most Sub-Saharan African categorisation become burdensome. In Africa, there is little distinction between the natural and cultural heritage and the tangible is seen as an evolvement of the intangible.

Furthermore, there are several other charters, conventions and recommendation during heritage discourse that need to be highlighted because of their relevance to the study as illustrated in **Table 3**. The table gives an idea of the evolution of the various heritage discourse perspectives towards giving birth to the main charters of the study.

#### **4. Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage (2003 convention)**

It could be argued that some of the perspectives on the place of indigenous heritage vice-a-vice the Eurocentric world view force the emergence of the 2003 convention on intangible cultural heritage. However, it could be further posited that the current position can only serve as the impetus to further the cause of integrating indigenous heritage perspective and create alternative heritage discourse which is what the chapter contribution is currently advocating. Base on the 2003 convention held on 29th September to 17 October 2003 at the 32nd session of the UNESCO general assembly in Paris France several referrals and consideration formed the basis of the final convention draft position [14]. Referrals were derived from 1948 (Universal Declaration on Human Rights), the 1966 International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights). The considerations were based on the supposition that intangible heritage is considered as the mainspring of diversity in culture and a central supporter of sustainable development. These considerations had earlier been underscored based on 1989 (Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore). Similarly, are the 2001 and 2002 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Istanbul Declaration respectively. According to article one of the conventions, its objectives include;

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

*"(i) to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage; (ii) to ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of the communities, groups and individuals concerned; (iii) to raise awareness at the local, national and international levels of the importance of the intangible cultural heritage, and of ensuring mutual appreciation thereof; (iv) to provide for international cooperation and assistance" ([14], p. 2).*

The stated objectives indicate that safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage, their respect, need for awareness which guarantees global assistance for the heritage indicates that the primary desire of the convention is to assuage growing calls for indigenous cultural resource acknowledgement, documentation and indeed their appropriate conservation and listing.

According to the convention's Article 2, intangible cultural heritage is;

*"…practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity" ([14], p. 2).*

In providing a sense of identity and continuity of their heritage character, what the definition of intangible heritage is arguing, is its physical essence to a people's existence and subsequently bequeathed. On that basis, therefore, this thesis is equally arguing that intangible cultural heritage is in a way an integral part of the physical or visible heritage(s). There is to say, there cannot be a material heritage without its immaterial flip side. Though an immaterial heritage might not have a truly tangible component. Thus, the process-product argument of heritage is here affirmed as an integrated unit.

Further, the convention categorised Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) into five domains that include;

*"(i) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (ii) performing arts; (iii) social practices, rituals and festive events; (iv) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (v) traditional craftsmanship" ([14], p. 2)*

Intangible Cultural Heritages (ICH) are categorised as stated above, but what comes to mind then is whether all these ICH features are spiritual, invisible and therefore immeasurable in the same sense as the tangible? While the two heritage categories measuring scale might be contested as different; this chapter review maintains that they are an integral part of the processes of evolving heritage features, whether tangible or intangible. In other words, intangible heritage does birth tangible heritages as either movable, immovable, physical and therefore tangible. They are twins and need to be valued as an integrated whole, which could be a sure medium of protecting and safeguarding both heritages through integrated conservation strategies. This argument is best demonstrated in the cultural landscapes of indigenous communities of Sub-Saharan Africa and remain the principal basis of their conservation if they are to be protected and safeguarded for current and future generation.

The various charters have been evolving since the 1964 Venice charter, it considers the historic monuments to the contemporary tradition; where the human value is consciously acknowledged as collective heritage that requires a concerted effort in safeguarding them for the future. The safeguarding and conservation strategy can only be achievable if the value essence of heritage is assessed properly. Subsequently, the 1972 charter for the protection of cultural and natural heritage came up; where the concern was on heritage features continual threats and destruction that was due to traditional dynamics and socioeconomic causes. The charter of 2003 on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage five domains is an attempt to sort the growing southern hemispheric concern on the virtual exclusion of their heritage reality based on AHD. What the three charters and conventions have shown, however, is the changing dynamics of the heritage discourse and this chapter intends to extend it further to an integrated format, where intangible and tangible heritage features are identified, documented and conserved for listing as a holistic process-product endeavour. The charters and conventions discussed, have essentially aid in establishing the study focus from its historical past to contemporary socio-cultural realities amongst indigenous communities. It argued on the integrative nature of all heritage and the need to formally acknowledge such categorisation as well as their conservation for transgenerational benefits. The call for constant reassessment and review of global perspectives on heritage discourse for future revaluation and redefinition of heritage in accordance to ALHD perspective.
