**Abstract**

Heritage conversation has continuously elicited genuine concern from stakeholders, evokes controversies, and creates disputes in determining its worldview that is truly considered universal. The concern on the adopted Eurocentric perspective of Authorised Heritage Discourse(AHD) and the emerging calls for an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) constructivist and transformative post-modernist worldview. The sustainability concerns for all indigenous and national cultures that are in accordance with their unique value system are here considered paramount. The study essentially, undertook a critical review of the historical evolution of the heritage discourse, through the three major charters and conventions of 1964, 1972, and 2003 towards contextualising the discourse perspective. The study was undertaken through a critical review of relevant literature chronologically on the heritage subject matter. The study product is the development of a framework for ALHD that is conscious of the indigenous communities' value systems within Sub-Saharan Africa. The study recommended the use of an integrated heritage discourse framework for the identification, documentation, and conservation of indigenous heritage features and landscapes jointly by all stakeholders towards ensuring that sustainable transgenerational heritage is bequeathed.

**Keywords:** Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD), Cultural Landscapes, Indigenous Architectural Heritage, (In)tangible Heritage, Stakeholders Value Preferences, Sub-Saharan Africa

#### **1. Introduction**

Although the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) perspective have dominated the heritage worldview for most of the twentieth century. However, the Post millennium, Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) era has brought to question more pointily prevalent heritage tenets. The concern of relegating Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) against Tangible Heritage (TH), the stance

on indigenous architectural heritage and the critical place of socio-cultural value preferences of stakeholders and the diversity of perspectives in determining heritage value and its significance are prevalent. Furthermore, the latest discourse perspective has once more provided critical stakeholders' opportunities to contribute to the debate and propound convincing arguments for possible adaptation and mainstream integration. The chapter, therefore, calls for new questions, new responses that are holistic, integrative and sustainable for all peoples and cultures of the world in the post-modernist millennium for SDGs attainment in current and future heritage management base on a paradigm shift.

The paradigm of intangible tangibility and the tangibility of intangibles are quite contradictory and seeming divisive, however, the chapter argues that all the tangibles heritages are living and have their existence at the instance of the intangible's cultural heritage dynamisms. Therefore, all tangibles (physical) domains are first and foremost intangible (spiritual) beings; without which nothing seems to exist at the perceptual domain and the said realm of reality. The tangibility of intangible heritage features also confirms Vecco [1] argument that heritage discourse has merged into one, the past testimonies and its goods; which is being driven by the intangible resource base [2]. If Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) would remain relevant and all-encompassing, then it should therefore be true in spirit and the letter of its profession. It must be professionally guided, but socio-culturally anchored on indigenous immaterial and material societies developmental processes. The study propounded integrative heritage view is akin to the architectural 'form follows function' paradigm of Luis Sullivan in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It means space is created base on its functional requirement or necessity space or material heritage is an extension of the immaterial socio-cultural processes of any people. Frank Lloyd Wright argues however that form and function are the same further also reinforces the intangible tangible and tangible intangibility as the same. Essentially affirming that each one of the two heritage categories and domains flows into one another thereby giving birth to some of the great architectural masterpieces in the modern era of architecture. However, translating the established argument of the nineteenth century had been quite impossible due to the highly machinated arguments of the architectural modernist movement lead by Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe amongst others [3–5]. Thus the question of an integrative nature of things and thought is now even more pertinent in the post-millennium evolving heritage perspective arguments.

A chronological evolution of heritage discourse perspectives over time and their critical milestone principles and positions as well as how they foreshadow current accepted reality will be carefully analysed. Therefrom congruence viewpoints and their point of divergence will serve as a guide in critically creating a true picture for Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) for all times as the chapter's contribution. Heritage here is considered as a living socio-cultural process over time, it could be from the past, an expression of the present and could be a projected futuristic realm. Simply, heritage is considered a process that transcends time in nature (form) and operation. Heritage is beyond the past, rather encompasses the present that could be operative in the future-for all generation. At this point, the study addresses heritage definition, concepts and various discourse perspectives, while contextualising them for the study purpose. To understand the architectural heritage worldview, the study firstly highlights the broad concept of heritage definition and evolutional process from inception to contemporary worldview. An analysis of the concept of cultural heritage and its evolution in Western Europe stated that the coinage of the

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

term heritage was from French Patrimoine-parent heritage that is for personal heritage which went through an epoch of evolvement to its present usage [1]. Similarly, the word monuments were originally considered as an expression of worthy historical testimonies being preserved [6]. With the French revolution, the royal properties were appropriated as that of the public based on the secularisation principle. Indigenous Architecture here has to do with the architecture that is native to a people and evolves from the socio-cultural processes and sustenance needs including the desire for the activity's habitation. Indigenous is both in terms of design concept, materials and construction techniques and distinguishes it from vernacular and traditional architecture. It is the indigeneity sustenance of heritage that requires reassessment within the global context of heritage discourse.

Study's chapter review is justified considering the prevalence of the AHD perspective which is mainly Eurocentric information and operation. Further, the exclusion of very potent indigenous heritage features across Sub-Saharan Africa on the guise of their not being of universal significance required a critical revisit. If the future and identity of the Africans and their heritage resource base would be sustained over the next century, the concept of ALHD must be appropriately integrated into the subsequent process of heritage discourse, conventions and charters. The evolutionary trend of heritage at various point in history demonstrated that just before the Second World War, the heritage concept became internationally institutionalised and did imbibe the cultural dimension with the 1931 Athens conference. The conversation translates from the objective to the subjective, which is from historic monument to logic of the heritage, and that is where the tangible and intangible heritage debates emanated. Heritage-monument discourse was however gradually merged into one by adoption without a clear statement on why and in what way the parental inherited goods and the testimonies of the past became one, but for the event(s) of history [1]. The events of history that have defined our heritage discourse for almost a century seems to have arrived at a threshold and requires a thorough reassessment to propound sound holistic heritage discourse paradigm shift. It is the examination and contextualization of the heritage discourse perspective that could halt the prevalent trend of material heritage against the immaterial heritage perspectives. This review chapter believed that the immaterial (spiritual) and the material (physical) are the same, first as a process and then secondly as a product.

The study scope is within three charter of 1964, 1972 and 2003 in the perspective of indigenous architecture of Sub-Saharan African communities. It is worthy to state that critical charters and conventions undertaken by relevant heritage organisation within the stated period do not necessarily exhaust all pieces of literature on the subject matter. Several efforts have been made on the concern of Africans on heritage discourse perspective in the global sphere. These concerns have indeed resulted in several efforts as the considerations had earlier been underscored based on 1989 (Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore). Similarly, the 2001 and 2002 United Nation Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Istanbul Declaration respectively. In the chapter contribution context, therefore, intangible heritage serves as the heart of heritage discourse and perspectives development. Subsequently, the intangible evolves into a product in form of tangible heritage within historical or cultural settings. The duo of intangible and tangible heritages is driven by the stakeholders' significance value preferences, thereby giving birth to a global view that is considered holistic and integrative of all processes and products from generation to generation.

## **2. Evolution of heritage discourse perspectives**

Because of the transcending nature of the heritage process, the indigenous African heritage had suffered untold interruption since the colonialization adventure. In most instances, the religious and spiritual attachment of the people to their land, cultural festivities, ritual process and ancestral responsibilities are severed. The severance of the people from their socio-cultural living process has made it quite difficult for their heritage to be sustainable regardless of their designation as tangible or intangible. The Abrahamic faiths have virtually erased the African beliefs systems and thus their life processes which determine their heritage. The process of breaking the indigenous African from their cultural festivities and ceremonies through rituals started with destroying and looting their artefacts, exporting archaeological findings and indoctrinating them with a new belief system that is not compactable with their worldview. Such viewpoint still dominates the African continent and determines their perspective; however, the tide is rising in contradiction of the prevalent directing of thought. The coming tide cannot be swept away under any guise, considering the barefaced reality of past detours and the urgent cry for the truly known reality of the Africans-their customs and traditional lifestyle. On the other hand, the universal heritage concept evolved from the charters, conventions and resolution of UNESCO; which does not necessarily demonstrate the unity of the spirit and the letter as initially advocated.

A broader view of heritage concept showed that over the years' scholars have demonstrated that the heritage concept and discourse can be visualised in two dimensions (visible and the invisible; material and immaterial or tangible and intangible) components and that each is complementary to the other rather than isolated. It is, however, worthy to note that definition and identity clashes of heritage discourse across the varied socio-cultural divide have many strains [1, 7]. The varied strains are often visible across all regions of the world [8, 9]. Accumulated research demonstrated that the visible(tangible) cultural heritage as in **Table 1** is often presented as the generally accepted perspective of most discourse [13]. From such viewpoint tangible heritage is repeatedly considered as the main type of heritage that tourist admires, locals hold unto and managers pride themselves about, which is referred to as the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) perspective. Though, AHD perception seems to be mostly Eurocentric and mainly conversed in the past; recently, the invisible(intangible) heritage as in **Table 2** are no longer glossed over. In fact, since the 2003 convention intangible(immaterial) heritage now serves as the real driving force of the material heritage [2]. It is this new perspective of the tangible and intangible heritage that provokes this study and specifically its relevance in strategic placement of architectural heritage features as they are valued amongst indigenous African communities of Sub-Saharan Africa [10, 16]. This tangible and intangible definition and discourse conflicts is illustrated in **Tables 1** and **2** and will here further analyse and synthesised for ease of understanding and subsequent applicability in the empirical conceptual studies. The specific attributes of tangible and intangible heritage attributes of tangible and intangible heritage further aggregated in the next section based on the relevant charters.

The review discourse is both thematic and typological in categorisation, where intangible and tangible heritage perspectives are considered as a process that could evolve into a product. Discourse perspectives of the tangible heritage categorisation and its subcategorization, stating implication concerning the study perspective is as indicated in **Table 1**.


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

#### **Table 1.**

*Outline of heritage discourse and categorisation (tangible heritage variables).*

The illustration shown on **Table 2** indicates the main domains of intangible heritage features including their sub-categorisation and the remarks demonstrates how each intangible heritage has a tangible equivalent space.

Heritage concept as tangible and intangible having Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) as prevailing perspective is critically analysed here. In their study, Smith and Campbell [17] argued that the term intangible heritage is a misrepresentation and contradiction of the concept of heritage based on the Authorised Heritage Discourse perspective. Their perspective of considering intangible heritage as being merely a tautology is nevertheless, both contentious and agreeable. It is first considered as agreeable because it has been argued that all heritage is intangible [2]. However, the averred perception of all heritage as intangible also believes that heritage is a process but unfortunately a process that is mainly a preoccupation of the experts or professionals. The contention here is that intangible heritage is here considered more community centred in outlook and process and enabled by professional guidance and not serving as its determinant. Intangible cultural heritage bearers are considered as a critical part of the process of heritage discourse and categorisation as well as the listing requirements. The critical role of the local community and their socio-cultural significance in intangible


#### **Table 2.**

*Outline of heritage discourse and categorisation (intangible heritage variables).*

heritage discourse distinguishes it from the tangible heritage; which can be argued as mainly a product of the Eurocentric world view anchored by the experts [2, 13, 18]. The consideration of intangible heritage as contentious in heritage discourse is anchored on the fact that it is the pressure from mainly excluded heritage realities of the southern hemisphere (Asia and Africa) that gave birth to the recognition of alternative heritage discourse. The intangible heritage discourse perspective has greatly questioned the 1964 Venice Charter for conservation and restoration of monuments and sites, which concretised the Authorised Heritage Discourse perspective for most of the twentieth century. In 2003 based on several contentious discourses and misrepresentation that cause misunderstanding, the convention for the Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage was born [14]. Towards furthering the diversity of views by various researchers Smith [2] argued that an increasing number of heritage studies is currently ongoing on multi-disciplinary research and practices. Smith also claimed that heritage is a process of acculturalization; which often involves diverse aspects of its study.
