**1. Introduction**

Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation [1]. It is now widely acknowledged that heritage is not only manifested through tangible forms such as artefacts, buildings or landscapes but also through intangible forms such as voices, values, traditions and oral history [2, 3]. Cultural heritage and especially its intangible dimensions act as a means of preserving the links between the past and the present and also allows the transmission of its different shades and colours to future generations [4–6]. This notion has led to the conservation etic which argues that for heritage to be available to the future generations, it must be managed [7]. For this management to happen, it is assumed that a community has to have some values or significance for the heritage and this value is determined by an assessment that is governed by a stringent criterion. This premise has led to an entrenchment of practices, mostly Eurocentric, of valuing heritage in the world [8, 9]. Consequently, a number of scholars and institutions, such as Mason [10], Australia ICOMOs [11] and English Heritage [12], just to name a few, have provided various definitions of heritage value typologies. According to Mason [10], heritage values refer to the "positive characteristics or qualities perceived in cultural objects or sites" by a certain community; these values are entrenched by both tangible and intangible elements of the heritage. Mason goes on to propose a typology of heritage as a way of establishing a common ground for expressing heritage values by all concerned and in order to avoid a "black box" scenario where values are "collapsed into an aggregated statement of significance" which makes it difficult to conserve divergent values ([10], 8–10). Mason further argues that the usefulness of his proposed typology is in the fact that it includes various values, therefore making the community know that their values are recognised.

Carter and Bramley [13] see values as the intrinsic and extrinsic qualities of heritage places that are deemed by a person, group or community as important and desirable. Further, they argue that intrinsic values are assessed objectively while extrinsic values are judged by personal, social and cultural standpoints and are, therefore, subjective; in other words, heritage values are seen as being susceptible to nationality, gender, ethnicity, class, religion, poverty, insideness, expertise and age ([14], 213). Therefore, while values are a key factor in heritage formation, however, when there is no social contact, production and dissemination of knowledge as well as spatio-temporal structures in which "such processes can take place, values would simply remain values" [15].

According to the Burra Charter [11, 16, 17], cultural significance is the "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations" ([18], 9–10; [19], 297). These values therefore, need to be carefully understood in order to establish the cultural significance of the heritage place. Further, the Burra Charter, sees cultural significance as a mechanism that assists in assessing the value of places and thus can provide knowledge on the history of the heritage and enable appreciation of that heritage by future generations. The Burra Charter stands out in the fact that it stresses the importance of involving the local community in the determination of the values of the heritage place. Thus, the key concept of a values-based approach is that of stakeholder groups; the approach advocates for the recognition and equal involvement of all types of stakeholder groups and their differing values [20]. As a result, many countries, especially those in Western Europe, North America and Australia, who have embraced the value-based approach to significance, have put much efforts in trying to fully involve communities, especially those perceived as marginalised, in the determination of values of local heritage places. Fredheim and Khalaf [21] however, argue that because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the various values, it is impossible to have a value-based typology that is universally accepted. Johnston [22] argues that the formal adoption of values into criteria and legal frameworks brings in the possibility of imposing a culturally-specific framework that requires values to "fit" into this framework and if they do not fit, they are removed. Unfortunately, however, despite this reservation by Johnson and others, this value-based criterion has been widely accepted globally and it is now being used in determining the significance of a site before inscription, not only on the World Heritage List, but on some countries' local and National Lists as well ([22], 3). Indeed, in Australia, this valuebased typology is what the various state governments use in listing sites in their State lists. Not to be left behind, most countries, especially those in Africa and even some western governments, have also used this value-based typology in determining the significance of their heritage places. For instance, in Kenya, the National Museums Act describes a monument "as a structure which is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attached to it" (Government Printer 2006) [23].

The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 defines significance as relating to history, rarity, research potential, the exemplification of particular classes of places, aesthetics, and creative, social or cultural association, or association with a significant person [13]. Thus, for both the Kenyan government and the Queensland state government, an object has value only if it is *historic, aesthetics, architectural, traditional or archaeological*; in other words, if an object does not conform to any of these values, it is not significant, it is insignificant; in other words, this valuing automatically privileges some places/objects over others; it is a comparison process that creates categories of values leading to some objects/places being seen as having important values and thus regarded as significant while other objects/places are seen as having less values and thus regarded as insignificant. The fundamental

**5**

heritage place [29].

*Significance in African Heritage*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90821*

understand the past is not very high.

assumption of the conferring of significance on an object/place is that significance has realism (that significance is "intrinsic" to objects – in other words, that in spite of what we may want, objects do possess significance on their own) [24]. Therefore, a site with a high social significance (e.g. because it is highly visible in the landscape) might be considered to have great significance, although its intrinsic value to

It should however, be noted that values do change; even in those so called "traditional" communities values are not universally accepted by every member of the community; there are always dissenting voices- people who ascribe different values and hence significance- other than that held by other members of a community, to a place or object. Alternatively, over time, values and significance can also change [25]. This then means that the values professionals ascribe to a place/object may not be universally accepted by all members of a community. In other words, a site can have several values assigned to it by professionals, but if those values do not resonate with the local community, it can be deemed to be insignificant to the community. This is the case with Khami World Heritage site in Zimbabwe. Khami, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1986, is the second largest Zimbabwe Culture (an archaeological culture that marks the development of complex state systems in southern Africa site) after Great Zimbabwe ([26], 1). Khami together with Great Zimbabwe and Mapungubwe in South Africa, are the only three Zimbabwe Culture sites inscribed on the World Heritage List [26]. The site of Khami was nominated and inscribed into the World Heritage List by heritage professionals and without the input from local community. Thus, the local communities do not consider it significant to them and this has led to, in the words of Sinamai "to the disinheriting of the site by the local populace" ([26], 4). The disinheriting does not stem from the fact that local people were not involved in its nomination, but rather from the fact that as a result of historical facts that has resulted in population movements in the region and shifting identities, the local community no longer have any emotional attachment to the site and thus the locals do not see it as representing their narratives. According to Sinamai ([26], iv), "Khami is an inherited place, with a local community that has forgotten it." Though Khami is a magnificent monumental site that inspires and is significant to heritage professionals, it is however, insignificant to the local community. This case shows that values and therefore significance and insignificance, are context dependent and "certain cultural settings seem to privilege the production of one type of heritage more than another" ([26], 4). Further, this example shows the difficulties intrinsic in assessing values and assigning significance of a heritage place because of the multiplicity of values and their innately contested and changing nature [13, 27, 28]. This example also shows the difficulties encountered when trying to define a "local community" of any given

The problem with many values statements is that in most cases they tend to privilege physical – the architectural and archaeological evidence over the social values and the lives of the affected communities or they carry out what Steve Brown calls "fabric over feelings" heritage narrative [30]. According to Brown, a statement of significance for an object or place should also include the emotions. This is because all places/objects that have been used by individuals will always have narratives that give the individual's perspective of the place and evoke emotions and thus enable readers to have an understanding of the place/object. Further, Brown [30] argues that the "narrative also tells the reader something of time, memory, and place."

As said before, the desire to attach values to heritage places was not only because of the need to involve communities, especially the marginalised ones, in the management of their heritage places, but also to ensure that heritage needed to be seen

#### *Significance in African Heritage DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90821*

*Heritage*

simply remain values" [15].

Carter and Bramley [13] see values as the intrinsic and extrinsic qualities of heritage places that are deemed by a person, group or community as important and desirable. Further, they argue that intrinsic values are assessed objectively while extrinsic values are judged by personal, social and cultural standpoints and are, therefore, subjective; in other words, heritage values are seen as being susceptible to nationality, gender, ethnicity, class, religion, poverty, insideness, expertise and age ([14], 213). Therefore, while values are a key factor in heritage formation, however, when there is no social contact, production and dissemination of knowledge as well as spatio-temporal structures in which "such processes can take place, values would

According to the Burra Charter [11, 16, 17], cultural significance is the "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations" ([18], 9–10; [19], 297). These values therefore, need to be carefully understood in order to establish the cultural significance of the heritage place. Further, the Burra Charter, sees cultural significance as a mechanism that assists in assessing the value of places and thus can provide knowledge on the history of the heritage and enable appreciation of that heritage by future generations. The Burra Charter stands out in the fact that it stresses the importance of involving the local community in the determination of the values of the heritage place. Thus, the key concept of a values-based approach is that of stakeholder groups; the approach advocates for the recognition and equal involvement of all types of stakeholder groups and their differing values [20]. As a result, many countries, especially those in Western

Europe, North America and Australia, who have embraced the value-based approach to significance, have put much efforts in trying to fully involve communities, especially those perceived as marginalised, in the determination of values of local heritage places. Fredheim and Khalaf [21] however, argue that because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the various values, it is impossible to have a value-based typology that is universally accepted. Johnston [22] argues that the formal adoption of values into criteria and legal frameworks brings in the possibility of imposing a culturally-specific framework that requires values to "fit" into this framework and if they do not fit, they are removed. Unfortunately, however, despite this reservation by Johnson and others, this value-based criterion has been widely accepted globally and it is now being used in determining the significance of a site before inscription, not only on the World Heritage List, but on some countries' local and National Lists as well ([22], 3). Indeed, in Australia, this valuebased typology is what the various state governments use in listing sites in their State lists. Not to be left behind, most countries, especially those in Africa and even some western governments, have also used this value-based typology in determining the significance of their heritage places. For instance, in Kenya, the National Museums Act describes a monument "as a structure which is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest

The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 defines significance as relating to history,

rarity, research potential, the exemplification of particular classes of places, aesthetics, and creative, social or cultural association, or association with a significant person [13]. Thus, for both the Kenyan government and the Queensland state government, an object has value only if it is *historic, aesthetics, architectural, traditional or archaeological*; in other words, if an object does not conform to any of these values, it is not significant, it is insignificant; in other words, this valuing automatically privileges some places/objects over others; it is a comparison process that creates categories of values leading to some objects/places being seen as having important values and thus regarded as significant while other objects/places are seen as having less values and thus regarded as insignificant. The fundamental

attached to it" (Government Printer 2006) [23].

**4**

assumption of the conferring of significance on an object/place is that significance has realism (that significance is "intrinsic" to objects – in other words, that in spite of what we may want, objects do possess significance on their own) [24]. Therefore, a site with a high social significance (e.g. because it is highly visible in the landscape) might be considered to have great significance, although its intrinsic value to understand the past is not very high.

It should however, be noted that values do change; even in those so called "traditional" communities values are not universally accepted by every member of the community; there are always dissenting voices- people who ascribe different values and hence significance- other than that held by other members of a community, to a place or object. Alternatively, over time, values and significance can also change [25]. This then means that the values professionals ascribe to a place/object may not be universally accepted by all members of a community. In other words, a site can have several values assigned to it by professionals, but if those values do not resonate with the local community, it can be deemed to be insignificant to the community. This is the case with Khami World Heritage site in Zimbabwe. Khami, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1986, is the second largest Zimbabwe Culture (an archaeological culture that marks the development of complex state systems in southern Africa site) after Great Zimbabwe ([26], 1). Khami together with Great Zimbabwe and Mapungubwe in South Africa, are the only three Zimbabwe Culture sites inscribed on the World Heritage List [26]. The site of Khami was nominated and inscribed into the World Heritage List by heritage professionals and without the input from local community. Thus, the local communities do not consider it significant to them and this has led to, in the words of Sinamai "to the disinheriting of the site by the local populace" ([26], 4). The disinheriting does not stem from the fact that local people were not involved in its nomination, but rather from the fact that as a result of historical facts that has resulted in population movements in the region and shifting identities, the local community no longer have any emotional attachment to the site and thus the locals do not see it as representing their narratives. According to Sinamai ([26], iv), "Khami is an inherited place, with a local community that has forgotten it." Though Khami is a magnificent monumental site that inspires and is significant to heritage professionals, it is however, insignificant to the local community. This case shows that values and therefore significance and insignificance, are context dependent and "certain cultural settings seem to privilege the production of one type of heritage more than another" ([26], 4). Further, this example shows the difficulties intrinsic in assessing values and assigning significance of a heritage place because of the multiplicity of values and their innately contested and changing nature [13, 27, 28]. This example also shows the difficulties encountered when trying to define a "local community" of any given heritage place [29].

The problem with many values statements is that in most cases they tend to privilege physical – the architectural and archaeological evidence over the social values and the lives of the affected communities or they carry out what Steve Brown calls "fabric over feelings" heritage narrative [30]. According to Brown, a statement of significance for an object or place should also include the emotions. This is because all places/objects that have been used by individuals will always have narratives that give the individual's perspective of the place and evoke emotions and thus enable readers to have an understanding of the place/object. Further, Brown [30] argues that the "narrative also tells the reader something of time, memory, and place."

As said before, the desire to attach values to heritage places was not only because of the need to involve communities, especially the marginalised ones, in the management of their heritage places, but also to ensure that heritage needed to be seen

as contributing to the sustainability of these communities. Consequently, heritage was ascribed various values that include economic, political, social, religious, educational and others. Whereas the potential contribution of the other values to sustainability could be seen and have thus, been given prominence in heritage discussions, the potential of the social value on the other hand, has not, especially in Africa, been appreciated and has accordingly, not been given much prominence, and yet it is this value, which much more than all the other values, that ensures the sustainability of African communities. The next part of this paper will consider this value.
