Regla de la exclusión de la prueba prohibida

Some museums provide training activities related to ICH, as does the Open Air Museum in Hungary which conducts specialised workshops on research, do- cumentation and related activities. Hands-on training is also offered to univer- sity students, focusing on operational measures, such as developing inventory forms and audio-visual documentation techniques (UNESCO, 2013). Similarly, the Lithuanian Folk Culture Centre organises training sessions in which ICH bearers transmit their knowledge and skills to the younger generation UNES- CO, 2012). Some museums are built around a particular ICH element, as is the case of an on-site museum built in the city of Mito (Peru) where the city council worked with the Society of Huacones to develop safeguarding strategies for the Huacones element, in part through creating an on-site museum (Peru, 2011). Croatia is also developing specialist museums related to ICH elements in their localities, including a Lace Making Museum and a Children’s Toy Museum (Croatia, 2011). For the Krakelingen and Tonnekensbrand element in Belgium, a strong emphasis has been placed on interpreting it for visitors and on pro- viding an accessible cultural programme that brings local people and visitors closer to the theme of the procession (Belgium, 2012).

Museums can also house artisanal workshops for ICH practitioners to de- monstrate and teach their skills, as in the Old Village Museum in Kumrovec in Croatia where wooden toys and gingerbread are made according to tradi- tional methods (Croatia, 2011). Similarly, a museum has been constructed in the local town of Mohacs (Bulgaria), alongside a ‘Busó Yard’ and a craft house, to present the various crafts associated with the Busó procession. These allow visitors to see this seasonal tradition throughout the year and have an opportu- nity to try their hand at various crafts in the open workshops (UNESCO, 2012). Such initiatives provide excellent opportunities for going beyond presenting the ICH in a passive manner and for demonstrations by exponents and hands- on experience and training, especially with a focus on young people.

In Turkey, local municipal authorities and museums have both proved to be important institutions for ICH safeguarding activities that can reach cultural communities and the wider public, offering training programmes, seminars,

exhibitions, competitions and projects for youth and adults (UNESCO, 2013). One institution of interest for this paper is the Intangible Cultural Heritage Applied Museum in Ankara which holds collections covering all the domains of ICH set out in the 2003 Convention, namely: oral traditions and expressions (including language as a vehicle of the ICH); performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and traditional craftsmanship (UNESCO, 2003, Article 2.2). These are practised within the museum, and the museum organises interactive trai- ning programmes in ICH. This approach to passing on skills and know-how of handicrafts through hands-on experience has proved a popular means of trans- mission for young people and, consequently, of keeping traditional handicrafts and other skills alive. The Living Museum in Beypazari Municipality (Turkey) has also been established with the specific aim of revitalising and safeguarding ICH elements through active participation in the exhibits (Turkey, 2012). The museum’s mission is one based on community outreach and the idea of deve- loping all its activities for the benefit of the community and wider society, thus ensuring transmission of ICH elements from one generation to the other (Tur- key, 2012). Several museums are now developing special sections to provide education and training on ICH elements to a broad audience. The Museum of Children’s Play and Toys in Izmir, which opened in 2010, is a good example of this trend. It offers an interactive environment to children where they not only see but can themselves create and play with traditional games and toys. For example, the Turkish branch of UNIMA (the international puppetry asso- ciation) has organised training workshops for children in puppet-making in cooperation with the museum where children have a chance to learn the tradi- tional shapes of the characters and to make copies of them (UNESCO, 2013). Another important way in which local authorities can play an important role in ICH safeguarding is through making good use of museum spaces to protect and/or enhance the physical spaces available for performing, practising and enacting ICH. Hence, in Bulgaria, physical spaces of significance for ICH are cared for by the local community in conjunction with local museums, munici- palities and community cultural centres.

Conclusion

During the 1980s and 1990s, there was a transition in international poli- cy-making towards a more anthropological conception of cultural heritage that brought with it a much greater focus on ordinary people and communities as the creators and transmitters of heritage. This has resulted in one of the most significant shifts in this area of law-making, namely the move from a State-driven conception of heritage towards one that more closely responds to what communities and individuals identify as their heritage and to which they ascribe a particular significance. This was especially evident in UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for Safeguarding ICH.

There remain tensions associated with the dual character of heritage – both global and local at the same time – and these have become evident in the im- plementation of this treaty. The 2003 Convention requires us to reconsider the role of communities, groups and individuals in safeguarding ICH and to propose new mechanisms for their partnership with state bodies in this en- deavour. A key question, then, is the way in which this paradigm shift is being played out on the ground and, in particular, the central role that museums can play in supporting more community-driven approaches to heritage safeguar- ding.

References

Blake, J. (2011). Why Protect the Past? A Human Rights Approach to Cultural Heritage Protection, Heritage and Society, 4(2), 199–238.

Blake, J. (2015). International Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belgium. (2012). Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention

and the Status of Elements Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO.

Brazil, (2013). Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention

and the Status of Elements Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO.

Cameron, C. (2005). Evolution of the Application of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ for Cultural and Natural Heritage. In UNESCO (Ed.) Report of

the Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention on the Concept of Outstanding Universal Value. Paris: UNESCO.

Council of Europe. (2005). Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural

Heritage for Society. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Croatia. (2011). Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention

and the Status of Elements Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO.

Deacon, H. & Beasley, O. (2007). Safeguarding Intangible Heritage Values under the World Heritage Convention: Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Robben Island. In J. Blake (Ed.). Safeguarding Intangible Cultural

Heritage – Challenges and Approaches. UK: Institute of Art and Law.

Human Rights Council. (2011). Report of the Independent Expert in the Field

of Cultural Rights, Farida Shaheed. Geneva: Human Rights Council.

Jacobs, M. (2014). Development Brokerage, Anthropology and Public Action. Local Empowerment, International Cooperation and Aid:

Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Volkskunde. Tijdschrift

over de cultuur van het dagelijks leven, 115(3), 299–318.

Labadi, S. (2007). World Heritage: Challenges for the Millennium. World Heritage Centre, Paris: UNESCO.

Lixinski, L. (2013). Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Logan, W.S. (2008). Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights. In B. Graham & P. Howard, (Eds). The Ashgate Research Companion to

Heritage and Identity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Lohman, J. (2007). Forward. In London Museum Hub (Ed.), Report on the

London Museum Hub Project to record Refugee Heritage, 2004–6.

London: London Museum Hub.

Munjeri, D. (2004). Tangible and Intangible Heritage: From Difference to Convergence. Museum International, 221(2), 12–20.

Peru. (2011). Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention and

the Status of Elements Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO.

Republic of Korea. (2011). Periodic Report on the Implementation of

the Convention and the Status of Elements Inscribed on the

Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Paris: UNESCO.

Torggler, B. & Sediakina-Rivière, E. (2014). Evaluation of UNESCO’s

Standard-setting Work of the Culture Sector, Part I – 2003

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Paris: UNESCO.

Turkey. (2012). Periodic Report on the Implementation of the Convention

and the Status of Elements Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2003). Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible

Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2012). Examination of the Reports of States Parties on the

Implementation of the Convention and on the Current Status of all Elements Inscribed on the Representative List. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2013). Examination of the Reports of States Parties on the

Implementation of the Convention and on the Current Status of all Elements Inscribed on the Representative List. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2015). Recommendation concerning the Protection and

Promotion of Museums and Collections, their Diversity and their Role in Society. Paris: UNESCO.

A structural approach of the