INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

A Heritage Discourse and Practise Areas research paper on

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

Submitted by
RICHA PANDEY
1616006
Centre for Heritage Management
Ahmedabad University

1 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

Submitted by:
RICHA PANDEY
16160006
Centre for Heritage Management
Ahmedabad University

Cover page: Author

CENTRE FOR HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Asmita Bhavan, Opposite H.L Commerce College,

Near Commerce Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380009

2 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Concept of Cultural Heritage ................................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Limitations and Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 6
2. Interdependency of Tangible and Intangible Heritage ............................................................................. 8
3. Approaches to Preservation ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1. Theoretical Development ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Contemporary Approach......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3. Authenticity or Continuity ......................................................................................................................... 9
4. Need for an integrated approach .............................................................................................................. 11
5. Analysis: Through Case Studies..................................................................................................................... 13
1.1. Pol Houses of Ahmedabad Walled City ........................................................................................... 13
1.2. Isa-Shinto Shrine, Japan ........................................................................................................................ 14
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................... 15
References .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

List of Figures
Figure 1 : Present Categorization of the Broad Umbrella of Heritage and how tangible and intangible
become part of it; Source: Author ............................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2 : (from the top left): 1. Practice of Thatheras attached to the Sikh community of Jandiala Guru;
2. The family tradition of performing Qwalli at Nizamuddin dargarh; 3. Chath Pooja practice which is
incomplete without the Water God; 4. Muslim Students learning to read Quran at Jami Mosque; 4.
Practice of building tortoise before the nandi bull at Shiva temples; 5. The Metcalfe’s folly and its
surroundings; 6. Practice of Yoga.; Source: Google ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 3 : Interrelations between intangible and tangible values within culture, a synthesis of Bourdieu’s
(1990) and Rapaport’s (1982) theoretical frameworks (Karakul, 2007, 157). ......................................... 11
Figure 4 : Durbar Square, Kathmandu, before and after the 2015 earthquake; Source: Google ........ 11
Figure 5: Conservation work at Nabha Fort, Nabha; Source: Author ........................................................... 12
Figure 6 : Architectural Documentation process at a Temple Complex; Source: Author ............................ 12
Figure 7 : An artist interpretation of the community living in the Pol Houses of Ahmedabad Walled City;
Source: Google ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8 : Image showing the aerial view of a neighborhood in Pol where everyone is interacting in their
own semi-public space; Source: Google .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 9 : Image showing the practice of Bhawai (street play story telling) which is performed in pols to
generate awareness and ownership; Source: Author........................................................................................ 13

3 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

Abstract

Studies for the conservation and preservation of historic environments have evolved from the conservation
of only physical properties to an inclusive conservation approach concerning cultural properties. The
significance of the cultural aspects of historic environments has been realized and discussed especially
since 1950-1960s. Despite of an increasing awareness of the subject, the studies on the identification
and the documentation of intangible cultural properties are still less advanced than those on tangible
cultural properties. Today, conservation practices within historic environments mainly focus on the
discussions on preserving and continuing “cultural identity”. In this respect, beside tangible cultural
properties, intangible values embodied within the components of built environments, their identification,
analysis and conservation also gain importance. This paper presents a holistic approach for analysing
historic built environments as an entity of tangible and intangible cultural properties. The paper also
discusses the boundaries, limitations and amalgamation of two major concepts of heritage, i.e. tangible
and intangible heritage. It mainly puts forward the impression that intangible and tangible cultural
properties need to be conserved together in historic environments. In this sense, it presents a conceptual
model for considering the interrelations between tangible and intangible cultural properties, in other
words, built environment and culture. Through various case studies, paper tries to reflect the cases where
the Heritage Management has been successful where this holistic approach has been applied.

4 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

1. Introduction

The critical debate on cultural heritage within conservation practices has changed its focus in recent years.
Formerly the concept of cultural heritage comprised only tangible or physical properties, like, monuments,
vernacular buildings, historic landscapes and natural environments. The underlying intangible aspects of
the cultural heritage which include the traditions, stories, narrations, hearsay were not accurately
considered through the history of conservation. Developments in the definitions of the concept of cultural
heritage have put forth the progress of different understandings about conservation. Both the concepts
have evolved under the broad umbrella of Cultural Heritage but at different times and because of that
an invisible boundary has been created between the both. The result of this invisible boundary and
preference to the built fabric and geometry over the stories, narrations and emotions can be seen in
three major areas
Documentation of Data by Professionals. The major challenge is this first phase where sometimes the
intangible part of the built fabric is completely ignored because this practise of integrated approach
has been missing in the entire process.
Preparation of the Management Plans. Management Plans are these guidelines which are formulated
on the basis of ground research and ground tooting and these guidelines decide what needs to be
implemented when and by whom.
Implementation Process. And by the time the real on-ground implementation starts the entire concept
of intangible just cannot be seen in few cases.
This study mainly aims to discuss the significance of the holistic approach focusing on the interrelations
between intangible and tangible cultural properties. To focus on the relations between intangible and
tangible cultural properties, the previous conceptual approaches on the relations of culture and built
environment present a general leading framework for the conservation professionals.

1.1. Concept of Cultural Heritage

Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from
generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values.
Cultural Heritage is often expressed as either Intangible or Tangible Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS,
2002).
The discussions of definitions starting from the conservation of only tangible features in the UNESCO
1972 Convention 1to safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the UNESCO 2003 Convention2
have actually been the attempts to re-understand and re- define the entity of cultural heritage.
Although the discussions have enriched the definition of cultural heritage, they could not lead to a
holistic conservation approach yet. The UNESCO approach to CULTURAL HERITAGE, as fostered by
the Convention Concerning the Protection of the Natural and Cultural Heritage (Paris, 17 October
1972), was limited to 'great' monuments and 'great' civilizations considered as artistic masterpieces.
Soon after the 1972 Convention there were many discussions and there were many professionals

1 In the UNESCO 1972 Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, cultural
heritage was defined as comprising monuments, groups of buildings and sites.
2 The most recent, valid and detailed description of intangible cultural heritage was made in the UNESCO

Convention held for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003. This convention mainly aimed
at determining the safeguarding principles of the intangible cultural heritage, which was defined as “the 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.

5 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

who were talking about cultural expressions and ICH, 2003 was not a new idea but it took 31 years
to promote the non-material aspects of Heritage.
As part of the Indian conservation and preservation practises, INTACH Charter, 20043 intended to
guide only those working with INTACH and therefore, relates only to unprotected monuments, historic
sites and other aspects of the tangible and intangible heritage.
The aspects of intangible values having a role in shaping the built environment are handled as
“functional” aspects; and, values and meanings attributed to the built environments are evaluated
as “expressive” aspects. (Lawrence and low, 1990)
Today, heritage is suddenly everywhere (Lowenthal 1996) and does not apply simply to 'cultural
objects' but also to the way of making them, and to the people who are the bearers of this technical
knowledge, to ways of life, of worshipping gods, of healing people - ultimately to all aspects of
life within a community.

1.2. Limitations and Challenges

Figure 1 : Present Categorization of the Broad Umbrella of Heritage and how tangible and intangible become part of it;
Source: Author

The broad spectrum of Heritage has been divided/categorized into Cultural and natural Heritage
and then the further classification on the basis of two major factors; tangible and intangible. The
tangible and intangible heritage together knit the historic fabric and provides a tactile link to the
place shared past. Built heritage cannot exist as an individual entity, therefore the cultural and
historic landscape with its surroundings form a fundamental part of heritage on whole. For the
conservation of built and un-built heritage, it is important to analyze and understand the significant
values of the site along with its evolution over the years. As per Feilden, the significance of a historic
entity can be explained through the understanding and amalgamation of its values. The essence of
intangible values in the broad umbrella of Cultural Heritage is mainly the meanings attributed to
things, which are produced by people through their interactive process with nature. While those
meanings can be both “functional” and “expressive”, the things produced and affected by them can
be both tangible and intangible properties. Accordingly, the intangible cultural heritage acts as
both “producing” and the “produced”. Considering the formative power of intangible values on
architecture, it can be ascertained that the building materials do not mean anything alone; they are

3 The document is the product of expert contributions made by several people both in India and abroad. In essence,
it attempts to broaden the legal definition of architectural heritage, and to accommodate the diverse strands of
conservation ideology existing in India. It also attempts to take into account the complex ground realities, socio-
cultural and economic, that mediate conservation practice.

6 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

meaningful if only they are transformed to the buildings by human beings, conveying meaning to
them. But the limitations that have been part of the domain needs to be obsoleted and a holistic
approach and understanding is the key solution to the problem so that an interdependency that has
been built doesn’t get lost.

7 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

2. Interdependency of Tangible and Intangible Heritage

“Cultural heritage is a synchronized relationship involving society (that is, systems of interactions connecting
people), norms and values (that is, ideas, for instance, belief systems that attribute relative importance).
Symbols, technologies and objects are tangible evidence of underlying norms and values. Thus they establish
a symbiotic relationship between the tangible and the intangible. The intangible heritage should be regarded
as the larger framework within which tangible heritage takes on shape and significance.”
ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium 14e Assemblée Générale et Symposium
Scientifique de l’ICOMOS

Figure 2 : (from the top left): 1. Practice of Thatheras attached to the Sikh community of Jandiala Guru; 2. The family tradition
of performing Qwalli at Nizamuddin dargarh; 3. Chath Pooja practice which is incomplete without the Water God; 4. Muslim
Students learning to read Quran at Jami Mosque; 4. Practice of building tortoise before the nandi bull at Shiva temples; 5.
The Metcalfe’s folly and its surroundings; 6. Practice of Yoga.; Source: Google

India as a country is rich in Cultural and Natural heritage and what comes out as an interesting factor is
the interdependency of these assets. Cultural Heritage is further categorized into Tangible and Intangible
which as per definition says that something that one can touch and feel is tangible and which can’t be
touched is intangible. But another thought-provoking fact that rises here is that yes we do need theses
categorizations but the somehow these aspects are boundary less and one is incomplete without the
other. For example, Music as an art form is under the intangible heritage but for a musician, music exists
in its most tangible form. There are various other cases like this which have been mentioned in the (figure
2) which showcase the interdependency of both the cultural assets. Each of the examples that have been
given showcase one major fact that the boundaries and limitations have been created by us, they didn’t
exist originally and the error is in our own understanding and the type of working system.

8 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

3. Approaches to Preservation

3.1. Theoretical Development

There have been various theories for the adaptive reuse and conservation of the historic buildings.
As per Viollet-Le- Duc “the best way to preserve a building is to find a use for it, and then to satisfy
so well the needs dictated by that use, that there will never be any further need to make any further
changes in the building .”
While on the other hand, William Morris found it “impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to
restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture “and recommended regular
maintenance of the structures. His approach towards the maintenance and repair of historic
structures as fundamental conservation principles was declared as the manifesto of SPAB (Society
for Protection of Ancient Buildings). Further Alois Riegl has ascribed this conflict in theories to the
different values their adherences attribute to monuments and thus included use-value for the
assessment of monuments. Therefore the conflict between the conservation philosophies and theories
is still persistent but the principles and criteria for new interventions should always be taken into
consideration. For the establishment of a coherent and logically defensible philosophy for building
conservation globally some charters were developed all over the world. Approach adopted for
different historic sites is different but it is mainly regulated by the Venice Charter worldwide.

3.2. Contemporary Approach

The contemporary approach that we will talk about in this section would be restricted to Indian
cases because the entire practice of Conservation/Preservation is not that ancient in India. . In 1862,
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was established under Sir Alexander Cunningham. After
Independence, in 1958, The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act was
passed to replace the colonial Act, and extend protection to monuments of national importance.
Similar Acts were adopted by different States to protect monuments of State importance. These
Acts consolidated the idea that architectural heritage consisted only of exemplary buildings and
that its protection was primarily the responsibility of the government.
When the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) was founded in 1984, ASI
and State Departments of Archaeology (SDA) between them protected less than 10,000 monuments.
In addition to the limited definition of what constituted architectural heritage – and consequently
the small number of protected buildings – its protection was also considered to be primarily the
responsibility of the government. In any case, few experts were available outside the government.
This left thousands of monuments and whole categories of architectural heritage, including
indigenous building traditions and conservation practices, unidentified and unprotected, resulting in
a process of steady attrition.
The few initial professionals who were working for the Heritage Conservation were trained in
European manner and later Indian Schools also started training architects in Architectural
Conservation and the approach is still limited with the focus on the built architecture more than the
intangible assets. With the evolution of India building its own case studies and practice areas the
focus has been shifting gradually to intangibles and communities.

3.3. Authenticity or Continuity

9 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

“What we need is continuity; historic preservation is not sentimentality but a psychological necessity.
We must learn to cherish history and to preserve worthy old buildings; we must learn how to preserve
them, not as pathetic museum pieces, but by giving them new uses.” ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE
Globally, due to vast diversity of cultures and traditions, materials and difference in perceiving
heritage, the sensibility towards it changes with the values. Thus every region or country has a
difference in approach towards its heritage and related issues. For instance, every religion in
different part of the world has their own way of interpreting history and practising their traditions.
The Nara Document on Authenticity‟, relates authenticity to the value and states, “Conservation of
cultural heritage in all its forms and historical periods is rooted in the values attributed to the
heritage. Our ability to understand these values depends, in part, on the degree to which
information sources about these values may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and
understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics
of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, is a requisite basis for assessing all aspects of
authenticity.” Hence authenticity varies according to the local values; it is essential to comprehend
the local culture, its evolution to generate the framework for a holistic conservation approach. This
framework cannot be universal and generalized on the other hand it is very specific to the region
and completely depends on the understanding of the intangible aspects and traditions related to
the site.

10 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

4. Need for an integrated approach

Figure 3 : Interrelations between intangible and tangible values within culture, a synthesis of Bourdieu’s (1990) and
Rapaport’s (1982) theoretical frameworks (Karakul, 2007, 157).

The model presents a theoretical approach by synthesizing the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s approach
(1990) to the “generation of practices” and the anthropologist and architect Amos Rapaport’s (1982)
approach to the “meaning of the built environment”, to explain the static aspects of the interrelations
between tangible and intangible values. This model benefited considerably from the Bourdieu’s
approach (1990) to formulate the triple interrelation system between ‘intangible and tangible values’
and “structuring structures”. As displayed in the Figure 2, the synthesis is mainly based on the argument
that culture establishes relations with the built environment through the medium of intangible values, which
are generated by ‘structuring structures’ within it. ‘Structuring structures’ are accepted as the shaping
factors in culture on intangible values (Karakul, 2007, 157-8); and, as seen in the diagram, they perform
as the “encoding” factors of the intangible values over the built environment at the same time. Clearly,
intangible values are the “encoded” principles within built environments to be decoded by people. Then,
the built environment represents a whole set of physical cues, expressing the cultural codes enciphered
over it.
The picture to the left is a wonderful example of where
Mother Nature destroyed everything and things had to
start afresh. Durbar Square, built in 1908 was full of
temples and palaces and is a UNESCO World
Heritage Site and after the earthquake Kathmandu’s
most beautiful architecture was turned into rubble. The
objective of referring to this example is that nothing is
immortal thus what we can retain with us are the values,
spirit and the purpose for which it was built. We need
Figure 4 : Durbar Square, Kathmandu, before and after to realise that Preservation is not restricted to
the 2015 earthquake; Source: Google
beautification, it is much above that. The similar kind of

11 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

work can be reproduced later if the equivalent focus is given to the intangible part that is so much
attached to it, which is the technique of those custodians who have been associated in either the temple
rituals or the building technique.
The implementation work at Nabha Fort is an
ADB-IDIPT project. The picture on the left is an
example where the conservation practices and
manuals have failed miserably leading to the
loss of authentic heritage in the process of
Preservation. The contractors who were
appointed were instructed to take out the huge
tree which was actually holding the historic wall
to the bastion but in the process of tree removal
the historic wall got broken. This is not just one
case there are many cases where the built
fabric has suffered great loses in the process
of preservation. There is a need of an
integrated approach where there is a need
Figure 5: Conservation work at Nabha Fort, Nabha; Source: where the authentic heritage and continuity of
Author heritage is not hampered at any cost.
Architectural Documentation is the most
detailed type of recordation. At this level, each
wall is mapped, photographed, all construction
attributes and features are recorded. The
purpose of this type of documentation is to
record and analyze the architectural details.
But as far as study of a built form as Heritage
asset is consented, architectural documentation
alone can’t serve the purpose. It is required that
the intangible stories of motifs, the hearsays,
the traditions, customs of that place needs to be
given equal importance and only that can result
into an comprehensive management plan
Figure 6 : Architectural Documentation process at a Temple
Complex; Source: Author where both the assets are given equal
importance.

12 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

5. Analysis: Through Case Studies

1.1. Pol Houses of Ahmedabad Walled City

Figure 7 : An artist interpretation of the community living in the Pol Houses of Ahmedabad Walled City; Source: Google

The word pol is derived from the Sanskrit word pratoli meaning entrance to an enclosed area. Pols were
originally made as a protection measure when communal riots necessitated grater security. A typical pol
would only have one or two entrances and also some secret entrances known only to people residing in
a pol. The community living experienced in these areas in unmatchable to any other neighborhood.
Ahmedabad has put forward its proposal for first World Heritage City of India to UNESCO, and these
neighborhood of walled city are the integral part of it. Communal and Community identities are played
out through the language of architecture. Also, many pols host some sort of cottage industry supporting
a vibrant community. The Heritage Model is sustainable and the difference with this model is the
engagement of the community at the core. The professionals working for it take the best practices in
heritage management in order to work with the government and custodians at various levels. This is an
encouraging examples where communities, their rich stories, past and traditions can come together to
create a better future for the citizens. It is a model that blends the community-based heritage
conservation with policy change for sustainable growth and development.

Figure 8 : Image showing the aerial view of a neighborhood Figure 9 : Image showing the practice of Bhawai (street
in Pol where everyone is interacting in their own semi-public play story telling) which is performed in pols to generate
space; Source: Google awareness and ownership; Source: Author

13 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

1.2. Isa-Shinto Shrine, Japan

Ise Grand Shrine is Japan’s most sacred Shinto Shine and dates back to the 3rd Century. It is considered
to be the spiritual home of the Japanese and its national religion Shinto. Ise Grand Shrine also known as
Ise Jingu is a complex of over 125 shrines located in Ise City and is centered around main shrines of
Naiku and Geku. The shrine is unique and one interesting fact is the shrine buildings at both Naiku and
Geku as well as the Uji Bridge are rebuilt after every 20 years. This is part of an important Shinto belief
of the death and renewal of nature and the impermanence of all the wabi-sabi.
Exact imitations of the shrine buildings are built on the adjacent sites using traditional methods and
techniques. That means these exact replicas use no nails, only wooden dowels and interlocking joints. A
special ceremony is then conducted to transfer the kami (God of the Shrine) back to its new home. The
wood of the shrine is not put to waste, but is recycled in order to reconstruct the shrine gate at the shine
entrance and the leftovers are sent to other shrines in Japan for any construction required.
The interesting and the authentic heritage in this tradition of rebuilding of shrine on an intangible belief
but the way it is preserved is worth appraisal. The built architecture also becomes the part of the heritage
but what we see here is an integrated approach where the focus is in identifying the real heritage and
the approach focuses on its “Continuity”.

14 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

6. Conclusion

Keeping the spirit of the PLACE/OBJECT/ART alive.

Spirit of a historic place is perceived through its living heritage which includes intangible elements and
their relationship with the tangible heritage. The tangible heritage includes the built structures along with
their settings and their link to the environment. On the other hand intangible heritage consists of culture
and building construction techniques traditions and rituals, socio- economic background of the place, and
together they form the living heritage. Therefore, for the sustainable existence of the built heritage is it
necessary to keep its spirit intact, by conserving its intangible heritage and thus safeguarding the living
heritage of the place. Traditions become heritage when its identity and survival in the world is not
dependent on the labour of the community that built it but on the labour of love and care from diverse
groups of people who have looked after it. This is applicable to abandoned historic built structures that
are under the government (listed) or the people living in the immediate neighbourhood, who look after
them. Hence spirit of a historic place relates to its emotional and associational value and a built heritage
doesn’t stand as an individual entity but the built historic precincts with intangible aspects together
contribute to its essence and character.
Understanding of HERITAGE as a holistic approach.
The conservation of historic environments is an issue related to understanding the genuine relations
between tangible and intangible properties. This study emphasized on the significance of understanding,
documentation and analysis of the integrity of tangible and intangible values, and, presents a conceptual
approach and the method of the study related to this intention.
Need for professional who not only look at the built form but also interlink the intangible aspect of
it. Built fabric should not overshadow the stories, culture and traditions behind it.
The conservation problems in historic environments are mainly caused by the interruptions in the
interrelations of intangible and tangible values that are mostly related to the intangible values, not
carried out in living and building culture and not transmitted to new generations. The conservation
approaches are mainly based on the revitalization and the documentation of the built spaces rather
what is required is that the approach should be more integrated in nature.
ESSENCE, IDENTITY AND CONTINUITY needs to be preserved in whichever way it’s available to us.

15 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER

INTANGIBLE BEHIND TANGIBLE BUILT ARCHITECTURE

References

 An integrated approach to conservation based on the interrelations of tangible and

intangible cultural properties (1) Özlem Karaku
 KARAKUl, Ö. (2011) A Holistic Approach to Historic Environments Integrating Tangible and
Intangible Values Case Study: İbrahimpaşa Village in Ürgüp, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis in
Architecture, METU, Ankara.
 KARAKUl, Ö. (2009) A Conservation Approach to Interrupted Interrelations Between
Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Revitalization, Paper presented at Revitalising
Built Environments: Requalifying Old Places for New Uses, International Symposium jointly
organized by IAPS- CSBE and IAPS-Housing Network, in Proceedings ISBN-978-975-561-
359-8; October 12-16, İstanbul.
 KARAKUl, Ö. (2008) A Holistic Approach: Unity of Tangible and Intangible Values in the
Conservation of Historic Built Environments, in Conference Book of 11th World Conference
of Historical Cities, June 10-13, Metropolitan Municipality of Konya, Konya; 43-57.
 KARAKUl, Ö. (2007) Folk Architecture in Historic Environments: living Spaces for Intangible
Cultural Heritage
 lAWRENCE, D., lOW, S. M. (1990) The Built Environment and Spatial Form, Annual Review
of Anthropology (19) 453-505.
 lAWRENCE, R.J. (1987) Housing, Dwellings and Homes/ Design Theory, Research and
Practice, Great Britain: John Wiley and Sons ltd., Great Britain.
 MAlINOWSKI, B. (1944) A Scientific Theory of Culture, The University of North Carolina
Press Chapel Hill, New York.
 RAPOPORT, A. (1982) The Meaning of Built Environment: A Non-verbal Communication
Approach USA.
 RAPOPORT, A. (1990) Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings, in S. Kent, ed., Domestic
Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, Cambridge
University Press, UK
 ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium 14e Assemblée Générale et
Symposium Scientifique de l’ICOMOS
 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1964
 ICHC, 2003
 INTACH Charter, 2004

16 | HERITAGE DISCOURSE AND PRACTISE AREAS RESEARCH PAPER