"Heritage-scape" or "Heritage-scapes"? Critical considerations on a concept.

Gillot, Laurence ; Maffi, Irene ; Tremon, Anne-Christine 等

The rising interest in heritage and the widespread uses for it in recent times have led to the development of new approaches in heritage studies, focusing on dynamic processes of practice rather than on still-life material objects and leading to the renewal of the concept of heritage itself. The present introduction examines the notion of heritage-scape(s) to see whether it might offer a more accurate theoretical and methodological framework to study processes of cultural heritage invention, fabrication, consumption and destruction. A critical examination of the contemporary making of the heritage-scape(s) makes it possible to deal with issues that are common to heritage and museums, considering them both as part of one and the same process referred to as "patrimonialization" or "heritagization."

The term "patrimonialization," initially used in Francophone studies, refers to the historically situated projects and procedures that transform places, people, practices and artifacts into a heritage to be protected, exhibited and highlighted. The origin of the concept can be traced back to the work of historians, anthropologists and geographers at the beginning of the 1990s (Babelon and Chastel 1994; Davallon 2002, 2006; Jeudy 1994, 2001; Poulot 1998). The emergence of this notion indicates a major epistemological and methodological shift. Heritage is henceforth considered as a "verb" more than as a "noun" (Harvey 2001) and "patrimonialization" as a cultural practice. So, this new research agenda aims at studying heritage as a process and as a social practice. Patrimonialization thus becomes an analytical tool used to investigate the manner in which objects and practices acquire the status of heritage. For example, the French philosopher Henri-Pierre Jeudy is interested in the obsession of contemporary societies to bequeath a heritage (Jeudy 2001). Using the term "patrimonial machinery," the author guards against the threats of historic, museographie and patrimonial approaches that glorify traditional societies and local cultures. Studying the reception of heritage, Jean Davallon (2000) refers to the idea of an "inverted filiation" to express the contemporaneous nature of heritage. In other words, heritage and its production are not to be looked for in the past, with those who have transmitted it, but in the present, with the heirs who decide to inherit or not.

French-speaking geographers relate "patrimonialization" to the construction of territories (Di Meo 1995; Veschambre 2007; Herzog 2011). Noting that patrimonialization is based on a western, linear and open conception of time--which is widely one of European modernity--these scholars associate this process with the ideology of sustainable development. Likewise, they point to the difficulty in transferring these notions to nonwestern societies, associating the processes of patrimonialization and its globalization with imperialism or neo-colonialism.

Anthropologists have revealed the multiple actors of "patrimonializations," some led by scholars, others by public institutions and by civil servants, and others still by the actors of civil society (Rautenberg 2003; Tomatore 2006). The forms of commitment in the heritage process are thus multiple and lead to the diversification of heritage contents and practices. Today heritage is not a consensual object: it is an arena of contestation and negotiation (Gravari-Barbas and Veschambre 2003). Nathalie Heinich attracts attention to the "how" of heritage rather than the "why". How do the actors act in a given situation? By means of what cognitive and visual operations?

In Anglo-Saxon studies, the term commonly used to refer to the same phenomena is "heritagization," which, similarly to "patrimonialization," evokes a process in which heritage is used as a resource to achieve certain social goals (Poria 2010). Heritagization is thus not about the past but about the uses of the past in the present; it that it is primarily concerned with present cultural productions (Daher and Maffi 2014). Moreover, heritagization concerns both objects and cultural practices: it is at once tangible and intangible (Turgeon 2009, 2010). Heritagization is often linked to cultural tourism development or is even the direct result of an increasingly strong demand for it by tourists, a phenomenon that Habib Sai'di has tagged as "touristification" (Saidi 2010).

These epistemological shifts lead to consider processes of heritagization as primarily a matter of cultural production, transmission and preservation. However, to the extent that they entail a selection of objects, persons, and practices to be preserved and/or displayed and a choice of the places and forms of the exhibits, they unavoidably involve economic, political and social stakes. The heritage and museum boom occurring in many countries may be linked to an increased economic and political competition among localities, and the enactment of heritage policies, as well as the growing involvement of local actors: private citizens, families, foundations, NGOs, etc. Some authors consider this process also as part of a competitive movement in the context of globalization and modernity where states play a major role since they are regarded as the main actors of the world heritage taxonomic order (Di Meo 2008; Palumbo 2010; Poulot 2005).

The growing interest in heritage making refers also to the multiple values attributed to heritage. It is a privileged instrument for constructing identities (Charbonneau and Turgeon, 2010) and a response to the development of cultural tourism (Daher 2007; Saidi 2010). Heritage is considered as a lever of sustainable development for local territories, regions and states (Timothy and Nyaupane 2009). Heritage thus appears as a means to combat conflicts, identity loss and impulsive economic development. Triggered by the economic and cultural policies of transnational organizations and institutions--such as the World Bank and UNESCO--patrimonialization has become a process taking place on a global scale and ordered by supranational bureaucracies (Berliner and Bortolotto 2013). Every community, group and nation seeks to identify and emphasize its heritage in order to be an actor in the domestic and international arena, to attract tourism and create identities that can be mobilized at the local, national and global level. Today, anybody can become a heritage maker (Tornatore 2007), insofar as this process allows locating each one's practices and emphasize one's sense of belonging, as well as revisiting tradition, giving it the new status of an "alternative modernity" (Parameshwar Gaonkar 2001). The processes of heritagization, therefore, end up in an intensive production of territories, which is no longer limited to the national scale. Following the crisis of modernity, heritagization draws on very dynamic and diversified resources, while at the same time it goes through a process of fragmentation.

Heritagization can often be a controversial, if not a confrontational arena where different categories of actors compete to impose their rights and/or identities (Abu el-Haj 2001; Herzfeld 2002; Maffi 2009; Meskell 1989). Heritage can thus become an element fueling disputes and even violent conflicts or an instrument to defend and claim rights (Silverman and Ruggles, 2009) and even a therapy to reconcile ethnic and racial differences (Meskell, 2011). It can also he used to create modern citizenship or prove the modernity of a nation especially in former colonized states and minorities (Appadurai and Breckenridge 1992; Clifford 1996; Duncan 1985; Turgeon 2003).

Therefore, heritage and museum projects are situated at the intersection of a variety of arenas at the local, national, and global level. Indeed at the heart of heritagization lies a scalar dynamic that raises the question of whether we should refer to a "heritage-scape" and/or to "heritage-scapes" (Di Giovine 2008).

The contemporary heritage-scape(s) could be considered as the product of the encounter between Western paradigms and alternative models of relating to the past, and of producing and promoting cultural symbols and identity references. The term "scape" is borrowed from Arjun Appadurai's essay "Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy" (1996) that popularized the idea of "global cultural flows" and categorized them into ethnoscapes, technoscapes, mediascapes, ideoscapes and financescapes. Appadurai emphasized the chaotic nature of these flows--their disjuncture --and insisted on the central role of the imagination as a social practice in their formation (1996: 31). The suffix -scape is meant to indicate the fluid and irregular shape of these global cultural flows giving them the appearance of a "landscape," as well as to stress that they are "deeply perspectivai constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic, and political situatedness of different sorts of actors: nation-states, multinationals and diasporic communities, as well as subnational groupings and movements (...) villages, neighborhoods and families. Indeed, the individual actor is the last locus of this perspectivai set of landscapes, for these landscapes are eventually navigated by agents who both experience and constitute larger formations, in part from their own sense of what these landscapes offer" (1996: 33).

A heritage-scape can be considered as a "larger formation", a landscape of its own that exists primarily as a product of the imagination even if it has roots in the physical world. Yet it is at the same time situated at the crossroads of the different global cultural flows Appadurai identifies: the technoscape, or "the global configuration, also ever fluid, of technology" (1996: 34); the mediascape that provides "repertoires of images, narratives and ethnoscapes" and creates landscapes where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred (1996: 35) and ideoscapes, chains of political ideas, terms and images that are rooted in the master narrative of Enlightenment but that, as they have travelled around the world, have "loosened the internal coherence that held them together in a Euro-American master narrative" (1996: 36). Michael A. Di Giovine (2008) uses the expression "heritage-scape" in his UNESCO-centered study of heritage sites, to refer to a deterritorialized global space, spanning national boundaries. The outcome of UNESCO's work of re-ordering the world is, in his view, expansive in nature (from a geographic, conceptual, and temporal point of view), continuously including new places, objects, people, and traditions.

Choosing the singular or the plural for the term "scape" is debatable. Although Appadurai's theory of scapes does not refer to any centre/ periphery framework but is explicitly built against such models, the term "heritage-scape" might seem problematic when used in the singular since it alludes almost inevitably to a unitary reference which includes paradigms, taxonomies, technologies, experts and administrative procedures historically and geographically located in Europe and put into practice elsewhere at least since colonial times. Heritage-scape, used in its singular form, can be conceptualized as a global arena (or social field) of struggle in which a diversity of actors compete for and achieve (or not) legitimate "heritage-status." Second, the heritage-scape consists of a set of value-laden considerations that play a role in how its landscape is defined and that set the definitions of what heritage is and should be; these are the cognitive and ideological underpinnings of the "tournament of value" (Appadurai 1986) into which objects or sites enter and circulate. At the same time, these standards and prescriptions may be challenged by local actors, adjusted to local meanings and other ethical regimes creating heritage-scapes that can subvert the global taxonomic system from inside. The heritage-scape is therefore at once a global arena of competition between candidates for heritage-status and an arena of dispute and negotiation on what heritage is.

In the plural, "heritage-scapes" evokes a multiplicity of landscapes, the myriad of adaptive and peculiar re-uses of these same instruments and concepts in local contexts where patrimony and museums are re-inscribed; yet the "globalness" inherent in Appadurai's coining of the concept is then lost. To overcome this dilemma, we suggest using them alternatively, depending on the vantage point chosen, to investigate processes of heritage construction in various geographic, social and historic locations, and depending on whether the emphasis is put on the work of the imagination and the global diffusion of narratives, ideas and technologies involved in the making of heritage, or on the local, and still historically, culturally and territorially circumscribed practices of making heritage in a particular location.

Indeed, the notion of scape itself has been the object of debates, first, against Appadurai's emphasis on chaos and rejection of centre/periphery relations (1996: 47); the disordered nature of these flows is doubtful; they are to a large extent shaped by asymmetrical power relations in the global world order (Herzfeld 2002). Moreover, Heyman and Campbell (2009) have argued that Appadurai's view of geography tends to radically oppose fluid flows to static units, and that his notion of "scapes" emphasizes and reifies the outcome of processes--the shared imaginary or the global "public spheres"--rather than accounting for the processes themselves. A more processual approach is therefore needed, one that examines the relationship between local territories and their reframing in the interaction with phenomena of global reach, and which highlights the relation between historical processes that generate particular social formations and the imagined cultural worlds that are constantly in the making.

The articles in this special issue present a series of case studies dealing with local and diverse processes of heritage making, in relation to or against a background of a global imagination of heritage. In order to account ethnographically for the processes that lie at the heart of the heritage-scape, the present contributions cover objects, sites, practices and paradigms.

First of all, objects have a social life and their status changes in time and space according to the contexts of meaning and the use to which they are put. The selected papers (particularly Badii and Galitzine-Loumpet) consider how material things are turned into heritage--their "cultural biography" (Kopytoff 1986)--and how the cultural processes of collecting, selecting, exhibiting, serializing and materializing the past are orchestrated in the myriads of existing localities, as well as how things turned into heritage do acquire new statuses and meanings in the process (Daher). The papers also investigate the impact of heritagization on people's lives, particularly the way they transform symbolic configurations, aesthetic sensibilities and pragmatic behaviors. And what happens once heritage has "gone global" when it becomes a cosmopolitan/cosmo-political heritage?

Secondly, the contributors explore the role of locality, which is, generally a crucial criterion in the process of heritagization for evaluating and selecting artefacts, people, arts and traditional practices. Processes of making heritage or museums result, in turn, in highlighting the particularity of a place and aim at increasing its attractiveness. Moreover, heritagization creates, redefines or reinforces territories (Veschambre 2007; Di Meo 2008). Several papers document and reflect upon the mechanisms underlying this social production of place. What are the links between processes of materialization (the creation of tangible elements of heritage, or visible museum objects) and the localization of culture within the space of the museum/the heritage site? How do objects/persons/"traditions" become "markers" of locality: trademarks, brands, symbols? To what extent do the architecture and designs of these sites contribute to the "branding," the marketing of a place, and to the sites' local or global reach? How are these sites perceived by local residents and are they used in ways that are not in line with their new status? Several contributors reflect on their own status in the field and explore the relation between the ethnographic field site and the heritage or museum site.

Thirdly, the papers show that the paradigm of heritage that has dominated the international scene in the second half of the 20th century is the product of various cultural traditions of European origin, some of which date back to the Renaissance. Exported to non-European countries by the colonial administrations as a political tool and as a symbol of Western modernity, the notion of cultural heritage and the practices, institutions, arrangements and knowledge it implies have been adopted in many contexts with various consequences. As a result, the so-called western model of heritage has been modified and reshaped in order to adjust to local configurations of the past and specific ways of preserving it (Gillot 2010). One of the questions addressed here is whether it is still possible to identify a shared heritage paradigm or if we are in the presence of multiple co-existing models.

Finally, the authors consider the arenas of "heritagization." Within the heritage-scape, objects, sites and social actors interact at various scales, producing a complex world where local and global forces intertwine. The various stakeholders of heritage production and consumption have their own cultural, social, economic and ideological background and the interactions among these actors take various forms that are related to specific historical and cultural circumstances. Colonial and postcolonial contexts constitute stimulating areas of investigation, insofar as we can compare the processes of heritagization taking place before, during and after colonization, considering a variety of geographical, cultural, sociopolitical and economic localities that have been under the rule of European states. Detailed case studies highlight stakeholders' strategies for choosing, protecting and emphasizing the value of objects or sites that became heritage through these processes. Several authors consider how local objects, sites, and customs become inscribed in larger networks, national, regional or global (Galitzine). Others ask how local populations take ownership of and reinterpret heritage which has been defined on a larger scale (Daher). Some highlight the role of heritage as a tool allowing institutions, scholars and heritage promoters to trigger an active participation by local actors, especially the civil society, a fact which is regarded as a condition for a popular and democratic definition of heritage as opposed to an official and elitist one (Badii). On the contrary, others consider heritage as a tool of power that could be used to reinforce social and economic disparities and inequalities, in view of the fact that, in the course of the heritagization process, some are left out of the picture--or of the heritage-scape (Palumbo, Copertino).

In order to answer these questions, the present issue is organized into two main sections: the first emphasizing the ways in which heritage-scapes are produced drawing on in-depth ethnographic studies investigating practices and products alike; the second focusing on arenas of competition and negotiation between local and global stakeholders in the heritagization processes from a socio- and geopolitical perspective.

The production of heritage-scapes

In the first article, "Heritage and the Neoliberal Order: A Sicilian Perspective," Berardino Palumbo considers the heritage-scape as a taxonomic--institutional system giving a global sense to particular sites and territories and contributing to the deterritorialization of spaces. Through an ethnographic analysis of the process of heritage construction in southeastern Sicily, the author considers both the construction of the area as a heritage commodity and as a touristic asset, inscribing it into the heritage-scape. The paper stresses the effects of stereotyping and schematization that this process entails, and the social and political 'creative' outcomes that such an operation will finally produce.

In the second article, "Urban heritage and the contention between tradition, avant-garde, and kitsch. Amman's rising 'kitsch syndromes' and its creeping vernacularized urban landscape," Rami F. Daher investigates the emergence of certain trends in Amman. He focuses on the rise of replications of 'historicized' architectural styles and/or the re-invention of forms of cultural and heritage icons in places that have undergone urban and economic regeneration schemes and projects such as Rainbow Street and Faisal Plaza in Amman. Some of these interventions were more successful in respecting the authenticity of Amman's urban heritage while others presented a false replication of cultural and heritage icons that the author classified in several kitsch syndromes: the neoclassical motif syndrome, the Petra Treasury syndrome, the Bab-al-Hara Syndrome, and the village in the city syndrome. Daher seeks explanations that focus on presenting Amman's urban heritage as an in-between situation of discursive practices leading to an urban reality that has not been recognized, appreciated, properly studied, or even incorporated in the formal and popular definitions of the country of Jordan.

In the third article, "Virtualizing/recomposing heritage: Museums and digital heritage-scapes in Cameroon and Gabon," Alexandra Galitzine-Loumpet analyzes the development of digital technologies in the interpretation of cultural heritage in Central Africa, through two examples of virtual museums, the National Museum of Arts and Traditions of Gabon, and the "Route des chefferies" (Chiefdom trails) project in the Grass fields of Western Cameroon. These virtual areas build a singular object, representing a negotiated state of different types of heritage "consciousness," ideologically open to the views of its audience. The author thus seeks to examine ways that various national and foreign actors collaborate, the ways of approaching the impact and the power of restructuring this media hype on concrete heritage achievements, and finally, ways to analyze the differences between types of virtual reality and museums. The author considers more particularly the emergence of a new status for a virtualized museum, a "sign-museum" (musee-signe), which is integrated in the wider semiotic system of heritage.

The heritage-scape as arena of competition and negotiation

In the fourth article, "Returning and improving the City: ethnography in/of the heritage-scape in Damascus," Domenico Copertino considers the reinterpretation of the concepts and practices of heritagization in the Middle East in the postcolonial era through the case of old Damascus. He particularly questions how the process of listing a Middle Eastern city as part of the heritage-scape may be seen as a process of framing a local entity into a global frame. In this context, the author focuses on the marginalization of groups of people in the process of heritagization (in particular non-Westernized subjects), asking whether this process involves only or mainly people with cosmopolitan education and habitus.

In the final paper, "The making of food heritage in contemporary Tuscany: local networks in global policies," Michela Badii considers the heritagization of traditional food in an area of contemporary Tuscany, stressing the emergence of new relationships of power as well as new forms of subjectivity. The author particularly focuses on the "social life" developing around the "Zolfino bean" and its creation as a symbol of local heritage, from a popular food to a product of excellence. The author shows that this product is subject to a process of "manipulation," caught up in the tensions between localization and globalization. Indeed, the author focuses on the practices and discourses of the Slow Food movement and the European Community, that contribute to the creation of new political meanings for traditional food, redefined in terms of "social access" and "cultural boundaries."

References

Abu el'Haj, Nadia. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy." Theory, Culture & Society 7: 295-310.

Appadurai, Arjun and Carol Breckenridge. 1992. "Museums are Good to Think : Heritage on View in India." In Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer and Stephen Levine, eds. Museums and Communities The Politics of Public Culture: 34-55. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Babelon, Jean-Pierre and Andre Chastel. 1994. La Notion du Patrimoine. Paris: Liana Levi.

Berliner, David and Chiara Bortolotto. 2013. "Introduction. Le monde selon l'UNESCO." Gradhiva [online]: http://gradhiva.revues.org/2696. Charbonneau, Andre and Laurier Turgeon, eds. 2010. Patrimoines et identites en Amerique francaise. Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval.

Daher, Rami. 2008. Tourism In The Middle East. Continuity, Change, And Transformation. Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto: Channel View Publications.

Daher, Rami and Irene Maffi, eds. 2014. The Politics and Practices of Cultural Heritage in the Middle East. Positioning the Material Past in Cotemporary Societies. London: IB Tauris.

Davallon, Jean. 2000. "Le patrimoine: 'une filiation inversee' ?" Espaces

Temps 74(74-75): 6-16.

Clifford, James. 1997. Routes. Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

Davallon, Jean. 2002. "Comment se fabrique le patrimoine?" Sciences Humaines 36: 74-77.

Davallon, Jean. 2006. Le don du patrimoine. Une approche communicationnelle de la patrimonialisation. Paris: Edition Lavoisier.

Di Giovine, Michael A. 2008. The Heritage-scape. UNESCO, World Heritage, and Tourism. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Duncan, Carole, 1995. Civilizing Rituals. Inside Public Art Museums. London and New York: Routledge.

Di Meo, Guy. 1995. "Patrimoine et territoire, une parente conceptuelle." Espaces et Societes 78: 16-33.

Di Meo, Guy. 2008. "Processus de patrimonialisation et construction des territoires." In Regards sur le patrimoine industriel, Actes du colloque de Poitiers "Patrimoine et industrie en Poitou-Charentes: connaitre pour valoriser", 12-14 septembre 2007, Poitiers-Chatellerault. La Creche: Geste Editions.

Gillot, Laurence. 2010. "Towards a Socio-Political History of Archaeology in the Middle East: the Development of Archaeological Practice and its Impacts on Local Communities in Syria." Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 20(1): 4-15.

Gravari, Barbas, Maria and Vincent Veschambre. 2003. "Patrimoine : derriere l'idee de consensus les enjeux d'appropriation de l'espace et des conflits." In Patrice Mele, Corinne Larrue and Muriel Rosemberg, eds. Conflits et territoires: 67-82. Tours: PUFR.

Harvey, David, 2008. "The History of Heritage." In Brian Graham and Peter Howard, eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity: 19-36. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Heinich, Nathalie, 2009. La fabrique du patrimoine. De la cathedrale a la petite cuillere. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

Herzfeld, Michael, 2002. "The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism," South Atlantic Quarterly 101: 899-926.

Herzfeld, Michael, 2003. "Pom Mahakan: Humanity and Order in the Historic Centre of Bangkok." Thailand Human Rights Journal (1): 101119.

Heyman, Josiah McC. and Howard Campbell. 2009. "The Anthropology of Global Flows. A Critical Reading of Appadurai's 'Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy'." Anthropological Theory 9(2): 131-148.

Hertzog, Anne. 2011. "Les geographes et le patrimoine." EchoGeo 18 [online]: http://echogeo.revues.org/12840.

Jeudy, Henry Pierre. 1994- Patrimoines en folies. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

Jeudy, Henry Pierre. 2001. La machinerie patrimoniale. Paris: Edition Sens et Tonka.

Maffi, Irene. 2009. "The Emergence of Cultural Heritage in Jordan. The Itinerary of a Colonial Invention." Journal of Social Archaeology 9(1): 5-34.

Meskell, Lynn, ed. 1989. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London and New York: Routledge.

Meskell, Lynn, 2011. The Nature of Heritage. The New South Africa. London: Wyley-Blackwell.

Palumbo, Berardino. 2010. "Sistemi tasonomici dell'immaginario globale. Prime ipotesi di ricerca a partire dal caso UNESCO." Meridiana 68: 37-72.

Parameshwar Gaonkar, Dilip. 2001 .Alternative Modernities. Durham: Duke University Press.

Poria, Yaniv. 2010. "The Story Behind the Picture: Preferences for the Visual Display at Heritage Sites." In Emma Waterton and Steve Watson, eds., Culture, Heritage and Representation, Perspectives on Visuality and the Past: 218-228. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Poulot, Dominique, ed. 1998. Patrimoine et modernite. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Poulot, Dominique. 2005. Une histoire du patrimoine en Occident. XVIIe-XIXe siecle. Paris: PUE

Rautenberg, Michel. 2003. La rupture patrimoniale. Grenoble: Bernin.

Saidi, Habib, ed. 2010. "Tourisme culturel, Cutlural Tourism." Ethnologies 32(2) [Online]: http://www.ethnologies.ulaval.ca/archives/tourismeculturel/

Silverman, Helaine and D. Fairchild. Ruggles, eds. 2007. Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. New York: Springer.

Timothy, Dallen J. and Gyan P. Nyaupane, eds. 2009. Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World. A Regional Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.

Tornatore, Jean-Louis. 2006. "Les formes d'engagement dans l'activite patrimoniale. De quelques manieres de s'accommoder au passe." Questions de communication 3: 515-538.

Turgeon, Laurier. 2003. Patrimoines metisses. Contextes coloniaux et postcoloniaux. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

Turgeon, Laurier. 2009. "Spirit of Place : Evolving Heritage Concepts and

Practices." In Laurier Turgeon, ed. The Spirit of Place. Between Tangible and Intangible Heritage: 3347. Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval.

Turgeon, Laurier. 2010. "Du materiel a l'immateriel. Nouveaux defis, nouveaux enjeux." Ethnologie francaise 40(3): 389-399.

Veschambre Vincent, 2007. "Patrimoine : un objet revelateur des evolutions de la geographie et de sa place dans les sciences sociales." Annales de geographie 656: 361-381.

Laurence Gillot

Paris Diderot University, Laboratoire ANHIMA

Irene Maffi

University of Lausanne

Anne-Christine Tremon

University of Lausanne