Abstract
This article engages with the author’s six-year field-project in Assam on the revival of threatened heritage, especially in music, and links it with global heritage frameworks. At its core is the tension between Western-centric heritage methodology and local traditions that require culturally specific approaches. Key difficulties identified include: the dominance of architects in heritage conservation while other professionals are marginalized; education curricula grounded in Western academic frameworks; lack of documentation for ancient cities such as Guwahati; and the vulnerability of intangible cultural heritage to market-driven commodification. The article draws on recent scholarship regarding intangible heritage — including the fragility of traditions, the importance of digital documentation, and the risks of commercialization. Solutions offered emphasize community custodianship, interdisciplinary documentation (including digital humanities methods), ethical marketing with community consent, local educational reform rooted in regionally relevant traditions, and advocacy for heritage policy frameworks. In concluding, the article argues that safeguarding heritage today is not about freezing the past but enabling living traditions to evolve while preserving dignity, identity and authenticity. It is a call for heritage to be research-informed, rights-based and community-controlled.
Keywords: Heritage Studies, Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH), Vyās Music, Heritage Documentation, Community
Custodianship, Cultural Policy in Assam, Western vs. Asian Knowledge Systems, Interdisciplinary
Heritage Research, Indigenous Epistemology, Nāṭyaśāstra and Regional
Classification, Heritage City Recognition, Carbon Isotope Dating and
Geo-Mapping, Digital Humanities in Heritage, Marketisation and Cultural
Commodification, Sustainable Heritage Management, UNESCO 2003 ICH Convention, ICOMOS
Charter on ICH (2024), Traditional Knowledge Systems, Education and Heritage
Awareness, Documentation Challenges in India, Global South Heritage Frameworks,
Heritage Ethics and Cultural Rights, Living Traditions and Transmission, Cultural
Identity and Nation Building, Assam Cultural Heritage.
A Reflection
from Field Experience in Assam
In today’s heritage discourse, many professionals assume that architects alone are the guardians of conservation and preservation. Indeed, in many major heritage institutes the architect-engineer duo continues to dominate. However, increasingly historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and others have been drawn into heritage work. Even more tellingly, civil engineers, musicians, lawyers and other professionals are now regularly invited into this domain. This widening of disciplinary scope reflects the complex, interdisciplinary nature of heritage today — but it also brings new difficulties, new tensions, and new solutions.
The Problem of
Western-Centric Frameworks
One major challenge springs from education systems. The curricula in many schools and colleges are rooted in Western pedagogical models — their logic, their categorization, their disciplinary boundaries. But when one studies heritage traditions in Asia, Africa, Latin America or Indigenous communities, a literal application of European or North American frameworks often fails. For instance, Turkey straddles Europe and Asia; visitors who cross from the Asian side of Istanbul to the European side immediately sense a shift in culture and civilization. The point is clear: cultural traditions are not always best served by comparative models derived elsewhere. Many Asian or African traditions are unique, self-contained in logic, expression and social function.
As per our experience exactly this challenge: at a recent international conference in India [MAATI (Mavens of Architecture and Traditional Ideologies) Convention: 2025, Ahmedabad] we observed an “in-depth analytical study of India’s unrecognized, undiscovered heritage” that nevertheless stalled when regional distinctions were debated. Despite theories offered by Western-educated Indian experts, confusion persisted until we introduced a musical-cultural perspective: invoking the Nāṭyaśāstra of Sage Bharata (4th century BCE) and its four regions — Āvantī/Aryāvarta, Dakṣiṇātya, Pañcāl-Madhyama and Oḍra-Magadhī. Our marshaled texts and web-based materials immediately gained traction.
This anecdote reveals a deeper structural
issue: international charters — created in an era when Western heritage paradigms
dominated — often struggle to accommodate knowledge systems whose roots lie in
non‐Western epistemologies. The result: heritage scholars from Asia or Africa
find themselves attempting to “shoe-horn” local traditions into alien
frameworks, rather than capturing them on their own terms.
Documentation
& Chronology: The Case of Guwahati
A second difficulty lies in the documentation and recognition of ancient urban centers and heritage sites. Western cities with well-archived founding dates (e.g., Kolkata 1690, Ahmedabad 1411) easily gain recognition as “heritage cities.” But what do we do with a place like Guwahati (Pragjyotishpur), reputed to be at least five millennia old? The problem is that archival material of that age is scarce. Modern international forums tend to insist on documents that demonstrate deep chronology; what lacks “proper documentation” often remains unrecognized.
Our suggestion, this means historians and
heritage professionals must adopt new tools — carbon‐isotope dating, geo‐spatial
analysis, astrological maps, and other universal scientific methods — to build
robust datasets that can support claims of heritage status. Indeed, recent
literature emphasizes the need for “integrated documentation of tangible and
intangible heritage” via interdisciplinary tools.[i]
Challenges of
Safeguarding Intangible and Living Traditions
Another cluster of problems stems from
heritage that is not static — oral traditions, performing arts, local music
forms, community rituals. The 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage defines intangible cultural heritage (ICH) as
“practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills … transmitted
from generation to generation…”[ii] Safeguarding such
heritage differs fundamentally from preserving monuments or artifacts: the
knowledge lives in people, gestures, sound, memory. A recent study from
Ethiopia found that key barriers included: poor documentation, lack of funding,
weak stakeholder involvement, urbanization and natural disasters.[iii]
Field
Experience & Solutions
Our field experience captures these problems: widening disciplinary scope, outdated Western frameworks, documentation deficits, market pressure, and weak policy among them. But we also point to solutions. Let’s articulate them with additional research:
1. Community
Control and Custodianship
Heritage literature increasingly emphasizes that communities must be central actors—not just beneficiaries. The 2024 heritage discourse stresses ethical collaboration, equity and community empowerment.[iv] Our observation that if a community disagrees with market orientation the decision must be withdrawn is in accord with best practice.
2. Interdisciplinary
Documentation Methods
We propose using carbon‐dating, geo‐mapping, and others. Scholars are pushing further: digital humanities methods (e.g., metadata modeling, semantic interoperability) are now used to document ICH.[v] Digitization offers opportunities — but must be done in consultation with communities to avoid misrepresentation or overexposure.[vi]
3. Balancing
Marketisation and Heritage Integrity
The market can provide visibility and income, but risks reducing tradition to commodity. Our warning about merchant dominance and decline of dignity is echoed in heritage studies: uncontrolled commodification weakens authenticity. Thus one solution is to establish ethical market protocols: guidelines decided by custodial community, written agreements, and revenue-sharing mechanisms.
4. Policy and
Educational Reform
We critique the absence of regional cultural policy in Assam as well as India and the dominance of Western education. This aligns with broader analysis: heritage preservation depends on governance, funding, institutional capacity and legislative frameworks. Hence co-designing curricula rooted in local knowledge systems is essential.
5. Transmission to
Younger Generations
We emphasize youth engagement. Heritage
practice must not freeze traditions as “museum pieces,” but keep them living.
Workshops, apprenticeships, mentorships and singing/playing traditions are
vital. Research shows without inter-generational transmission the risk of loss
is high.[vii]
Proposed
Framework for our Context
Given our experience and the literature, here is an adapted framework for Assam as well as India and similar contexts:
Ø Mapping and Inventory: Conduct an inclusive survey of both tangible and intangible cultural elements within the community. Use digital platforms to archive them.
Ø Consent and Governance: Establish a local heritage committee (musicians, elders, youth, and professionals) to decide on modes of documentation, marketing, adaptation.
Ø Documentation Protocols: Use a hybrid model — oral histories, audio/video recordings, geo-data, carbon/archaeology for urban heritage, semantic databases for intangible heritage.
Ø Market-Heritage Alignment: Before marketing any tradition, conduct stakeholder consultations, assess cultural impact, and draft contractual agreements protecting artist rights and community heritage.
Ø Education & Transmission: Develop curricula that integrate indigenous musical traditions, regional history and community practice. Promote youth engagement through mentorship.
Ø Policy Engagement: Advocate with government for intangible heritage legislation and funding at state level; align with national/international charters but calibrate to local epistemologies.
Ø Sustainability & Review: Establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Recognize that heritage evolves — adapt with community consent, record changes, but maintain core integrity.
Conclusion
Our six-year heritage project in Assam
underscores both the challenges and possibilities of contemporary heritage
research. From Western-bias in education, to documentation gaps, to market
pressures, the obstacles are many — but the solutions, rooted in ethical
practice, community custodianship, and inter-disciplinarily, are clear.
By articulating our field experience
alongside scholarly research, this article highlights that safeguarding
heritage today is not just about archiving the past — it is about enabling
living traditions to thrive into the future, with respect, rights and
resonance. The goal is nothing less than restoring lost dignity to heritage,
re-connecting youth with roots, and enabling traditions to adapt without losing
their soul.
[i] : https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/XLVIII-M-2-2023/701/2023/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-2-2023-701-2023.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION OF TANGIBLE AND ..."
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Safeguarding_of_the_Intangible_Cultural_Heritage?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage"
[iii] : https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-022-00802-6?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Practices and challenges of cultural heritage conservation ..."
[iv] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-72123-6_9?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Threats and Approaches to the Safeguarding of Intangible ..."
[v] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379027495_Information_and_Documentation_Perspective_to_Intangible_Cultural_Heritage_in_the_Context_of_Digital_Humanities_Research?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Information and Documentation Perspective to Intangible ..."
[vi] : https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2024/05/digitizing-cultural-heritage?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Digitizing Cultural Heritage: Challenges, Opportunities and ..."
[vii] : https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/support-system/questions/what-are-biggest-challenges-unesco-faces-protecting-intangible-cultural?utm_source=chatgpt.com "What are the biggest challenges UNESCO faces in ..."
0 Comments