Nature and culture only differ three letters, but the approach we take to them differs quite a bit. In this blog post we will take a closer look at the history of the Wadden Sea as an example of natural heritage and compare it with the cultural heritage example, the Woudagemaal. These two sites form striking dyptich of examples of natural and cultural heritage in Fryslân and will demonstrate what the different approaches towards them are.
The Wadden Sea
The Wadden Sea is an intertidal zone on the coast of the North Sea, stretching from the northern part of the Netherlands all the way along the German coast into Denmark, totalling about 10.000km² in area. The landscape is characterized by wetlands and tidal flats, which flood regularly. In June of 2009, the Wadden Sea area was added to the UNESCO World Heritage list. The area is very rich in wildlife and fostered for its biodiversity.
 |
| Image 1. An overview of a small part of the Wadden Sea. |
The Woudagemaal
The Woudagemaal was opened in 1920, is the largest steam-pumping station of the world and is still used once every two years. The pumping station was built after the winters of the 19th and 20th century that caused parts of Friesland to be flooded regularly. During times of strong winds and lots of rain, the pumping station regulates and maintains the Frisian brine water. In 1998, the Woudagemaal got a spot on the UNESCO World Heritage list.
Image 1. An overview of a small part of the Wadden Sea.
The Woudagemaal seems to have left its authenticity intact, since its state is more or less identical to what it was when it opened in 1920 regarding form, materials, and functions. The only notable changes have been the replacement of the eight original boilers by four larger-capacity installations in 1955 and their following conversion from coal to fuel-oil firing twelve years later. In addition, there was a centre built in 2011 to provide visitors high-quality information and facilities on the basis of a lasting exhibition with the topic of ‘Steam and Water”. The visitors’ centre was built at some distance from the protected heritage site but within the confines of the property.
 |
| Image 2. The Woudagemaal in action. |
The new analytical approach Garden (2006) takes to heritages sites can show in what way natural and cultural heritage differ and match in relationship to each other. According to Garden, a heritage site is made up of the tangible components which can be recognized by a set of three guiding principles, which are: boundaries, cohesion, and visibility. When the Woudagemaal and the Wadden sea are being measured by the methodology of the ‘heritagescape’, differences and similarities between natural and cultural heritage sites become more clear. The Woudagemaal and the Wadden sea are similar to each other with regard to visibility. While both are being part of the UNESCO World Heritage list, it is evident that both are recognized as ‘heritage’, which is a criterium for cultural visibility. When it comes to boundaries, the Woudagemaal is marked out visibly, while the Wadden Sea is an open area that cannot be overlooked from one point. This leads to a stronger sense of cohesion for the Woudagemaal because it is confined to visible boundaries, which gives it a stronger sense of ‘place’.
One big difference in the approach taken to natural and cultural heritage, as also mentioned by Lowenthal (2005), is that people seem to have no problem in interfering with the heritage site if it is a cultural one. As mentioned above, the Woudagemaal has been restored. However, let’s for example’s sake say some prominent politician proposes to ‘restore’ the current Wadden Sea area to how it was in the years after the last ice age, which is the time the area was formed. For natural heritage, the approach seems nonsensical.
Another difference in reception of natural and cultural heritage is that natural heritage is tougher to export, even though Wadden Sea is framed and marketed quite well towards this goal. You can take a tour through the Woudagemaal, visit the museum around it, see it while it’s running, but you can’t normally experience natural heritage in the same way. As Lowenthal puts it quite well: you can buy a painting but not an ecosystem. The Wadden Sea actually is an example of how natural heritage CAN be marketed and exported, with walking tours across the muddy flats and boat tours to see the seals.
The approaches we towards cultural and natural heritage are indeed different, but the main difference and the final discussion statement is that when people interfere with cultural heritage (e.g. to restore a site), nobody bats an eye. Yet, when people want to meddle with natural heritage, everyone loses their mind.
Sources
Lowenthal, David “Natural and cultural heritage.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, no. 1 (2005): 81-92.
Garden, Mary-Catherine E. “The Heritagescape: Looking at Landscapes of the Past.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 5 (2006): 394-411.
Authors: MMK, WvdV, EMvG, AE
Good choice of topic, to compare two Frisian heritage sites according to the criteria by Garden. I liked the introduction with background information on both heritage sites but would have found it better if you would have used the arguments from visibility, boundaries, and cohesion to illustrate the importance of the sites for Frisian minority culture, identity instead of making the same point Lowenthal makes in his article about the relation between natural and cultural heritage.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenNice example of a comparison between a natural and cultural heritage site! Your introductory sentence is especially nice. :) I agree, however, with the comment above about how the analysis itself could have been more detailed. For readers who are not familiar with Garden's article that could be insufficient. A place where you could have gone into more detail is, for example, the way in which the Wadden Sea can be exported despite Lowenthal claiming the opposite. That could have been a great topic of discussion, in my opinion!
BeantwoordenVerwijderenGreat heritagescape analysis! I would also extend your explanation on the differences, despite that I find them informative. Comparison between a natural and a cultural site provides a great example of practical implementation of both Lowenthal's and Garden's points of view in Fryslan. I would, however, say that human influence on the nature of Wadden Sea still makes it a part of "pure" heritage and even marks it as a part of cultural heritage because those dykes were built since earliest times and are exemplify the development of engineering.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenM. D.
Very nice topic! Easy to read as well because of the clear structure and use of images etc. I agree with your statement in the sense that it is often more 'allowed' for cultural heritage sites to be changed in a way. In the case of the Woudagemaal, the replacement of the boilers seems to be an improvement rather than degrading the authenticity. For the Wadden Sea, on the other hand, restoring something does not seem very applicable. The addition of an information centre at the Woudagemaal, however, is seen as an improvement as well, and since a few years the ports from which boats leave from the main land to the Wadden Sea islands host information 'desks' on the Wadden Sea as well. In this case, it is comparable to the information centre yet it is also seen as a good improvement while it does concern natural heritage. Therefore, I think the statement should be a bit more nuanced for me to agree completely. Improvements to a heritage site can be made, such as providing visitors with more information, despite what kind of heritage site it concerns.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenI like the comparison you have made between the two sites and cultural vs. natural heritage in general. I disagree on the point made that natural sites are harder to export; there are plenty of natural sites that draw attraction globally. Would have been nice to include a discussion point at the end as well.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen