Religion, World Heritage Sites, and Inclusivity: Part Two

When discussing World Heritage Sites, it is important to remember that each site has its own problems which the management must face. The problems of inclusivity and accessibility at World Heritage Sites were introduced in Religion, World Heritage Sites, and Inclusivity. In that post, the Mezquita of Córdoba was examined as an example of a World Heritage site where inclusivity and accessibility have become issues in recent years. In this post, I will continue to discuss this topic, this time using the Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range of Japan and the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls as examples. Both sites have experienced problems with inclusivity, although the severity of this issue at both sites differs greatly.

Relatively new to the World Heritage List, the Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range was inscribed on the List in 2004. The Site consists of the three sacred sites of Yoshino and Ōmine, Kumano Sanzan, and Koyasan, the forests surrounding the mountains, and the pilgrimage paths which are located within the mountains and forests. For over 1200 years, these mountains and forests have been sacred sites to the local peoples of the Kii Peninsula. Mount Ōmine is home to the practice of Shugendō. Developed from a combination of Buddhist, Daoist, and Shinto practices, Shugendō is a 1300-year-old tradition which involves men traveling up Mount Ōmine in order to get away from the troubles of the world and to find inner peace (McGuire 2013).

The Site was inscribed on the World Heritage list based on: “the cultural landscape of the Kii Mountains [being] a unique fusion between Shintoism and Buddhism that illustrates the interchange and development of cultures in East Asia” as well as the development of Japan’s religious culture with evidence of the religious tradition at the site for 1200 years. So, if the site is such a significant example of the religious traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly practices found in Japan, Korea, and China, how has the site developed inclusivity issues?

The main reason is that for 1300 years women have been prohibited from participating in the practice or from even entering Mount Ōmine (McGuire 2013). Traditionally the pilgrimage up the mountain has only been accessible to men. With the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List a debate on whether or not women should be allowed to ascend the mountain has arisen. While some argue that “if women and then day hikers are permitted to climb to Ōmine’s summit…it will become a profane mountain” (McGuire 2013), but women climbing the mountain has become more and more common in recent years even though technically they are still prohibited. As a World Heritage Site, where inclusivity and accessibility to all is extremely important, should the site at Mount Ōmine be required to allow women to access the site even though women have been traditionally excluded from the site? This is a very difficult question to answer because of the fact that the exclusion has been a part of the tradition long before even the concept of World Heritage was in existence. At what point does this become an issue for World Heritage Status?

A more extreme example of inclusivity and accessibility issues at World Heritage sites, is the case of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Wall. Inscribed in 1981, the site includes numerous historic monuments, including the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, and the Resurrection Rotunda in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (UNESCO). Here, we will be discussing the Wailing Wall in particular. Historically the area surrounding the Wailing Wall, the Moroccan Quarter, was considered to be a Muslim area. In the 19th century, the wall became an icon of Jewish religious significance, but for the longest time Jewish individuals were prohibited from accessing the site because their claim to the site was not seen as valid by many. By 1967, the Jewish population gained control of the Wall and its surrounding area and subsequently demolished the Moroccan Quarter of the city in order to create the Western Wall Plaza. Not only were hundreds of people removed from their homes, historic buildings were destroyed (Ricca 2010). Of course, this occurred about 15 years before the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List.

The Wailing Wall is a very controversial site. Written documentation shows that the site was historically Muslim (Ricca 2010), but the Jewish community also claims historic and religious significance. Similarly, several countries have claimed the city and the historic locations associated with this World Heritage Site as part of their cultural and religious heritage; for example, Israel and Jordan. Interestingly enough, it was Jordan, a predominately Muslim country, which nominated the site, currently associated with Judaism, to the World Heritage List. This shows that the site is important historically and religiously to several religious and cultural groups and that when one of these groups is being denied access to the site this becomes an issue. It is not a question of who should or should not be able to have access to the site, after all World Heritage is about being accessible by all, but should the site be allowed to keep their World Heritage status when groups of people are actively being excluded from the site. At this moment in time, the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls are on the World Heritage in Danger List based on the following criteria:

“they considered that the situation of this property corresponds to the criteria mentioned in the ICOMOS note and…to the criteria (e) (significant loss of historical authenticity) and (f) (important loss of cultural significance) as far as ‘ascertained danger’ is concerned, and to (a) (modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection), (b) lack of conservation policy) and (d) (threatening effects of town planning) as far as ‘potential danger’ is concerned” (UNESCO).

There are many problems this site faces, as you can clearly see, but when accessibility, or rather purposeful exclusion of a group of people, becomes an issue at what point does the site no longer fit in to the mission of the World Heritage List?

When sites, such as the Mezquita of Córdoba, Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range, and the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, develop problems in terms of inclusivity and accessibility by all the sites are no longer adhering to the core values of the World Heritage List. So, if a site develops these problems, what can be done? Should the site be placed on the In Danger List simply for this one flaw? Or, should the site lose its World Heritage status entirely? Unfortunately, inclusivity and accessibility are very difficult concepts to enforce. Unless better standards are developed for dealing with sites in these situations, more and more sites will develop these problems as well.