FOODWAYS AND FOODSHEDS SUPPORTING CULINARY HERITAGE PRACTICES by JERÓNIMO ROLDÁN A THESIS Presented to the Historic Preservation Program and the Division of Graduate Studies of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2022 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Jeronimo Roldan Title: Foodways and Foodsheds: Supporting Culinary Heritage Practices This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Historic Preservation Program by: Chad Randl Chairperson Raymond Rast Member, Gonzaga University and Krista Chronister Vice Provost for Graduate Studies Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Division of Graduate Studies. Degree awarded June 2022 ii © 2022 Jeronimo Roldan iii THESIS ABSTRACT Jeronimo Roldan Master of Science in Historic Preservation College of Design June 2022 Title: Foodways and Foodsheds: Supporting Culinary Heritage Practices This thesis examines recent developments in federal and municipal intangible heritage preservation programs through the lens of foodways and the concept of a foodshed. The goal of this research is to determine how programs benefit communities, businesses, and conservation advocates, and what strategies can help them be more effective. Title (Spanish): Hábitos y Cuencas: Apoyando Herencias Alimenticias Esta tesis examinará los desarrollos en programas recientes de la preservación del patrimonio intangible a nivel federal y municipal, desde la perspectiva de los hábitos alimenticios y el concepto de cuenca alimentaria. El objetivo de esta investigación es determinar cómo estos programas benefician comunidades, negocios, defensores de la conservación histórica, y qué estrategias pueden ayudarlos a ser más efectivos. iv CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Jeronimo Roldan GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Portland Portland State University, Portland The California College of Arts, San Francisco DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science in Historic Preservation, 2022, University of Oregon Graduate Certificate in GIS, 2022, Portland State University Bachelor of Architecture, 2010, California College of Arts AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Preservation Planning PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Intern, Page & Turnbull, July 2021 – December 2021 Intern, San Francisco Planning Department, June 2020 – December 2020 BIM Technician, self-employed, September 2016 – June 2020 Architect (Colombia), Estudio Altiplano, Bogotá, September 2014 – July 2016 Architect (Colombia), Self-Employed, Bogotá and Cali, January 2012 – July 2016 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Vernacular Architecture Forum Latinos in Heritage Conservation Oregon and Southwest Washington Chapter of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you: Desiree Aranda, Gloria Badilla, Ada Anahgo Brown, Shelly Caltagirone, Howard Davis, BJ Dennis, Pedro Ferbel-Azcarate, Lucy de León, Sarah López, Johnathan Marby, Kristen Minor, Larissa Rudnicki, Gerardo Sandoval, Hunter Shobe, David Shields, Arijit Sen, Laurie Sommers, and my wife Diana Marcela Cuartas. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Thesis Statement .............................................................................................. 3 1.2 Structure and Methodology.............................................................................. 4 2.0 BACKGROUND: INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, AND LOCAL INTANGIBLE HERITAGE PROTECTIONS ................................................................................ 7 2.1 Structural Policy ............................................................................................... 7 2.2 Shifting Attitudes on Integrity and Authenticity ............................................. 9 2.3 An International Perspective on Intangible Cultural Heritage ......................... 13 2.4 Landscape and Cultural Heritage in the United States .................................... 20 2.5 Key Points ........................................................................................................ 29 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, AND MUNICIPAL INTANGIBLE HERITAGE PRESERVATION EFFORTS .................................. 30 3.1 National Heritage Areas ................................................................................... 31 3.2 Municipal Preservation Programs .................................................................... 35 4.0 CONCEPTUAL TOOLS: FOODWAYS AND FOODSHEDS ............................ 41 4.1 Folkways to Foodways .................................................................................... 41 4.2 Long’s Models for Foodways Inquiry ............................................................. 47 4.3 The Foodshed ................................................................................................... 49 vii 5.0 CASE STUDY SELECTION AND QUESTIONS ............................................... 52 5.1 San Francisco ................................................................................................... 53 5.2 Two National Heritage Areas .......................................................................... 54 5.3 Case Study Questions ...................................................................................... 55 6.0 CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO ..................................................................... 57 6.1 Significance of Practices .................................................................................. 58 6.2 Cultural Heritage Districts ............................................................................... 59 7.0 CASE STUDY: SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA .... 63 7.1 Inventories........................................................................................................ 65 7.2 Creative City of Gastronomy ........................................................................... 66 7.3 Conservation of a Foodshed............................................................................. 68 8.0 CASE STUDY: GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR 72 8.1 Agricultural Heritage ....................................................................................... 74 8.2 Existential Threats ........................................................................................... 77 8.3 Cultural Solidarity ............................................................................................ 79 9.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 82 9.1 Partnerships ...................................................................................................... 82 9.2 Branding and Identity ...................................................................................... 84 9.3 Protections of Use and Users ........................................................................... 88 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 91 10.1 Formalization ................................................................................................. 91 10.2 Agency of Image ............................................................................................ 94 10.3 Networks ........................................................................................................ 95 viii Chapter Page APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 97 A. SPRING 2022, CITIES WITH INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS .................................................................... 97 B. SPRING 2022, NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS .......................................... 98 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 103 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Figure 1 Image of corn milling at “Sanitary Tortilla Company,” San Antonio, Texas. Photo by Author ..................................................................................................... 1 2. Figure 2 Map of National Heritage Areas Map by Author. ...................................................................................................... 30 3. Figure 3 Map of Cultural Heritage Districts, San Francisco Map by Author. ...................................................................................................... 60 4. Figure 4 Map of Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Map by Author. ...................................................................................................... 63 5. Figure 5 Map of Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Map by Author. ...................................................................................................... 72 x Figure 1: Image of corn milling at “Sanitary Tortilla Company,” San Antonio, Texas. Photo by Author 1.0 INTRODUCTION Maize and its production into tortillas [memelas, sopes, huaraches, tamales, gorditas, and many other forms] have been a fundamental part of culinary heritage on the American continents since pre-contact times. The earliest evidence of its cultivation and consumption dates to about nine thousand years ago, as evidenced by the teosinte crops (the oldest known cultivar linking maize and grass) at Guilá Naquitz cave in Oaxaca.1 Over generations, farmers developed the 1 Michael Blake, Maize for the Gods: Unearthing the 9,000-Year History of Corn, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015): 27. 1 varieties of maize that contemporary readers may find familiar through landrace breeding techniques—the selection of maize stalks that are better adapted to the local conditions and produce desirable kernels. As of 2000, in the Mexican State of Michoacán alone, there are currently over 27 documented heritage maize varieties being cultivated.2 To mill masa that is pliable for hand-shaping, kernels must undergo nixtamalization. In a process almost as old as maize, kernels are cooked at low-temperature in lime water (calcium hydroxide traditionally collected from wood ash) to break down its tough pericarp skin. Since the development of industrial cereals processing, nixtamalized masa can now be dehydrated for storage and instant rehydration. Today, tortillerías can be found across the United States, where the adaptation of these ancient techniques forms a central part of Mexican and Central American communities (See Figure 1.) Could our public tools for Historic Preservation be applied to support the continued practice of this 9,000-year-old tradition? Examining the challenges facing the protection and continuance of traditional foodways and other intangible heritage practices can help explain how preservation tools may be applied in communities traditionally overlooked by preservation efforts. This thesis supports the idea that intangible heritage practices, like foodways, are dependent on the built environment, and they, in turn, communicate the meaning of a place to a community. Intangible heritage and the historic place are linked but not the same—foodways cannot be wholly interpreted through the space of a restaurant because the practices change and adapt. Federal heritage conservation efforts, like the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, were crafted to help communities preempt the wrecking ball, protecting what many would have considered blighted areas. However, preservation efforts begun in the 1960s may not apply to the businesses, transportation infrastructure, and agricultural landscapes that underpin a traditional foodshed and its associated foodways. The structure of municipal, state, federal, and international preservation programs has made it challenging to address sites with continuous use or sites associated with groups historically excluded from the planning process. Recent developments in landscape preservation 2 JJ Sanchez, MM Goodman, and CW Stuber. "Isozymatic and Morphological Diversity in the Races of Maize of Mexico." Economic Botany. Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000): 54. 2 in the United States and abroad offer a structure by which the significance of intangible heritage practices can be defined by the uses of contemporary and historic buildings. While sites associated with well-known historical events are essential to understanding a place, sites with ongoing culturally significant practices have a different set of needs related to their conservation and continuance, ones with direct consequences for the present and future of their associated communities. We do not have to wait for the significance of such sites to be "re-discovered" by future historians to work towards conserving them and their present uses. 1.1 Thesis Statement This thesis explores the roles of public institutions in the continuance of culinary heritage practices, identifying strategies for non-profits, local government leaders, and federal agencies to best plan for intangible heritage conservation. Three case studies will explore intangible heritage practices at the municipal and landscape scales. The practices identified through the case studies are driven by the desire of heritage conservation advocates to improve federal and local approaches. Abroad, this desire led to the 1972 World Heritage Convention through amendments to charters, the development of updated operational guidelines, and the creation of UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage lists. Inspired by the conversations about intangible heritage taking place abroad, cities around the United States are currently adopting local legislation to protect their intangible cultural heritage, like foodways. Municipal approaches to intangible heritage conservation employ a combination of incentives and culturally sensitive zoning regulations. Legacy business programs are one of the tools for supporting the continuance of a city’s culinary heritage. Additionally, cultural heritage advocates in city government are developing their tools in conversation with other advocates for housing, anti-gentrification, and the protection of the vibrant cultures that give our cities meaning. Municipal intangible heritage conservation programs offer a dedicated platform for communities to advocate on behalf of their cultural heritage directly to public entities. This thesis will examine these new municipal strategies through a case study of the city of San Francisco’s efforts to protect its intangible cultural heritage since 2015. 3 While the United States does not currently have a federal strategy for nominating or protecting intangible cultural heritage resources, the country has been at the forefront of the preservation of cultural landscapes in a way that can support the continuance of intangible cultural heritage practices. Landscape-scale preservation efforts have the advantage of distributing resources of these projects over large areas, preventing resources from accumulating in a few sites at the expense of the context. The traditional example of this type of preservation in the United States is a National Park, where a master plan governs the management of the landscape and its interpretation. However, National Parks are defined mainly by their absence of agriculture, hunting, and the traditional ways of life that gave cultural meaning to their landscapes. The development of federal approaches to landscape-scale conservation of foodways is presented through two case studies of National Heritage Areas. Since the 1980s, the National Park Service has designated National Heritage Areas (NHA) to create a non-regulatory heritage conservation plan for urban and rural areas. Because NHAs are locally managed through partnerships with non-profit organizations and do not rely on the legal framework of a regulatory-driven approach, they can create much more flexible agendas for what constitute heritage and conservation procedures. The comparative case study of two NHAs will identify different methods of interpreting foodways as an intangible aspect of cultural heritage. Additionally, the studies examine the partner organizations under the NHAs through their approaches to conservation at the intersection of heritage tourism, place-led community development, and the critical interpretation of history in support of traditional foodways practices in a robust foodshed. 1.2 Structure and Methodology The second chapter of this thesis provides a background on the development of what is considered heritage—by the National Park Service (NPS) at the national level and by UNESCO/ICOMOS in an international context—to build a case for new developments at the municipal level that could inform areas of NPS policy. Each part of the narrative is told through the lens of the place-based controversies that shaped policy developments. The chapter begins with a quick explanation of the relationship between municipal and federal preservation policies, 4 exploring the challenge of integrity metrics for the preservation of intangible heritage resources. Because contemporary municipal policies for intangible heritage conservation are influenced by the evolving international discourse, the chapter explores how UNESCO/ICOMOS has addressed the issues of integrity and authenticity, intangible heritage, multivocality of heritage sites, and cultural landscapes. The chapter concludes by exploring how these same challenges have begun to be addressed through developments in NPS policy. The study and preservation of the cultural landscapes of the United States are traced from the first attempts at Ebey’s Landing to the concept of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), to its evolution into Tribal Cultural Landscapes, and finally to the latest applications of TCPs to preserve the use of working sites. The third chapter is a brief literature review that introduces the specific strategies explored in the case studies. National Heritage Areas (NHA) are a method for supporting cultural heritage at a landscape scale—a form of the cultural-landscape approach to preservation described in chapter 2. In addition to discussing the functions and benefits of NHAs, the chapter will discuss the development of municipal approaches to intangible heritage conservation. While municipal strategies, which include cultural heritage districts, legacy business programs, and special-use zoning overlays, are not being implemented by international organizations like UNESCO, many are influenced by the developments in the international discourse described in chapter 2. In this context, readers may understand the decisions about built and locational integrity and community-led arguments for significance. The fourth chapter introduces the conceptual tools utilized in the case study. Foodways and foodsheds are terms that will direct the subsequent analysis of municipal and federal intangible heritage conservation projects. The chapter traces the history of Foodways as a concept used by folklorists to study food practices and their social meanings for practitioners. Foodshed is a less well-known term with roots in city planning and agricultural activism; it came to my attention through its use in the Management Plan for the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area to describe food production systems at a regional scale. The chapter traces three significant applications of the term: from its creation as a useful metaphor for urban planners in the early twentieth century, to its use by agricultural activists in the 1990s, and finally, to its reintroduction through a 2011 academic planning article by Nevin Cohen. The concepts of foodways and the foodshed allow the intangible heritage conservation practices at the municipal 5 and federal levels to be analyzed holistically, with individual aspects rooted in specific places, dependent on social conditions, and created from the flows of ingredients. Chapter five describes how the three case studies were selected and what questions will be asked of each. The chapter begins with a restatement of some of the key concepts presented in the previous section and shows how the two case studies were selected. In the case of San Francisco, the city's intangible heritage conservation efforts stand apart from every other city because of the variety of tools they use. The chapter presents two types of NHAs to explain how the selected case studies are the best example of each and ends with a statement of the questions asked for the case studies. Chapters six, seven, and eight present the case studies, describing essential information from the available documentation and examples of nominations and projects. Data presented in the case studies were also developed from interviews conducted with persons associated with the development and administration of the NHAs and the non-profit partnerships associated with the NHAs. Because of the non-regulatory nature of these new NPS initiatives, they are only as effective as their partnerships within the communities they serve. Like the federal initiatives, the municipalities rely much more on incentives to promote the continuance of cultural heritage rather than regulations. Thus, each case study will explore partnerships with relevant non-profits and businesses associated with conserving their foodways and foodsheds. Finally, case studies of the federal initiatives will also explore the material concerns facing the places where they operate. Chapters nine and ten draw conclusions from the case studies and make recommendations for applying those conclusions to further research. The findings use the questions stated in the methodology to identify commonalities and differences across the case studies. The recommendations describe possibilities for how municipal initiatives that take a foodshed-scale approach to the continuance of foodways could be influenced by the federal and non-profit approaches to intangible heritage conservation. Finally, the recommendations include a section for non-profits to best use federal and municipal intangible heritage conservation initiatives. 6 2.0 BACKGROUND: INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, AND LOCAL INTANGIBLE HERITAGE PROTECTIONS To understand how approaches to heritage protection have evolved in the United States, this chapter examines changes to what the US federal government and UNESCO/ICOMOS define as heritage. US Federal policies often serve as models for state and municipal preservation strategies and international preservation programs, like the 1972 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Yet recently, the heritage discourse at the international level has developed to the point where it has begun influencing the development of municipal policies across the United States. To understand how international and federal approaches to preservation shape municipal preservation efforts, this chapter includes discussions of authenticity metrics, developments in the conservation of intangible cultural heritage resources, the evolution of landscape conservation practices, and the importance of the continued use of heritage sites. 2.1 Structural Policy In the United States, many heritage preservation efforts at the local, state, and federal levels are coordinated along guidelines established through the Federal Preservation Program, a partnership between the National Park Service (NPS), State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO), and Certified Local Governments (CLG). The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) establishes the guidelines for the interaction between the entities in the Federal Preservation Program and the definitions of each of its constituent partner organizations.1 While being listed on the National Register does not provide protections to a nominated resource, municipalities and CLGs can offer protections through laws, zoning, and review boards. SHPOs and THPOs often work with municipalities and CLGs to designate resources and work to develop appropriate protection strategies. Local 1 National Historic Preservation Act, Public Law 89-665, 1966, as amended by Public Law 96-515, 2016, Title 54 US Code, § 3023-3025. 7 governments can become a CLG if they meet the criteria outlined in the NHPA.2 Requirements for certification of a local government include the enforcement of state and local laws for the protection of historic resources, the establishment of a review commission for potential resources, maintenance of an inventory of resources which have may have criteria that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; and encouragement for the public participation in the National Register nomination process.3 Benefits for CLGs include annual appropriations from the Federal Historic Preservation Fund, with their properties nominated to the National Register of Historic Places becoming potentially eligible for tax incentives and grants made available by state and local governments. States are required to give at least 10% of their federal preservation funding to CLGs as subgrants to fund projects including surveys, National Register nominations, rehabilitation work, design guidelines, educational programs, training, structural assessments, and feasibility studies.4 Because of the certification of local governments, the National Register guidelines for nominations of historic resources and their metrics for determining significance have become the model for municipal preservation programs. The NHPA defines historic properties as "…any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains relating to the district, site, building, structure, or object."5 These categories of historic resources do not include the intangible cultural heritage practices and traditions that give meaning to the eligible resources. Yet, recent developments in municipal, federal, and international preservation methods offer possibilities for protecting intangible cultural heritage practices like foodways. 2 National Historic Preservation Act, § 302502. 3 National Historic Preservation Act, § 302503. 4 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2021, “Certified Local Government Program,” accessed March 10, 2022. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservationfund/certified-local-government- program.htm 5 National Historic Preservation Act, § 300308. 8 2.2 Shifting Attitudes on Integrity and Authenticity A nomination to the National Register is based on a demonstrated association of the nominated site with historical events, people, artistic values, or have value as an archaeological site.6 Resources are typically beyond a 50-year-old threshold for significance, although "Criteria Consideration G" can be invoked for properties with exceptional importance that have achieved significance in the last 50 years. In addition to significance and age, a nominated resource must retain integrity of significance. The seven aspects used when assessing a nomination’s integrity are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Properties that may be considered for nomination typically display a combination of the aspects.7 Integrity standards serve as a measuring stick for the maintenance of architectural heritage with established significance. However, the same integrity metrics may not apply so readily to resources representative of heritage that have been overlooked by, or intentionally hidden from the larger community. When writing the LGBTQ Historic Context Statement for San Francisco, Donna Graves and Shayne Watson worked with locations that could not be held to the same high integrity thresholds as more traditional city landmarks.8 As spaces significant to a violently marginalized community, their users & occupants intentionally hid many of these places' uses. Thus, they often lacked a clear connection between a building’s appearance and its relevance to the LGBTQ history. Reflecting on Graves and Watson's work, Gail Dubrow writes that many of San Francisco's nominated landmarks represent the communities that are able to tell their stories through buildings with high degrees of built integrity. As a result, many landmarks and districts reflecting the straight white male identity and heritage.9 6 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1990, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Washington DC, 2. 7 US Dept Interior, Bulletin 15, 44. 8 Donna Graves and Shayne E Watson, LGBTQ Historic Context Statement (San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco, 2015), 349. 9 Donna Graves, James Michael Buckley, and Gail Dubrow, “Emerging Strategies for Sustaining San Francisco’s Diverse Heritage,” Change Over Time 8, no. 2 (2018): 167. 9 Integrity also poses a challenge for the nomination of resources in which a widely recognized association exists with an important person or a trend in history, yet the resource itself may have lost integrity that ties it to a period of significance. Historian Ray Rast notes how the use of integrity by National Register of Historic Places nomination system is premised on the suggestion that buildings should be able to convey their significance to present-day visitors without interpretation.10 Rast suggests that the review process for National Register nominations often gives more weight to physical metrics of integrity like location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. Properties that were treated like antiques are more likely to be nominated than historic resources in traditionally marginalized communities. Rast honed this point in a passage from a 2012 white paper: The NPS should acknowledge that current integrity standards favor property owners who, in most cases, already have had access to the resources necessary to preserve the integrity of their properties for fifty years or more—and that those integrity standards often foreclose the possibility of assistance for those who might have needed to modify their properties in order to save them from demolition.11 The United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has faced similar challenges evaluating heritage sites. In 1972, the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (commonly known as the Venice Charter) was formalized as a voluntary international agreement, the World Heritage Convention (WHC). The charter established the World Heritage List, a register of internationally significant sites of outstanding universal value to be administered by the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).12 While the language of the 1972 WHC Operational Guidelines has been revised over 15 times in the past 50 years—until 2005, the guidelines still required that sites 10 Raymond Rast, “Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Notes on Integrity,” prepared for the National Park System Advisory Board (Washington DC: Department of the Interior, 2012): 20. 11 Rast, “Beyond Bricks and Mortar,” 23. 12 UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention (Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: 2021), 2. 10 inscribed on the World Heritage List fulfill the four criteria of authenticity of design, materials, workmanship, and setting.13 In the early 1990s, discussions over authenticity metrics began to surface surrounding the Japanese practice of rebuilding Shinto and Buddhist shrines. The Ise Grand Shrine was due for its periodic reconstruction in keeping with tradition.14 Yet because Japanese preservation law used the metrics of authenticity in the WHC, this most important site was ineligible for nomination as a World Heritage Site, as the rebuilding of the shrine represented a contradiction to the language of the WHC guidelines. The 1993 'Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites' stressed the need for minimum intervention, "avoiding replacement of even the oldest structures, so far as these form the historical continuity of the area" and that replacing materials should only be done in areas vital to the structure.15 To address the controversy at the Ise Shrine and many similar situations worldwide, ICOMOS convened their 1994 meeting in Nara, Japan. The conference served as a platform to discuss many new approaches for creating more sensitive and tailored approaches to preservation. In a paper presented at the Nara conference, ICOMOS Secretary-General Herb Stovel recalled Ernest Allen Connally's influence on the initial draft of the WHC Operational Guidelines. As the National Parks' Associate Director in charge of Archeology and Historic Preservation programs, appointed after the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Connally had an intimate knowledge of the recent developments in preservation practice of the US, becoming involved in the initial meetings of the Venice Charter. From his perspective in the NPS, Connally considered the use of integrity standards as an important way of measuring the significance of a site, yet the word 'integrity' was substituted for the word 'authenticity' at the 13 Sofia Labadi, “UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972),” in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. Claire Smith (New York: Springer, 2014), 7434. 14 Nouko Inaba, “Authenticity and Heritage Concepts Tangible and Intangible - Discussions in Japan,” in Conserving the Authentic: Essays in Honour of Jukka Jokilehto, ed. Nicolas Stanley-Price and Joseph King, 153–62 (Rome: ICCROM, 2009), 157. 15 Bernard M. Feilden and Jukka Jokilehto, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, (Rome: ICCROM, 1993), 69. 11 World Heritage Committee's first meeting because other members on the committee felt that integrity "might limit analysis to the concern for the original form or design."16 However, in the final language of the WHC Operational Guidelines, the four degrees of authenticity: design, materials, workmanship, and setting were adapted directly from the NHPA aspects of integrity. In the conclusions of his paper, Stovel took a broader view of the issue of authenticity, developing an idea of composite authenticity—in which the authenticity of a place may not be a property of its materials. Because the language of the 1972 guidelines also did not strictly limit the measures of authenticity to the four criteria, Stovel suggested that there could be many metrics of authenticity, and these metrics should be dependent on the context. For example, when measuring authenticity of use, the metrics could be continuity of use, or congruence of use, depending on the site.17 According to Stovel, Broadening the number of questions asked about a heritage site and a rigorous method for tailoring the metrics to a site would aid in finding the most appropriate management. Following this conference, ICOMOS adopted the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity to adjust the language of the WHC to better reflect the evolving goals of international historic preservation. The revised metrics of authenticity went beyond design, materials, workmanship, and setting, including use and function, traditions and techniques, spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors.18 The document defines authenticity as a property that differs from culture to culture and thus should be accorded the specific nature of its heritage values and the credibility and truthfulness of related information sources (Articles 11 &12). For architectural conservationists, this new open definition meant that the authenticity of the traditional Japanese carpentry used to rebuild the shrines could contribute to the authenticity of these sites. 16 Herb Stovel, “Considerations in Framing the Authenticity Question for Conservation,” in Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: Proceedings, ed. Knut Einar Larsen, 393–98 (Trondheim: Tapir Publishers, 1995), 395. 17 Stovel, “Considerations in Framing” 398. 18 ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity, (Nara: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1994), 47. 12 2.3 An International Perspective on Intangible Cultural Heritage In 1994, the year of the ICOMOS Nara conference, UNESCO presented its 'Report of the Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and Thematic Studies for a Representative World Heritage List' to the 18th session of the World Heritage Committee in Phuket, Thailand.19 This report criticized the World Heritage List as lacking the representation of the 'universal values' it embraced. The report described the List as having a geographical bias towards Europe; a typological bias towards historic towns and religious buildings in preference to other forms of historic property; a religious bias in the overrepresentation of Christianity in relation to other religions; a chronological bias in the emphasis on historic periods over prehistory and the twentieth century; and a class bias towards 'elitist' forms of architecture in relation to vernacular forms. The report also noted significant gaps in the WHC's recognition of living cultures: Even traditional settlements were only included on the List in terms of their architectural value, taking no account of their many economic, social, symbolic, and philosophical dimensions or of their many continuing interactions with their natural environment in all its diversity. This impoverishment of the cultural expression of human societies was also due to an over-simplified division between cultural and natural properties which took no account of the fact that in most human societies the landscape, which was created or at all events inhabited by human beings, was representative and an expression of the lives of the people who live in it and so was in this sense equally culturally meaningful.20 In the wake of criticisms like those stated in the 1994 Report, UNESCO began a project expanding its definition of heritage. Author Rodney Harrison traces the expansion of UNESCO's definition of heritage from Bolivia's calls for the protection of aspects of folklore in 1973 to the 1989 adoption of the 'Recommendation of the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore', 19 UNESCO, (1994) “WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6,” Expert Meeting on the ‘Global Strategy’ and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List, Accessed March 30, 2022. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/global94.htm#debut 20 UNESCO, WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6. 13 to the adoption of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the formation of the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2008.21 In the same way that the Nara conference was spurred by the rebuilding of the Grand Ise Shrine, Harrison's timeline traces UNESCOs shifting attitudes toward intangible cultural heritage to a controversy over a specific place. The Jemaa el Fna is a large public square in the old city of Marrakech in Morocco. During the day, the square is host to herbalists, dentists, snake charmers, monkey trainers, musicians, magicians, and charm sellers. In the evenings, the square’s social atmosphere changes as it becomes the stage for Berber or Arabic halaiqui (story-tellers), dancers, and magicians.22 During the 1990s, the area immediately adjacent to the square was proposed as the site of a new glass tower with an underground parking lot. Author Juan Goytisolo believed the incompatible design and construction activities of the hotel would have posed an existential threat to all heritage activities in the square.23 Goytisolo wrote to Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO, to suggest that the square should be protected as site of oral heritage of humanity. At this same time, Goytisolo also formed a campaign to save Jemaa el Fna in the international press, and in June 1997, the UNESCO Cultural Heritage Division and Moroccan National Commission organized an international consultation on the preservation of popular cultural spaces in Marrakesh.24 Out of these meetings, the idea of the 'cultural space of transmission' was explored.25 Jemaa el Fna was later nominated as World Heritage Site in May 2001 by the First Proclamation of nineteen 'Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.' In October 2003, The UNESCO 21 Rodney Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches (New York: Taylor and Francis Books, 2003), 127. 22 Thomas M. Schmitt, “Jemaa el Fna Square in Marrakech: Changes to a Social Space and to a UNESCO Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity as a Result of Global Influences,” in Arab World Geographer, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2005): 182. 23 Schmitt, “Jemaa el Fna Square in Marrakech” 179. 24 Schmitt, “The UNESCO Concept of Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Its Background and Marrakchi Roots,” International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol . 14, No. 2 (2008): 98. 25 Harrison, Heritage, 134. 14 General Conference adopted the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,' defining intangible heritage as: The intangible cultural heritage means 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. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.26 As of the writing of this paper, UNESCO publishes intangible heritage nominations on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding and the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Together, the lists represent 629 nominations for intangible cultural heritage practices across 139 countries, including expressions such as oral traditions and expressions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge, languages, practices concerning nature and the universe, and traditional craftsmanship.27 UNESCO considers safeguarding intangible cultural heritage to be a flexible process that must avoid freezing or fixing the practices into a simplified form. To maintain relevance to its community, intangible cultural heritage must be continuously recreated and transmitted from one generation to another, and its evolution and interpretation are dependent on various intangible and tangible circumstances. However, the language of the ‘Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ emphasizes the safeguarding of transmission of knowledge, skills, and meaning of practices rather than the production of concrete manifestations such as 26 UNESCO, Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, (Paris: UNESCO, Living Heritage, Culture Sector, 2018), Article 2(1). 27 UNESCO, Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention, Article 2(2). 15 dances, songs, musical instruments, or crafts.28 In an article from 2000, Goytisolo reflects on this approach, as it related to the conservation of the transmission of the traditional knowledge of the halaiqui storytellers: “UNESCO cannot save the halaiquis alone, but it can help. We have recorded their voices and their tales are going to be published but even that is not enough. We must avoid turning something which is living into a museum piece but help to keep it alive.”29 Schmitt suggests that the Jemaa el Fna moved from an event of local to global importance because the site was a tourist destination with international significance where the storytelling practices of the halaiqui could stand in for many other forms of cultural heritage— that fell outside of the traditional UNESCO nomination guidelines.30 Equally crucial to the nomination of this site was the influence that Goytisolo had over the nomination as a direct acquaintance of the Director-General of UNESCO, the numerous precursor documents, the discussion within international preservation circles about the need for change at UNESCO, and the support from Moroccan authorities for the idea. Schmitt also points out that the halaiqui were not involved with discussions nor consulted regarding any of the decisions on the management of the Jemaa el Fna as a heritage site.31 In her book The Uses of Heritage Laurajane Smith describes the structures that would have justified the exclusion of the halaiqui from discussions about the management of the Jemaa el Fna as the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). To Smith, the ways we speak and write about heritage, the processes for its conservation, and the management of heritage sites constitute the roles of the specialist, the viewer, and the subject of preservation.32 The AHD distinguishes between those who have the authority to speak and make decisions regarding heritage and limit broader debate about, and any subsequent challenges to, established social and cultural values 28 UNESCO, Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention, Article 2(3). 29 Jasmine Sopova [citing Goytisolo], “Seven Writers in a World of Wonders,” The UNESCO Courier, Vol. 53, No. 12 (2000): 36. 30 Schmitt, “The UNESCO Concept of Safeguarding,” 108. 31 Schmitt, “The UNESCO Concept of Safeguarding,” 101. 32 Laurajane Smith, The Uses of Heritage (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2006), 11. 16 and meanings.33 Because the dominant tradition of heritage conservation often reinforces the sense of belonging to a community through values of a place's monumental, material, and symbolic aspects, heritage conservation professionals often ignore those perspectives rooted in sub-national cultural and social experiences.34 In an attempt to contest the AHD and create a framework for a more inclusive discourse, Smith proposes the idea that Heritage may not be a physical property of a place but constantly reconstructed through the practices of the people at a place. In her words, “[heritage] is a cultural process that engages with acts of remembering that work to create ways to understand and engage with the present, and the sites themselves are cultural tools that can facilitate, but are not necessarily vital for, this process."35 The relationship between heritage and place, according to Smith, is formed through the acts of meaning-making and remembering that occur at places and specific spaces. These activities include remembering, commemorating, communicating, and passing on knowledge and memories. As a practice, independent of a particular site, heritage creates the feelings, associations, social networks, and relations associated with cultural identity and a sense of belonging.36 Smith believes that because cultural identity is not fixed or represented through a site, heritage is continually recreated and negotiated by people, communities, and institutions as they consider the past and act upon the future. As an Australian scholar of society and place, Laurajane Smith's process involves interviewing people from the many user groups associated with a heritage site. At the Riversleigh World Heritage Site-Boodjamulla National Park, Smith interviewed women of the indigenous Waanyi community as part of the Waanyi Women's History Project, whose cultural heritage sites fell within the boundaries of the National Park. Smith's interviews were conducted 33 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 12. 34 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 30. 35 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 44. 36 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 83. 17 with a group of women flown into the National Park as part of a project to record women's heritage sites. Observing how the group elders would pass traditions to younger generations of women, Smith noted how activities like fishing and reciting oral histories were made more meaningful in this ancestral landscape, providing a mnemonic function as well as a sense of occasion for passing on and receiving cultural meaning. While the sites were intrinsically significant for the women, it was the use of the sites that made them heritage, not their mere existence.37 The Burra Charter was adopted in 1979 by Australia ICOMOS. Modeled on the Venice Charter and the WHC, the Burra Charter was intended for the preservation of archeological sites and the conservation of buildings, but was ill-suited as a model for conservation in the context of Australian cultural sites, with heritage significant to the marginalized aboriginal communities.38 Thus, amendments to the Burra Charter in 1999 and 2013 included intangible heritage values such as "use, association and meaning"; recommendations for inclusionary planning for the management of sites; and suggestions for the retention, modification, or reintroduction of significant use as a preferred method of heritage conservation. Cultural significance is defined in the current version of the Burra Charter as "… aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations […] embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups."39 Authors Cari Goetcheus and Nora Mitchell believe the Burra Charter changed how intangible heritage values could be identified and discussed—influencing the developing field of cultural landscape preservation. By including the language of place, the Burra Charter embraced 37 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 46. 38 Richard Mackay, “Values-Based Management and the Burra Charter: 1979, 1999, 2013,” in Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions, ed. Erica Avrami, et al, (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2019), Accessed Apr. 4, 2022, https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-two/8/. 39 Australia ICOMOS, Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (‘Burra Charter’), (Burwood, VIC: Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1979) Article 1.2. 18 the significant and diverse cultural meaning in the landscapes of Australia, in addition to its framework for the conservation of architectural, material, and monumental resources. Goetcheus and Mitchell write about how this evolution of Australia's definition of cultural significance likely influenced ICOMOS to adopt the 1982 resolution of Historic Gardens (known as the Florence Charter) as an addendum to the Venice Charter.40 The Florence Charter describes historic gardens and parks as "living monuments," given the architectural intention of the horticultural composition.41 Ten years later, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention were revised to make explicit the cultural value that was being imparted onto living material as "illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of their natural environment and successive social, economic, and cultural forces."42 The influence of the Burra Charter on the development of UNESCO's approach to cultural landscapes and indigenous interpretations of significance was also reflected in 1994, when Australian site of Uluru-Kata Tjuta became the second cultural landscape included on the World Heritage List. The field of cultural landscape preservation would become a testing ground for the evolving attitudes toward the issues of integrity, intangible heritage, and cultural use. This shift was made clear in the discussions from the 1996 Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage of the Americas (San Antonio Declaration): Dynamic cultural sites, such as historic cities and cultural landscapes, may be considered to be the product of many authors over a long period of time whose process of creation often continues today. This constant adaptation to human need 40 Cari Goetcheus and Nora Mitchell, “The Venice Charter and Cultural Landscapes: Evolution of Heritage Concepts and Conservation Over Time,” Change Over Time, Volume 4, Number 2 (2014), 346. 41 ICOMOS, Historic Gardens (The Florence Charter) (Florence: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1982), Accessed Apr. 5, 2022, www.international.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.pdf. 42 UNESCO, (1992) “WHC-92/CONF.002/10/Add Item 14” Provisional Agenda: Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Accessed April 5, 2022, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1992/whc-92-conf002-10adde.pdf. 19 can actively contribute to maintaining the continuum among the past, present, and future life of our communities. Through them, our traditions are maintained as they evolve to respond to the needs of society. 43 2.4 Landscape and Cultural Heritage in the United States In 1925, Geographer Carl O. Sauer wrote the influential article, “The Morphology of Landscape”, articulating the concept that "culture is the agent, the natural area the medium, the cultural landscape the result."44 Sauer's article was foundational to the development of the field of Human Geography, and his ideas influenced a shift in preservation practices when they resurfaced in J.B. Jackson's books in the 1970s. While Saur's paper described cultural landscapes as natural landscapes transformed by the "mind of man," Jackson's work, in turn, explored how cultural landscapes shape our social reality. His conceptualization of the cultural landscape of the United States adopted Sauer's geographic scale of the cultural landscape, drawing conclusions about the social and material implications of the Jeffersonian Grid and the application of the Township and Range system.45 For Jackson, the dwelling was a microcosm of the cultural landscape of the United States, shaped by its political and property boundaries, transportation networks, and sensual perceptions. Like Jackson, Robert Melnick believes that cultural landscapes exist at the geographic scale of the land use patterns of homesteading farmers or the land use polices that proscribe human use of wilderness areas. Melnick also believes cultural landscapes exist at the intimate scale of the photographs, postcards, and books that we use to preserve our memories.46 This 43 ICOMOS, “Section B.5. Authenticity in Dynamic and Static Sites” in Proceedings of the Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage of the Americas, eds. Gustavo Araoz, Margaret MacLean, and Lara Day Kozak, (Washington, D.C.: US/ICOMOS, 1999), xii. 44 Carl O. Sauer “Morphology of Landscape” in University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1925) 46. 45 John Brinckerhoff Jackson, “By way of Conclusion, How to Study the Landscape” in The Necessity for Ruins and Other Topics (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), 116. 46 Robert Z. Melnick and Arnold R. Alanen, “Introduction,” in Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, ed. Melnick and Alanen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000): 2 20 conception of a cultural landscape addresses a broader scope than the gardens and parks of the Florence Charter. Together with co-authors Daniel Sponn and Emma Jane Saxe, Melnick authored Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System in 1984. This report was fundamental to formalizing a rigorous study of Cultural Landscapes, which the NPS had recently recognized as a specific resource type in 1981. The report suggested that cultural landscapes derived their meaning from particular historic periods, but their alterations or additions could achieve significance independent of the historic period. Documentation of changes in land use presented one way of interpreting multiple areas of significance in a Cultural Landscape: Recognizing that places may represent more than one historical period is vital to understanding rural landscapes and to any discussion of the significance and integrity of a rural historic district. The continuum of land-use and landscape modification will, by definition, reflect changes in human beliefs, available technologies, and forces external to the cultural group(s) primarily responsible for the landscape. 47 One of the first designated cultural landscapes of the United States was Ebey's Landing, on Whidbey Island, in northern Washington state. The island features a landscape of farms and pastures with expansive views and coast lines. As a working rural landscape, Ebey's Landing became the first attempt at a nomination by the National Parks with a majority of lands under private ownership. Because of the scale of the cultural landscape and this new form of NPS management, it was impossible for NPS staff to survey some areas thoroughly. Implementing processes outlined in the Cultural Landscapes report, the 1983 survey of the island used infrared satellite photography, available through the Landsat program, to distinguish between vegetation and man-made features like houses and roads. 48 These images were compared to maps produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), field notes, and drawings to discern geographic 47 Robert Z. Melnick, Daniel Sponn, and Emma Jane Saxe, Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, 1984): 2. 48 Melnick, et al, Cultural Landscapes. 19. 21 scale cultural landscape components such as the overall patterns of the spatial organization, the land-use patterns and activities, circulation networks, and cluster arrangements of buildings.49 To determine changes that had taken place in the 22 years since the nomination, a 2000 analysis of the Historical Preserve studied changes in roads, land use, vegetation, boundaries, and cluster arrangements of buildings. The study compared the aerial infrared photographs from a 1983 survey to aerial photographs from 1999.50 The results were compared with documentation from the 40 years prior to the nomination to determine the state of integrity of the cultural landscape on Whitby Island. Documentation of the island included field-collected data from the 1983 survey, Government Land Office maps, a 1936 USGS topographic map, and a 1941 aerial photograph.51 The study determined that while the Historical Preserve had maintained adequate levels of integrity, pressure to use the land for single-family housing was a driving force in the changes to the cultural landscape use patterns.52 In an article reflecting on the Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, Nancy Rottle describes the challenges of preserving in the context of the island's continued and threatened agricultural practices: "The paradox of preserving the historical integrity of agricultural landscapes is that in order to preserve the character of a historic period, the landscape must in most cases continue to evolve in agricultural use."53 Her study concluded, that for farms to survive, their size, operations, crops, and the necessary physical structures and land patterns might need to change. To promote active husbandry of the "cultural markers of the landscape," Rottle suggested that the continuance of the historic agriculture pattern should take precedence 49 Nancy D. Rottle and Jones & Jones, “An Analysis of Land Use Change and Cultural Landscape Integrity for Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve,” in Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II, Technical Supplement, [Ebey’s Landing Management Plan] (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2005): 8. 50 Rottle and Jones & Jones, “An Analysis of Land Use Change,” 7. 51 Rottle and Jones & Jones, “An Analysis of Land Use Change,” 8. 52 Rottle and Jones & Jones, “An Analysis of Land Use Change,” 15. 53 Nancy D. Rottle, “Rural Historic Landscape Preservation,” in Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, ed. Richard Longstreth, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008): 138. 22 over the maintenance of specific scenes. While physical components of the historical cultural landscape like hedgerows, barns, sheds, fences were paramount to the conservation of Ebey's Landing, Rottle argued the Reserve's management plan should allow for updates like the insertion of new agricultural elements or crops if they respond to contemporary farming exigencies.54 In 1992, Section 101(d)(6) was added to the NHPA, stating that Native American sacred sites are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.55 The amendment extended federal recognition to "secular" sites located off-reservation lands; previously, protections were strictly limited to "sacred sites" under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.56 In Preservation Brief 36, Charles Birnbaum defines five types of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes.57 Yet, Birnbaum's definition of a cultural landscape as a bounded geographic area was limiting for the diversity of Native American heritage types.58 Thomas King describes how boundaries for culturally significant sites are flexible and dependent on the significance of the site, as defined by the tribal members.59 Furthermore, King thinks that strict adherence to boundaries is a feature emphasized through functions specific to Section 106 of the NHPA and may not always be relevant when trying to interpret multiple cultural meanings in a place: “The basic question to ask about boundaries is, Do we need to define them in order to consider impacts? If we don’t, 54 Rottle, “Rural Historic Landscape Preservation,” 142. 55 Donald Hardesty, “Ethnographic Landscapes,” in Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, ed. Melnick and Alanen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000): 182; National Historic Preservation Act, § 302706. 56 Lynn Sebastian, “Protecting Traditional Properties through the Section 106 Process,” Cultural Resources Management Bulletin 16 (Special Issue), Vol. 16 (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1993): 23. 57 Charles A. Birnbaum, Preservation Brief 36. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes, (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1994): 1. 58 Robert Z. Melnick and Arnold R. Alanen, “Notes to Pages 7-24,” in Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America, ed. Melnick and Alanen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000): 210. 59 Thomas F. King, Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management, (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2003):174. 23 there’s no earthly reason to get involved with the complex, usually arbitrary, exercise of defining them.”60 In an attempt to address the differing preservation needs of Native American heritage resources, traditional cultural properties were adopted as a resource that could be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Published in 1992, National Register Bulletin 38 defines a traditional cultural property (TCP) as a historic property whose significance derives from "the role that the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices." The Bulletin goes on to say that TCPs are eligible for the National Register because of their "association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community."61 Because the TCP is intended to protect a historic resource and continue the cultural practice or belief associated with that resource, a nomination review weighs the integrity of relationships and conditions of those practices and beliefs over the traditional National Register integrity standards.62 However, the Bulletin cannot be invoked to nominate intangible heritage practices independent of the tangible heritage resources like the buildings, structures, sites, and landscapes that the National Register was written to highlight.63 Instead, the Bulletin encourages its users to evaluate the intangible heritage together with their tangible historic resources. In a 2015 report, ahead of a proposed off-shore wind project, representatives from the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) of the Makah Tribe of Washington, The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community in Oregon, and the Yurok Tribe of California, worked together with a team from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's 60 Thomas F. King, Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management, (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2003):174. 61 Patricia L. Parker and Thomas King, National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992): 1. 62 Parker and King, Bulletin 38, 10. 63 Parker and King, Bulletin 38, 3. 24 (BOEM) Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Regional Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Protected Areas Center, and NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries proposed an alternative means of nominating sites of cultural importance. The working group proposed the concept of a tribal cultural landscape (TCL) as a method for federal agencies to consult with tribes more effectively. The report defined a TCL as "(a)ny place in which a relationship, past or present, exists between a spatial area, resource, and an associated group of indigenous people whose cultural practices, beliefs, or identity connects them to that place. A tribal cultural landscape is determined by and known to a culturally related group of indigenous people with relationships to that place." 64 In contrast to a TCP, whose evaluation is dependent on the discretion of the nomination evaluator, a TCL is defined as significant by the indigenous communities themselves.65 Whereas the language in Bulletin 38 encourages "users to address the intangible cultural values that may make a property historic, and to do so in an evenhanded way that reflects solid research and not ethnocentric bias," the BOEM report suggests that the traditional knowledge supporting the significance of a nomination should be privileged or otherwise controlled by cultural constraints within a tribe.66 These new ways of thinking about traditional cultural knowledge are reflected in the language of preservation. Some federal agencies began adopting the term traditional cultural place rather than traditional cultural property.67 Like the Burra Charter, nearly 40 years prior, the adoption of the word place connoted a shift toward the recognition of the multiple cultural meanings in the landscape. For the authors of the BOEM reports, property connotes one of the five categories that must be used for NRHP nominations – buildings, structures, sites, districts, 64 David Ball, et al, “OCS Study BOEM 2015-047,” A Guidance Document for Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, (Camarillo, CA: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region, 2015): 5. 65 Ball, et al, “OCS Study BOEM 2015-047,” 6. 66 Parker and King, Bulletin 38, 3; Ball, et al, “OCS Study BOEM 2015-047,” 8. 67 Gary Stumpf, “Traditional Cultural Places and Indian Sacred Sites,” Fundamentals for Managing the Cultural Heritage Program, (Washington D.C.: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2012); Gould, Rae. “Information Paper on Cultural Landscapes: Understanding and Interpreting Indigenous Places and Landscapes.” (Washington D.C., Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2016). 25 and objects – while place is less restrictive and may be more suitable to indigenous communities.68 Notwithstanding the criticisms of the TCP model, as it relates to landscape-based tribal cultural heritage, some recent developments in the use of TCP demonstrate the possibilities of the model for nominating places with strong intangible heritage components but little built integrity. Bulletin 38 states that even though it was written to give special emphasis to Native American properties, traditional cultural properties can be nominated by people of any ethnic origin.69 Folklorist Laurie Sommers writes about some of the earlier examples of the non-Native American TCP nominations in a 2019 article. The earliest cited example in Sommers' article is the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto in Staten Island, New York, an important Catholic Italian pilgrimage site with a continuous tradition of distinctive concrete and stone folk-art dating to 1937. 70 Folklorist Joseph Sciorra’s research inspired Kathy Howe's 2000 nomination of the Grotto, as a site of folk art and a place of multiple Italian immigrant cultures coming together in search of a viable spirituality rooted in the matrix of community life and reform of authoritarian orthodoxy discourse. 71 The TCP nomination became a way to list the Grotto in the National Register and apply for the tax incentives associated with listing without triggering New York landmark status limitations on new construction. In 2021, Laurie Sommers nominated the Fishtown Historic District as a Traditional Cultural Property. At the confluence of the Leland River with Lake Michigan, the district is interpreted as a cultural landscape that evolved through use by individuals involved with the commercial fishery and the Manitou ferry. Although the town is modest and its historic wooden 68 David Ball, et al, “OCS Study BOEM 2017-001,” Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes - Volume I: Project Framework, (Camarillo, CA: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region, 2017): 9. 69 Parker and King, Bulletin 38, 3. 70 Laurie Kay Sommers, “Folklore and Historic Preservation: Past, Present, and Future,” Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 132, No. 256 (2019): 359-389. 71 Joseph Sciorra, “Multivocality and Vernacular Architecture, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto in Rosebank, Staten Island,” in Studies in Italian-American Folklore, ed. Luisa Del Giudice, (Logan: Utah State University Press): 214. 26 structures have a high degree of integrity, Sommers argues that the adaptive reuses of the historic waterfront are distinguishing qualities of the district—as they maintain Fishtown's use as a working waterway and its ongoing traditional cultural practices related to the fishery.72 The multidisciplinary team developing for the nomination included a landscape architect, preservation architect, and Sommers—a folklorist. Using both Bulletin 38 and Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes as guides, the researchers treated the site holistically in terms of tradition, occupation, memory, and community. The nomination tracks the development of the waterfront community since 1900, using information from Sommers' previously published Historic Structures Report, and includes oral histories, scrapbooks, and historic photos from the Fishtown Preservation Society. TCP nominations that highlight culturally significant community use of a property can also be applied to urban places. The Casita Rincón Criollo in the South Bronx is not yet listed in the national register. Still, Molly Garfinkel of City Lore's Place Matters program considers the building and its landscape a site of continuing cultural heritage and a sense of community—thus a model TCP, under the definitions in Bulletin 38.73 During the 1980s, the East Harlem and the South Bronx neighborhoods of New York City were checkered with empty city-owned lots where multistory residential buildings had been demolished over the preceding 20 years. These lots became the sites of small wooden houses built by Puerto Rican neighbors called Casitas.74 Once constructed in Puerto Rico by highland peasants, coastal sugar workers, and urban shanty dwellers; today, the casitas are being replaced by reinforced concrete houses and high-rise apartment buildings. Casitas transposed the vernacular architectural forms associated with the working-class Caribbean aesthetic into the dense fabric of New York City. Often combined with 72 Laurie Kay Sommers, DRAFT National Register Nomination, “Fishtown Historic District Traditional Cultural Property,” Leelanau County, Michigan. (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2021) 7. 73 Molly Garfinkel, “Preserving a Hometown Corner for Posterity: Casita Rincón Criollo as a Traditional Cultural Property” CultureWork, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2014): 1. 74 Joseph Sciorra, “I Feel Like I’m in My Country: Puerto Rican Casitas in New York City,” The Drama Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1990): 156. 27 community gardens and a clean-swept yard (Batey,) these casitas mirror the idea of the rural experience in the urban setting. Expanding on the research of Joseph Sciorra, Garfinkel writes, "…the spatial organization of the house and site are integrated such that together they function as a social club, cultural center, and extended living room for local Puerto Rican residents."75 Built in the late 1970s on a city-owned site in the Melrose neighborhood in the South Bronx, Rincón Criollo (Hometown Corner) was one of the city's oldest, longest-surviving, and largest casitas in New York. The casita was subsequently demolished in 2007 after the City's Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD) put many of the city's gardens on the auction block. However, Rincón Criollo was reconstructed down the block on another city- owned property at 157 Street and Brook Avenue, where it lives today.76 City Lore's Urban Folklore and Place Matters initiatives collaborate with the casita's community to conduct ethnographic research and collect testimonials supporting the TCP. This interest from the community in participating in the TCP process was cultivated by Ethnomusicologist Dr. Roberta Singer who highlights the bomba and plena (traditional Afro-Puerto Rican musical genres) performed regularly at the Rincón Criollo.77 Although the building has been reconstructed and is less than 50 years old, the nomination uses Bulletin 38 to establish the casita as a place that is "important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community."78 75 Garfinkel, “Preserving a Hometown Corner,”4. 76 Garfinkel, “Preserving a Hometown Corner,”4. 77 Garfinkel, “Preserving a Hometown Corner,”5. 78 Parker and King, Bulletin 38, 1. 28 2.5 Key Points This chapter has focused on three discussions: the integrity and authenticity standards in the United States and internationally; the development of policies that acknowledge the importance of intangible heritage in UNESCO and Australia; and changes to the preservation of landscapes and traditional cultural places of the United States. Key points across the discussion include: 1. The federal preservation legislation of the United States often guides the strategies and structure of local governments' preservation ordinances. 2. Integrity standards of the National Register nomination process can pose a significant barrier to the nomination of sites significant to traditionally marginalized communities. 3. Conservation of intangible cultural heritage can deepen the understanding of place and offer a way for people to control interpretations of their sites. 4. Cultural landscape concepts can highlight how intangible cultural heritage has a relationship to tangible elements of a place. 5. Traditional Cultural Properties nominations can establish use as a way to convey significance of intangible cultural heritage practices, with a balanced application of integrity standards. 29 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, AND MUNICIPAL INTANGIBLE HERITAGE PRESERVATION EFFORTS This Literature Review will explore National Heritage Areas, the UNESCO Creative Cities Program, and municipal preservation strategies as they relate to intangible heritage protections. The previous chapter established the relationship between intangible heritage developments in the US and abroad through UNESCO/ICOMOS relate to the developments of landscape preservation techniques. This chapter will review policy to establish the necessary context to understand the selection process for the case studies in chapters 6–8. National Heritage Areas present an example of a contemporary public strategy for conservation of both tangible and intangible heritage at a landscape scale, covering both urban and rural areas. This chapter also introduces concepts of municipal intangible heritage conservations loosely inspired by international developments on the subject, like UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Burra Charter. Figure 2: Map of National Heritage Areas Map by Author 30 3.1 National Heritage Areas National Heritage Areas (NHA) are places designated by Congress where the natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources are considered uniquely representative of the national experience.1 This landscape-scale approach to federal heritage conservation efforts began in 1984 with the establishment of the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor.2 Rather than having a large area of land under the management sole management of the NPS, these Heritage Areas are non-regulatory, with few guidelines for their implementation or management, and are often jointly managed between multiple political jurisdictions, non-profits, and local communities. NHA management objectives include: • Building sustainable partnerships to increase local stewardship capacity of resources. • The conservation of natural, historic, and cultural resources. • Providing interpretive and educational programming around stories of national significance. • Developing recreational resources and heritage-based tourism. • Fostering community and economic development. As of early 2022, there are 55 NHAs in 34 states.3 NHAs vary considerably in their size, local community dynamics, heritage resources, and capacity for resource stewardship. NHAs also feature diverse land ownership patterns, including industrial sites, urban centers, and suburban and rural communities.4 Despite their differences, NHAs share the intention to 1 National Park System Advisory Board, Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas, (Washington, DC: National Park System Advisory Board, 2006): 3. 2 US Congress, House, Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1983, H.R.2014. 2nd sess. 3 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2021, “National Heritage Areas,” accessed April 10, 2022, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/. 4 Daniel Laven, Jennifer Jewiss, and Nora Mitchell, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development: A Theoretical Framework of United States National Heritage Areas,” Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 26, No. 7, (2013), 764. 31 integrate resource conservation goals (natural, cultural) with economic and community development objectives across multiple sites within their boundaries.5 Bigger than many national parks, NHAs are too large and complex to have integrity of place or time. Heritage areas recognize the significance of contemporary uses, thus the 50-year limit for significance of National Register nominations does not apply.6 National Heritage Area designation follows a legislative process: completion of a feasibility study, introduction of a bill in Congress, passage of the bill and law authorizing the creation of the National Heritage Area. Feasibility studies can be led by community groups, as a coordinating entity, or the NPS. However, the NPS only undertakes NHA feasibility studies when directed to do so by an Act of Congress.7 Often a coordinating entity is a non-profit organization solely dedicated to the formation and administration of the NHA. The National Park Service (NPS) recommends that a feasibility study (rather than an application or nomination) is undertaken to assess 10 NHA evaluation criteria. These evaluation criteria generally relate to the following questions: • Does the landscape have an assemblage of historic, cultural, and natural resources that, when linked together, tell a nationally important story? • Do outstanding opportunities exist for improving the quality of the resource assemblage through conservation, recreation, and education? • Are there ongoing traditions, customs, and lifeways associated with a nationally important story? • Does an organization exist that has the financial and organizational capacity to coordinate heritage area activities? 5 National Park System Advisory Board, Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas, 6. 6 Brenda Barrett “The National Register and Heritage Areas” CRM, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2002,): 8. 7 NPS, “National Heritage Areas.” 32 • Is there public support for NHA designation and the proposed coordinating entity, and are potential partners interested in working with the proposed coordinating entity on heritage area activities?8 The feasibility study provides the NPS and Congress with information regarding the appropriateness of designating a particular region as a NHA and entering into a funding and technical assistance relationship with its coordinating entity. When the NHA is designated by Congress, the coordinating entity then creates a management plan for the NHA within three years following the designation. Management plans include long-range policies, goals, strategies, and actions; an implementation plan with short, mid and long-range actions and performance goals. 9 Some also include business plans for the heritage area coordinating entity and interpretive plans for the NHAs. Finally, about 10–15 years following the designation, NHAs undergo an evaluation of the fulfillment of the designating legislation and implementation of their management plan. In a 2012 study, researchers Jennifer Jewiss and Nora Mitchell of the University of Vermont joined Swedish tourism researcher Daniel Laven of Gothenburg to explore the collaborative management frameworks across three national heritage areas.10 This research was in support of the suggestions raised in the 2006 report from the National Park System Advisory Board recommending research to ‘‘better understand the process of collaborative conservation’’ and to better ‘‘evaluate the outcomes’’ of NHA activity at the landscape scale.11 The researchers identified common NHA characteristics using information provided from interviews with 90 participants from three NHAs. Conclusions from the three case studies described key "ingredients" for the NHAs and use this research to provide a methodology for 8 NPS, “National Heritage Areas.” 9 NPS, “National Heritage Areas.” 10 Laven, et al, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development,” 764. 11 National Park System Advisory Board, Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas, 21. 33 synthesizing knowledge from similar efforts.12 The model developed from the interview data was named the Heritage Stewardship and Development Cycle and describes four components: core ingredients, guiding strategies, implementation activities, and National Heritage Area Accomplishments. The researchers studies the four components to reach in-depth conclusions about the experience of workers in each NHA.13 Of particular relevance to this thesis, is the insight about implementation activities. The study notes how participants frequently commented on the cross departmental nature of the NHA projects: Project participants also identified the importance of implementing projects that cut across multiple sectors, such as river restoration, recreational trail development, and historic building rehabilitation. Such cross-cutting projects require NHAs to connect actors in new and different ways, and often generate a sense of excitement while revealing unanticipated synergies.14 Study participants also emphasized the role an NHA can provide for interpretation strategies. The feasibility studies and management plans for the NHAs provide a synthesis of many fields with representatives undertaking research in the area. Using resulting documentation, NHA coordination entities can offer a regional perspective to discrete sites— building upon a notion of heritage as an organizing concept for engaging new actors in the landscape-scale stewardship. Designated by Congress in 1994, the Cane River National Heritage Area is one of the three NHAs featured in the 2012 study. The NHA includes the city of Natchitoches and a 37- mile-long oxbow lake in northwestern Louisiana, which was once the main channel of the Red River.15 Established in 1714, Natchitoches is the oldest permanent colonial settlement in what 12 Laven, et al, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development,” 763. 13 Laven, et al, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development,” 766. 14 Laven, et al, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development,” 772. 15 Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, et al, Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes, (Woodstock, VT: National Park Service Conservation Study Institute, 2008): 9. 34 became the Louisiana Purchase and is a place where Cane River Creole culture developed from interactions among people of French, Spanish, Native American, and African descent.16 The NHA helped link the array of natural, cultural, and historic resources with a compelling story that encompasses the region’s different cultures and it does so in such a way that can bring emphasis and context to sites that had been overlooked. One participant in the study stated: “[the Cane River NHA has] been able to focus on some things that allowed us to then focus on them, too, so that they’ve given us some leadership and pointed us in some directions that were easy for all of us to work on and acceptable to all sides comfortably.”17 The participant was speaking about the Texas and Pacific Railway Depot, a passenger and freight facility built in 1927, perhaps the heritage area’s most complex project, serving the management plan’s objectives for resource preservation, interpretation and education, transportation, and visitor services. The depot was significant as a departure point for African American families headed north in the Great Migration, and because it had not functioned as a passenger station since the 1960s, it was one of the few buildings in Natchitoches where the ‘Jim Crow’ policy of racial segregation was still apparent in its architectural design.18 Since 2000, the NHA management entity has worked with the City of Natchitoches and the Ben D. Johnson Educational Foundation to write grants, submit requests for funds, and engage the surrounding community for the restoration of the depot as a primary location for the interpretation of the African American experience in Natchitoches.19 3.2 Municipal Preservation Programs In 1980, amendments to the 1966 NHPA decentralized responsibility for preservation of historic properties including National Register nominations, environmental reviews, and funding 16 Tuxill, et al, Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area, 10. 17 Daniel Laven, Evaluating National Heritage Areas: Theory, Methods, and Application, Doctoral dissertation (Burlington: University of Vermont, 2006): 107. 18 Tuxill, et al, Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area, 26. 19 Tuxill, et al, Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area, 27. 35 decisions away from the federal government onto state and local governments.20 While states are still required to have preservation plans that meet the Secretary of Interior’s “Preservation Planning Standards,” these plans must meet the local preservation needs while limited to resources of the states provided by federal requirements.21 Thompson Mayes writes that at the local level the preservation of historic buildings today is virtually impossible unless preservation ordinances are closely coordinated with local planning activities.22 In many cities this coordination between preservation interests and city government has resulted in demolition review of historic resources, zoning overlays for historic districts with design review of construction, or demolition by neglect provisions to oblige the maintenance of properties—with the threat of liens to pay for maintenance provided by the city. Mayes also notes, these are all politically difficult and often unpopular measures, as they require a partial abrogation of owners’ property rights.23 Some zoning ordinances can provide for the continuance of intangible cultural heritage practices, by creating accommodation for the traditional lifeways of the citizens. The Beaufort County Cultural Protection Overlay District and “Family Compound” standards on St. Helena Island, South Carolina, are intended to stabilize the depopulation of the island’s traditional Gullah Geechee communities. These ordinances allow for density bonuses on properties with multiple families in separate structures and provisions for subdivision to mitigate the wholesale of Gullah Geechee land in heir's property disputes.24 20 Lina Cofresi and Rosetta Radtke, “Local Government Programs: Preservation Where it Counts,” in A Richer Heritage, ed. Robert Stipe (Chapel Gill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003): 127. 21 Elizabeth A. Lyon and David L. S. Brook, “The States: The Backbone of Preservation,” in A Richer Heritage, ed. Robert Stipe (Chapel Gill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003): 99. 22 Thompson Mayes, “Preservation Law and Public Policy: Balancing Priorities and Building an Ethic,” in A Richer Heritage, ed. Robert Stipe (Chapel Gill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003): 168. 23 Mayes, “Preservation Law and Public Policy,” 172. 24 Beaufort County, South Carolina, Community Development Code: Art.2.7,Div.2.7.40: “Family Compound Standards,” Beaufort Community Council, 2021. 36 In San Francisco, the Special Use Districts (SUD) are designed as a zoning overlay to promote specific uses. These areas are intended to encourage one or more specific purposes, such expanding residential development, preserving historical buildings, or protecting neighborhood context.25 For example, in the Calle 24 Latino Cultural Corridor SUD cultural relevance is regulated through contextual architectural design, storefront size, signage, streetscape enhancements, artwork, and other elements of the built environment.26 The economic character and opportunities for local residents of the area is protected through partnerships amongst existing and new local businesses, institutions, vendors, and micro entrepreneurs.27 The Japantown SUD, promotes representational expressions of Japanese architectural design and aesthetic for commercial, cultural, and institutional uses.28 The zoning language of Japantown SUD also positions the heritage in a different way than the Calle 24 Latino Cultural Corridor SUD. Instead of orienting the preservation of heritage strictly in service of reinforcing a cultural identity and producing economic opportunities for the residents, the Japantown SUD aims to revitalize its commercial, recreational, cultural, and spiritual identity as a local, regional, statewide, national, and international resource.29 In 2016, the City of New Orleans set out to stem the loss of music venues, or the displacement of musicians and culture bearers, adopting a set of goals for the conservation of its intangible cultural heritage. While these have not yet been incorporated into the city’s 25 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec.235: “Special Use Districts,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 26 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.59(b)(1): “Calle 24 Special Use District,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 27 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.59(b)(5): “Calle 24 Special Use District,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 28 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.31(a)(4): “Japantown Special Use District,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 29 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.31(a)(1): “Japantown Special Use District,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 37 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), they are currently influencing the development of zoning ordinances. Their goals are to: 1. Undertake a comprehensive survey of existing musically, historically, and spiritually important cultural sites should be completed, and sites should become eligible for protection. 2. Allow historic music venues to be reestablished at sites where such former use is identified. 3. To create a grant program for sound proofing businesses, similar to a façade grant program, should be developed and implemented, with an emphasis on music venues and barrooms. 4. To create a permitting process and fee structure for cultural businesses should be streamlined, and a user-friendly guide to the process created.30 In a 2016 article, Keir Reeves and Gertjan Plets describe how both intangible and tangible heritage is driver of cultural identity. Building on the work of Laurajane Smith and psychologist Abraham Maslow, Reeves and Plets believe that heritage narratives contribute to a sense of belonging, which is a social need of human beings. The authors emphasize that pluralistic heritage narratives of human rights and resource allocation must take a central role in the preservation of place.31 Culturally sensitive zoning, like that of San Francisco, Beaufort County, or New Orleans, can become an opportunity to serve the needs of a neighborhood’s cultural identity, and offer a voice within local governments to those communities who have traditionally been excluded from the planning process. Tax incentives and grants provided by local, state, and federal governments, as well as non-profit organizations, are another commonly employed tool to promote preservation. Grants 30 City of New Orleans, 2010 Master Plan, Volume 2 – Chapter 6 (Attachment A), Goal 1(d), 2016, accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.nola.gov/nola/media/City-Planning/Master-Plan-Chapter-6-FINAL- ADOPTED(vol-2-vol-3).pdf 31 Keir Reeves and Gertjan Plets, “Cultural Heritage as a Strategy for Social Needs and Community Identity,” in A Companion to Heritage Studies, eds. Logan, Craith, and Kockel (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2016) 212. 38 include those like the Main Street America project of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Save Americas Treasures program of the Federal Government’s Historic Preservation Fund, and façade improvement grants by local and state governments. Legacy Business Registers are one way to administer grants and tax incentives toward the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. Because businesses often remodel their spaces and change locations to maintain economic viability, many legacy business programs are not governed by the same rules and assumptions of historic preservation. Nominated businesses have varying levels of built and locational integrity, a very few criteria for the nomination with decisions made by city staff. San Antonio inaugurated its program in 2018, with marketing assistance provided to eligible buildings over 20 years. At the start of the program, legacy businesses located within a two-mile radius of the San Antonio Missions, World Heritage Sites, would be eligible for matching grants of up to $10,000 through the “World Heritage Area Legacy Business Grant Pilot Program,” however, the pilot project seems to have ended.32 Seattle began studies for a legacy business program in 2019, but the project was never instituted.33 Missoula (2019) and Pasadena (2021) have both established legacy business registries for businesses over 50 years old with marketing assistance through branding initiatives.34 Currently, Los Angeles, Tucson, Durham, New Orleans, and Cambridge, Massachusetts are currently developing their own legacy business programs. Austin, Texas, has been using its legacy business program, founded in 2020, to provide Covid-19 pandemic relief grants to businesses older than 20 years, negatively affected 32 Erin Swicegood, “Celebrating Mom and Pop Shops: The Importance of Legacy Business Programs for Conserving Living Heritage,” Terminal Project, University of Oregon, 2020, 38. 33 Brandon Macz, “Office of Economic Development opens Legacy Business Nominations,” Queen Anne & Magnolia News, December 12, 2019, accessed February 15, 2022. https://queenannenews.com/Content/Business/Business/Article/Office-of-Economic-Development-opens- Legacy-Business-nominations/108/468/40488 34 City of Missoula, Legacy Business Program, Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/2567/Legacy-Business-Program; City of Pasadena, Economic Development, Legacy Business Program, Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/economicdevelopment/legacy-business-program/ 39 by the pandemic.35 Additionally, The Six Square Black Cultural District was founded in 2013 and been dedicated to improving the quality of life for Austin’s African American residents through preservation of historic Black buildings, support for the arts, and promotion of social and economic development. Founded in 2015, San Francisco’s legacy business program is the oldest program in the United States. 36 While this specific program will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5, the city’s efforts are unique as it employs both a legacy business registry, with grants for designated businesses, and a system of eight cultural heritage districts that can reinforce the connection between legacy business and the city’s vibrant cultural heritage.37 35 City of Austin, Economic Development, Resolution No. 20201203-012 “Austin Legacy Business Relief Grant, Revised Draft Program Guidelines,” December 3, 2020. 36 San Francisco Office of Small Business, Legacy Business Registry, Accessed January 15, 2022. https://www.legacybusiness.org/registry. 37 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Ordinance No. 126–18 (File No., 171140, 5/22/2018): Administrative Code—Process for Establishment of Cultural Districts.” 40 4.0 CONCEPTUAL TOOLS: FOODWAYS AND FOODSHEDS This portion of the Literature review will present the conceptual lens that will be used to explore the case studies in parts 6–8. Foodways and foodsheds are the two concepts by which this thesis will frame intangible culinary practices. Foodways are what people eat, the social uses, and meanings of food as studied through the multidisciplinary field of Folklore, Anthropology, History, Sociology, and Planning Studies all overlap in the conceptual framework of folklore and foodways studies. The foodshed is the sum of regional food distribution and shipments. It is a helpful descriptor for situating food practices in a production network; defined by the infrastructure, buildings, environments, and politics of places. These two ideas allow for intangible heritage practices to be analyzed holistically, with individual aspects rooted in specific places, dependent on social conditions, and created from flows ingredients. The following three sections will examine their development and their applications. 4.1 Folkways to Foodways Author Michael Owen Jones traces folklore studies to the ‘Roman Questions’ of Plutarch (40-120 A.D), who explored the origins and meaning of popular customs and beliefs.1 As a branch of anthropological inquiry, food studies can be traced to the 1865 writings of E.B. Tylor, (the first professional anthropologist, who controversially stated that cooking with fire was a human universal.)2 Inspired by the methods used in anthropology, folklorists like Pliny Earle Goddard began calling for an academic and scientific approach to their studies in 1915, and as a branch of folklore studies, writing on the food traditions of the United States first appears John G. Bourke's 1895 Journal of American Folklore article, "Folk-Foods of the Rio Grande Valley and of Northern Mexico." 3 Yet, well into the mid-20th century, folklorists like Benjamin Botkin 1 Michael Owen Jones, “Applying Folklore Studies: An Introduction,” in Putting Folklore to Use, ed. Michael Owen Jones (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994) 1. 2 Edward Burnett Tylor, Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization, (London: John Murray, 1865), 228. 3 Pliny Earle Goddard, “The Relation of Folk-Lore to Anthropology,” The Journal of American Folklore 28, no. 107 (1915): 19; John G. Bourke, "Folk-Foods of the Rio Grande Valley and of Northern Mexico," Journal of American Folk-Lore, Vol. 8, No. 28 (1895): 41. 41 still viewed the subject as separate and defined folklore as a tradition apart from anthropology “…a body of traditional belief, custom, and expression, handed down largely by word of mouth and circulating chiefly outside of commercial and academic means of communication and instruction.”4 Lucy H. Long traces the first published use of the term foodways to both the 1941 work of anthropologist John William Bennet, and the reports from the National Nutritional Council for Defense; also written in 1941.5 This new term was closely related to the more common term of folkways—coined by William Grant Sumner in 1906 to denote those customs, practices, and ways of thinking shared by members of the same group.6 Foodways studies of the World War II era were the realm of nutritionists and anthropologists working in the model of applied nutrition being studied by the anthropologist Margret Mead and her colleagues at the National Research Council’s Committee on Food Habits; an effort aimed to confront the specific cultural problems and dietary reforms associated with the War.7 Yet, by the 1960s, practitioners began adopting the language and techniques of anthropologists like Mead and drawing inspiration from Russian formalism, structuralism, and studies such as linguistics, and sociolinguistics.8 The methods of Claude Lévi-Strauss influenced the interdisciplinary approach to folklore studies. Lévi-Strauss documented the postures, gestures, cooking, and kinships of indigenous groups throughout South America in diagrams looking for commonalities in the language of these acts. His diagrams functioned as a framework for the application of deductive logic to interpret correlated practices across distant peoples, with no explicit cultural connection.9 It was 4 Benjamin A. Botkin, Supplementary Instructions to the American Guide Manual: Guide for Folklore Studies, Box 69, RG 69, Federal Writers Project (National Archives: Washington, DC, 1938.) 5 Lucy Long, “Introduction to Part One,” in The Food and Folklore Reader, ed. Lucy Long (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 13. 6 Charles Camp, American Foodways (Little Rock: August House, 1989), 24. 7 Camp, American Foodways, 25. 8 Lucy Long, “Introduction to Part One,” in The Food and Folklore Reader, ed. Lucy Long (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 10. 9 Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 2. 42 this diagrammatic method, which broke down activities, practices, and relationships into symbolic units, that influenced European and American folklorists. Folklorist Don Yoder expanded the usage of foodways to include a society’s whole range of cookery and food habits, including attitudes, taboos, and meal systems.10 Yoder borrowed the term from the work of anthropologist John Honingmann, who used it to denote the food habits and patterns of consumption. Yoder’s expanded usage of foodways offered folklorists a way to talk about food as a complex system of activities, a domain for creativity, communication, and meaning-making. 11 Writing in the 1970s, Yoder was inspired by European foodways studies, particularly those who drew upon the Structuralist anthropology popularized in the writings of Lévi-Strauss. He proposed the study of foodways in the United States as a multidisciplinary endeavor for folklorists to adopt the data driven approaches used in anthropology and sociology.12 In addition to the anthropological approaches of Lévi-Strauss, Yoder was also influenced the work of Günter Wiegelmann, who used a structuralist cultural anthropological framework to study changes in European foodways. In his 1974 article “Innovations in Foods,” Wiegelmann focused on how innovations of food increased, the class-based origins of innovation, the meals where innovations originate, and the time-spans of these innovations.13 Correlating economic patterns of depression and booms to the availability of different foods; Wiegelmann applied his hypothesis to demonstrate the slow process by which crops like potatoes, buckwheat, and corn gained prominence at the tables of wealthy German families, and how coffee quickly went from exclusivity to ubiquity. 10 Don Yoder, “Folk Cookery,” in Folklore and Folklife, an Introduction, ed. Richard M. Dorson, 325-50 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 325. 11 Long, “Introduction,” 13. 12 Yoder, “Folk Cookery,” 326. 13 Günter Wiegelmann, "Innovations in Food and Meals," Folk Life 12, no. 1 (1974): 20. 43 To show how economic and class-based food innovations were related to the daily practices of families, Wiegelmann created diagrams with factors such as weekly and daily rhythms of meals contextualized with table customs, festivals, and preparation techniques. Nils- Arvid Bringeus, suggests Wiegelmann’s study brought foodways into contemporary European scholarship—exploring popular menus and meal systems as a changing set of innovations, rather than assuming that the food traditions associated with folk cultures were static.14 While Yoder’s introduction of the methods and theories of the structural anthropologists helped develop the study of the foodways from food habits of the United States, Charles Camp studied the foodways of the United States through it’s culture, in an effort to deliver foodways from “the confines of the kitchen and academia.”15 Camp believed that the structural methods of folklorists (like his former teacher Don Yoder) reduced the role of culture to the mere background for the activities of practice; and that foodways should be studied directly, from the subjective experience of people, rather than simply relying on the quantifiable surface characteristics of the ingredients and their manufacture for physical sustenance. Camp and folklorists who shared his concerns believed, “ordinary people understand and employ the symbolic and cultural dimensions of food in their everyday affairs.”16 In a passage from Simon Bronner’s Encyclopedia of American Folklife, Camp described how his work was based on ethnographic study of the meaning of foodways through interviews and documentary evidence, “(b)y more carefully considering the symbolic dimensions of foodways, one may regard the choices people make to adhere to custom when presented with available alternatives as respect for tradition itself—a symbolic advance over an understanding of folklife based on regional isolation and agricultural determinism.”17 14 Nils-Arvid Bringeus, Man, Food, and Milieu: A Swedish Approach to Food Ethnology (Edinburgh: Tuckwell press, 1971). 15 Camp, American Foodways, 27. 16 Camp, American Foodways, 29. 17 Charles Camp, “Foodways,” in Encyclopedia of American Folklife, ed. Simon J Bronner (Armonk: Myron E. Sharpe 2013): 469. 44 This shift toward the analysis of subjective meanings of culture would be later recognized as the beginnings of the foodways move toward “applied folklore”.18 While diagrammatic structures as tools for anthropology and folklore studies were not abandoned, there was a growing movement away from the study of isolated phenomena, and a focus on the context which shapes the meaning of a practice. Folklorist Michael Owen Jones describes how the ethnographic shift in applied folklore studies using an analogy of the difference between a text and story: “…[a story] is the entire performance, including linguistic as well as para linguistic and nonverbal behavior, with digressions, asides, and feedback; and it is a product of an interaction between the narrator and the auditors who assume particular social roles and identities during the storytelling event.”19 Applied folklore studies value a subjective and self-aware role for the folklorist to study foodways. In a biographical piece, Carole M Counihan explored the life of one woman, Bernadette from the San Luis Valley in Colorado, using interviews about memories associated with her experiences and memories centered around food production, preparation, consumption, and exchange.20 Counihan’s article follows Bernadette’s food-centered stories about ethnic, class, and gender barriers express counterhegemonic views and broaden the web of social understanding in the United States.21 On her use of ethnography and personal identity of food ways Counihan writes: Because food is so often the work and language of women, food stories emphasize the importance of women and challenge the centrality of men. Because women are sometimes forced to serve and cook for others, food can be a channel 18 Robert H. Byington, “What Happened to Applied Folklore?” in Time and Temperature: A Centennial Publication of the American Folklore Society, ed. Charles Camp (Washington DC: American Folklore Society, 1989) 78. 19 Michael Owen Jones, “Applying Folklore Studies: An Introduction,” in Putting Folklore to Use, ed. Michael Owen Jones (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994) 2. 20 Carole M. Counihan, “Food as Women’s Voice in the San Luis Valley of Colorado,” in Food in the USA: A Reader, ed. Carole M. Counihan (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2002): 295. 21 Counihan, “Food as Women’s Voice,” 295. 45 of oppression. Yet through cooking, feeding, eating, and fasting, they can express their own views of self and others with creativity and power.22 As an applied folklorist, Counihan used the anthropological techniques of interviews and long-term embedded research to explore the social meaning of food though a deeply subjective lens. Because of the close relationship that a researcher would have with the subjects of an in- depth ethnographic study, folklorists often became advocates for the communities they studied. As advocates, folklorists sometimes involved providing information and advice for the formulation of policy, in addition to the research being conducted. Environmental Impact Statements now commonly have a section addressing the cultural impact of a project, and folklorists are sometimes contracted to research and write these sections. In this interdisciplinary environment, folklorists are becoming stakeholders, as well as researchers. As the coordinator of the Artisans Guild of Hilltown, Massachusetts, Patricia Atkinson Wells worked with artists and crafts people from the region to identify the folkways of the rural community and provide arts and marketing education to help sustain the regional folklife.23 In her writing she described how a folklorist, who understands traditional expressive behavior, can become a “rural development specialist”, informing development strategies that best address the complex needs of a community.24 The interdisciplinary and active approach of the applied folklore study of foodways also led to works whose authors had backgrounds in history as well as anthropology. This is evident in books like Jack Goody’s Cooking, Cuisine and Class (1982), and Sidney Mintz’s Sweetness and Power (1985).25 These books explored the historical and material realities that structure the 22 Counihan, “Food as Women’s Voice,” 295. 23 Patricia Atkinson Wells, “Helping Craftsmen and Communities Survive: Folklore and Economic Development,” in Putting Folklore to Use, ed. Michael Owen Jones (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994) 244. 24 Wells, “Helping Craftsmen and Communities Survive,” 248. 25 Sidney W. Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History, (New York: Viking, 1985); Jack Goody, Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 46 symbolic meaning of food, bringing the historian’s voice into the anthropological approach to foodways studies. Both books were written using extensive ethnographic, and historic research and offered social critique through the lens of foodways. The National Park Service has also incorporated the perspectives of foodways historians. In his contribution to the 2013 historic context statement, American Latinos and the Making of the United States, Jeffrey Pilcher writes about the complex foodways of Latinos—a group which spans over two continents, many Caribbean islands, and around 33 nationalities.26 Pilcher’s work traces foodways from their origins, as currently established, to their encounter transformations under European colonialism, through their changes by industrialization and globalization. The document includes excerpts from interviews and primary source material in each section; like stories of household names like the Goyas or lesser-known names like José Bartolomé Martínez—an early producer of dehydrated corn masa. 4.2 Long’s Models for Foodways Inquiry Lucy Long’s conceptual model for an anthropological approach to the study of foodways offers a structure that draws from many of themes covered above. In the Introduction to the Food and Folklore Reader, Long creates a composite of structural study of foodways practices developed by Yoder, with the ethnographic methods of applied and interdisciplinary folklorists. Her structure for the study of the ‘total system of practices and concepts surrounding food and eating’ is divided into three areas: o Product—the food itself (ingredient, dish, recipe, dish, meal, food, culture, or cuisine) o Practices/Processes — (oral—narratives, instructions, vocabulary; customary (techniques, styles) material forms—implements)  Production—growing, manufacturing of raw ingredients into “food”  Procurement—obtaining those ingredients (garden, store, vendors, etc.) 26 Jeffrey M. Pilcher, “Coming Home to Salsa: Latino Roots of American Food,” in American Latinos and the Making of the United States (Washington DC: National Park System Advisory Board, 2013): 184-196. 47  Preservation—the storage of food; methods and techniques of preserving food  Preparation—preparing ingredients and cooking  Presentation—serving, displaying, presenting food  Consumption—eating, ingesting, tasting of food  Clean-up/Disposal—cleaning up from preparation and consumption; disposing of unwanted food; use of left-over food o Performance  Performance—Intentional and unintentional functions and symbolism of food  Conceptualizations—beliefs, evaluation systems, aesthetics and attitudes around food  Contexts and Meals System—physical spaces, occasions, and types of events for specific aspects of foodways; expected routine meals—times of day, menu, contexts27 Long describes her categorized inquiry as a systematic way of observing a full range of food-related activities.28 The basic questions of who, where, what, when, how, and why can be asked of each component as they are applied to an ingredient, meal, culture, group, or individual. From the answers to these basic questions, a comparative study can be made of foodways patterns in cultures, subgroups within a culture, historical eras, and individuals. Her methodology approaches meaning as both personally and socially constructed; exploring how external, political, and historical issues of power, hierarchy, and status shape the options available to individuals and the choices that they make. 27 Long, “Introduction,” 14. 28 Long, “Introduction,” 14. 48 4.3 The Foodshed In 1921, a planned nationwide railroad strike threatened to cut-off New York City from its food suppliers and farmlands, which had been recently pushed outward due to the suburbanization of the metropolitan area.29 While the railroad workers never went on strike, the threat prompted Chief of the Commerce Bureau of the Port Authority of New York, Walter P. Hadden to write his book, How Great Cities Are Fed in 1929. The book explored how New York City could best plan the locations of its terminals where produce, poultry, and dairy could be transferred from long haul trains to short haul truck transport to markets. To plan for how this flow of perishable material could be best managed, Hadden proposed that we understand our cities as a foodshed. While watersheds are delimited by the physical features of the land, that guide the formation of river basins, the foodshed was delimited by economic and geographic conditions.30 Shipping rates, local tariffs, advances in shipping technology, and differences in quality and yearly growing seasons around the United States governed the shape of a city’s foodshed. California may be three times as far from New York City as Florida, yet at the time of the study, shipping rates were only 40% more expensive as the blanket shipping rates over sparsely populated areas of the continent and new refrigerated cars offered by the railroads made it the same price to ship produce to New York from California or Chicago.31 This system brought the lettuce and citrus from California and Florida into much closer competition for space in New York City’s grocery stores and pantries of its consumers. In response to this situation, Hadden proposed that the city could control local supply chains through publicly owned produce terminals, and that Interstate Commerce Commission should limit the size of the foodshed through tariffs, sanitary inspections, and embargoes. Hadden’s 29 Nevin Cohen, “How Great Cities Are Fed Revisited: Ten Municipal Policies to Support the New York City Foodshed,” in Fordham Environmental Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2011): 691. 30 Walter P. Hadden, How Great Cities are Fed, (New York: D.C. Heath and Company, 1929), 17. 31 Hadden, How Great Cities are Fed, 25. 49 strategies for public control of the foodshed were also intended to limit the power of the railroads in controlling the supply to markets.32 The idea of foodshed was contained to Hadden’s New Deal era writing until 1991 when the concept resurfaced in an article written by Arthur Getz.33 For Getz, the foodshed needed to be safeguarded and enhanced, the same way we should manage our watersheds. Since Hadden published the idea in 1929, the urban foodsheds of the United States had grown tremendously in shape and scope. Agricultural activists like Jack Kloppenburg were inspired by Getz’s reintroduction of the concept of the foodshed, as it provided a bridge between analysis and action.34 Analysis of the foodshed meant measuring the flow and direction of food transportation networks while documenting the qualitative and quantitative transformations to the food on this journey.35 Action included ideas like secession from the global foodshed and fostering communities commensurate with their regional foodsheds.36 Ultimately, the analysis of foodsheds should attempt to link elements into a system of mutual support with the goal of fostering an alternative foodshed. Writers like Getz and Kloppenburg transformed Hadden’s ideas of a state-controlled food supply into calls for a radical project of agricultural liberation. In 2011, 82 years after the publication of Hadden’s book, Nevin Cohen returned to the idea of New York’s foodshed, highlighting current city government policies, as well as making suggestions for the care of the city’s foodshed. As, New York’s food shed continued to be pushed outward by loss of local farmlands to urban growth, Cohen’s article suggested that the Departments of Justice and Education could source students’ and inmates’ meals regionally, and that the city should fund urban and regional farming initiatives in an effort to redefine and 32 Hadden, How Great Cities are Fed, 252. 33 Artur Getz, “Urban Foodsheds,” The Permaculture Activist 24 (1991), 26. 34 Jack Kloppenburg, et al, “Coming into the Foodshed,” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 13, no. 3 (1996), 34. 35 Kloppenburg, et al, “Coming into the Foodshed,” 40. 36 Kloppenburg, et al, “Coming into the Foodshed,” 38. 50 strengthen a limited urban foodshed.37 Cohen’s suggestions also included improvements to infrastructure, like the renovations to the facilities at Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market. The Terminal is the largest terminal market in the country which, at the time of Cohen’s article, lacked a cold chain storage—a system of constant refrigeration of perishable foods on their way to grocery stores. Improving the refrigeration infrastructure of this largest terminal would reduce food waste, opening the Terminal space to small farms with tighter margins.38 The authors covered in this review represent three eras of a concept, each writing from divergent perspectives. Yet, they all suggest a practical approach to the analysis of transportation networks and market infrastructure of a foodshed, and the connections between its places of production and consumption. In all the instances of the use of the foodshed concept, the suggestion is that these are analysis in service of an action. In the case of this thesis, the action in question is the conservation of foodways practices. 37 Cohen, “How Great Cities Are Fed Revisited,” 696. 38 Cohen, “How Great Cities Are Fed Revisited,” 701. 51 5.0 CASE STUDY SELECTION AND QUESTIONS To understand how our public institutions can play a role in the continuance of culinary heritage practices, this thesis explores the City of San Francisco’s municipal intangible heritage conservation practices alongside the federal efforts of the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area (SCVNHA) and the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (GGCHC). As previously stated, there is often a close relationship between the model of the National Register nomination process and practices of municipal landmarks programs. Both San Francisco’s intangible cultural heritage preservation and the National Heritage Areas (NHA) programs provide innovative approaches to the assessment of significance and conservation of culinary heritage. The results of this study may help inform the how practices for the conservation of culinary heritage at the local level can benefit from these landscape frameworks of the federal government, and how culinary heritage can be incorporated into place-centered management plans. Foodways, as cultural practices, have a variable dependence on places and change over time. These case studies will question the response of public institutions to the dynamic relationship between foodways and place. The intangible heritage conservation practices of the city and the two national Heritage Areas will be examined through the lens of foodways and foodsheds. Foodways and the foodshed provide a way of understanding the network of tangible places that structure intangible food practices. As a branch of folklore studies, foodways provides a lens for the identification of dynamic cultural heritage practices as shaped by the communities that practice them. Applied folklorists approach meaning as both personally and socially constructed; exploring how external, political, and historical issues of power, hierarchy, and status shape the options available to individuals and the choices that they make. This paper will explore how foodways are being maintained through municipal heritage preservation, and through the partnerships with National heritage Areas. The foodshed is a concept from planning, radicalized through agriculture activists, and recently reintroduced into the urban planning lexicon. It denotes the transportation of food from producers to markets and appears in several NHA management plans as a description of the 52 production networks supporting foodways. The foodshed blurs the boundaries of landscape-scale approaches, often defined by their physical geography, while markets source from a regional, or global, network of production. As foodways have a variable dependence on places that change over time, the foodshed is a concept that helps frame this process as it relates to the infrastructure of production, transportation, and storage. 5.1 San Francisco A compilation of available information about cities with intangible heritage conservation programs determined the combinations of tools being employed by cities (see Appendix A). As a city with the longest running example of a legacy business program, using both cultural heritage districts and special use district zoning overlays, San Francisco stands as the flagship of intangible heritage conservation. As of Spring 2022, Similar efforts, like those of San Antonio, Austin, and New Orleans, were either just beginning to be enacted, or did not have the same variety of tools, when compared to San Francisco’s programs. Local and state governments have the ability to support foodsheds and foodways through changes to land-use regulations, tax incentives, and direct financial support. Yet, public actions are far from the only tool for local heritage conservation, and the low number of municipal-scale examples available to this study evidence the difficulty of funding and administering such efforts. Non-profits efforts like the Slowfood Ark of Taste, the James Beard Foundation, the Native Seeds/S.E.A.R.C.H. project, Muloma Heritage Center, the Carolina Rice Foundation, and the UNESCO Creative Cities Network are just some examples of culinary heritage advocacy efforts. However, like municipal programs, non-profit advocacy has similar challenges for funding and limits to scope. The individual and collective work of people such as: Chefs BJ Dennis, Tonya Thomas, and David Ho; Professors David Shields, Francis Morean, Jonathan Marby, and Sarah Ross; and Producers like Casa Sanchez, Anson Mills, Cornelia Walker Bailey, and Gloria Badilla, are researching and working to maintain the traditional foodways of the places explored in this paper. Foodsheds also depend on a network of individuals to move food from a farm to restaurants, grocery stores, school cafeterias, food banks, and kitchen pantries. Landscape-scale 53 approaches to heritage conservation—like those of non-profit groups, in partnership with governments—can support the researchers, entrepreneurs, and workers who make a heritage foodshed work for its communities. 5.2 Two National Heritage Areas National Heritage Areas, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Cultural Landscapes are federal tools that can direct State, Tribal, and municipal governments to support the landscape scale preservation of traditional foodways and foodsheds. Designated by Congress, and managed under the National Park Service, NHAs make their feasibility studies, management plans, and monitoring reports available to the public. A brief examination of the documents for the 55 current NHAs revealed that 33 mention food heritage as part of their narrative, and ten of those 55 Areas have a food heritage conservation program with partner organizations mentioned in their management plans (see Appendix B). Of the ten NHAs with food heritage conservation programs, the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area (SCVNHA) is the most rigorously developed: naming partners such as the Native Seeds/S.E.A.R.C.H. project, UNESCO Creative City of Gastronomy program, and the University of Arizona. Other notable NHAs with foodways conservation in their management plans include the Last Green Valley National Heritage Area, which mentions a “foodshed plan” but does not give any further information on partnerships that would support this plan. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area has a significant foodways component with three partnerships mentioned in their management plan, but the foodways component is still not developed enough for the purposes of this study. A future study of NHA foodways strategies would benefit from an examination the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. The other NHAs with foodways strategies only mention one or two partner organizations. Some NHAs frame their themes using physical geography. For example, the SCVNHA is bounded by the Santa Cruz Valley watershed, and has ten interpretive themes are focused around the Natural, Cultural, and Economic heritage of the area. The cultural heritage themes of the SCVNHA are “Native American Lifeways; Spanish and Mexican Frontier Culture; Desert 54 Farming; and US-Mexico Border Culture.”1 Other NHAs, focus more a specific narrative lens to interpret the landscape. The GGCHC, for example, was created to specifically highlight the creole culture of the Gullah Geechee People along the Atlantic coastline of four states. The Cultural Heritage Corridor covers a strip of land 30 miles inland of the coast along the coasts of four states, including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. Interpretive themes of the GGCHC include the “Origins and Early Development; The Quest for Freedom Equality, Education, and Recognition, Global Connections; Connection with the Land; Cultural and Spiritual Expressions; and Gullah Geechee Language.”2 Of the ten NHAs with food heritage conservation programs in their management plans, only two have a narrative driven focus (see Appendix B). The management plan for Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area describes a need to conserve the regional ingredients and foodways, but only briefly mentions one partner organization. The GGCHC does not make its partner network public. However, the management plan and feasibility study both contain extensive discussion on the importance of foodways to the GGCHC interpretative strategies. Since the publication of the management plan in 2012, the GGCC has regularly partnered with several landscape-scale heritage conservation projects focusing on foodways. While the GGCHC does not direct these conservation projects, it does serve as supporting role, contextualizing their work regionally, through partnerships with heritage sites. 5.3 Case Study Questions The study begins with an analysis of San Francisco’s intangible heritage conservation program; included are descriptions and examples of the Legacy Business Program and the Cultural Heritage Districts. It continues with an analysis of the foodways conservation efforts of 1 Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area. “NHA Themes.” 2021. Accessed January 15, 2022. https://santacruzheritage.org/nha-history/ 2 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission, Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Management Plan, (National Park Service, Denver, CO, 2012) iii. 55 both the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area and the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. Conclusions will be drawn from asking three questions: • How do each of the strategies identify intangible heritage? • How are culinary heritage foodshed and foodways protected? • How do these two strategies differ between each case study? The thesis will continue with a series of conclusions drawn from the comparison of the municipal and federal approaches, in addition to the comparison between the two recommendations intended to inform the culinary heritage protection practices at the municipal and federal levels. Additionally, the conclusions and recommendations of this thesis are intended inform the strategies of non-profits who may be interested in working with or advocating for municipal intangible heritage programs or National Heritage Areas. 56 6.0 CASE STUDY: SAN FRANCISCO The practice of culinary heritage depends on the maintenance of a network of spaces and places. Family kitchens and restaurants both rely on the ingredients provided by grocery stores and wholesale food distributors. For heritage recipes and techniques to be exercised, the use of a building is the aspect that can be protected. San Francisco Legacy Business Program protects these spaces and nurtures the city's cultural heritage by incentivizing the preservation of small businesses as historic resources. The Legacy Business Registry and Preservation Fund are the two tools of San Francisco’s Legacy Business Program. The registry is a list of culturally significant businesses established by the Board of Supervisors in 2015. Later that same year, voters approved Proposition J, which created the Legacy Business Fund. This fund makes businesses on the registry eligible for an annual grant of $500 per employee and an annual $4.50 per square foot grant to property owners who extend 10-year leases to Legacy Business tenants.1 The Office of Small Business manages the registry, but nominations must have the support of a member of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor to be listed. Three criteria must be met for a business to be eligible for nomination to the registry: 1. Businesses must be 30 years or older unless the business is facing imminent displacement, in which case, the business can be over 20 years old. 2. The nomination of the business must show how the business has a significant impact on the history or culture of their neighborhood. 3. The business should demonstrate how it will maintain a definitive physical feature or tradition contributing to its local significance. 1 San Francisco Office of Small Business, Legacy Business Registry, accessed January 15, 2022. https://www.legacybusiness.org/registry. 57 Two hundred ninety-one businesses have been listed on the Legacy Business Registry as of January 2021.2 The program began drawing on the list of businesses identified in 'Legacy Bars and Restaurants,' an initiative of San Francisco Heritage, a local non-profit preservation advocacy group. Thus, many of the initial nominations included popular businesses representative of culinary heritage, like restaurants, cafes, bars, and bakeries. Locals, neighbors from around the bay, and visitors from around the world can all experience these most celebrated heritage resources in use. 6.1 Significance of Practices One example of a restaurant on the register is Sam Wo. The renowned Chinese food restaurant had been in operation for over 100 years when its original location closed in 2012. After opening a second location a few blocks away, the business was nominated as a legacy business because of its multigenerational significance in Chinatown. The application met the first criterion by tracing the ownership history of the restaurant over the last 30 years from Chef David Ho and his family. The second criterion was met, citing a series of online interviews with enthusiastic restaurant patrons, and retelling the popular lore about Sam Wo being the restaurant with the "rudest waiter in the world," Edsel Ford Fung.3 For the third criterion, the restaurant's owners identified the characteristics that maintained the heritage. The application included the neon sign, restored from its original location, and some of Chef Ho's renowned recipes, such as their barbecue pork rice noodle roll, tomato beef chow mein, and beef with scrambled egg over rice.4 There are also less visible businesses on the registry. While there are fewer of these types of businesses, like grocery stores and wholesale food distributors, that provide the material for the day-to-day operations of San Francisco's celebrated restaurants, cafes, bars, and bakeries, as 2 SFOSB, Legacy Business Registry. 3 San Francisco Office of Small Business, Legacy Business Registry Staff Report, Sam Wo Restaurant, application number LBR-2015-16-041, November 14, 2016. 4 SFOSB. Legacy Business Registry Staff Report, Sam Wo Restaurant. 58 well as the culinary heritage practiced in household kitchens. Casa Sanchez, a Mission District tortillería and restaurant space, is representative of these structural nominations. Operating since 1924 at several locations around San Francisco, the family-owned shop began by offering tamales as a "mexicatessen" but soon added a mechanized tortilla factory to their store. As the only tortilla distributor in Northern California until about 1975, Casa Sanchez has been delivering tortillas to local restaurants and grocers for over 45 years. However, like many businesses, Casa Sanchez moved and expanded their operation in various spaces. In 1968, the Sanchez family moved their restaurant and tortillería to 24th street at York, in the Mission District, and around this same time, tortilla production was moved to 250 Napoleon Street. While the restaurant closed in 2011, the building maintains its 'Casa Sanchez' signage on the façade of the building and continues producing salsa, tortillas, and tortilla chips at their Napoleon Street factory. The nomination demonstrated their continued significance to the community (Criterion 2) by documenting how the family continues to support the local Latinx heritage of 24th Street, renting their original space to a Salvadorean restaurant at a rate below other commercial leases in the neighborhood. For Criterion 3 of their landmark business application, the courtyard garden space of their 24th Street location and murals are cited as the physical characteristics that continue to convey the heritage of the business.5 6.2 Cultural Heritage Districts A business applying to the Legacy Business Registry must argue its significance to the Office of Small Business. But the application can be supported by the themes and frameworks provided by the city’s Cultural Heritage Districts. Managed by the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, the Cultural Heritage Districts program was set up to create public awareness of the concentration of cultural and historic assets, culturally significant enterprises, arts, services, or businesses that embody a unique cultural heritage.6 The context 5 San Francisco Planning Department, Landmark Designation Recommendation – 2778 24th Street [Casa Sanchez], record number 2020-009613DES, September 9, 2021. 6 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Ordinance No. 126–18 (File No., 171140, 5/22/2018): Administrative Code—Process for Establishment of Cultural Districts.” 59 statements and reports for the guidance the management of these districts often demonstrate the relationship a business listed on Legacy Business Register has to its surroundings, even if a business changes locations or uses. Figure 3: Map of Cultural Heritage Districts, San Francisco Map by Author Currently, there are eight Cultural Districts in the San Francisco: 1. Japantown Cultural District 2. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District 3. SoMa Pilipinas Cultural District 4. Compton’s Transgender Cultural District 5. Leather LGBTQ Cultural District 6. African American Arts and Cultural District 7. Castro LGBTQ Cultural District 8. American Indian Cultural District The goals of the Cultural Districts program include: • Stabilizing the loss of San Francisco's diverse cultural heritage from real-estate market pressures. 60 • Maintaining and developing the diverse range of heritage assets, providing affordable housing. • Promoting economic opportunity and attracting creative entrepreneurs, representative of the cultural districts. • Promoting tourism around the districts’ cultural assets. • Supporting education and city services which are more competently tailored to the needs of the residents • The creation of appropriate city regulations, tools, and programs such as zoning and land use controls to promote and protect business and industry in Cultural Districts.7 As part of the process of adopting Cultural Heritage Districts (CHD), the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development leads the writing of a report on the Cultural History, Housing, and Economic Sustainability Strategy (CHHESS). These reports include demographic and economic profiles of the Cultural District, including past, current, and future trends, inventories of the tangible and intangible elements of the cultural heritage, the identification of concerns that could inhibit the preservation of a CHD's unique culture, and proposals for legislative, economic strategies in support of the district.8 Reports on the planning processes for the CHDs like CHHESS help highlight the specific needs related to the different communities who live in boundaries of each district and create a plan for how the stakeholder can work with the city to accomplish the goals of the district. The Calle Veinticuatro Cultural Heritage District Report, written by Garo Consulting, focuses on the community planning process of the district. The inventory of cultural assets included murals and art, cultural events, Latinx owned businesses, long-standing community organizations, faith communities, and culinary destinations. Challenges identified in the report included lack of affordable housing, rapid changes related to gentrification, and a low-quality of life for 7 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Ordinance No. 126–18 (File No., 171140, 5/22/2018): Administrative Code—Process for Establishment of Cultural Districts,” section 107.2(c). 8 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Ordinance No. 126–18 (File No., 171140, 5/22/2018): Administrative Code— Process for Establishment of Cultural Districts,” section 107.4(b)(7). 61 residents.9 However, the report also included proposed programs to highlight assets and address deficiencies by proposing a campaign for a Special Use District or the creation of culturally relevant business retention policies. For comparison, the Japantown was the first CHD in San Francisco; it’s Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS) report was written by the San Francisco Planning Department. Like the Calle Veinticuatro report, the JCHESS identifies concerns relating to changes in the neighborhood related to real-estate development, and the future viability of the businesses who reflect the cultural identity of the district. However, unlike the Calle Veinticuatro District report, the JCHESS identifies an intergenerational gap as one of several sources of concern for the development of a CHD. At the time of the report, Japantown had an abundance of resources for pre-K through elementary school children and elders but few businesses that attracted younger and middle-aged residents.10 The report suggests that the Japantown Special Use District could be leveraged to cultivate new business in support of the cultural heritage of the neighborhood. Cultural Heritage Districts emphasize how cultural heritage protection is part of a holistic planning strategy for the city. By developing its cultural heritage conservation programs in relationship to the social services, sustainable economic development, and housing stability of a district, San Francisco is attempting to protect its cultural heritage by addressing the needs of the people who practice the heritage in their homes and businesses. Although they were written before the creation of the Legacy Business Program, the strategies presented in the JCHESS and Calle Veinticuatro Planning reports suggest how the register was developed to meet the concerns shared in both districts’ reports—providing the support necessary to retain locally significant businesses like Sam Wo and Casa Sanchez. 9 Garo Consulting, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Report on the Community Planning Process, (San Francisco: Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 2014): 13. 10 San Francisco Planning Department, Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy, [JCHESS] (San Francisco: Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 2013): 30. 62 7.0 CASE STUDY: SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA Figure 4: Map of Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Map by Author The Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area (SCVNHA) is one of 55 areas around the United States nominated by the US congress to highlight the distinctive ways that natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources came together to make this part of southern Arizona a nationally significant place. The nominated area encompasses the San Cruz River watershed— Santa Cruz and Pima counties, from the boundary with Pinal County on the north side, to the US-Mexico border on the south, including the cities of Tucson, Nogales, Marana, Oro Valley, 63 and Sahuarita, and many unincorporated communities. By taking this expansive approach to conservation, new relationships can be established between public and private stakeholders to stimulate heritage based economic development and regional tourism.11 The SCVHA nomination was written by members of a working group led by staff at the Center for Desert Archeology. This team met with local governments and business associations from around the region to discuss the proposal, gather supporters, and produce a feasibility study.12 Yet without support from Arizona’s Senators, the NHA sat dormant nearly 14 since the feasibility study was originally published until Rep Raul Grijalva reintroduced the legislation in 2019.13 In February 2019, Congress passed Senate Bill 47, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Title 6, Sec. 6001). As of Spring 2022, the management plan for the SCVNHA has not been published. The feasibility study named Tumacácori National Historical Park as the required NPS partner in the development of the management plan, supporting the operation of the Heritage Area by providing expertise about Spanish Colonial heritage, and assisting with National Register nominations in the Heritage Area.14 The guiding principle of the nomination is to provide a structure for voluntary preservation by designating a place as significant without adding federal regulation to properties. The designation as a Heritage Area provides the communities of the Santa Cruz Valley opportunities to grow heritage tourism, apply for seed funding from the federal government, and a potential linking of discrete heritage sites for collaborative programing and improved coordination of their administration. 11Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area. “National Heritage Areas.” 2021. Accessed January 15, 2022. https://santacruzheritage.org/national-heritage-areas/ 12 Jonathan Marby ed., Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, (Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology, 2005): 4. 13 Jonathan Marby, interview by author, Zoom meeting, February 24, 2022. 14 Marby ed., Feasibility Study for the SCVNHA, 13. 64 Management of the SCVNHA proposes to have membership equally divided between representatives from both counties within its boundaries, including members of local governments and tribes, ranchers, farmers, environmental and historic conservation groups, artists, educators, representatives of the tourism and lodging industries, and other local business. Representatives appointed by the State of Arizona and the Mexican state of Sonora will coordinate activities between the NHA and cross-border heritage conservation efforts. The diversity of the management entity allows that these strategies be tailored to the need of individual communities. More sensitive rural communities, who may not want to increase tourism, can deemphasize this aspect while coordinating maintenance of their heritage sites through the SCVNHA. 7.1 Inventories The inventory of designated sites listed in the Heritage Area feasibility study includes all National Historic Landmarks and properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 1,520,419 acres of public lands including National Parks, US Forest Service lands, county parks, conservation easements, and wilderness areas.15 An extensive variety of natural and cultural resources are also covered in this nomination, from native plant and animal species to annual festivals and music styles. Additionally, the feasibility study also names a variety of traditionally cultivated and gathered foods from the area.16 Related resources include edible plants grown in the area, farming practices, and farmers markets, and organizations that specialize in agricultural research and crop conservation practices. One of these projects, The Native Seeds/SEARCH has operated since 1983, conserving the biodiversity of the traditional crops by maintaining a seedbank of 2,000 varieties of arid land-adapted crops and operate a 60-acre conservation farm near Patagonia, Arizona. The group also works with federal agencies on conservation research in the 15 Marby ed., Feasibility Study for the SCVNHA, 31. 16 Marby ed., Feasibility Study for the SCVNHA, 98. 65 2500-acre Wild Chile Botanical Area within Coronado National Forest west of Tumacácori National Historical Park. While the NHA nomination sat on the desks of Arizona’s congressmen, the members of its managing entity embarked on another non-profit. Inspired by a conversation with Gary Nabhan, the Tucson City of Gastronomy (TCoG), as part of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, was launched as a way of supporting the culinary aspects of the NHA.17 While the NHA focuses its efforts on the interpretation of larger questions about the anthropological narratives of the region, the TCoG program is intended to support the small businesses at the forefront of the regional foodways and its foodshed. 7.2 Creative City of Gastronomy Founded by UNESCO in 2004, in the wake of the adoption of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) is currently a global network of 246 cities sharing their best practices for making culture and creativity an essential component of sustainable urban development, policies formulated through a participatory approach, and partnerships involving the public and private sectors.18 Cities can present their applications through a biannual open call process for significance in one of seven fields of Crafts and Folk Arts, Media Arts, Film, Design, Gastronomy, Literature, and Music.19 There are currently nine Creative Cities in the United States: • Santa Fe, New Mexico – Crafts and Folk Art, 2005 • Iowa City, Iowa – Literature, 2008 • Paducah, Kansas – Crafts and Folk Art, 2013 • Austin, Texas – Media Arts, 2015 17 Jonathan Marby, interview by author, Zoom meeting, February 24, 2022. 18 UNESCO, UNESCO Creative Cities Network for Sustainable Development, (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2020): 11. 19 UNESCO, UNESCO Creative Cities Network, 11. 66 • Detroit, Michigan – Design, 2015 • Tucson, Arizona – Gastronomy, 2015 • Kansas City, Missouri – Music, 2017 • San Antonio, Texas – Gastronomy, 2017 • Seattle, Washington – Literature, 2017 To fully integrate culture and creativity into local development strategies and planning, the UCCN sets objectives for member cities; including strengthening the creation, production, distribution and dissemination of cultural activities goods and services.20 In 2015 Tucson, Arizona was established a member of the Creative Cities Network (UCCN) by UNESCO, as a Creative city of Gastronomy. To manage the activities related to the nomination the City of Tucson has formed a partnership with Tucson City of Gastronomy (TCoG), a non-profit established in 2016. Board members of the non-profit represent stakeholders in the local heritage food system including the University of Arizona and Pima Community College, the City of Tucson, the Community Food Bank of southern Arizona, restaurant and hotel owners, the San Xavier Cooperative Farm, and preservation advocates for both tangible and intangible heritage resources. UCCN member Cities of Gastronomy often use the designation as a brand building strategy, encouraging gastronomic tourism. In their 2017 article, researchers David and Thomas Pearson used case studies of five UNECO Creative Cities of Gastronomy to demonstrate how these bands are formed through a joint process.21 Because being able to access the UNESCO Creative City of Gastronomy brand is unlikely to have any noticeable impact for the city, the benefits to the businesses, residents, and tourists are wholly dependent on its marketing efforts. 20 UNESCO, UNESCO Creative Cities Network, 11. 21 David Pearson and Thomas Pearson, “Branding Food Culture: UNESCO Creative Cities of Gastronomy,” Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2017): 347. 67 UNESCO provides its UCCN brand to the cities, but they must develop and promote their local identity by prioritizing food tourism within their economic development plans.22 The TCoG works to implement the goals of the UCCP and further their local mission of benefiting the sustainable development of the southern Arizona Foodshed. As part of the UCCP network, the organization regularly sponsors events that promote knowledge about traditional food practices of the region and its sustainable economic development. In 2016, the non-profit co-organized the international conference ‘Food & Water Sustainability in Arid Lands: Dialogues across Contemporary and Traditional Knowledge’ at the University of Arizona in 2016. The conference brought together academics and individuals with traditional cultural knowledge to explore culturally diverse perspectives on suitable solutions for food and water scarcity.23 7.3 Conservation of a Foodshed In the area of the SCVNHA, the TCoG creates inventories of community food assets, heritage ingredients, and food products. These inventories are used to assess the characteristics and trends of the local food systems and develop programs to support local businesses and entrepreneurship in heritage foods. The Tucson City of Gastronomy Certification is one such program that recognizes the exemplary work local artisans, restaurants, retailers, and caterers with the goal of increasing their sales by guiding locals and visitors to local business who showcase heritage ingredients and regionally distinct flavors. The business must be locally owned with most ingredients prepared in-house. Those restaurants with locations outside of southern Arizona must source a majority of ingredients from local suppliers. Certified businesses are published yearly on the TCoG website and in promotional materials, listed businesses also receive a sticker for their front door and are invited to participate in a yearly event sponsored by 22 Pearson and Pearson, “Branding Food Culture,” 353. 23 Jonathan Marby, Monitoring Report 2015-2019, (Tucson: Tucson City of Gastronomy, 2019): 5. 68 the non-profit. To be eligible for certification, at least one of four criteria should be met by the business. 1. Support the local food economy by sourcing local ingredients, hiring from local culinary programs, partnering with other local food purveyors, or being a member of a local culinary industry organization. 2. Keep the food heritage alive by using heritage ingredients, providing regional dishes on the menu, using traditional techniques for preparation, or using creative recipes. 3. Use community-minded business practices by following COVID safety protocols, using progressive labor practices, employing a diverse staff, and being involved with their communities through local-nonprofits or donations. 4. Practice sustainability in leadership by sourcing sustainable and humanely sourced ingredients, employ sustainable waste diversion, energy and water conservation, compostable packaging, and short travel distances for ingredients. Gloria and Huemac Badilla are owners of Chilttepica, a company that sells dried and ground Chiltepín peppers. Their business was certified as a TCoG Certified Food Artisan in 2021.24 The Chiltepín pepper is inventoried as a locally produced crop of the SCVNHA, as an ancestor of domesticated pepper varieties that grows wild in the canyons near Tumacácori (whose name is derived from a Native American word meaning “where the wild chiles are gathered”).25 While the Badillas’ Chiltepín peppers are grown outside of southern Arizona, on a farm in Sonora, Mexico, their company was nominated as regulated purveyors of the locally significant pepper. The nomination committee found the progressive labor practices for the production of the peppers more important than the location of their plants. The farm’s workforce includes women who are being paid a daily wage for their labor, in contrast to the established market practice 24 Tucson City of Gastronomy, “TCoG Certified Restaurants & Artisans,” Tucson, AZ, accessed 31 Jan 2022, https://tucson.cityofgastronomy.org/tcog-certifications. 25 Jonathan Marby ed., Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, (Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology, 2005): 75. 69 where the harvest is bought by volume of peppers gathered.26 This practice encourages the attention necessary for the complex cultivation and drying of these delicate wild pepper variety. To meet Criterion 3, Chilttepica referenced their partnership with the University of Arizona, who helped the Badillas publish their products nutritional information as part of their certification by the State Department of Health.27 Additionally, the company sells its heritage products to families through placement in three southern Arizona Costco supermarkets, to food heritage enthusiasts through the Native Seeds/SEARCH retail store, and to tourists who can purchase Chilttepica peppers at popular destinations like the Tohono Chul Botanical Garden gift shop, the Tucson Airport, and the Westlook Hotel.28 The Badilla’s company was nominated as a Certified Artisan for their construction of an economic network based on the conservation of this local culinary heritage from cultivation to distribution. The SCVNHA designation covers a large area of land, highlighting both natural and cultural features and manages projects intended to stimulate heritage-focused economic development. Part of the proposal for the nomination includes regionally significant foods and practices, and recommendations to promote local business associated with the heritage of the southern Arizona foodshed. Addressing these recommendations, Tucson applied to become a Creative City of Gastronomy to focus on promoting regional heritage foodways. TCoG certified businesses include a variety of establishments and encourage the development of heritage food markets, some of which may not be certified. The TCoG certifications bring attention to production networks, incentivizing producers at many points in the network of production to work toward certification. As non-regulatory designations both the SVCNHA and the TCoG Certified Artisans program connects groups acting to conserve food heritage in various ways. It is through these inventories that a business like Chiltepica was able to connect with Native Seeds/SEARCH project and share its experience selling peppers to the public. 26 Gloria Badilla, interview with author, phone call, February 15, 2022. 27 Gloria Badilla, interview. 28 Gloria Badilla, interview. 70 The culinary heritage of a place is tied to its regional ecosystem that has traditionally defined the lifestyles of its inhabitants. Heritage designations at the regional scale offer the ability to protect complex webs of natural and cultural heritage underpinning the foodways practiced by their inhabitants. To protect ecoregions, the NPS have sometimes designated a watershed a resource, as a geographic region defining the course of its water flows toward a body, encompassing the intricacies of their natural systems. Like a watershed, a foodshed is an organizing metaphor that lends a shape to the complexities natural and cultural networks of a regional food system.29 A regional foodshed can overlap some of the boundaries of its watershed, yet they are often composed of many ecoregions, a system of agricultural production sites, through traditional practices of artisans, to spaces where consumers form their understanding of the world though their diet. 29 Jack Kloppenburg, et al, “Coming into the Foodshed,” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 13, no. 3 (1996), 34. 71 8.0 CASE STUDY: GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR Figure 5: Map of Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Map by Author The culture of the Gullah Geechee reflects their diverse African traditions, the multiple language groups represented in the distinctive creole, and the generations of self-sufficiency practiced by these communities. As a National Heritage Area (NHA), the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (GGCHC) area tells a nationally important story through its geography, natural and cultural resources, and the traditions that have evolved within the 72 landscape.1 The activities of the GGCHC are designed to conserve and interpret the cultural landscape of the Gullah Geechee. Although these communities were historically separated by tidal marshes and drew their traditions from many West African cultures, the designation unifies the people's pride in their creole heritage and traditions. Designated in 2006 under legislation written by Congressman James E. Clyburn, the GGCHC encompasses a cultural and linguistic area extending along the Atlantic coastline (and 30 miles inland) of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, from the northern border of Pender County, near Wilmington, North Carolina, to the southern border of St. Johns County, in Florida.2 The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission is the local coordinating entity for the Heritage Area and is comprised of 15 members. Four individuals and two experts (in Historic Preservation, Anthropology, and Folklore) are appointed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of South Carolina; the Georgia SHPO appoints two individuals and one expert, two individuals and one expert are appointed by the North Carolina SHPO; and the Florida SHPO appoints two individuals and one expert. The duties of the Heritage Corridor Commission include: • Carrying out programs and projects that recognize, protect, and enhance the value of resources. • Establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and programs. • Developing recreational and educational opportunities. • Increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the historical, cultural, natural, and scenic resources. • Protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings in the Heritage Corridor consistent with the Heritage Corridor's interpretive themes. • Posting clear, consistent, and appropriate signs, identifying points of public access and sites of interest. 1 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission, Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Management Plan, (Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2012): 5. 2 GGCHC Commission, GGCHC Management Plan, 8. 73 • Promoting a wide range of partnerships among governments, organizations, and individuals to further the purposes of the GGCHC. There are six primary interpretative themes associated with the tangible and intangible cultural resources of the GGCHC: 1. Origins and Early Development 2. The Quest for Freedom, Equality, Education, and Recognition 3. Global Connections 4. Connections with the Land 5. Cultural and Spiritual Expression 6. Gullah Geechee Language Cultural and spiritual expression (Theme 5) includes the music, arts, handicrafts, spirituality, and foodways of the Gullah Geechee communities. In the Management Plan, interpretation of Theme 5 is proposed to include cultural events and the preservation of Praise Houses and their associated spiritual practices. To provide flexibility, the Management Plan does not make its partner organizations public. The Plan's language does encourage relationships with organizations and businesses that provide artisanal products relevant to the GGCHC, art galleries, and theaters are encouraged to apply.3 The applications of partner organizations are handled internally by staff who determine the appropriateness of the partnership. 8.1 Agricultural Heritage The monthly newsletter often highlights the work of area projects that parallel the work of the Heritage Corridor. Partner organizations and heritage sites managed by the GGCHC provide organizational and promotional assistance to events related to continuing the region's cultural practices. Among these organizations are some dedicated to the study and continuance of Gullah Geechee foodways, and others dedicated to the preservation of the region’s agricultural heritage. The annual Red Rice Day in Charleston is one such event organized by the Heritage 3 GGCHC Commission, GGCHC Management Plan, 125. 74 Corridor committee as part of the MOJA festival of African-American and Caribbean arts and culture.4 Rice has been a staple crop of South Carolina since the 18th century. Rice plantations were large operations that required skilled workers to maintain production. With the introduction of tidal rice fields in the 1750s, enslaved workers from the rice-growing regions of Africa became highly valued for their technical knowledge and skills in cultivation and irrigation. Nearly 61 percent of enslaved people brought to South Carolina and Georgia between 1749 and 1787 came from rice-growing regions of West Africa, either directly or by way of the Caribbean.5 Along with their skilled labor and knowledge of cultivation techniques, enslaved families also surreptitiously brought over culturally significant varieties of rice grains from West Africa. Dutch Ethnobotanist Tinde Van Andel has written extensively on the connection between heritage rice farming and the spiritual practices of Oryza glaberrima rice. This variety of rice was historically cultivated in the Gullah Geechee communities, but at the time of Andel's research, it was no longer found in the United States or Europe.6 Her research identified a community in Suriname that had continued cultivating, milling, using (for food and spiritual practice), and even exporting the rice to the Netherlands, despite historians considering it a "lost crop." Following Andel, Trinidadian Ethnobotanist Francis Morean documented the cultivation of an Upland or 'Moruga Hill' Rice variety of the Oryza glaberrima genus on the island of Trinidad. According to Morean, the variety was brought to the island by groups of freed people from the United States locally called 'Merikins,' who cultivated the indigenous African rice in 4 Adam Manno, “Charleston proclaims this Saturday as ‘Red Rice Day’ in honor of Gullah Geechee culture,” Charleston City Paper, September 25, 2018, accessed February 15, 2022. https://charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston-proclaims-this-saturday-as-red-rice-day-in-honor-of-gullah- geechee-culture/. 5 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Low Country Gullah Culture, Special resource Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement [Feasibility Study], (Atlanta: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, 2005): 20. 6 Tinde Van Andel, “African Rice (Oryza glaberrima Steud.): Lost Crop of the Enslaved Africans Discovered in Suriname,” Economic Botany, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2010): 1. 75 their plots while enslaved in the United States. Morean also estimates that today only about 40 people are planting this rice on the island. Because of the high risk to this agricultural heritage, he held a 2016 rice symposium in Arima, Trinidad, to promote his research with other researchers. Heritage preservation advocates from the Gullah Geechee community, including the Gullah Chef BJ Dennis attended the conference, who has gone onto promote the cultivation and use of the Hill Rice in cooking.7 Also in attendance at Morean's Symposium were David Shields of the Carolina Gold Rice Foundation (CGRF) and Glenn Roberts of Anson Mills, who had been working since 2004 to preserve the heritage grains that had previously been commonly cultivated along the marshy coasts of the southeast United States. The CGRF worked with Sarah Ross, of the Wormsloe Historic Site, to create a garden of the Trinidadian Moruga Hill Rice on the grounds.8 Ross worked with Marion Rollen Chalmers, a Gullah farmer well known for growing landrace varieties of rice, to plant and manage the rice garden.9 A recent addition to the variety of culinary heritage projects in the GGCHC is the Muloma Heritage Center. Chef Michael Titty has joined a group of award-winning chefs and historians and curators, including curator Ada Anahgo Brown, to create a 38-acre center to showcase the African-Atlantic roots of the region.10 At the heart of the project will be three kitchens, one dedicated to African foodways, another focusing on the historic transformation and adaptations of African cooking traditions through the Atlantic Slave trade, and a legacy kitchen, 7 Jill Neimark, “A Lost Rice Variety — And the Story of The Freed 'Merikins' Who Kept It Alive,” National Public Radio, Washington, DC, May 10, 2017, accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/10/527449714/a-lost-rice-variety-and-the-story-of-the-freed- merikins-who-kept-it-alive 8 Carolina Gold Rice Foundation, “Our Board of Directors,” accessed February 15, 2022. http://www.thecarolinagoldricefoundation.org/board-1. 9 Lela Nargi,“How a South Carolina Farmer Is Adapting an Heirloom Rice to Withstand Climate Change,” Civil Eats, September 16, 2020, accessed February 15, 2022, https://civileats.com/2020/09/16/how-a-south- carolina-farmer-is-adapting-an-heirloom-rice-to-withstand-climate-change/. 10 Muloma Heritage Center, “Our Plan,” accessed February 15, 2022. https://muloma.com/theproject 76 dedicated to the melding of the two traditions into a new southern food tradition.11 As the Heritage Center is established they hope to work closely with the GGCHC Commission to support the work of maintaining the regional culture through collaborative events. 8.2 Existential Threats The popularity of agricultural heritage practices by groups like the CGRF, Anson Mills, the Muloma Heritage Center, and the celebrity status of Gullah Chefs BJ Dennis and Matthew Raiford is propelling the creole Gullah Geechee foodways into the national consciousness.12 The growing nationwide interest in the Gullah Geechee culture and foodways has created further openings for press about the recent the existential threats community and its historical struggles for autonomy. Within the context of the struggle to maintain a community, the work of culinary heritage preservation takes on a deeper meaning as the perpetuation of cultural identity and group survival. Once far from urban centers like Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville, the Gullah Geechee community was insulated from the dominant society's pressures. However, highly valuable coastal development into these marshlands followed the advent of air- conditioning, mosquito control, and bridges. Hilton Head Island, St. Simons, and Sapelo Island have become sites of active resistance to land speculators. Tax delinquency and infrastructural disinvestment are serious issues facing the continued existence of both the oceanfront and inland Gullah Geechee communities. In 2016, articles published by the BBC and the Georgetown Times documented how residents of Plantersville were losing their homes after Georgetown County took on loans to pay for capital improvement projects.13 After initially being informed that the project would not represent a 11 Ada Anahgo Brown, interview with author, phone call, May 23, 2022. 12 Elisabeth Sherman, “In South Carolina, Gullah-Geechee cuisine gets its long overdue moment in the spotlight,” Matador Network, December 10, 2019, accessed: February 15, 2022, https://matadornetwork.com/read/south-carolina-gullah-geechee-cuisine/. 13 Eileen Keithly, “A Georgetown Times Investigation: A community in crisis Some Plantersville residents struggle to pay annual sewer assessments, risking their homes and freedom,” Georgetown News, Myrtle Beach, SC, March 11, 2016; Brian Wheeler, “Gullah Geechee: Descendants of slaves fight for their land,” BBC News, Washington DC, December 5, 2016. 77 significant tax burden passed onto property owners, the residents soon faced monthly assessments of $200. Delinquent residents began losing their homes, auctioned to investors at a fraction of their value. Sapelo Island has been home to the Gullah Geechee since the 1700s; several freedman's communities formed in the wake of the Civil War and the population peaked at 539 residents in 1910. However, by the mid-twentieth century, many communities were displaced, as local tobacco magnate Richard J. Reynolds laid claim to the island in 1937, evicting families with alleged forged documents, false promises, and intimidation.14 Today, approximately 30 people live the Hog Hammock community on the south end of Sapelo Island. The rest of the island is owned by the State of Georgia—deeded by Mr. Reynolds' estate. After decades of disinvestment, the community successfully sued McIntosh County for not providing water and transportation infrastructure for which they had been taxed.15 Of the 54 plaintiffs in the case, most now live in Brunswick and on St. Simons Island, but some had moved as far away as Texas and New York City. The lawsuit was made possible by efforts of the Raccoon Hogg Community-led Development Corporation, an organization run by and for the island's Gullah Geechee residents, to support culturally relevant land-use policies. On its website, Raccoon Hogg CDC cites the GGCHC management plan to inform interested parties of the links between its community on Sapelo Island to the heritage protection efforts across the coastal region.16 Property loss in disputes over collectively held property is another major problem facing Gullah Geechee communities throughout the coastal region. Following their west African tradition, many coastal land parcels were bought and developed collectively, with many houses built on one lot. Because the lots of 'heir's property' have never been officially subdivided, it can have hundreds of potential heirs, passed from one generation to the next with no documentation. 14 Zoe Nicholson, “Sapelo Island's Geechee population fight development, sea-level rise, land loss to preserve culture,” Savannah Morning News, Savanah GA, December 14, 2021. 15 Larry Hobbs, “Gullah-Geechee descendants file suit against McIntosh County, state,” The Brunswick News, Brunswick, GA, December 9, 2015. 16 Raccoon Hogg Community Development Corporation, “Community of Opportunity,” accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.raccoonhogg.com/ 78 So, one heir can make a claim to sell the parcel and legally evict the other heirs living there unless the other residents buy out the claimants' share. In the 1950's lands in Hilton Head Island sold for $50 an acre. Today, these same lands sell for upwards of $800,000 an acre; this often ends in the loss of lands that may have had Gullah Geechee families living there for generations.17 8.3 Cultural Solidarity Struggles for the survival of Gullah Geechee lands is supported through the expression of a collective cultural identity regionally. The Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition was founded in 1996 by Marquetta L. Goodwine, a native of St. Helena Island, while she was living in Brooklyn, New York. Upon returning to her home, Goodwine worked with the Beaufort County Commission to establish the Cultural Protection Overlay District on St. Helena Island. It was the first municipal protection of a Gullah Geechee community. Today, this zoning overlay prohibits the construction of any design features that could limit access to the water or culturally significant features; gated communities, vacation resorts, and golf courses are also prohibited.18 The Family compound standards adopted by the Plan, intended for properties that have remained within a family for 50 years or more, allow for density bonuses and subdivision to mitigate the sale of Gullah Geechee heir's properties.19 In 2000, Goodwine presented a taped statement—Yeddy Wi: Gullah/Geechee Living Ways—to the First International Conference on the Right to Self- determination at the United Nations in Geneva. In this statement, Goodwine named the Gullah/Geechee peoples an indigenous nation with the right of self-determination, as such. Despite the fact that the 17 Michelle Chen, “Black Lands Matter: The Movement to Transform Heirs’ Property Laws,” The Nation, September 25, 2019, accessed: February 15, 2022. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/heirs- property-reform/. 18 Beaufort County Council, Community Development Code: Art.3, Div.3.4.50, “Cultural Protection Overlay (CPO) Standards” Beaufort Community Council, Beaufort County, SC, 2021; Beaufort County Council, 2010 Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 6 – Cultural Resources. 19 Beaufort County Council, Community Development Code: Art.2.7,Div.2.7.40, “Family Compound Standards,” Beaufort Community Council, Beaufort County, SC, 2021. 79 community identifies with its multiple ancestral African traditions, she described how the Gullah/Geechee people developed in the United States as a distinct creole society. Whether or not they are indigenous in the same sense of the Native Americans, Goodwine argued the Gullah/Geechee nation is covered by the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities."20 With her community facing the pressures of expanding tourism, rapid economic development, the decline of the traditional fishing industries, land losses, and dwindling community autonomy, Goodwine sought cultural solidarity through the consolidation of Gullah/Geechee ethnic identity. In the years since her presentation in Geneva, she has been dubbed Queen Quet by her supporters and continues to fight for the self-sufficiency and empowerment of her nation. The GGCHC Management Plan is also a project of cultural unification, concurrent with the project of the Gullah/Geechee Nation. In the Special Resource Study and the subsequent designating legislation for the Heritage Corridor, the coastal region of African diasporic communities of the corridor were referred to as Gullah/Geechee. The two names— Geechee and Gullah—reflect the division traditionally used to distinguish the Gullah people of the Carolinas from the Geechee people of Georgia and northern Florida.21 As noted in the final language of the Management Plan, the slash was substituted for a space, hence the title Gullah Geechee.22 While this unified terminology was not adopted by everyone—most notably, the Gullah/Geechee Nation—the term now appears without the slash in some recent publications and is hyphenated in others. When the 30 residents on Sapelo Island, Georgia express their cultural solidarity with other Gullah Geechee communities along the coast, they can have a louder voice for speaking to 20 Marquetta L. Goodwine, “Yeddy Wi: Gullah/Geechee Living Ways,” in Pursuit of the Right to Self- determination: Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self- Determination & the United Nations Geneva 2000, eds. Yusuf Naim Kly and Diana Kly, 107-113, (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2001): 112. 21 NPS, Low Country Gullah Culture, 13; US Congress, House, National Heritage Areas Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess., 2006, Sec. 295. 22 GGCHC Commission, GGCHC Management Plan, i. 80 their congressional and county representatives. As a narrative driven NHA, (as described in section 5.3) the GGCHC is based on the story of creole community, with heritage traditions of many West African cultures as they have been adapted and maintained throughout many generations. Gullah Geechee history, as described through the thematic areas of the GGCHC Management Plan, parallel depictions in popular media of a people with pride in their regional cultural, spiritual, culinary, and agricultural practices. Efforts like those of the GGCHC and the non-profits working in its region have reinforced the cultural identity of the Gullah Geechee in the national and international consciousness. Thus, coverage of the Gullah Geechee cultural and foodways traditions create a platform to reach a national and international audience when discussing the struggle for autonomy and the right of a unique culture to exist. 81 9.0 CONCLUSIONS While unique in circumstance and structure, the three case studies share important similarities as they relate to this thesis. Three areas of emphasis emerged. The first was the importance of the partnerships between stakeholders, public institutions, and advocacy organizations in support of a heritage foodshed. The second area of emphasis to emerge was the idea of branding and cultural distinguishment as a complex strategy that can be used both by local tourism boards and by community advocacy groups. Finally, preservation of use as a strategy to maintain the continuance of community foodways is a theme that emerged throughout the research and writing of the case studies. Each of the thematic areas of emphasis will be explored in this chapter. 9.1 Partnerships Successful efforts toward conservation of tangible or intangible resources rely on strong partnerships between property owners, local advocacy groups, and municipal, state, and federal governments. This thesis has explored a few emerging ways that municipal and federal governments have supported the continuance of intangible heritage practices like foodways. Similar to built-environment preservation, NHAs and municipal intangible heritage protection efforts also rely on partnerships for interpretation and advocacy. Municipal, state, and federal government bodies can offer financial incentives like grants and tax relief, but none of this can happen without a robust advocacy on behalf of the intangible heritage of a place. All three of the case studies have demonstrated ways that these partnerships have been cultivated. San Francisco CHDs function through a network of organizations that find, highlight, and communicate with businesses and communities that practice intangible heritage conservation. Businesses are listed in the LBR through an open application process and local government support. Because applications can be assembled with assistance from local organizations, some nominated businesses can have varying levels of meaning and value among different cultural groups associated with the business. The context of the Calle Veinticuatro Latino Cultural District (CVLCD) allows for a much more subtle reading of the tortillerías role. While Casa Sanchez may not be a tourist destination, it continues to produce masa at the family’s Napoleon 82 Street location. The family also rent the former storefront space to a Salvadorean restaurant, thus the historic tortillería continues to play a significant role in the narrative of the neighborhood. It is likely that neither the CVLCD nor the Office of Small Businesses influenced the complex and difficult decision of the Sanchez family to close its storefront business. Still, the nomination to the LBR, and a subsequent National Register nomination, demonstrate the importance the Sanchez tortillería had for the regional foodshed as a foundational element for other restaurants and Mexican grocers supporting the daily foodways practices of their consumers. This significance became known to the Office of Small Business because Desiree Aranda, author of the application, chose to work with the Sanchez family and tell their story. Building upon its status on the LBR, Casa Sanchez has now been nominated as a local landmark under Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code, with the support of the San Francisco Latino Historical Society.1 NHAs work through a network of partner sites, holding events to create awareness within a broader audience. Public programming at historic buildings within NHA boundaries offers practitioners of intangible heritage—like cooks, musicians, craftspeople, and storytellers—an opportunity to contextualize their work in the historical settings of the partner sites. In the GGCHC, individual heritage sites host activities related to the local intangible heritage. Established in 1862, the Penn Normal, Industrial & Agricultural School was one of the first academic schools in the South to provide formal education for formerly enslaved West Africans and became closely associated with the work of Dr. Martin Luther King.2 The campus currently functions as the Penn Center, a National Historic Landmark District, with its educational resources housed in a beautifully restored series of buildings available for rent as event spaces. The Center also serves as a site for the Program for Academic and Cultural Enrichment, Land Use and Environmental Education Program, programing associated with 'Capacity Building for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers in South Carolina,' and the 'Culture and Community at the 1 San Francisco Planning Department, Landmark Designation Recommendation – 2778 24th Street [Casa Sanchez], record no. 2020-009613DES, September 9, 2021. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2020-009613DES.pdf 2 Penn Center, “About,” accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.penncenter.com/about 83 Penn Center National Historic Landmark District' program.3 By working to preserve the existing heritage of the community and to support small plot farming and the production of ingredients, the local foodshed is being reconstructed through the efforts of non-profits, and their work is regionally framed within the large-scale vision of the GGCHC. Because of the regional scale of NHAs, their feasibility studies include a broad range of heritage sites and resources from urban and rural communities. The surveys and historic context statements required for a local government to begin a preservation program or become a Certified Local Government (GLG) are often too costly to be publicly funded. NHAs can provide a proactive possibility for smaller communities by creating databases that include a wide array of sites, in-part financed by grants from the federal government. The diversity of these lists may set smaller communities on a path to preservation programs that are not exclusively oriented toward the preservation of architectural and archeological resources. In the same way, the community advocacy organizations working in San Francisco's CHDs do the research work beyond the scope of the Planning Department studies, often working with each other to find and nominate the sites of significant intangible heritage. 9.2 Branding and Identity Branding strategies are often employed to create a heritage tourism industry. The Tucson City of Gastronomy (TCoG) program, like many of the members of the UCCP program, relies heavily on branding as a strategy for promoting nominated businesses. Like the SVCNHA, the GGCHC committee promotes a managed approach to increasing heritage tourism through their public-private partnerships. These strategies often involve media campaigns, certification programs for local businesses, and window stickers. Yet another aspect of their branding strategy are the public documents related to municipal CHDs and federal NHAs. These documents are intended to provide an understanding of the priorities of their managing bodies, but the community can also use these documents to communicate concerns to local and federal 3 Penn Center, “Programs and Resources,” accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.penncenter.com/programs-and- resources 84 government leaders. Additionally, cultural heritage advocates and activist groups may use these free, public documents to support and challenge narratives about a place. To leverage the UNESCO TCoG designation, the City of Tucson began promoting itself as a gastronomic tourism destination. Part of this work included branding a stretch of South 12th Avenue as "The Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food."4 After three years of this branding strategy, a 2018 report by the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders (NALCAB) identified a desire within community stakeholders for balancing the cultural preservation and the attraction of new investment along the South 12th Avenue corridor.5 Conversations with City of Tucson staff, community-based non-profits, and residents and business owners made it clear that there was a need for improved communication and trust between the city and the communities in the southern part of the city, where there was a widespread fear of displacement associated with the economic development of the corridor. Tucson Vice Mayor Lane Santa Cruz recently cited the report's findings to criticize the narrow focus on culinary tourism as extractive.6 Santa Cruz presented Tucson's expanded capital improvement projects and small business support in the South 12th Avenue corridor community (recommended by the NALCAB report) as a supportive approach to maintaining the heritage of the corridor by supporting its residents. If heritage is a social need, as stated by Reeves and Plets, then branding, beyond a simple marketing exercise, could be considered a method for communicating a cultural identity and its needs.7 The San Francisco Cultural Heritage Districts (CHD) are supported by the CHHESS and similar reports produced by the committees of the CHDs. The reports highlight tangible components for constructing cultural traditions and recommendations for relevant protection 4 Jonathan Hoffman, “’The Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food’ Tour!,” Tucson Weekly, June 22, 2015, accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/06/22/best-23-miles-of-mexican-food-tour 5 Sofia Lopez, NALCAB Strategies and Tools for Equitable Development Along Tucson’s South 12th Avenue, (Washington D.C.: National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, 2018): 2. 6 Lane Santa Cruz, et al. “Regional Perspectives: Cultural Landscapes, Environment, and Conservation,” Panel Discussion, Congreso 2022 from Latinos in Heritage Conservation, Denver, April 28, 2022. 7 Keir Reeves and Gertjan Plets, “Cultural Heritage as a Strategy for Social Needs and Community Identity,” in A Companion to Heritage Studies, eds. Logan, Craith, and Kockel (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2016) 212. 85 strategies. As a city with considerable economic real-estate pressure, the reports also describe the threats of displacement facing the culture bearing residents. In response to some of the concerns presented in the documents, the Calle Veinticuatro Latino Cultural Corridor Cultural Heritage District has adopted its special-use-district zoning overlay with limitations, including the destruction of murals, and placed limits on the size of street-level commercial development.8 Like the Calle Veinticuatro Latino Cultural Corridor Cultural Heritage District report, the feasibility study and management plans of the GGCHC crafted a binding narrative that establishes a regional identity and contextualizes the work of many organizations to preserve all aspects of heritage. The hyphen was taken out of the name in the management plan, presenting the Gullah Geechee as a unified community in the NHA to create awareness of the shared Gullah Geechee culture. The documents are also freely available to the public as electronic files. The feasibility study is regularly cited on the web pages of other Gullah Geechee heritage preservation initiatives, as it tells a comprehensive story of the region (including the community's critical appraisals of the document's efforts) without being authoritative in its narrative or suggestions.9 As described in the case study, the other powerful aspect to the Gullah Geechee cultural identity is the description of struggle toward autonomy and recognition of their right to the land. The GGCHC feasibility study tells this story in a narrative which parallels that of the foodways. To call-back to the threats facing the community, the document nests narratives of loss, survival, and autonomy into the thematic historic contexts. In one example from the foodways section, a 1984 quote from Emory Campbell uses foodways to make the threats of displacement explicit: 8 San Francisco County, California, San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.59: “Calle 24 Special Use District,” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. 9 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Atlanta: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, 2005): 96. 86 "We have given up on trying to protect the shrimp and crab because we, the black native population of these islands, have become the new endangered species."10 Campbell's quote about the existential threat facing the community is also contrasted by stories of the resilience and strength of the Gullah Geechee in the GGCHC feasibility study's section on traditional foodways. Precious Edwards, a local Sea Islander, recorded by folklorist Josephine Beoku-Betts in 1992, reflects on the importance of rice to Gullah Geechee culture: "Rice is security. If you have some rice, you'll never starve. It is a bellyful. You should never find a cupboard without it."11 On Edwards' quote, cited in the GGCHC feasibility study, Beoku- Betts had previously reflected: "…terms such as "security," "strength," "bellyful," "makes us fat" helps us to understand the role of this food not only as a means of survival when families are on the brink of economic disaster but also in times of plenty."12 The unified creole identity of the Gullah Geechee is described in the GGCHC feasibility study by combining the critical narratives of struggle and solidarity together with the cultural profile provided by the research of historians, ecologists, biologists, and folklorists. Similarly, the Calle Veinticuatro Latino Cultural Corridor Cultural Heritage District report creates a narrative about struggle over the development, identifying challenges to the continued cultural relevance of the community. Thus, solutions to the displacement of families and businesses are tied into a plan for the cultural heritage conservation of the neighborhood. This rhetorical method is intended to persuade the reader—often a legislator or government official—to take specific actions suggested by the documents. Food is an emotional common ground that can encompass multiple meanings beyond those specific to the community of people practicing a foodway. For this reason, foodways have become an attractive strategy for tourism. The GGCHC feasibility study uses this familiar space 10 NPS, Low Country Gullah Culture, F36. 11 NPS, Low Country Gullah Culture, F35. 12 Josephine Beoku-Betts, “’We Got Our Way of Cooking Things’: Women, Food, And Preservation of Cultural Identity Among the Gullah,” in Food in the USA: A Reader, ed. Carole M. Counihan (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2002): 284. 87 of emotional understanding to communicate broader threats to Gullah Geechee culture. While this activist aspect was not adopted by the SCVNHA documents nor by the language of the TCoG designation, it has been seized upon by Tucson communities at the center of the culinary tourism strategy to advocate for broader community investments. 9.3 Protections of Use and Users Protecting a use means continuing a practice that gives a place meaning. An early example of this approach at the Federal level was the National Historic Reserve on Ebey's Landing in the 1980s. Recently nominated Traditional Cultural Properties, such as the Fishtown Historic District, are emphasizing the continuity of cultural use, rather than the historic built integrity. Preservation of use is an attempt to be proactive about the loss of culturally significant sites that underpin a community’s heritage. The San Francisco Legacy Business Registry (LBR) program protects the use of a place by nominating a business independent of a physical location. To survive, businesses have to change over time, and often this means sacrificing aspects that would underpin the integrity of a National Register style nomination. Yet, restaurants often maintain their importance to a community with a loose association to a specific building or location. San Francisco's LBR program recognizes these limits and allows businesses to be nominated even if they change location or lose substantial aspects of their original form. San Francisco's LBR uses an age limit of 30 years, a statement of significance, and a plan to maintain an aspect of this significance. Authenticity of culture or integrity of practice are not criteria for the application. Instead, the argument about relevance to the community is judged by the Office of Small Business on a case- by-case basis. Like the San Francisco LBR, the NHAs highlight heritage practices as they change without applying metrics of physical integrity associated with an NRHP nomination. The partner organizations of an NHA committee should be appropriate to the theme or historic preservation goals and do the location's heritage preservation work but maintain their focus on a specific theme. For example, the UNESCO TCoG has its criteria for its operation, independent of the SCVNHA. Because of this partnership-based approach of the NHAs, their committees have the 88 ability to incentivize specific projects through grants and publicity. The large scale of most NHAs offers many possibilities for establishing connections across many institutions and narratives. At the scale of the foodshed, the SCVNHA has partnered with the TCoG to highlight and celebrate businesses, like Chilttepica, in order to maintain the practice of traditional foods through sustainable and progressive practices. While the SCVNHA is delimited by the watershed boundaries, the foodshed does not follow the same geographic boundary. Instead, each ingredient has its own reach. The TCoG program places some limits on the extent of these foodsheds to keep the economic benefits generated by the nomination relevant to southern Arizona.13 Non-profits like the TCoG and the Native Seeds/SEARCH program can help highlight, document, and celebrate local businesses. Their work inspires discussions at the municipal level about tourism, legacy business programs, and community support. In the GGCHC, individuals and non-profits, like BJ Dennis, the Muloma foundation, and the Carolina Gold Rice Foundation, use foodshed scale approaches for the reactivation of historical foodways practices. The research of historic foodways creates a space to discuss larger issues facing the communities. As a thematic NHA, the GGCHC committee focuses its efforts on preserving the Gullah Geechee creole African heritage. Author Cornelia Walker Bailey began the Sapelo Island Red Pea Project to pay for the rising property taxes on her family's property, in the wake of new development on the island. The heirloom legumes have their origins in Sierra Leone and have been grown on Sapelo Island since the eighteenth century. The Baileys' property is also headquarters for the Sapelo Island Cultural and Revitalization Society (SICARS), which advocates for protecting the small Gullah Geechee community on the island through conservation of historic buildings and the promotion of the Islands heritage.14 Projects like the 13 Tucson City of Gastronomy, “Applications,” 2022, Accessed February 15, 2022. https://tucson.cityofgastronomy.org/certifications 14 Alexis Diao, “Remembering Cornelia Walker Bailey, A Giant of Gullah Geechee Culture,” National Public Radio, October 25, 2017. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/25/560093667/remembering-cornelia-walker-bailey-a-giant- of-gullah-geechee-culture 89 Sapelo Island Red Pea Project exemplify the way that heritage preservation can be connected to anti-displacement initiatives. San Francisco's CHD and their Cultural History, Housing, and Economic Sustainability Strategy (CHHESS) reports that address the communities needs can preserve the heritage uses of a community by focusing on the users who practice the heritage. Some CHDs are planned with the intention of providing a space of return for displaced communities. The American Indian Cultural District (AICD) was formed in 2020 and encompasses northern portions of the Mission District, including Dolores Park. These are areas where Ohlone villages would have been historically located and where American Indian community services are currently located.15 While the area may not be a majority American Indian neighborhood or have many visible cultural expressions, the city designated the CHD to pay homage to the unceded Ramaytush Ohlone land. The AICD protects uses that support the American Indian community and traditional uses that may not be apparent to non-tribal people. In order to explore heritage as the use of a place, this thesis has identified aspects of federal and municipal preservation practices that can protect both the built environment and its intangible heritage aspects. Because of the diversity of themes covered in NHAs, many forms of intangible heritage can be included in their efforts. While municipal LBRs and CHDs are not designated under the traditional National Register criteria, some cities support CHDs by providing culturally relevant zoning intended to regulate culturally inappropriate development and to stabilize the displacement of culture-bearing populations. Finally, the work of supporting uses and protecting users cannot happen without individuals, non-profits, and community advocacy groups directing the focus and attention of municipal and federal agencies. In a preservation environment defined by participatory and collaborative planning, and partnerships between advocates and government, the inspiration, flexibility, and responsiveness of heritage conservation advocates will lead the way to new possibilities for action outlined in this thesis. 15 American Indian Cultural District, “About Us,” accessed May 5, 2022. https://americanindianculturaldistrict.org/our-vision 90 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS This paper has identified commonalities across numerous federal and municipal strategies related to intangible heritage preservation. These programs differ greatly in scale, and the possibility for action to protect foodways and foodsheds increases within smaller-scale organizations. Yet they confirm the potential to create successful partnerships based on work at all scales. The following three short sections provide recommendations based on the conclusions of the previous chapter. These recommendations are directed toward preservation advocates working on the ground planning, management, and interpretation of heritage sites. Because changes to public heritage preservation policy are contingent on politics and very slow at the federal level, non-profits, researchers, community groups, and activists may be most receptive to the following set of recommendations. 10.1 Formalization Returning to a topic from section 2.1, municipal preservation programs, specifically those undertaken by CLGs, are based on federal models for preservation, often reflecting the criteria and integrity metrics of those models. Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966, the federal government has created models for local preservation through GLGs and their administration through State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO and THPO). Yet, local governments like San Francisco are creating new ways of conserving intangible heritage that are radically different from the guidelines of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The National Trust and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should formalize official guidance and strategies appropriate to the needs of traditionally marginalized communities, often featuring many intangible heritage practices being practiced in buildings with little historic integrity. This guidance would help inform best practices for cities that want to create Cultural Heritage Districts and culturally inclusive Legacy Business Registries. National Heritage Area (NHA), cultural landscapes, tribal landscapes, and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) offer various methods for identifying, nominating, and managing sites associated with intangible heritage practices. Internationally, UNESCO and ICOMOS have been at the forefront 91 of identifying possibilities for intangible heritage conservation with documents like the Burra Charter, The 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage, and programs like the Intangible Heritage lists and the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN). These programs and discourses all point to a new way forward in preservation; one where the government is not the arbiter of value, integrity, and significance but a support mechanism, providing financial, administrative, and management support for community-led efforts toward long term solutions for the cultural heritage of our communities. Legacy Business Programs (LBP) and Cultural Heritage Districts (CHD) with culturally sensitive zoning regulations can support communities with significant intangible heritage practices at the municipal level. Yet, these practices differ across locations, and many provide little or no community protection in the communities that practice heritage. As noted earlier, there are few case studies, and San Francisco sits alone as the longest-running example of a city utilizing all three of these strategies. National Heritage Areas offer an example of how a federal program could assist in contextualizing and emphasizing which areas would work best for a particular situation. The non-regulatory model of the NHAs offers a politically unintrusive method for the federal government to interface with local governments. The National Register nomination process can also provide an impetus for developing new municipal tools to protect intangible heritage. Bulletin 38 provides guidance for the nomination of properties with cultural significance and strong integrity of feeling and association but less built integrity. Recent developments of nominations of Casa Rincon in New York City and Fishtown in Leland, Michigan, demonstrate how the Bulletin 38 can provide guidance on a variety of property types. The Bulletin offers many ways to help authors of nominations use the National Register nomination guidelines, including simplifying integrity into two criteria—the integrity of relationship and condition.1 Efforts like Bulletin 38 create possibilities for intangible heritage preservation, allowing communities to proactively use the National Register to protect these sites. Yet without official guidance from the National Register, THPOs, or SHPOs on these 1 Patricia L. Parker and Thomas King, National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992): 10. 92 property types and districts, preservation in traditionally marginalized communities can become a series of exceptions instead of a method. Federal methods of landscape-scale preservation can provide the equity-driven distribution of resources necessary for a regional interpretation and conservation of dynamic intangible heritage resources, and the tools for such a policy are already here. TCPs, TCLs, and Cultural Landscapes have been crafted to address the challenges to the preservation of working landscapes. A future researcher may want to explore why so few of these methods have been applied to urban landscapes, with Puerto Rican Casitas being the clear outlier. NHAs provide a method for a landscape approach for interpreting both urban and rural sites together, without an explicit connection to the National Register nomination process. While this is politically palatable in places with an unfavorable general perception of preservation, the legislative approval for an NHA can be a lengthy process with no guaranteed benefits for the advocacy groups, non-profits, or state-managed historic sites in their designated boundaries. The advantage of a program that employs preservation in the model of the 1966 NHPA is a well- established process for identifying, protecting, and funding heritage preservation programs. Programs associated with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties may be ill-suited for protecting sites related to intangible heritage, like foodways, or for the care and maintenance of a foodshed. But the established government offices and non- profit institutions that regularly work together under the Federal Preservation Program, like the National Trust and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, encourage and sometimes host the participatory dialogues necessary to create an official approach supportive of the place- led cultural heritage preservation practices. Conferences like Past Forward provide an opportunity to discuss issues related to the conservation of intangible cultural heritage through a necessarily interdisciplinary group, including professionals outside of traditional preservation fields. Yet, for this discussion to lead toward concrete developments in policy, preservation advocates need to create a collective push for formalizing these new methods. 93 10.2 Agency of Image Many of the locations mentioned in the case studies face economic challenges and resident displacement. This issue is discussed in the documents of the GGCHC and the San Francisco CHDs. One response that appears in both is tourism. The business to street level commerce provided by visitors is an attractive proposition for development. Yet, the branding and commodification of heritage can be perceived as extractive when it is not accompanied by a more comprehensive support structure for impoverished communities. CHDs and culturally informed zoning overlays offer a way to guide the balance between autonomous significance and the needs of tourism and business development boards. Narratives of community and tradition can attract heritage tourism and strengthen representation in local government and control over the shape of development. In her Book Barrio Dreams, author Arlene Dávila describes how developers in East Harlem worked toward a culturally-rooted symbolic identity to sugar-coat the way their projects displaced residents. Against these efforts toward the construction of a marketable ethnicity, the Puerto Rican and Mexican activists of East Harlem utilized these tokenistic expressions as opportunities to assert the culture and history of the barrio, using their ethnic identity to demand openness, opportunity, community, history, accountability, and representation in the planning process.2 Expanding on this idea, City of Oakland Cultural Affairs Manager Roberto Bedoya calls for a rasquachification of space to create an aesthetics of belonging, challenging a spatial imaginary dominated by whiteness.3 Bedoya promotes the continuance of spontaneous and poetic spatial interventions associated with traditionally marginalized communities to create an aesthetic of assertion—to say, "I'm Here." Bedoya and Dávila's suggestions demonstrate how advocates can appropriate the marketable ethnicity featured in the planning process to promote the community's voice and 2 Arlene Dávila, Barrio Dreams: Puerto Ricans, Latinos, and the Neoliberal City, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004): 211. 3 Roberto Bedoya, “Spatial Justice: Rasquachification, Race and the City” Creative Time Reports, September 15, 2014, Accessed July 30, 2020. https://creativetimereports.org/2014/09/15/spatial-justice-rasquachification- race-and-the-city/ 94 needs. Published documents, like the foodways documentation provided in feasibility studies, management plans, and reports associated with CHDs and NHAs, can become a platform for advocacy. But, for communities to know how to take advantage of these possibilities for engagement in the planning process, there must be a dissemination of the tool of public relations. Anyone involved with non-profit advocacy would know the importance of promotion and marketing your cause to a well-defined audience. Yet, it is not enough to create an attractive image for a cause. As shown by the work of individuals working in the SCVNHA or the GGCHC, a cause can be pushed by shaping its perception through a diverse strategy. As described in section 8.3, Marquetta Goodwine was able to make inroads at the Beaufort County Council to create culturally sensitive zoning overlays for the Gullah Geechee communities on St. Helena Island. But she pushed onward, taking her case to the United Nations to get the Gullah/Geechee people of the Sea Islands recognized as an indigenous creole people. Culinary heritage has been an important tool to amplify the voice of Gullah Geechee voices. Because everyone likes to eat, but not everyone knows how to support the autonomy of an indigenous African creole society. Advocates for wilderness conservation know this strategy well; when local politics or traditional power relations stifle action on an issue, one possible technique is to pressure local governments and power structures by appealing to an external audience. The SCVNHA had its legislation shelved for 14 years, yet when Tucson successfully applied to become an UNESCO Creative City of Gastronomy, the legislation on the NHA was signed into law in less than two years. Foodways may not represent a panacea for strategic communications. Still, intangible heritage presents one way for advocates to tell a story to a broader audience while expressing their communities' needs and goals. 10.3 Networks Many aspects of intangible heritage can be understood through foodways and foodsheds. A paramount recommendation of this thesis is that readers should understand heritage as dependent on the networks of places that support heritage practices. A composite interpretation of significance for the parts of a traditional foodway or foodshed creates a connection between place and practice to inform how intangible heritage protection at the local level applies to 95 discrete sites. Ideas of built integrity or periods of significance become deemphasized in a composite understanding of heritage as networks. Lucy Long studies foodways through their component practices. In this thesis, Long's approach informed the questions asked of participants in the San Francisco LBR and groups working in the NHAs. By considering the practices of restaurants, distributors, farmers, and researchers with foodways, connections can be made regionally without the need for arbitrarily established boundaries. In the same way, readers may understand a folk music tradition through its specific parts: practices in tuning, luthiers, the silviculture of forests where wood is sourced, methods for music education, annotative formats, recorded media, dances, costumes, and so on. Each component of a tradition has a narrative, and these narratives are located in places. A cultural heritage practice that incorporates a strategic approach to attending the foodshed has informed multiple ways of understanding the relationship between various places. While it can be argued that everything is interconnected—a taco is made from the dust of a supernova—when we consider the places where knowledge and materials are applied regionally, a set of relationships can be framed. Ranches, farms, slaughterhouses, produce distributors, butcher shops, nixtamal producers, knife sharpeners, kitchen equipment fabricators, food trucks, restaurants, supermarkets and family kitchens are all part of the web of a taco's foodway. In the same way that foodways relate to other folkways, readers may extrapolate the conceptual model of a foodshed to any production method. A trip to a lowrider convention demonstrates the potential power of a conceptual craftshed, where painters, welders, mechanics, audio technicians, Chicano identity, and car enthusiasm come together to create a unique place-based tradition. This is because all aspects of a tradition have locations that support their continued practice. In isolation, some buildings may not seem significant, but as they become part of a network, preservation advocates may see their role in the narrative of a larger place. Heritage practice will change over time—as tortillas have adapted to changes in the source of their masa, preservationists who adhere to the model laid out in the 1966 NHPA must be willing to discuss the positive and negative causes of change and its positive and negative results. But this is only possible through the research, teaching, and celebration of our heritage and the inspired work of individuals who value that which is taken for granted. 96 APPENDIX A: SPRING 2022, CITIES WITH INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 97 APPENDIX B: SPRING 2022, NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS 98 99 100 101 102 REFERENCES CITED American Indian Cultural District. “About Us.” Accessed May 5, 2022. https://americanindianculturaldistrict.org/our-vision Austin’s Black Cultural District. “Six Square: Austin’s Black Cultural District – About,” 2019. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.sixsquare.org/about/ Australia ICOMOS. Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance [‘Burra Charter’.] Burwood, VIC: Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1979. Ball, David, Rosie Clayburn, Roberta Cordero, Briece Edwards, Valerie Grussing, Janine Ledford, Robert McConnell, Rebekah Monette, Robert Steelquist, Eirik Thorsgard, and Jon Townsend. “OCS Study BOEM 2015-047.” A Guidance Document for Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes. Camarillo, CA: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region, 2015. ———. “OCS Study BOEM 2017-001.” Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes – Volume I: Project Framework. Camarillo, CA: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region, 2017. Barrett, Brenda. “The National Register and Heritage Areas.” Cultural Resource Management, Vol. 25, No. 1. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service (2002): 8–9. Beaufort County Council. Community Development Code: Art.3, Div.3.4.50. “Cultural Protection Overlay (CPO) Standards.” Beaufort Community Council. Beaufort County, SC. 2021. ———. Community Development Code: Art.2.7,Div.2.7.40. “Family Compound Standards.” Beaufort Community Council. Beaufort County, SC. 2021. ———. 2010 Comprehensive Plan. “Chapter 6 – Cultural Resources.” 2010. Bedoya, Roberto. “Spatial Justice: Rasquachification, Race and the City” Creative Time Reports, September 15, 2014. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://creativetimereports.org/2014/09/15/spatial-justice-rasquachification-race-and-the- city/ Birnbaum, Charles A. Preservation Brief 36. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1994. Botkin, Benjamin A. Supplementary Instructions to the American Guide Manual: Guide for Folklore Studies. Box 69, Records Group 69. Federal Writers Project. Washington, DC: National Archives, 1938. 103 Bourke, John G. "Folk-Foods of the Rio Grande Valley and of Northern Mexico," Journal of American Folk-Lore, Vol. 8, No. 28 (1895): 41-71. Bringeus, Nils–Arvid. Man, Food, and Milieu: A Swedish Approach to Food Ethnology. Edinburgh: Tuckwell Press, 1971. Byington, Robert H. “What Happened to Applied Folklore?” in Time and Temperature: A Centennial Publication of the American Folklore Society, edited by Charles Camp. Washington DC: American Folklore Society, 1989. Camp, Charles. American Foodways. Little Rock: August House, 1989. ———. “Foodways,” in Encyclopedia of American Folklife, edited by Simon J Bronner, 426–28. Armonk, NY: Myron E. Sharpe, 2013. Carolina Gold Rice Foundation. “Our Board of Directors.” Accessed February 15, 2022. http://www.thecarolinagoldricefoundation.org/board-1 Chen, Michelle. “Black Lands Matter: The Movement to Transform Heirs’ Property Laws.” The Nation. September 25, 2019. Accessed: February 15, 2022. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/heirs-property-reform/ City of Austin, Economic Development, Resolution No. 20201203-012 “Austin Legacy Business Relief Grant, Revised Draft Program Guidelines,” December 3, 2020. City of Missoula. Legacy Business Program. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/2567/Legacy-Business-Program City of New Orleans. 2010 Master Plan, Volume 2 – Chapter 6 (Attachment A). 2016. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.nola.gov/nola/media/City-Planning/Master-Plan- Chapter-6-FINAL-ADOPTED(vol-2-vol-3).pdf City of Pasadena, Economic Development. Legacy Business Program. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/economicdevelopment/legacy-business-program/ Cohen, Nevin. “How Great Cities Are Fed Revisited: Ten Municipal Policies to Support the New York City Foodshed” in Fordham Environmental Law Review. Vol. 22, no. 3 (2011): 691–710. Counihan, Carole M., editor. Food in the USA: A Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2002. Dávila, Arlene. Barrio Dreams: Puerto Ricans, Latinos, and the Neoliberal City. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. 104 Diao, Alexis. “Remembering Cornelia Walker Bailey, A Giant of Gullah Geechee Culture.” National Public Radio. Washington, DC. October 25, 2017. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/25/560093667/remembering-cornelia- walker-bailey-a-giant-of-gullah-geechee-culture Feilden, Bernard and Jukka Jokilehto. Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, 1993. Garfinkel, Molly. “Preserving a Hometown Corner for Posterity: Casita Rincón Criollo as a Traditional Cultural Property.” CultureWork, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2014). Accessed March 5, 2022. https://culturework.uoregon.edu/2014/01/29/january-2014-vol-18-no-1-preserving- a-hometown-corner-for-posterity-casita-rincon-criollo-as-a-traditional-cultural-property- molly-garfinkel/ Garo Consulting. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Report on the Community Planning Process. San Francisco: Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 2014. Getz, Artur. “Urban Foodsheds.” The Permaculture Activist 24 (1991): 26–27. Goddard, Pliny Earle. “The Relation of Folk-Lore to Anthropology.” The Journal of American Folklore 28, no. 107 (1915): 18–23. Goetcheus, Cari and Nora Mitchell. “The Venice Charter and Cultural Landscapes: Evolution of Heritage Concepts and Conservation Over Time” Change Over Time, Volume 4, Number 2 (2014): 338–357. Goody, Jack. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Goodwine, Marquetta L. “Yeddy Wi: Gullah/Geechee Living Ways.” In Pursuit of the Right to Self-determination: Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations Geneva 2000. Edited by: Yusuf Naim Kly and Diana Kly. 107-113. Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2001. Gould, Rae. “Information Paper on Cultural Landscapes: Understanding and Interpreting Indigenous Places and Landscapes.” Washington DC, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2016. Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/whitepapers/2018– 06/InformationPaperonCulturalLandscapes.pdf Graves, Donna and Watson, Shayne E. LGBTQ Historic Context Statement. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco, 2015. Graves, Donna, James Michael Buckley, and Gail Dubrow. “Emerging Strategies for Sustaining San Francisco’s Diverse Heritage.” Change Over Time 8, no. 2 (2018): 164–85. 105 Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission. Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor: Management Plan. Denver: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2012. Hadden, Walter P. How Great Cities are Fed. New York: DC Heath and Company, 1929. Harrison, Rodney. Heritage: Critical Approaches. New York: Taylor and Francis Books, 2003. Hobbs, Larry. “Gullah-Geechee descendants file suit against McIntosh County, state.” The Brunswick News. Brunswick, GA. December 9, 2015. Hoffman, Jonathan. “’The Best 23 Miles of Mexican Food’ Tour!.” Tucson Weekly. June 22, 2015. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/06/22/best-23-miles-of- mexican-food-tour ICOMOS. International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (‘Venice Charter’.) Paris: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1964. ———. Historic Gardens (The Florence Charter) (Florence: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1982), Accessed Apr. 5, 2022, www.international.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.pdf. ———. The Nara Document on Authenticity. Nara: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1994. ———. Proceedings of the Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage of the Americas. Edited by Gustavo Araoz, Margaret MacLean, and Lara Day Kozak. Washington, DC: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1999. ———. Natchitoches Declaration on Heritage Landscapes. Natchitoches: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2004. Inaba, Nouko. “Authenticity and Heritage Concepts Tangible and Intangible: Discussions in Japan.” In Conserving the Authentic: Essays in Honour of Jukka Jokilehto. Edited by Nicolas Stanley-Price and Joseph King, 153–62. Rome: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, 2009. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. “By way of Conclusion, How to Study the Landscape.” In The Necessity for Ruins and Other Topics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press (1980): 113–126. Jones, Michael Owen, editor. Putting Folklore to Use. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994. 106 Keithly, Eileen. “A Georgetown Times Investigation: A community in crisis Some Plantersville residents struggle to pay annual sewer assessments, risking their homes and freedom.” Georgetown News. Myrtle Beach, SC. March 11, 2016. King, Thomas F. Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2003. Kloppenburg Jr., Jack, John Hendrickson, and G.W. Stevenson. “Coming into the Foodshed” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1996): 33–42. Labadi, Sofia. “UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972)” in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Edited by Claire Smith. New York: Springer, 2014. Laven, Daniel. Evaluating National Heritage Areas: Theory, Methods, and Application. Doctoral dissertation. Burlington: University of Vermont, 2006. Laven, Daniel, Jennifer Jewiss, and Nora Mitchell, “Toward Landscape-Scale Stewardship and Development: A Theoretical Framework of United States National Heritage Areas.” Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 26, No. 7 (2013), 762–777. Lévi–Strauss, Claude. The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Long, Lucy M., editor. The Food and Folklore Reader. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. Lopez, Sofia. NALCAB Strategies and Tools for Equitable Development Along Tucson’s South 12th Avenue. Washington, DC: National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, 2018. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/3._Report_Outlining_Preliminary_Market_Assessm ent_Findings_and_Potential_Projects.pdf Mackay, Richard. “Values–Based Management and the Burra Charter: 1979, 1999, 2013.” In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions. Edited by Erica Avrami, Susan Macdonald, Randall Mason, and David Myers. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2019. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part–two/8/ Macz, Brandon. “Office of Economic Development opens Legacy Business Nominations,” Queen Anne & Magnolia News, December 12, 2019, accessed February 15, 2022. https://queenannenews.com/Content/Business/Business/Article/Office-of-Economic- Development-opens-Legacy-Business-nominations/108/468/40488 Manno, Adam. “Charleston proclaims this Saturday as ‘Red Rice Day’ in honor of Gullah Geechee culture.” Charleston City Paper. September 25, 2018. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston-proclaims-this-saturday-as-red-rice-day- in-honor-of-gullah-geechee-culture/. 107 Marby, Jonathan, editor. Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology, 2005. ———. Monitoring Report 2015-2019. Tucson: Tucson City of Gastronomy, 2019. Melnick, Robert Z., Daniel Sponn, and Emma Jane Saxe. Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, 1984. Melnick, Robert Z. and Arnold R. Alanen, editors. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Mintz, Sidney W. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking, 1985. Muloma Heritage Center. “Our Plan.” Accessed February 15, 2022. https://muloma.com/theproject Nargi, Lela. “How a South Carolina Farmer Is Adapting an Heirloom Rice to Withstand Climate Change.” Civil Eats. September 16, 2020. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://civileats.com/2020/09/16/how-a-south-carolina-farmer-is-adapting-an-heirloom- rice-to-withstand-climate-change/ National Park System Advisory Board. Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas. Washington, DC: National Park System Advisory Board, 2006. Neimark, Jill. “A Lost Rice Variety — And the Story of The Freed 'Merikins' Who Kept It Alive.” National Public Radio. Washington, DC. May 10, 2017. Accessed February, 15 2022. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/10/527449714/a-lost-rice-variety- and-the-story-of-the-freed-merikins-who-kept-it-alive Nicholson, Zoe. “Sapelo Island's Geechee population fight development, sea-level rise, land loss to preserve culture.” Savannah Morning News. Savanah, GA. December 14, 2021. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas King. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992. Pearson, David and Thomas Pearson. “Branding Food Culture: UNESCO Creative Cities of Gastronomy.” Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2017): 342–355. Penn Center. “Penn Center, The First School in the South for Formerly Enslaved West Africans.” accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.penncenter.com/programs-and-resources 108 Pilcher, Jeffrey M. “Coming Home to Salsa: Latino Roots of American Food,” in American Latinos and the Making of the United States. Washington DC: National Park System Advisory Board (2013): 184–196. Raccoon Hogg Community Development Corporation. “Community of Opportunity” Accessed February 15, 2022. https://www.raccoonhogg.com/ Rast, Raymond. “Beyond Bricks and Mortar: Notes on Integrity.” Prepared for the National Park System Advisory Board. Washington DC: Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, 2012. Reeves, Keir and Gertjan Plets. “Cultural Heritage as a Strategy for Social Needs and Community Identity.” In A Companion to Heritage Studies. Edited by William Logan, Máiréad Nic Craith, and Ullrich Kockel. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons (2016): 203- 214. Rottle, Nancy D. “Rural Historic Landscape Preservation.” In Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Edited by Richard Longstreth. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2008): 129–149. Rottle, Nancy D. and Jones & Jones. “An Analysis of Land Use Change and Cultural Landscape Integrity for Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve.” Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II, Technical Supplement, [Ebey’s Landing Management Plan.] Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2005. San Francisco Board of Supervisors, “Ordinance No. 126–18 (File No., 171140, 5/22/2018): Administrative Code—Process for Establishment of Cultural Districts.” San Francisco County, California. San Francisco Planning Code: Sec.235: “Special Use Districts.” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. ———. San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.31: “Japantown Special Use District.” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. ———. San Francisco Planning Code: Sec. 249.59: “Calle 24 Special Use District.” San Francisco Planning Department, 2022. San Francisco Office of Small Business. Legacy Business Registry. Accessed January 15, 2022. https://www.legacybusiness.org/registry ———. Legacy Business Registry Staff Report, Sam Wo Restaurant. Application number LBR- 2015-16-041, November 14, 2016. 109 San Francisco Planning Department. Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy [JCHESS]. San Francisco: Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 2013. ———. Landmark Designation Recommendation – 2778 24th Street [Casa Sanchez]. Record number 2020-009613DES, September 9, 2021. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2020-009613DES.pdf Sanchez, JJ, MM Goodman, and CW Stuber. "Isozymatic and Morphological Diversity in the Races of Maize of Mexico." Economic Botany. Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000): 43-59. Santa Cruz, Lane, Eddie Torrez, Francisco Uviña, and Juan Pérez Sáez. “Regional Perspectives: Cultural Landscapes, Environment, and Conservation.” Panel Discussion. Congreso 2022 from Latinos in Heritage Conservation. Denver. April 28, 2022. Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area. “Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area.” 2021. Accessed January 15, 2022. https://santacruzheritage.org/ Sauer, Carl O. “Morphology of Landscape.” University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1925): 19–54. Sciorra, Joseph. “I feel like I’m in My Country: Puerto Rican Casitas in New York City.” The Drama Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1990): 156–168. ———. “Multivocality and Vernacular Architecture, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Grotto in Rosebank, Staten Island.” In Studies in Italian–American Folklore. Edited by Luisa Del Giudice. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1993. 203–243. Schmitt, Thomas M. “Jemaa el Fna Square in Marrakech: Changes to a Social Space and to a UNESCO Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity as a Result of Global Influences.” Arab World Geographer, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2005): 173–195. ———. “The UNESCO Concept of Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Its Background and Marrakchi Roots,” International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2008): 95–111. Sebastian, Lynn. “Protecting Traditional Properties through the Section 106 Process.” Cultural Resources Management Bulletin 16 (Special Issue), Vol. 16. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service (1993): 22–26. Sherman, Elisabeth. “In South Carolina, Gullah-Geechee cuisine gets its long overdue moment in the spotlight.” Matador Network. December 10, 2019. Accessed: February 15, 2022. https://matadornetwork.com/read/south-carolina-gullah-geechee-cuisine/ Smith, Laurajane. The Uses of Heritage. New York: Taylor and Francis Books, 2006. 110 Sommers, Laurie Kay. “Folklore and Historic Preservation: Past, Present, and Future.” Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 132, No. 256 (2019): 359–389. ———. DRAFT National Register Nomination. “Fishtown Historic District Traditional Cultural Property.” Leelanau County, Michigan. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2021. Sopova, Jasmine. “Seven Writers in a World of Wonders.” The UNESCO Courier, Vol. 53, No. 12 (2000): 16–36. Stipe, Robert, ed. A Richer Heritage. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Stovel, Herb. “Considerations in Framing the Authenticity Question for Conservation,” in Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: Proceedings. Edited by Knut Einar Larsen, 393–398. Trondheim: Tapir Publishers, 1995. Swicegood, Erin. “Celebrating Mom and Pop Shops: The Importance of Legacy Business Programs for Conserving Living Heritage.” Terminal Project. University of Oregon, 2020. Tucson City of Gastronomy, “Applications,” 2022, Accessed February 15, 2022. https://tucson.cityofgastronomy.org/certifications Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N. Laven, and Nora J. Mitchell. Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes. Woodstock, VT: National Park Service Conservation Study Institute, 2008. Tylor, Edward Burnett. Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization. London: John Murray, 1865. UNESCO. (1989) Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore. Accessed March 30, 2022. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php– URL_ID=13141&url_do=do_printpage&url_section=201.html ———. (1992) “WHC–92/CONF.002/10/Add Item 14.” Provisional Agenda: Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Accessed April 5, 2022. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1992/whc–92–conf002– 10adde.pdf ———. (1994) “WHC–94/CONF.003/INF.6.” Expert Meeting on the ‘Global Strategy’ and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List. Accessed March 30, 2022. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/global94.htm#debut 111 ———. Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Living Heritage, Culture Sector, 2018. ———. UNESCO Creative Cities Network for Sustainable Development. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2020. ———. Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021. US Congress. House. National Heritage Areas Act of 2006. 109th Congress, 2nd session. 2006. Sec. 295. ———. National Historic Preservation Act. Public Law 89–665, 1966, as amended by Public Law 96–515, 2016. Title 54 US Code. ———. House. Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1983. H.R.2014. 1983. 98th Congress, 2nd session. Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/2014. Stumpf, Gary. “Traditional Cultural Places and Indian Sacred Sites.” Fundamentals for Managing the Cultural Heritage Program. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2012. Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/646/GuidetoTCPs&SacredSites.pdf US Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement [Feasibility Study]. Atlanta: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, 2005. ———. 2021. “Certified Local Government Program.” Accessed March 10, 2022. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservationfund/certified–local–government– program.htm ———. 2021. “National Heritage Areas.” Accessed April 10, 2022. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/ Van Andel, Tinde. “African Rice (Oryza glaberrima Steud): Lost Crop of the Enslaved Africans Discovered in Suriname.” Economic Botany. Vol. 64, No. 1. (2010): 1-10. Wheeler, Brian. “Gullah Geechee: Descendants of slaves fight for their land.” BBC News. Washington, DC. December 5, 2016. Wiegelmann, Günter. "Innovations in Food and Meals." Folk Life 12. No. 1 (1974): 20–30. Yoder, Don. “Folk Cookery,” in Folklore and Folklife, an Introduction, edited by Richard M. Dorson, 325–50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. 112