Advertisement

Experiencing and Safeguarding the Sacred in the Arctic: Sacred Natural Sites, Cultural Landscapes and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

  • Thora Martina HerrmannEmail author
  • Leena Heinämäki
Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

Culturally and spiritually important landscapes across the Arctic region express this interconnectedness of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) with the natural and spiritual environment, and their preservation has been, and continues to be, essential to IPs’ identity and livelihoods. It is a common place to say that the lands are regarded as sacred by many traditional worldviews of indigenous peoples. However, these living landscapes contain also particular individual sites, or Sacred Natural Sites (SNSs), which are associated with strong spiritual, or cultural intangible values of the natural elements. As Schama (1995: 6–7) has noted: “Landscapes are culture, before they are nature; constructs of the imagination projected onto wood, water and rock”. Consequently, culturally and spiritually important landscapes and the SNSs they encompass are at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible values, biological and cultural diversity, and embody a closely woven net of connectedness between culture and nature and people’s identity (Rössler 2006).

Keywords

Sacred natural sites Arctic Cultural landscapes Indigenous rights Human rights 

References

  1. Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., et al. (2010) La diversité bio-culturelle conservée par les peuples autochtones et les communautés locales—exemples et analyses. Consortium APAC et CENESTA pour le GEF SGP, la GTz, le IIED et l’UICN/CEESP, Téhéran: CENEST/ICCA Consortium, 72.Google Scholar
  3. Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: ‘Invisible’ systems of local resource man- agement and biological conservation. Ecological Applications, 11(2), 584–600.Google Scholar
  4. Drew, J. A., & Henne, A. P. (2006). Conservation biology and tra- ditional ecological knowledge: Integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 34. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art34/. Accessed 25 Mar 2014.
  5. Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., & Mansourian, S. (2000). The links between protected areas, faiths, and sacred natural sites. Conservation Biology, 23, 568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. IUCN. The Delos Initiative (http://www.med-ina.org/delos/) of the IUCN Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas.
  7. Klubnikin, K., Cynthia, A., Cherkasova, M., Shishin, M., & Fotieva, I. (2000). The sacred and the scientific: Traditional ecological knowledge in Siberian river conservation. Ecological Applications, 10, 1296–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mallarach, J.-M. (Ed.). (2008). Protected landscapes and cultural and spiritual values, Volume 2 in the series Values of protected landscapes and seascapes, IUCN, GTZ and Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya. Heidelberg: Kasparek Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Nakashima, D., & Roué, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In P. Timmermann (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global environmental change (pp. 314–324). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Ohnesorge, B., Plieninger, T., Hostert, P. (2013). Management effectiveness and land cover change in dynamic cultural landscapes—Assessing a central European biosphere reserve. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art23/. Accessed 25 Mar 2014.
  11. Oviedo, G., & Jeanrenaud, S. (2007). Protecting sacred natural sites of indigenous and traditional peoples. In J. -M. Mallarach & T. Papayannis (Eds.), Protected areas and spirituality. Proceedings of the first workshop of the Delos Initiative, Montserrat, 23–26 November 2006. Gland/Barcelona: IUCN and Montserrat/Publicaciones de l’Abadia de Montserrat.Google Scholar
  12. Posey, D. A. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. A complementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Posey, D. A. (2002). Commodification of the sacred through intellectual property rights. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 83, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ross, M. L. (2005). First nations sacred sites in Canada’s courts (p. 248). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rössler, M. (2003). Managing world heritage cultural landscapes and sacred sites (World Heritage Papers 13, pp. 45–49), UNESCO.Google Scholar
  16. Rössler, M. (2006). World heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape Research, 31(4), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schaaf, T. (2008). UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, forewords of the IUCN Guidelines: Sacred Natural Sites, Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Task Force on the Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas in collaboration with UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme, Robert Wild and Christopher McLeod, editors, Peter Valentine, Series Editor, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 16, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNESCO, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  18. Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and memory. London: Haper Collins.Google Scholar
  19. UNESCO. The 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), 1037 UNTS 151. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/. Accessed on 12 Nov 2015.
  20. Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely, J. A., & Oviedo, G. (Eds.). (2010). Sacred natural sites. conserving nature & culture. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de géographieUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law (NIEM), Arctic CentreUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland
  3. 3.University of Arctic Legal Thematic Network on Arctic LawRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations