Intangible Cultural Heritage

Intangible Cultural Heritage encompasses practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills, and the associated instruments, objects, artifacts, and cultural spaces that communities, groups, and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This heritage is transmitted from generation to generation and is constantly recreated by communities in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, thereby providing a sense of identity and continuity and contributing to respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

The Convention defines the safeguarding of this heritage as a process of ensuring its viability; this process includes identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, and especially transmission through formal and non-formal education.

This approach centers not on the “object” but on the knowledge and accumulated expertise that are transmitted and performed: Rather than preserving a valuable object alone, the entire body of knowledge, tradition, and practice that produces, sustains, and transmits it is preserved.

Terminology and Terminological Debates

The term “Intangible Cultural Heritage” (ICH) is not a new discipline name and should not be regarded as a synonym for folklore. It is a conceptualization developed within UNESCO’s long-standing efforts to protect cultural heritage.

Throughout the 1970s to 1990s, UNESCO used various terms such as folklore, popular and traditional culture, non-material culture, oral and intangible cultural heritage. However, during intergovernmental expert meetings in 2002–2003, it was decided that the most appropriate term for the scope of the field was “Intangible Cultural Heritage,” and previous terms as well as discipline names such as anthropology or ethnology were excluded from the treaty language.

This preference resulted from multilingual and multicultural discussions demonstrating that the term “folklore” could not fully encompass the intended domain. In some languages, “folklore” carried different meanings (e.g., oral literature in Russian), was associated with rural life in certain contexts, and raised issues of inclusivity, leading UNESCO to move away from the term “folklore” since the 1980s.

In Turkish translation debates, the proposal “abstract cultural heritage” was notably emphasized, but it was argued that it did not align with the principle of fidelity to the treaty’s working language terms “intangible” and “immatériel.” Therefore, the use of “Intangible Cultural Heritage” in Turkish (alternatively “non-material”) is not a preference but a necessity grounded in the treaty’s multilingual production and official conceptualization.

In summary:

• The term ICH is not a discipline name but the designation of the field subject to protection policy.
• It does not replace folklore, anthropology, or ethnology; it is related to these fields but establishes a broader framework.
• The use of “Intangible Cultural Heritage” in Turkish is based on the treaty’s multilingual drafting process and official conceptualization.
• This framework shifts the focus of ICH from the “object” to performance, knowledge, and transmission processes; its terminological precision is a product of this orientation.

Historical Development within the UNESCO Framework

UNESCO’s earliest efforts to protect cultural heritage were predominantly object-centered: the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, followed by the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage institutionalized this approach.

From the 1980s onward, the focus on “living” heritage was strengthened by the 1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, the 1997/1998 Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, and related international meetings. Even the 1999 Washington meeting revealed ongoing terminology debates and persistent uncertainty regarding the naming of the heritage domain.

The conceptual and legal framework was further refined at the 2001 Torino (Turin) roundtable meeting “Intangible Cultural Heritage – Working Definitions,” where the concepts of “traditional culture,” “folklore,” and “intangible heritage” were discussed, and emphasis was placed on transmission and heritage.

Subsequently, the Intergovernmental Expert Meetings of 2002–2003 drafted the treaty text, which was debated and shaped through consensus by diplomats and legal experts from all member states. On 17 October 2003, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted by the 32nd Session of the UNESCO General Conference.

Since its adoption, the Convention has influenced both safeguarding policies and museum approaches. In 2004, a symposium titled “Musealization of ICH” was held in Türkiye; in 2007, ICOM added “intangible heritage” to its definition of a museum.

In Türkiye, the process was completed with the ratification and entry into force of the Convention on 21 January 2006 through Law No. 5448. This historical trajectory demonstrates that UNESCO’s approach to cultural heritage has evolved from an object-centered model to one centered on “safeguarding through living practice,” and that ICH has acquired a binding international framework.

Safeguarding and Methods in the Convention

In the 2003 Convention, safeguarding is defined as ensuring the viability of ICH. This is an approach that goes beyond mere identification and archiving; it aims to sustain performance and transmission.

Methods (Framework of Article 2/3)

The Convention defines safeguarding as encompassing the following practices:

• Identification,
• Documentation,
• Research,
• Preservation,
• Protection,
• Development,
• Enhancement,
• Transmission from generation to generation through formal and non-formal education,
• Revitalization of various aspects of the heritage.

The Principle of Safeguarding Through Living Practice

This framework does not aim to freeze objects in display cases but to sustain the processes of production, performance, and learning; it prioritizes the preservation of the knowledge and tradition that produce and sustain valuable objects over the objects themselves.

Educational and Learning Environments

Formal and non-formal education, as emphasized by the Convention, is the primary instrument of safeguarding; museums also contribute to transmission as non-formal learning environments, engaging visitors in active learning through workshops and practical activities.

Community Participation and Sustainability

The Convention places safeguarding on a sustainability axis by prioritizing participation and transmission; it encompasses themes such as “collective memory,” “shared experience,” and “social identity.”

Identification and Inventory Linkage

The first step of safeguarding, identification, is practically based on inventory work; in Türkiye, criteria such as community consent, representativeness, and risk of disappearance are used in the national inventory.

In the 2003 Convention, safeguarding is a community-centered process that goes beyond documentation and is grounded in transmission and revitalization.

Fields and Inventory Criteria

ICH Fields (UNESCO Classification)

The classification adopted by the 2003 Convention covers five main fields:

• Oral traditions and expressions,
• Performing arts,
• Social practices, rituals, and festive events,
• Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe,
• Traditional craftsmanship.

National Inventory Criteria in Türkiye

To be included in Türkiye’s National Inventory of ICH, an element must meet the following key criteria:

• Belong to one of the ICH fields,
• Possess value in terms of human history and traditions,
• Have a deep historical roots in cultural and social values,
• Represent a community or group,
• Be supported by the consent of the relevant community,
• Pose a risk of disappearance or deterioration,
• Have sufficient capacity and resources for its safeguarding.

Among these criteria, belonging to one of the fields requires the element to demonstrate a clear link to at least one of the five categories above; thus, the inventory operates on a field-based and community-consent-driven logic of safeguarding.

Elements of Türkiye on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (2008–2025)

As of 29 September 2025, there are 31 elements on the list:^【1】

• Meddahlık (2008)
• Mevlevi Sema Ceremonies (2008)
• The Tradition of Aşıklık (2009)
• Karagöz (2009)
• Nevruz (2009)
• Traditional Conversation Gatherings (Yaren, Barana, Sıra Nights and others) (2010)
• Semah: Alevi-Bektashi Ritual (2010)
• Kırkpınar Oil Wrestling Festival (2010)
• Traditional Ceremony of Keşke (2011)
• Mesir Macunu Festival (2012)
• Turkish Coffee and its Tradition (2013)
• Ebru: The Art of Paper Decoration (2014)
• Traditional Ceramic Art (2016)
• The Culture of Making and Sharing Thin Bread: Lavash, Katırma, Jupka, Yufka (2016)
• Spring Festival Hıdırellez (2017)
• Dede Korkut – The Heritage of Korkut Ata: Culture, Epics and Music (2018)
• Traditional Turkish Archery (2019)
• Miniature Art (2020)
• Traditional Intellectual and Strategy Games: Togyzqumalaq, Toguz Korgool, Mangala/Göçürme (2020)
• Hüsn-i Hat: Traditional Calligraphy in Islamic Art in Türkiye (2021)
• Tea Culture: Symbol of Identity, Hospitality and Social Interaction (2022)
• Traditional Production of Silk for Sericulture and Weaving (2022)
• The Narrative Tradition of Nasreddin Hoca/Molla Nesreddin/Molla Ependi/Apendi/Afendi Kozhanasyr (2022)
• Təzhib/Tazhib/Zarhalkori/Tezhip/Naqqoshlik (2023)
• Iftar/Eftari/İftar/İftor and Socio-Cultural Traditions (2023)
• Balaban/Mey Craftsmanship and Performance Art (2023)
• Mother-of-Pearl Inlay Craft (2023)
• Traditional Craftsmanship and Performance of Gayda/Tulum (2024)

The following elements require urgent safeguarding:

• Whistle Language
• Traditional Ahlat Stone Craftsmanship
• Traditional Knowledge, Methods and Practices Related to Olive Cultivation

ICH Museums

With the emergence of ICH, museum practices have shifted from object-centered models to community- and visitor-centered approaches. The 2003 Convention’s concept of “ensuring viability” has strengthened the orientation toward safeguarding through living practice rather than freezing objects in displays, leading to a transformation in exhibition methods that emphasize performance, context, and transmission.

In the years following the Convention, ICH museums have become leading examples of new exhibition methods that blur the boundaries between museum and visitor and place learning at the center.

ICOM’s 2007 addition of the term “intangible heritage” to its museum definition institutionalized a museum approach that treats tangible and intangible heritage together, making context and usage visible. Thus, the “new museology” trend, in which emphasis on the object recedes and narrative, production, and usage context gain value, has been consolidated.

ICH museums, as emphasized in the Convention, are positioned as non-formal educational environments; they involve visitors in active learning through workshops and practical activities. Programs designed to contribute to children’s physical and mental development make cultural heritage education sustainable.

The Example of the Ankara ICH Museum

At the Ankara Intangible Cultural Heritage Museum, programs for primary school groups were evaluated through observation, interviews, and document analysis; it was determined that workshops are effectively structured as educational programs and successfully engage visitors in active learning. This example illustrates the role and importance of ICH museums in cultural heritage education.

Ankara ICH Museum (AA)

The relationship between ICH and museology has transformed the museum from a repository of object-centered collections into a space of learning and participation by shifting the focus from objects to “process, performance, and transmission.” This transformation nurtures a community-centered and holistic approach to safeguarding, in full alignment with the spirit of the Convention.