51

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS OPENAIR MUSEUM:

KEN TAYLOR

BOROBUDUR WORLD HERITAGE SITE AND ITSSETTING

Candi Borobudur, built around 800ADand the largest Buddhist monument

‘It is the landscate as a whole – that largely manmade tapestry, inwhich all other artefacts are embedded … which gives them theirsense of place’.1

in Indonesia is located in Central Javasome 40 kilometres from Yogyakarta.Regarded as one of the Wonders of theWorld this magnificent stepped pyramidstyle of building consists of nine terraces.The first six are rectangular and the upperthree are circular, topped by a large bell-shaped stupa. There are four staircasesfacing east/west and north/south, theeastern one being aligned with MountMerapi, the sacred mountain. The basemeasures 123 metres square; the wholeedifice consisting of more than twomillion blocks.

Borobudur stands in the centre of thefertile and richly watered Kedu Plainsflanked to the south by the jaggedMenoreh Hills and to the east and northfrom Mount Merapi by a series of volcanicpeaks linked by an undulating ridge. Thewhole setting is a gigantic amphitheatrewith Borobudur standing in the middleon a low hill creating a memorable andevocative effect. The whole landscapeensemble is a vast outdoor museum of

theatrical proportions. The shape ofCandi Borobudur itself mirrors thevolcanic peaks. The sight of the monu-ment rising out of the landscape isawe-inspiring. Its presence in thislandscape suggests an association

View north from Borobudur to Mount SumbungSource: Photograph 2003.

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

52

between the monument and its settingthat is palpable and rich in Buddhistmeaning with Hindu overtones.

Two smaller temples, Candi Pawonand Candi Mendut, similar in style andcraftsmanship, are in a perfect east westalignment towards Mount Merapi. Butthere are older markers in the landscape.These are the remains of around fortyHindu temples and archaeological siteswhich follow the lines of creeks andrivers. The Buddhist temples aresurrounded by a rural landscape of ricepaddies and palm groves with smalltowns and villages creating a sense of thestream of time and place.

The first restoration of Borobudurtook place in 1907–11. Continuingdeterioration of the stonework lead toother studies culminating in restorationby UNESCO Experts from 1968 to 1972and 1975 to 1982. The temple wasinscribed on the World Heritage list forits cultural heritage significance in 1991.It has been previously monitored byUNESCO Experts in 1986, 1989, and 1995looking predominantly at stonework andsuch matters as stability and drainage ofthe structure. The latest monitoringexercise in July 2003 includedconsideration of the wider culturallandscape setting of the monument andtourist impact on the structure itself andsurrounding region.

Two and a half million people visitthe site annually with around 2.2 millionbeing domestic visitors. There is littleinterpretation of the Buddhist meaningof the site and its landscape setting, bothof which are assumed to be a Buddhistmandala representation.2 Visitors swarmall over the stonework and the upperstupas. The steps are wearing away at therate of 1mm per year. Around 2000vendors collect around the entry and exit

area and vehicle parking is chaotic. Thesense of arrival is shattered by noise,inappropriate advertising and aggressiveselling. Street vendors are a part of Asianheritage sites, but the sheer number ofvendors and merchandise one can buyanywhere is a concern. Traditional craftsassociated with the area such as stonecarving or Wayang puppets are notablyabsent. Three recent high telecom-munication towers mar the view fromBorobudur looking east across the rurallandscape to Mount Merapi. Increasingdevelopment along approach roads isalso impinging on the view of the templeas it rises majestically out of the land-scape.

The purpose of this paper, given atthe Fourth Experts Meeting was to

View to the monument from nearby townshowing building encroachment. Source:Photograph 2003.

KEN TAYLOR Cultural Landscape as Open Air Museum

53

explore the idea of historical culturallandscapes and suggest application toBorobudur. In the 1980s five managementzones were delineated. Zone 1, orsanctuary area, is the monument itself(200m radius). Zone II is the archaeo-logical park area (500m radius) withvisitor facilities, parking, offices,exhibition building, vendor stalls; itincludes a landscape park surroundingZone I planted in a regimentedunappealing gardenesque style whichdoes not reflect the ninth centurylandscape which would probably havebeen shady groves of tropical trees whereBuddhist monks taught and livedbisected by pathways and possibly flowerand vegetable growing. Later as the localpopulation increased village fields andanimal grazing would have surroundedthe temple. An engraving by FC Wilsen(c.1850) shows such a landscape. The ricepaddies and two villages were removedto make way for the park.

Zone III, the land-use regulation zone(2km radius), includes rural lands andvillages and Candi Pawon and Mendutas well as other archaeological sites.Development is supposed to be

controlled to protect the setting of themonument. But encroachment by newbuildings, erection of inappropriate signs,and increasing traffic all presentmanagement problems as they detractfrom the setting of the monument. ZoneIV (5 kms) is the Historical Scenery Pres-ervation Zone intended to protect theviews and sense of address as oneapproaches Borobudur. It includes anumber of villages and archaeologicalsites. Zone V (10 kms) is the NationalArchaeological Park Zone, intended toprotect archaeological sites. Zones IV andV are important elements in the culturallandscape context of Borobudur, en-hancing its meaning and its original raisond’être. The layers in this landscape createa sense of time and the concept of a vastoutdoor museum.

In June 2003 the World HeritageCommittee reviewed current manage-ment at Borobudur. It recommended,inter alia, the need to consider tourismimpacts and advisability of evaluatingand possibly redefining protectiveboundaries and management guidelinesfor the landscape areas surrounding themonument. This applies particularly to

View north across Zone IIIshowing setting of themonument against ricepaddies giving a sense ofcultural landscape fit. Source:Photograph 2003.

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

54

Zones IV and V given that it is nowthought that the mandala form of themonument is repeated in the widerlandscape. The Committee also drewattention to the need for a comprehensivesocio-economic study involving localcommunities and a marketing strategy forlong term benefit to them. It alsoexpressed concern over a recent proposalto build a large shopping complex in ZoneIII. It is with this background that theExperts’ meeting requested a paper onHistorical Landscape Planning.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A WORLD-WIDE PHENOMENON

Historical landscapes with their heritagevalues – now widely referred to ascultural landscapes – have reached centrestage in the field of cultural heritageconservation and planning. The term‘cultural landscape’ is now widelyaccepted internationally. Recognition wasextended in 1993 to World Heritage statuswith three categories of cultural land-scapes of outstanding universal value:

• Clearly defined landscapes designedand intentionally created by man.

• Organically evolved landscapes intwo categories:

(i) A relict or fossil landscape inwhich an evolutionary process hascome to an end but where itsdistinguishing features are still visible.

(ii) Continuing landscape whichretains an active social role incontemporary society associated witha traditional way of life and in whichthe evolutionary process is still inprogress and where it exhibits

significant material evidence of itsevolution over time. With the WorldHeritage Committee’s instruction inmind there is a need to evaluatewhether the landscape surroundingBorobudur, as an inextricable part ofthe monument’s cultural and intel-lectual setting, original creation, andcontinuation, fits this category.

• Associative cultural landscapes:the inclusion of such landscapes isjustifiable by virtue of the powerfulreligious, artistic, or cultural associa-tions of the natural element rather thanthe material cultural evidence. Uluru/Kata Tjuta National Park and the RiceTerraces of the Philippine Cordillerasare two Asian/Pacific examples.Again it is germane to pose thequestion: does Borobudur and itswider landscape setting fit thiscategory?

In addressing these two questions onthe cultural context and authenticity ofthe whole setting of Borobudur it isimportant to visualise the cosmology ofthe Buddhist mandala (cakkaväla/cakraväla) assumed to be the crux of thebuilding of Borobudur in its cultural(historical) landscape. A diagramreproduced in an early twentieth centurycollection of Daniel Gogerly’s writings onBuddhism, the cosmology of the Buddhistmandala (cakkaväla/cakraväla) is rep-resented as a single, circular worldsystem surrounded by a mountain of iron(cakraväla) and at the centre is MountMeru3 (represented by Mount Merapi atBorobudur). It is a single world systemwhere relationships exist between variousparts of the universe and where myth andreason coalesce to offer an exquisitevisualisation of the order of things. Just

KEN TAYLOR Cultural Landscape as Open Air Museum

55

to look out over the landscape from theterraces of Borobudur is a stunning andmoving experience: the landscape speaksdramatically and persuasively of amystical but real relationship betweenpeople, time, events, beliefs and place.Here are layers in the landscape waitingto be read and interpreted to tell ussomething about who we are in time. IfBorobudur is, as assumed, a repre-sentation of the universe – the cakkaväla– then the following ancient reflectionfrom The Ratu Boko Inscription of 792 AD,Central Java, is apposite:

I pay homage to the Cosmic Mountain ofthe Perfect Buddhas … endowed with theawe-inspiring power of wisdom, – whosecaves are knowledge, whose rock isexcellent tradition, whose brilliance isowing to its relic: the Good Wisdomwhose streams are love, whose forests aremeditation – truly the Mount of FewDesires, which is not shaken by the eighthorrible winds: the worldly qualities.4

Historical landscapes under thebanner of cultural landscapes emerged inthe 1990s as a topic of great interest forthe international conservation com-munity. Thirty years after the VeniceCharter the concept of value andsignificance that cultural landscapesbrought with them challenged the longheld distinction between cultural andnatural values and the 1960s concept ofheritage centring predominantly onmonuments and sites of antiquity.5 Thisblurring of the boundary between whatis natural – essentially a western view ofthe world dating from the Romanticperiod – and what is cultural hasconsiderable attraction and merit in thecontext and cultural traditions of SouthEast Asia. To this we may readily add

Australia with its increasing under-standing of the meaning of country inAboriginal culture where there is a fusionbetween culture and nature in a worldwhere mythical ancestors – animal andhuman – made the landscape.6

LANDSCAPES AS HISTORICALDOCUMENTS

What has emerged is that we understandthat in the historical landscape our senseof place and heritage are not limited toseparate dots on a map each spatially andtemporally isolated. We have embracedthe concept of the inter-relationshipbetween places, people, and events,through time. We see and feel in thelandscape a sense of the stream of timewhich promotes attachment to our world.Further, and through historical culturallandscape study, there has been agrowing understanding that culturallandscapes as an imprint of humanhistory are the richest historical record wepossess. They can tell us if we learn toread and interpret their stories somethingof the achievements and values of ourpredecessors, inform our own present-day values and, incidentally, those offuture generations.7 They are a windowonto our collective past, our culture ondisplay.

Interest in the efficacy of historicallandscapes as comprehensive documentsof history with concomitant heritagevalues was recently further emphasisedby the international workshop –Conservation of Cultural LandscapesWorkshop – held in Rome in June 2003,organised by the International Centre forthe Study of the Preservation andRestoration of Cultural Property(ICCROM). Representatives from sixteencountries attended bringing mutually

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

56

inclusive variations on a theme of whatis heritage in the landscape includingphysical, ancestral, cultural and spiritualemphasis. This again underpins theimportance of recognising intangiblevalues based on cultural traditions thatare apparent in historical landscapesalongside their physical fabric or form.In other words they are not merely whatwe see, but a way of seeing. We see withour eyes but interpret with our minds.8

WRITING (SHAPING) THE LANDSCAPE:READING THE LANDSCAPE

In looking at historical culturallandscapes it is perhaps helpful to statethe obvious, but sometimes perplexingmaxim, that they are literally most ofwhat surrounds us. They are the land-scapes – the places – urban, suburban andrural in which we live, work, andrecreate. They embrace an extraordinaryrichness and variety of life and scenes asthe landscapes settled and modified bypeople over time. They are then arepresentation of our ideologies. Wecreate and shape the human landscapeover time according to our ideologies andin this way historical landscapes reflectour cultural traditions and intangiblevalues. As a result we modify naturallandscape elements and superimposehuman patterns to create culturallandscapes. These patterns represent amontage of layers through time.

Reading and shaping the landscapeis not a modern phenomenon. Inprehistoric times people such as huntersand gatherers learned how to read thelandscape9 as they searched for game andplants and manipulated the landscapethrough that seminal discovery, fire. Thiswas the beginning of landscape planning.The use of fire for hunting and to controlvegetation followed later by early forms

of agriculture as people learned how tocultivate wild plants as crops involveddeliberate change and manipulation ofthe landscape. For many societies naturalcomponents of the landscape itself –mountains, rivers, forests – have been andremain a reflection of their cosmologicalbeliefs, and hence there evolved anintense sense of spirituality in thelandscape, a sense of the sacred whereculture and nature combined. This is notthe sacred as opposed to the profane, butwhat we might now call the ordinarilysacred.10

The consciousness that people haveformed of space around them since ourearly ancestors, that is where spacebecomes imbued with meaning andtherefore becomes place, continues toinform the way we see the landscapearound us both in its historical sense andin the present time. In his now classic text,Edward Relph classifies the kinds ofspaces – for me places – that carrymeaning and significance for humanbeings.11 He notes that the followingdifferent types of space are not separatedby the human mind, but rather they arelinked in thought and experience. Eachhas relevance to the task at Borobudurand its historical landscape surrounds indeveloping recommendations for thefuture with special focus on its spiritual,educational, and cultural values:

• Pragmatic or primitive spacestructured unselfconsciously bybasic individual experience. Thisis organic space where we feelsafe; it may have biological rootsin our need for shelter and home.Habitation and agriculture of theKedu Plains from ancient timeshas envisaged this kind of spacethriving as it has through historyon the well watered, richly fertile,

KEN TAYLOR Cultural Landscape as Open Air Museum

57

volcanic soils of southern CentralJava. The pattern of ricefields,numerous rivers and canals, andvillages has long antecedents atleast back to the time Borobudurwas built. J.G. de Casparis paintsa fascinating picture in words ofhow the landscape of around 930AD looked with clusters of manyvillages surrounded by ricefieldsand then green jungle,12 the wholepattern embraced by mountains:a synergy of culture and nature.

• Perceptual space which involvesdirect emotional encounters withthe spaces of the earth, sea, sky orwith built and created spaces.Again the mandala construct ofBorobudur and its surrounds fitthis model. The pattern on theground reflects a perceptual viewof universal perfection that ispalpable in Borobudur’s unde-niable sense of presence.

• Existential or lived in space wherewe create patterns and structuresof significance through buildingtowns, villages, houses, and thewhole business of landscapemaking. This is space or place thatis culturally defined. Thelandscape of the Kedu Plains againrepresents existential space,culturally defined and dating backto the tradition of MahayanaBuddhism and the control ofCentral Java by the Sailendradynasty. The strong, commonreligion was undoubtedly a majorforce informing the building andmeaning of Borobudur in relationto its landscape setting. Therewere also international connec-tions with India and Sri Lanka as

part of a well-ordered system andinterchange of ideas that hadstarted in the fifth century AD,leading to Java being an importantcentre for Buddhism from theseventh to the tenth centuries. Thestrong social ties that bound thisBuddhist society, coupled withwhat de Casparis13 calls a pioussense of duty, offered a willinglabour force of hard-workingpeasantry without which Boro-budur may not have eventuated.The monument, mosaic ofricefields and surroundingmountains and ridges combinephysically and mentally as part ofa tightly knit social fabric wherepeople and landscape havemerged through time.

One of the problems facing us iscommunicating – that is interpreting – themeaning of one cultural group’sexistential space to others, meaningswhich may grow opaque over time associeties change. This may be seen to havespecial relevance at Borobudur as westrive to see the monument in its historicallandscape setting where myth, ceremonyand ritual inform the setting.

• Architectural and planning space.

• Cognitive space with its reflectivequalities referenced in maps, plansand designs. At Borobudur wemight see cognitive space relatedto the Buddhist mandala conceptin the holistic landscape settingwith Mount Merapi, rivers of theKedu Plain and the fringingmountains and in the monumentitself as a mandala representation.

• Abstract space which is a creation

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

58

of human imagination and logicalrelations that allows us to describespace without necessarilyfounding these descriptions onempirical observations. Is this notthe concept of the abstract/logicalspace of the mandala as re-presented at Borobudur? Itpermeates and excites theimagination.

Each of these spaces is closely linkedin thought and experience. ‘Pragmaticspace integrates man with his natural,‘organic’ environment, perceptual spaceis essential to his identity, as a person,existential space makes him belong to asocial and cultural totality, cognitivespace means he is able to think aboutspace, and logical space … offers a toolto describe the others’.14

INTANGIBLE VALUES ANDHISTORICAL LANDSCAPES

A common theme linking these conceptsof space/place and underpinning the ideaof the ideology of landscape itself as thesetting for everything we do is that of thelandscape as the repository of intangiblevalues and human meanings that nurtureour very existence. This is wherelandscape and memory are inseparablebecause landscape is the nerve centre ofour personal and collective memories.Notably in this regard are the words ofBambang Bintoro Soedjito, then DeputyChair for Infrastructure with theIndonesian National DevelopmentPlanning Agency, who suggested in 1999that:

For us, the most important expressionsof culture at this time are not themonuments, relics and art from the past,

nor the more refined expressions ofcultural activity that have becomepopularised beyond Indonesia’s bordersin recent years, but the grassroots andvery locally specific village based culturethat is at the heart of the sense ofcommunity. And that sense ofcommunity, perhaps more that of theindividual has been a strong shaping andsupportive influence in times of trouble,through turbulence and now instrengthening a confident sense ofidentity as we combine heritage with asociety opened to the opportunities of theworld.15

Soedjito’s sentiment on expressions ofeveryday heritage links comfortably withcurrent international notions of thesignificance of historical landscapes andideas of the ordinarily sacred. Pivotal tothis is the realisation that, in addition toour national cultural heritage icons, it isthe places, traditions, and activities ofordinary people that create a rich culturaltapestry of life, particularly through ourrecognition of the values people attach totheir everyday places and concomitantsense of place and identity. Identity iscritical to a sense of place – genius loci –for people. Relph aptly summarises thisin his proposal that ‘identity of place iscomprised of three interrelatedcomponents, each irreducible to the other– physical features or appearance,observable activities and functions, andmeaning or symbols’.16

So both tangible physical identity andintangible identity related to theexistential distinctiveness of our lived-inworld and human experiences areinextricably inter-woven with placemeaning and significance for people. Ibelieve this association has identifiableconsequences also for the way we need

KEN TAYLOR Cultural Landscape as Open Air Museum

59

to see the inter-relationship betweencultural heritage interpretation andpresentation of places within the contextof tourism which has emerged as a majorissue in Asia. Here there is directrelevance to the future planning,interpretation and presentation ofBorobudur in its historical landscapesetting. A fundamental question is whoseculture are we presenting and why? Theextraordinary richness of Indonesianculture represented at Borobudur and itscultural landscape means that there is aneed for a plurality of presentations.

CONCLUSION: BOROBUDUR IN ITSSETTING

What kind of actions ought we to proposeat Borobudur to ensure the rightoutcomes for the conservation of themonument itself and the economic andconservation future of its wider setting,that is, its historical cultural landscape?Within the focus of outcomes we mustinclude the protection and enhancementof local traditions and cultural heritageresources whilst engaging them within acomprehensive conservation manage-ment and tourism plan for the region.This is one where a dialogue isencouraged between conservation andtourism, but where tourism is not drivingand selling heritage. It is where tourismfits into a heritage planning framework17

as part of an extensive sub-regionalcultural mapping project.

I recommend that this Experts’Meeting consider proposing the conceptof a Borobudur Region Cultural Map beinitiated and that it include the followingactions:

1. Identify all stakeholders andinterest groups and devise a

program to involve them in futureplanning. This means that noparticular group(s) should beprivileged over others. It alsomeans ensuring cultural context isfully appreciated and that theremay need to be a change in howBorobudur is recognised andinterpreted.

2. Recommend that an HistoricalCultural Landscape Study beprepared by a multi-disciplinaryteam. A key initial step will be thedefinition of boundaries and it isproposed that the boundaries ofthe already recognised Five Zonesbe used. Zones III to IV encompassthe wider landscape with itspatterns and components in-cluding the communities thatsurround the monument, severalsmaller temples, archaeologicalremains, topographic and hy-drological features and thelandscape’s overall significancehistorically as a mandala (cak-kaväla/cakraväla). These need tobe assessed and analysed as anhistorical landscape with aremarkable richness of layers andmeanings offering a basis forfuture action. The culturallandscape of these Zones may thenbe appreciated in the context oftheir cultural history andconnection to Zones I and IIimmediately around and in-cluding the monument. A majorfocus of this task will be to re-statethe authenticity of the associationand meaning of Borobudur and itslandscape setting where elementssuch as water, vegetation,topography, orientation, arrange-

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

60

ment of buildings and landscapeengineering with the centre at MtMerapi have meaning within themandala and its laws governingorderly existence. Replanting ofZone II is recommended usinglocal trees set out in an openwoodland reminiscent of thelandscape at the time Borbudurwas built.

3. Site design for car park andvendor area promoting a sense ofarrival and address, signage,interpretation centre and walks.

4. Development of interpretativeprograms to enrich thepresentation of the monumentitself and to offer the basis forwider cultural landscapeinterpretation in the form ofbrochures, guide books andheritage trail pamphlets.Education of guides anddevelopment of an enforceablecode of behaviour for visitors arenecessary. In this regard it wouldbe productive to organise aTraining Course involvingexperts, locals, tourist operatorswhere aspects of authenticity,significance, visitor behaviour andmanagement, constraints andopportunities, and site man-agement and planning arediscussed with all stakeholders.An excellent example at YungangCaves is described by SharonSullivan.18 Such actions needs tolink through to recommendation5 below with cross referencing oftourism potential to the sig-nificance of cultural context andheritage resources.

5. Development of a cultural tourismplan linking tourism to theunderlying social and culturallandscape and the economic well-being of the area whilst notdetracting from the meaning,authenticity, and splendour ofBorobudur and its setting.

6. Address the issue of whether webelieve that Borobudur and itssetting satisfy the requirements forre-inscription on the WorldHeritage List of Cultural Land-scapes and propose that anobjective of an Historical CulturalLandscape Study be to recom-mend whether it fits the twofollowing categories:

• Organically evolved continuinglandscape by virtue of themanner in which the landscaperetains an active social role incontemporary society associa-ted with a traditional way oflife where the evolutionaryprocess is still in progress andwhere there is significantmaterial evidence of itsevolution over time.

• Associative cultural landscape byvirtue of the powerfulreligious, artistic, and culturalassociation of the naturalelements in the landscaperelated to the cosmicsignificance of the landscape asa mandala representation ofthe universe with both physicaland metaphysical manifes-tation.

The sense of continuity, fit with thesetting, and Borobudur’s undeniablepresence as the ‘Cosmic Mountain of the

KEN TAYLOR Cultural Landscape as Open Air Museum

61

Perfect Buddhas’ make it one of theremarkable edifices of not only CentralJava but the entire Buddhist World.19 Itshaunting presence reflecting an ancientbelief in the indivisible junction betweenman and nature where Mt Merapi to theeast and Borobudur itself are the focalpoints of a sacred landscape suggest it istimely that it be considered as a culturallandscape of outstanding universal value.

ENDNOTES

1 D. Lowenthal, Introduction in D.Lowenthal & M. Binney, Our Past BeforeUs. Why Do We Save It?, Temple Smith,London, 1981.

2 A. Wayman, ‘Reflections on the Theoryof Barabadur as a Mandala’ in L. O.Gomez & H. W. Woodward, BarabuduHistory and Significance of a BuddhistMonument, Asian Humanities Press,Berkeley, 1981.

3 J. D. Gogerly, Ceylon Buddhism: Being theEdited Collected Writings of Daniel JohnGogerly, A. S Kegan, Trench, Trubner &Co, London, 1908. See also R. Kloetzli,Buddhist Cosmology. From Single WorldSystem to Pure Land: Science and Theologyin the Images of Motion and Light, MotilalBanarsidass, Delhi, 1983.

4 Quoted in Soekmono, J.G. de Casparis,and Dumarcay, Borobudur: Prayer inStone, Editions Didier Millet, Paris andArchipelago Press, Singapore, 1990.

5 D. Jacques, ‘The Rise of CulturalLandscapes’, International Journal ofHeritage Studies,(2), 1995, pp. 91–101.

6 See K. Taylor, ‘Nature or Culture:Dilemmas of Interpretation’, TourismCulture & Communication, Vol. 2, 2000,pp. 69–84 for a discussion of howculture and nature fuse in AustralianAboriginal meanings of country and theconcept of the ordinarily sacred.

7 See K. Taylor, ‘Reading and Interpretingthe Cultural Landscape’, CanberraHistorical Journal, March 1992, pp. 2–9,‘Making Spaces into Places: Exploringthe Ordinarily Sacred’, LandscapeAustralia, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 107–112.

8 D. W. Meinig, ‘Introduction’ in Meinig,The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes:Geographical Essays, Oxford UniversityPress, New York, 1979.

9 J. D. Jeans, ‘The Pleasures of Landscape’in Australian Historical Landscapes, Allen& Unwin, Sydney, 1984.

10 See J. D. Tacey, ‘The Edge of the Sacred:transformation in Australia, Harper Col-lins, Blackburn, 1995, for furtherdiscussion on the ordinarily sacred.

11 E. Relph, Place and Placelessness, PionLtd, London Reprinted 1980, 1983, 1986.

12 Soekmono, J. G. de Casparis, andDumarcay, Borobudur see ‘Introduction’by de Casparis.

13 Soekmono, J. G. de Casparis, andDumarcay, Borobudur see ‘Introduction’by de Casparis.

14 C. Norberg-Schultz, Existence, Space andArchitecture, Praeger, New York, 1971,quoted in Relph, p. 26.

15 Bambang Bintoro Soedjito speaking atWorld Bank Conference, Culture Counts,Florence, 1999.

16 Relph, Place and Placelessness.

17 K. Taylor, ‘Cultural HeritageConservation and Tourism: Dilemma ofthe Chicken and the Egg’, InternationalSymposium and Workshop, ManagingHeritage Environment in Asia,Yogyakarta, January 8–12, 2003, pp.13–20.

18 See, for example, S. Sullivan, ‘TheManagement of Ancient Chinese Cave

Humanities Research Vol. 10 No. 2, 2003

62

Temples, A Site Management TrainingCourse at the Yungang Grottoes’, pp.28–40 in Conservation of Ancient Sites onthe Silk Road, International Conference onthe Conservation of Grotto Sites, October1993, The J Paul Getty Trust, 1997.

19 M. A. Johnstone, Borobudur An Analysisof the Gallery 1 Reliefs: Pelita BorobudurSeri C No., 1981.