MANIFESTO - SECTION 2:
DEFENSE OF CAMINO HERITAGE, DEFINING AND WAY-MARKING CAMINO TRAILS
This is a
difficult one for me. I agree and
support all of the proposals under this section.
But, I have
doubts about the validity of the so-called ‘ONE ROUTE’ called the Camino de
Santiago pilgrimage route, which was created by the Council of Europe in 1984 –
1987 and culminated in the “ONE ROUTE” being added to the World Heritage list
in 1993 .
For a more educated opinion than mine, click here for an informed
article about the validity of the Council of Europe and World Heritage
declarations on the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage route - http://pilgrim.peterrobins.co.uk/santiago/heritage.html
I must add a
disclaimer before I even start on this post!
Disclaimer:
- WHETHER I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ANY OF
THE TRAILS IN EUROPE IDENTIFIED FOR WORLD HERITAGE STATUS ARE ‘AUTHENTIC’ OR
NOT, I ACCEPT THAT THE ‘CAMINO’ AS KNOW IT IS THE ONLY ‘CAMINO’ WE’VE GOT,
AND AS A WORLD HERITAGE SITE IT MUST BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED.
Now - back to the Manifesto.
DEFINING THE CAMINO TRAILS, DEFENSE OF CAMINO HERITAGE
Defining the Camino trails and defence of the Camino Heritage can be discussed as one heading – in that order.
Many academics have argued that the only routes which
can be positively identified as being ‘pilgrimage routes’ to the tomb of Saint
James are those in Galicia. The pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint James was a Galician invention. It spread to the rest of Spain, then to all of Europe and now it is a global phenomenon. The only starting place we can be sure of is Coruna and because that route is only 75km pilgrims who walk from there do not qualify for a Compostela.
Like a myriad of rivulets and streams flowing into a
great lake, the further away from the area surrounding the city of Santiago de
Compostela, the more problematic it becomes to identify the many different
paths taken by medieval pilgrims, let alone trying to establish ‘one route’ as
the only pilgrims ‘Way’.
(The Camino de Santiago cannot be positively
identified in the same way as other World Heritage sites, such as, for
instance, the Great Wall of China.)
“While the course of the different routes is generally
known, very little of them survive in anything approaching their original
form.” (Council of Europe)
Getting back to FICS and AMIGOS who are the guardians of the Camino.
It must be really frustrating for them when the same findings and proposals are reached after almost every
congress, conference, symposium or meeting of the different organizations dealing
with the Camino since 1999. This is not
the first time there has been a Manifesto calling for UNESCO to list the Camino
de Santiago on the ‘World Heritage in Danger list’.
Ten years ago the YESA NO campaign mobilised thousands of supporters at rallies
to protest against the enlargement of the Yesa dam in Aragon. http://www.yesano.com/camino_noticias.htm
At first UNESCO’s response was that the
section of the Camino in danger was not the same as that which was covered in
the 1993 World Heritage listing. In the
end, UNESCO reported that “a compromise
solution put forward for the Yesa Dam was found and agreed upon by ICOMOS after
they were assured that part of the original Route, which would be submerged by
the heightening of the Dam, would be preserved in a similar way to the section
now beneath the concrete runway of the airport of Santiago de Compostela, which
has already been accepted as part of the World Heritage property.”
Four years ago, in December 2010, representatives of more than eighty Jacobean and other
organizations from various European and South American countries signed a
document in Santiago de Compostela, accusing the government of not defending
the Camino Frances from multiple threats and attacks, such as the works of the
circle of Las Cañas in Logrono, a suburb in Cizur Menor (Pamplona) the destruction
of the Hospital de las Tiendas, among many others. A “Manifesto de Compostela” which has was promoted
by the Galician Association of Friends of the Camiño de Santiago, asked UNESCO
to include the path in the list of World Heritage in Danger.
“El Manifiesto de Compostela, firmado por
asociaciones jacobeas, culturales y patrimoniales de varios países, solicita a
la UNESCO que el Camino Francés entre a formar parte de la lista de Patrimonio
Mundial en Peligro debido a los “continuos atentados” que sufre.”
A: DEFINING THE CAMINO TRAILS
This was
the problem facing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1984.
They implemented a program of co-operation and exchanges to promote public
awareness in order to identify the routes and mark them with a common emblem
and co-ordinate the various cultural and tourist activities and the restoration
of monuments.
·
The route is largely based on Roman roads; many of
the settlements, such as Astorga and León, and much of the infrastructure, such
as bridges and actual roadway, predate the pilgrimage, and would have been
there whether the pilgrimage had existed or not
·
similarly, because there was an existing major
road, many of the later settlements and infrastructure such as travellers'
accommodation would have grown up along it too, again whether the pilgrim road
to Santiago had existed or not; this is, after all, what happened to Roman
roads in other countries, such as Britain
·
likewise, many villages and towns not on "the
Route" have monuments that are just as impressive if not more so as some
of those on the route
·
this is also the case for buildings on others of
"the different pilgrimage routes"; how do they differ from those on
"the Route"?
·
the argument is made that the pilgrimage route
provided the channel for Romanesque architecture to spread to Spain, yet the
earliest Romanesque churches are in Catalonia and have nothing to do with
Santiago; conversely, several of the major monuments of the Camino Francés,
such as León and Burgos cathedrals, are post-Romanesque, and others are of a
distinctly Spanish baroque style.
·
in addition, any route/road changes over time; this
means it is not a fixed 'heritage site'.
http://pilgrim.peterrobins.co.uk/santiago/heritage.html
The major
basis for the routes in Frances and Spain was the ‘Liber Sancti
Jacobi
“ which is now thought to have been written either for Duke William, Count of
Poitiers, or King Alfonso, and not as
a general guide describing any specific pilgrimage roads leading to Spain.
Too many
academic papers have been written on the so called Codex Calixtinus to mention
here but suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence that the book
does not describe four routes in France, and that there were no dedicated
Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage routes in many other countries of Europe either. Researchers agree that there were roads,
paths and tracks followed by travellers, traders and armies etc that were also used
by pilgrims to shrines all over Europe as well as to Santiago de
Compostela.
“The terms
pilgrim "roads" or "routes” were invented by Romance
philologists and art historians, whose contested or amended theories should not
dominate our conceptions nowadays. In a wider historical context, the
expression "pilgrim road" may denote the routes preferred by
pilgrims. Again, the further one gets away from Spain
and France, the vaguer the notion of specific routes for Santiago pilgrims
becomes.”
Klaus Berbers - Federal Republic
of Germany – 1988 Bamberg Congress.
“Of course, in this region, there is a great
deal of evidence of the cult of Saint James, whether in the form of churches or
altars, statues, crosses, place names or roads. However, these are evidence of
the cult of Saint James in general rather than evidence of the pilgrimage
routes. The term Santiago pilgrim route
properly applies only to those mediaeval or modern routes closely associated in
function with the cult of Saint James or the Santiago pilgrimage. In the upper
Rhineland, at least, such routes do not exist.
That is why we remain sceptical about the Council of Europe project
entitled ‘Santiago de Compostela European cultural route’. It is unreasonable
to interpret any evidence of the cult of Saint James as proof of the existence
of a pilgrimage route.” H.P.
Schneider – Switzerland – 1988 Bamberg Congress
Throughout
the discussions at the 1988 Bamberg Congress about identifying a ‘Santiago de
Compostela European Cultural Route’ many representatives of the different
countries raised doubts about the existence of such routes in Europe.
What about the confraternities, symbols of Saint James
and churches named for him?
“There
were 12 confraternities of Saint James in the upper Rhineland. According to the available information, the
confraternities of Saint James …. were associations organised for the purpose
of prayer for the souls of the dead. In short, they were not confraternities of
Santiago pilgrims for Santiago pilgrims. We must therefore conclude that - at
least as far as the upper Rhineland is concerned - the confraternities of Saint
James were of no importance to the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela.”
“The fact
that a hospital or hospice was dedicated to a particular saint does not tell us
anything about its function, which can only be elucidated by the written
sources for each particular case. The hospices, including those dedicated to
Saint James, took in not only Santiago pilgrims but all other pilgrims and all
poor travellers.”
“Thanks to the Guide,
[Liber Sancti Jacobi] the idea became widespread that there were four routes to
go to Compostela. There is no evidence
that any of the four routes or their extensions ever saw more pilgrim traffic
than any others…. history has so far found no evidence of large departures for
Compostela from these towns [Tours, Le Puy, and Vezelay, Arles]. The currently
used Le Puy route, the GR65, is an invention of the 1970s that the creators
admitted was not based on historical evidence - largely because there is no
historical evidence.” Peter Robbins
B: MANIFESTO - DEFENSE OF CAMINO
HERITAGE
The
Santiago de Compostela Declaration - 1987
·
to identify the
Santiago de Compostela pilgrim routes throughout Europe
·
to signpost the routes with a common emblem; and
·
to launch an extensive programmof European
co-operation through the restoration and rehabilitation of the architectural
and natural heritage lying in the vicinity of the routes and the organisation
of cultural activities and exchanges between the towns and regions situated
along them.
“Preserving the outstanding universal value granted to
the Route of Santiago implies the
comprehensive protection of all the sites’ values –both tangible and
intangible. The essence of cultural routes lies on the “interrelationship” of all their
elements, which should not be considered separately. Preserving the values
protected following Operational Guidelines criteria implies protecting the
“communication system” represented by the Route of Santiago.” WHC 1933 [I changed the words to bold]
Buffer
zones: “The Route of Santiago WHC Nomination
Documentation (UNESCO, 1993) indicates that the historical complex protected
includes 30 meters to each side of the route and all the medieval areas of
cities and towns crossed by it. Suarez-Inclan (2000) underlines that this
protection was established with a temporal character and that final
delimitation should be determined by planning instruments. Buffer zone should
be expressly indicated on a revised version of the UNESCO dossier of the Route
of Santiago.”
C: MANIFESTO - ON THE MATTER OF
HISTORIC LEGAL DESIGNATION
It is essential we ensure the Jacobean Itineraries with the most
historical claims as pilgrimage ways receive proper legal designations and
protection.
As most academics and researchers have said, how does
one decide which itinerary has the strongest historical claim to being a
Santiago de Compostela route? Neither
the presence of a church or hospice dedicated to Santiago, nor a scallop shell
on a bridge, nor a confraternity of Saint James in the area proves that it was
on a traditional pilgrimage route or that it was the only route to Santiago.
When the COE identified the present route of the
Camino de Santiago, many villages claiming a Santiago pilgrimage connection were bypassed. Those on the route have
benefitted from what has been described as ‘arbitrary choices made without
historical foundations” whilst others were excluded.
This proposal can only be fair if the recognition of
Jacobean itineraries is extended to all of those with claims to a historical
Santiago pilgrimage connection, such as the Invierno Route (Winter Route) and
the claim for a new route that will bypass Miraz and Arzua.
D: MANIFESTO: On the matter
of Way-marking
Although the yellow arrow is the icon of the Jacobean
pilgrimage in all the world, a chaos of markings and signs litter the pathways
on the Way of St. James.
We propose:
1.
Unifying the
way-marking of the Camino de Santiago throughout Europe based on the European
Council guidelines. Wherever possible the yellow arrow will be used.
Item 2 of the Santiago de Compostela Declaration is:
2. establish
a system of signposting for the principal points on the itinerary, using the
emblem suggested by the Council of Europe
Clearly the UNESCO emblem is only meant to
be used on principle points and not on all the different routes through Europe
to Santiago but the shell symbol and the yellow and blue colours were the most recognizable Jacobean symbols on all of the Santiago routes I've walked on in Spain, France, Switzerland and even Italy.
The yellow arrow, first painted as directional markers on the routes in
Spain, was the work of Don Elias Valina Sampedro.
If this was adopted by UNESCO as the official
Camino de Santiago route-mark symbol then perhaps it should be standard for all
the World Heritage routes. Only certain
sections of routes in other countries have WH status.
2.
Creation of
specific rules or laws to determine who is authorized to erect way marks; with
fines or other sanctions for those who “freelance.”
3.
We propose the
authorized way-markers be the same people who have always maintained the Way:
Associations, confraternities and Jacobean entities without profit
motives.
-tile.jpg)
.jpg)
