Three categories of common cultural heritage are distinguished:
1. heritage in foreign countries relating to the periods of the VOC, WIC, and
Dutch colonial rule or to periods of intensive cultural relations;
2. artefacts (including archives) commissioned in other countries and built or
supplied by Dutch people;
3. heritage in the Netherlands or other countries which have had a particular
strong reciprocal (cultural) influence on Dutch culture. This classification
leads to two observations. First, colonial heritage is included but not
predominant. Second, the perspective from which heritage is perceived as
common is clearly Dutch. Therefore, one could say that the true object of
the policy is Dutch cultural heritage which is claimed as common by the
Netherlands. Its primary objective is to ensure its future by joining forces with
the priority countries.
In international heritage collaboration, next to 'common', the adjectives
'mutual' and 'shared' are also used to specify a certain type of heritage.22
The labels seem to be interchangeably, although, as proposed by the Dutch
historian Alex van Stipriaan, the following distinction should be made:
'Mutual heritage actually presupposes at least two parties involved whose
perspectives on the particular heritage do not have to be the same, but whose
claims are considered to be on equal footing, by all parties concerned.
Shared heritage presupposes that all parties involved have a share in this particular
heritage, but not necessarily the same type of share, nor equal parts.
Common heritage actually presupposes a community who has a specific culture
and its heritages in common'.23
Upon testing these characterizations on Dutch-Indonesian heritage, the
Dutch heritage expert Koosje Spitz favored 'shared' to 'common', because, she
argued, the community presumed for common heritage did not exist in the
Netherlands Indies. Even buildings did not have a common use, as a result of
the segregation policy. 'Shared', however, is problematic as well, as this implies
shared accessibility, ownership and financial responsibility while in practice,
sharing is often limited to a shared affinity or a shared origin. 'Mutual', then,
might be more realistic in its acknowledgment of different perspectives, except
for its equal footing.24 What's in a name, one could ask, but in relation to the
CCHP this discussion is relevant. First of all, the kind of heritage envisioned
in this policy might be called 'common', but it also shows elements which Van
Stipriaan ascribes to 'mutual' and 'shared'. Not only does the policy state that
the Netherlands has heritage in common with each of the priority countries,
it should be shared among the parties concerned as well, as their mutual
claim is equal.
178
COLONIAL LEGACY IN SOUTH EAST ASIA -
THE DUTCH ARCHIVES
22 When this concerns colonial heritage, Trias calls this 'a diplomatic ingenuity' and 'the process of
sanitisation of heritage'. See: Trias, Living at the Gates of History, 13 and 17.
23 Stipriaan, 'Atlantic heritage: Mutual, shared...?', 3.
24 Spitz, Towards a more collaborative approach, 44 and 53-55.
