Heritage and archaeology in Chitral, Pakistan: exploring some local views and issues

Abstract

The present article presents the results of a recent (2009) survey of understandings and attitudes to heritage and culture in Chitral, Pakistan. Chitral has two main ethnic-religious groups: the Muslim Kho and the Kalasha, who are the largest non-Muslim minority group in the Hindu Kush. Very little is known formally of Chitral history and prehistory beyond the last 200-300 years, and this has led to a relatively set list of heritage and cultural events or traits being iterated by local people and outsiders alike. With a growing emphasis on tourism and development in Chitral we think that it is important for local people to have understanding and control of what is and is not presented as heritage here, and also how heritage might be appropriately preserved. We also touch on the tensions between a powerful majority and a less powerful minority group, and the impact such an unequal relationship has on heritage.

The ethnobotanical heritage of Lotkuh, a high-altitude tribal haven of Chitral, the Eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan

“…The data elucidated several culturally significant crafts and tools unique to the local community, distinguishing them from practices found in other cultures. Trachomitum venetum is used to weave ropes, while Acer caesium serves as the primary material for crafting polo sticks [ 52 ]. Fraxinus xanthoxyloides finds its purpose in the creation of agricultural implements.…”

The archaeology of conflict-damaged sites: Hosn Niha in the Biqaʾ Valley, Lebanon

“…The reality is that cultural heritage has been destroyed and continues to be destroyed by conflict. Preventing or avoiding conflict itself (world peace) is the ideal, and, failing that, minimising damage to cultural property through education and awareness is a critical aim being addressed by many (Ali et al 2013; Stone 2013). Hamilakis (2009) has critically evaluated the issues raised when archaeologists work with invading military forces and their governments; his key recommendations include solidarity and collaboration with archaeologists within affected countries, and complete transparency whenever archaeologists are obliged to engage with military powers.…”