Geoheritage
DOI 10.1007/s12371-014-0128-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Landforms as Sacred Places: Implications
for Geodiversity and Geoheritage
Kevin Kiernan
Received: 24 October 2013 / Accepted: 19 June 2014
# The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage 2014
Abstract The natural environments amid which human societies have evolved have influenced the development of spiritual and religious belief systems. Nature, including natural
landforms, continues to figure prominently in traditional and
polytheistic faiths and residually in monotheistic faiths. This
prominence has resulted in numerous landforms, including
some islands, water bodies, rocks, mountains and caves, coming to be regarded as sacred sites, thereby adding a cultural
dimension to their potential natural geoheritage status. Sacred
status may confer a form of proxy reservation that aids protection of the natural values of a site but this potential varies
considerably between and within faiths, largely according to
the degree of anthropocentricity in how the faith is interpreted
and practiced. In some cases, religious practices can involve
deliberate removal of natural heritage attributes from the site;
in others, site degradation results from visitor traffic or the
installation of iconography or infrastructure. Managers of
sacred geoheritage may be faced with challenges related to
the continuation of the religious activities that underpin the
cultural geoheritage values of a site versus the harm these
practices may cause to its natural geoheritage values. But even
where dominant local stakeholders are concerned only with
the religious function or only with the natural function, it may
still be possible to influence site management in ways beneficial to other values. Particular challenges are posed where
sites are shared between multiple faiths, by interfaith conflict,
by the structures and evolution of faith-based site governance
systems, necessary confidentiality concerning some sites, and
achieving productive liaison and co-operation between disparate stakeholders.
K. Kiernan (*)
School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University
of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords Geoheritage . Geopiety . Geotourism . Religious
tourism
Introduction
Before the emergence of the scientific method, human understanding of the world derived from practical experience of the
tangible and mystical interpretation of the less readily understood. The emotional need for explanation and security was
manifested in the development of spiritual and religious beliefs, and the physical environment amid which this was
happening played a major role in the evolution of these belief
systems (Fig. 1). Through their philosophy and influence, the
resulting faiths have had a major impact on the way their
adherents view and relate to nature and other people, whether
outwardly acknowledged or more subtly influencing them.
Most humans and human groups still have some sort of
spiritual faith, whether formal or otherwise, in which some
legacy of this environmental underpinning remains. This legacy has major implications for geodiversity conservation and
management because the perspectives of the majority of the
Earth’s human population are shaped, at least in part, by their
religious and spiritual beliefs. Certain natural physical phenomena continue to be held sacred by many people, including
by millions of adherents to mainstream religious faiths, such
as Lourdes in France (Rinschede 1986) (Fig. 2). However,
while some religious perspectives may result in the attribution
of sacredness to particular elements of geodiversity, others
give rise to complete rejection of the idea that mere earthly
features are of any consequence, and there are any number of
intermediate positions.
The earliest form of nature conservation was probably
animist protection of sacred tree groves; hence, occasional
contributions to the nature conservation literature have focussed on the potential for the respect accorded sacred sites
Geoheritage
even if individual geoheritage managers do not themselves
subscribe to any particular faith, their effectiveness as
professionals requires that they have an ability to recognise
the range of attitudes held by those who do adhere to faiths,
and understand how the perspectives shaped by these faiths
may enhance or imperil geodiversity conservation. This paper
explores these broad issues, including the concept and
origins of sacred geoheritage, the types of sites that
may be involved and considerations in their management.
Abilities to respect, consult and adapt are required if the
challenging waters of sacred geoheritage management are to
be navigated successfully.
Fig. 1 Kata Tjuta, central Australia, is one of many natural landform sites
worldwide that remain sacred to local cultures. The rock hills are considered part of an extended kinship system
to facilitate conservation of biodiversity (e.g. Dudley et al.
2005). However, little attention has been paid to the possibility
that the attribution of sacredness might in some cases be
detrimental to nature conservation, either because of particular
religious practices or simply due to the pressure of large
numbers of worshippers visiting sacred sites (Kiernan
2010a). Moreover, a focus entirely on biodiversity and a
conspicuous disregard of geodiversity in this literature has
also meant that the benefits and disadvantages that may
accrue for geoheritage conservation have also been omitted
from such discussions. Some significant challenges face those
seeking to manage sites that have both natural geoheritage and
cultural geoheritage dimensions, particularly given the
common tendency for sites to be viewed as either natural or
cultural heritage places rather than both. As a consequence,
Fig. 2 A small grotto and spring
at Lourdes, France, said to have
been the site of apparitions of the
Virgin Mary, is now visited by
millions of Christian pilgrims
annually. It has been heavily
modified by development
Background
In his classical study of religion, Durkheim (1915) defined the
sacred as an ideal that transcends everyday existence, something extra-ordinary and awe inspiring that is made sacred
because some community has deemed it to be sacred.
Sacredness may be attached to a god, a rock, a creature, a
ceremony or something else entirely. Once made sacred, that
object or activity also becomes a symbol. Such properties do
not attach to the profane, that is, the realm of routine experience. The sacred is significant by virtue of its distinction from
the profane and becomes something that the impurity of the
profane should not and cannot touch.
The impact of the physical environment upon religious
values and practices is particularly evident in the case of
indigenous faiths. Many traditional cultures see humans and
nature as inseparable parts of a unified whole rather than
adopting the dualistic separation that is usual in present-day
Geoheritage
Western societies. For example, Australian Aborigines view
many landforms as part of extended kinship system (Flood
1983). The indigenous people of New Zealand use the same
word (whenua) for both the land and for the human placenta.
They view humans and the world in which they live as having
a common descent relationship (whakapapa) that connects
individuals to where their placenta is buried, to their lands
and to hunting rights (Rountree 2012). The natural geoprocesses that give rise to landforms have also commonly
figured in religious traditions, such as the power or apparent
wrath on display when earthquakes take place, volcanoes
erupt or when floods occur, as exemplified in the Christian
tradition of the Biblical Flood. Some traditions clearly facilitate nature conservation, as in some forests of the Lao PDR
where ancestral spirits are believed to dwell, and where villagers pay tribute to encourage the spirits to provide protection
and guidance. Similarly, in many areas along the Mekong
River tributaries in Laos, such as the Xe Bang Hieng, villagers
consider themselves the guardians of the ancestral spirits
believed to dwell in particular deep pools, and special fishing
protocols have been adopted to demonstrate respect and ensure that the spirit continues to protect their villages (Dudley
et al. 2005). Conversely, some religious practices augur less
well for nature conservation, such as the harvesting of
speleothems from karst caves in Mexico for ceremonial purposes (Brady et al. 1997). Although it is easy for Western
researchers to overlook the fact, millions of people worldwide
retain traditional practices. Even in some developed Western
countries, there has been minor resurgence of some traditionlike perspectives associated with the advent of neopaganism
with its belief in natural and supernatural beings. Neopagans
generally consider everything as a being, even rocks, and
believe that each has a spirit, either of itself or through being
inhabited by one – some neopagans even extend this to the
built landscape. However, in contrast to traditional faiths in
which the relationship between humans and nature is a fundamental orientation to the world that determines the rules of
everyday life, neopagans generally see this relationship as a
matter of faith, and they retain the Western dualism that
recognises a boundary between humans and nature that is
foreign to traditional faiths (Greenwood 2005; Rountree
2012).
Cognisance of the environment also remains prominent
among the mainstream faiths dominant around the world
today. These fall into two broad groups, namely those polytheistic faiths that originated in south and east Asia, and the
monotheistic faiths of west Asian derivation (Dudley et al.
2005). Those faiths that originated in the Indian subcontinent,
China and Japan include Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism,
Jainism, Shinto, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, and all of these
regard nature as a critical aspect of the Divine that should be
treated with reverence. In some cases, this reverence does not
preclude active exploitation, but in others, such as some
traditions within Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, it results
in the adoption of strict protocols for the protection of sacred
elements of nature. The principal monotheistic faiths are
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the first two professed by
over half of the Earth’s human population. The strong teaching against idolatry in the monotheistic faiths has meant that
the concept of sacred natural phenomena, whether biotic or
abiotic, is generally limited but, even so, it is far from having
been entirely erased. There are many different traditions within each of the monotheistic faiths, sometimes involving very
different interpretations of its teachings and the place and role
of humankind within nature. Barrett et al. (2001) recognise 19
major world religions which they subdivide into 270 large
religious groups and many smaller ones, including 34,000
separate Christian groups. Over half of the latter are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the main
denominations. Hence, the paragraphs that follow offer only
broad generalisations regarding linkages between these faiths,
nature and geodiversity.
The focus of this paper is on the significance of landforms
within organised religions, but it must also be recorded that
many other people who do not profess any particular religion
also derive a sense of personal spiritual renewal from their
immersion in nature, such as walking alone upon a windswept
beach or rafting down a wild river. Hence, landforms may also
have great spiritual significance for such people (Kiernan
1985; Easthope and Holloway 1989). For example, any viewer from atop a mountain is placed at a cosmic centre
(Bernbaum 1997). For some mountaineers, mountains may
effectively become a personal church for meditative presence,
necessarily focused thinking in the present, and emphasis of
their own insignificance within the vastness and power of
nature (Stutfield 1918). Their immersion in the presence of
mountains may aid their development of a perspective on past
events, such as described by the Sherpa Jamling Tenzing
Norgay (2002) who has written of “touching my father’s
soul”. Mountaineers may be greatly affected too by the sense
of spaciousness and plenty in the mountains, and the energy
from the sun reflected doubly from the purity of the snows.
Thus, Smyth (1950) recalls having “rested on the summit of a
mountain in a calm and amid a silence that lent swift wings to
thought and vision … until nerve and sinew, tautened by the
upward struggle, relax, and the mind no longer seeks a solution for the body, but is free to rejoice in all that lies around ….
aware of silence, a silence that steals upon him as a profound
and elemental truth”. Such spiritual dimensions of mountaineering may initially be an inadvertent by-product of the alpinist’s chosen physical activity, and are not necessarily felt by all
modern day “adventure sports” enthusiasts, but they sometimes result in spiritually based world views similar to those
engendered by traditional religious faiths. This paper focuses
on management of natural landforms that are considered sacred
by organised religious groups and does not address such
Geoheritage
individual personal reactions to nature, and nor does it address
the wider topic of contemporary environmental philosophies.
However, their omission is not intended to devalue the deeply
felt sense of place that is often perceived by even secular
individuals, nor its legitimacy and importance for how landforms may come to be managed.
One further dimension to spiritual geoheritage involves
landforms which acquire special significance from their secular history, irrespective of whether any particular faith system
is involved. One such example among a list that tragically
numbers in the thousands worldwide is Phnom Sampou, a hill
in western Cambodia. Here, over 10,000 people lost their lives
at the hands of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime as part of the
Cambodian genocide in the 1970s (Kiernan 2010b). Frequent
reporting by the mass media of horrific local events is today
increasingly densitising people worldwide to the real trauma
inflicted, progressively immunising against human compassion those who are not directly involved but who instead only
look on from afar, then to simply forget. But the places where
such tragedies unfold often remain deeply meaningful for
those directly touched by the events. People may either visit
them to remember past events or avoid them for the evil
memories they evoke, but in either case such places are often
considered so profoundly important for the events that transpired there as to be effectively sacrosanct. Again, because
this paper focuses solely on sites sacred to particular religious
faiths, sites of secular tragedy are not addressed further.
Nevertheless, their profound importance must be recognised,
and some of the management challenges addressed later in this
paper may also be relevant with respect to sites of this type.
Foundations of Sacred Geoheritage: Belief Systems
and Nature
Nature and Geomorphology in the Faiths of South and East
Asia
Lao Tzu, who generated the key impetus to Daoism (Taoism)
~2,600 years Before Present (BP), believed that people and
their attitudes and actions are inseparable from the physical
phenomena surrounding them, and that either has the potential
to alter the other. The key principles of Daoism are that all
elements within nature form a unified whole; that there is a
dynamic balance between the yin and the yang; that bad must
exist as the balance of good; and that growth is cyclical and
involves the Tao or life force endlessly moving through natural cycles. It embraces a commitment to harmonious action,
much like the strength displayed by a stick that bends rather
than stiffly resists only to snap as a result of its inflexibility
(Chan 1969). Daoism particularly emphasises “naturalness”,
simplicity, spontaneity and the “Three Treasures” of compassion, moderation and humility. Humanity is regarded as being
in constant search for unity with the universe. The poem “The
Useless Tree” by the philosopher Chuang Tzu highlights
Daoist recognition of nature as having an existence value in
its own right, and that human valuations of nature do not
provide any satisfactory measure of its real worth. Given the
unified perspective towards nature, the abiotic is necessarily
embraced by the same recognition of existence value. Daoism
is presently the sole faith of around 2.7 million people worldwide (<1 % of the world’s population) but many others follow
Daoism as one component of a wider portfolio of beliefs.
Where Daoists are locally concentrated, their faith has significant influence on local environmental management. Elements
of Daoism that have diffused into other faiths extend the
significance of Daoism from a geoheritage perspective.
Buddhism emerged ~2.5 ka BP and teaches respect for life
and the natural world. All sentient beings are believed to share
a similar cycle from birth to death that includes suffering, and
karmic samsara (re-birth) reinforces this interconnectedness.
While the Buddhist focus on sentient beings may suggest
limited concern for the inanimate, in practice this faith system
has also proven conducive to protective management of
geoheritage, a potential formalised to some degree by the
declaration of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (Dalai
Lama 1988), that “Morally speaking, we should be concerned
for our whole environment”. Human greed is perceived as
conducive to division and ownership of the land, thereby
creating violent conflict and destruction (Gyatso 2008).
Estimates of the number of Buddhists worldwide vary from
350 to 1,600 million because it is difficult to arrive at an
accurate number due to the non-involvement of many adherents in formal congregations, suppression of Buddhism by
some totalitarian regimes and many people having a portfolio
of eastern faiths of which Buddhism is only one.
Archaeological excavations that reveal an evolved culture
~5,000 BP have resulted in Hinduism often being considered
the oldest of those mainstream faiths that remain extant. Most
of the six main darshanas (schools) of Hinduism revere
“Mother Earth”, which is known by many different names
including Bhu, Bhumi and Prithvi (Flood 1996). Reverence
for biotic nature is illustrated by the fact that tree planting is a
significant component of certain sacred texts, with trees sometimes being compared to children. Abiotic nature is also
important, including some rivers, as illustrated by huge protests that were sparked by proposals to dam India’s two most
sacred rivers, the Ganges and the Narmada, which would also
have resulted in the loss of many sacred sites (Dudley et al.
2005). Some landforms and landscapes are accorded sacred
status by virtue of their perceived associations with deities.
Around 950 million people (~13 % of the Earth’s human
population) follow Hinduism.
The teachings of Jainism stress sympathy and compassion
for all beings. Its adherents abide by specific precepts that aim
to minimise harm to all life-forms, including ahimsa (non-
Geoheritage
violence) and aparigraha (non-possession), key elements in
the celebrated actions of Mahatma Gandhi. Forest reserves
have been established around some Jain temple sites, but
although the principal focus is on living beings, Jains also
recognise the sacredness of some physical features. Revegetation projects have been initiated on some degraded
lands but Jain monks and nuns generally strive to leave little
or no imprint on the broader ecological system, even to the
point that they tend not to otherwise engage in tree planting
(Tobias 1991). Jains number ~14.5 million worldwide (<1 %
of the Earths human population).
Shinto arose in Japan, and is related to Buddhism. It lacks a
developed philosophical literature, doctrine or fixed system of
ethics, but is founded upon ancient Japanese belief that all
things of the world possess their own spirituality because they
were born from the same divine couple. Hence, the relationship between the natural environment and humanity is that
of blood kin. The close relationship that is recognised
between humans, deities and nature results in deep
respect for the natural environment. Shinto ceremonies
appeal to kami (forces of nature) that are believed to exist in
physical phenomena such as mountains and springs
(Nobutaka et al. 2003). About 2.7 million people follow
Shinto traditions.
To adherents of Sikhism, the natural environment provides
the world’s inhabitants with a place in which to grow spiritually, and hence all nature is sacred. This faith expresses respect
for the dignity of all life, human and non-human, while many
of its gurus have emphasised a wider love for nature in all its
forms (Dudley et al. 2005). Sikhism teaches that humans
create their surroundings as a reflection of their inner state
and it views the increasing barrenness of the Earth as
reflecting a spiritual emptiness in humankind. Its adherents
may deliberately modify the natural environment in seeking to “beautify” it, but some landforms and landscapes
are considered sacred. Most notable among these is the
forest-clad lake at Amritsar where Guru Nanak meditated,
other later gurus followed, and the Golden Temple has since
been erected. This faith is followed by ~23.8 million people
worldwide.
Zoroastrianism is considered by some scholars to be the
earliest “ethical” religion, its Prophet Zoroaster having declared that good and evil co-exist in the world and that
people should uphold good by combatting evil (Hinnels
1991). The physical world is perceived as comprising
Seven Creations (sacred earth, sky, water, plants, animals, humanity and fire). Life and growth are considered to be interdependent in these realms, and the Earth
is considered sacred. Zoroastrianism was the state religion
of the Sassanid Empire (a Persian dynasty) in early Iran, but
most of its adherents later converted to monotheistic Islam
following Muslim invasions (Boyce 2007). Nevertheless, it is
still followed by ~2.7 million people.
Nature in the Monotheistic Faiths
Around 2, 500 BP, Greek and Jewish philosophers began to
embrace a monotheisim that led to erosion of the sacred status
of features that had previously been considered to either be
gods or to contain gods, and to their opening-up for exploitation (Baer 1966). Considerable variation exists in perceptions
of the relative significance of humans and their natural environment by different adherents to Christianity (Santmire
1975). According to the Christian Bible, “God saw everything
that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis
1:31) and it also indicates that “… the fate of the sons of men
and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.
They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over
the beasts; for all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 3:19). On the other
hand, a dualistic perspective arose whereby humans were
perceived as separate from nature, and Christ is said to have
told humans: “…you are worth more than many sparrows”
(Luke 12:7). Some Christians consider that other biblical
passages such as God having instructed humanity to “subdue
and have dominion over” the Earth (Genesis 1:28) has been
incorrectly viewed as licence to exploit and act despotically
towards nature when it ought to have been viewed as an
injunction for protective stewardship of the environment
(White 1967, 1978). Such debate increased as environmental
degradation accelerated during the twentieth century (Nash
1990). However, the term “stewardship” perhaps also carries
implications that creation should be protected for its instrumental values rather than its existence value. In a joint 2002
declaration, Pope Jean Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew
indicated that “Respect for creation stems from respect for
human life and dignity. It is on the basis of our recognition that
the world is created by God that we can discern an objective
moral order within which to articulate a code of environmental
ethics. In this perspective, Christians and all other believers
have a specific role to play in proclaiming moral values and in
educating people in ecological awareness, which is none other
than responsibility towards self, towards others, towards creation”. Given that the Christian faith has ~2,039 million
adherents, nearly one third of the Earth’s human population,
its traditions and attitudes inevitably have significant implications in terms of religious geoheritage and geodiversity
conservation.
Passages in the Torah, the key text of Judaism, imply that
nature exists for the use of humans. The Torah’s depictions of
the Great Flood and the impact of plagues contribute to a
somewhat negative perspective towards nature and natural
environmental processes. An instrumental rather than spiritual
relationship between nature and humanity is suggested, for
instance, by the instruction in the Torah that fruit trees not be
destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:19–20). However, as with many
other faiths in which basic texts provide only a broad framework with exemplars rather than a complete set of absolute
Geoheritage
and entirely consistent rules, other important elements of
Judaism reside in oral traditions rather than only the
written word. Hence, wider Jewish concepts such as
Torah (instruction and learning), avodah (service, worship
and work) and gemilut hasadim (acts of kindness) provide a
context for protective and respectful management of nature.
Notwithstanding some acknowledgment of sacred trees, any
form of pantheism is rejected. Nevertheless, the landform of
Mt Sinai is sacred to adherents of this faith, albeit that this
barren desert environment having been selected as the location
for God to make his covenant with the Jewish people has been
interpreted as emphasising the supreme importance of their
relationship with God rather than their relationship with nature
(Vogel 2001). Among North African Jews, natural features
that form the focal point in stories from the faith have sometimes become places of worship, with implications for their
associated natural values. Overall, notwithstanding the preeminence accorded humans under Judaism, mitzvoth (divine
commandments and injunctions to do good), minhagim
(traditions) and musar (ethical and spiritual discipline) provide a pathway towards respect and care of the natural environment, including landforms (Dobb 2013). Around 14.5
million people worldwide follow Judaism.
Islam involves an integrated code of behaviour that adopts
a holistic approach which did not traditionally separate
humans from nature. According to its holy text the Qur an,
“The creation of the heavens and the earth is far greater than
the creation of mankind. But most of mankind do not know it”
(40:56) and “Our lord is he who gives each thing its created
form and then guides it” (20:49). Although the Qur an teaches
that the Earth was created for the utilisation of humankind,
creation (nature) is interpreted as the sign of Allah and hence
deserving of dignity and care on the basis that He “… did not
create heaven and earth and everything between them as a
game…” (21:16) “… to no purpose” (38:26). Every part of
khalq (creation) is perceived as belonging to God, and humans
have been given the role of khalifa (guardianship) “… so he
could test you regarding what he has given you” (31:19).
Thus, a moral relationship is implied between humans and
the rest of creation, together with a responsibility for awareness of nature’s needs and the exercise of self-restraint. The
Qur an also records that “ … He has set up the Balance.
Transgress not in the balance….. And earth—He set it down
for all beings, therein fruits and palm trees with sheaths, and
grain in the blade, and fragrant herbs. Which of your Lord's
favours will you then deny?” (55: 1–12). All the elements, and
the right to benefit from them, are thus seen as the common
inheritance of both existing and future generations that
must not be injured. Hence, community interest is
accorded priority over individual benefit. Because none
other than Allah can be worshipped, natural features and icons
cannot be worshipped as gods, but they nevertheless warrant
protection as possessions and creations of Allah.
Planting trees is regarded favourably by Moslems while
cutting them down without compelling and legitimate reasons
may be interpreted as destruction of Allah’s property.
Moslems are expected to treat animals with kindness, birds
being particularly singled out for their singing of praises to
Allah. Any killing of animals for amusement is unacceptable.
The abiotic environment and geodiversity also have sacred
roles. Water is accorded particular priority as the source of all
life, and ritual cleansing in water is required before prayer.
Muslim men have to prostrate themselves upon the earth
several times in ritual prayer, and they may use earth materials
to perform their ritual ablutions should the use of water not be
practical (Shomali 2008). While Islam generally proscribes
the veneration of saints, variants exist within the faith, as in
Magreb North Africa where the tombs of Muslim saints are
considered sacred (Ben Ami 1998).
The Islamic shariah (legal system) gives precedence to
truth and justice over other human desires. Adherents must
adopt the core value system, have faith, be of good conduct,
do what is right, prevent what is wrong and always act with
moderation. Traditional Islamic jurisprudence included establishment of hima (special reserves) and al-haramain (special
inviolable sanctuaries). Hisba (special agencies) were
established to protect welfare, headed by a muhtasib (learned
jurist) whose responsibilities included oversight of environmental concerns including management of al haramain such
as those around water sources like rivers and lakes. However,
this traditional system has since been eroded by force of arms,
globalised economics and the over-printing of Islamic jurisprudence, which is fundamentally underpinned by an ethical
system that is founded in Divine revelation, by a Western
system of justice that is founded instead upon anthropocentric
secularism (Khalid 2002). Today, Islam is the world’s fastestgrowing faith, its adherents presently numbering ~1,570 million (~22 % of the world’s population).
The Bahai faith diverged from shia Islam in nineteenth
century Persia. It adopts a holistic perspective, its early leader
Bahá'u'llá having declared that “The well-being of mankind,
its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its
unity is firmly established” rather than “materialistic society
living a life out of balance, unaware of the sacredness of the
natural world, of the true purpose for human society, or of the
fundamental unity binding us together”. Bahai teaches that
“Nature is God’s will” (Bahá'u'lláh 1978), but although the
contemplation of Nature is recognised to be of spiritual significance it is not considered an end in itself to be worshipped
(Abdu'l-Bahá 1951). Rather, the God-given purpose of humanity is considered to be the advance of civilisation; hence,
while nature should be valued and respected, it is seen primarily as a tool to aid achievement of this purpose. Mountains
are recognised as significant parts of nature, Bahá'u'llá having
spent two years absorbing their spiritual and ascetic values
and, after his release from imprisonment, choosing to camp
Geoheritage
upon the slopes of Mt Carmel. Shoghi Effendi, a later
Guardian of the Bahai faith, found his own renewal in the
Swiss Alps (Bahai International Community 1986). However,
rather than conserve the natural environment and geomorphology in an intact condition, large-scale garden extension to
increase the grandeur and majesty of the Bahá'í World
Centre at Mt Carmel has involved terrace construction from
the foot of the mountain to its summit. There are ~7.4 million
followers of Bahai worldwide.
From Philosophy to Tangible Nature Conservation
Humans usually more readily identify with phenomena with
which they share the experience of sentience, or which are at
least living, than they do with inanimate phenomena. Thus a
particular, often long-lived individual animal may assume
spiritual significance for a faith or community, and in some
cases entire species are revered. The Egyptians under the
pharaohs accorded sacred status to physically impressive species such as lions and crocodiles, and also some useful domesticated species such as cattle, sheep, goats and cats.
Certain less impressive or useful species were also spiritually
significant, including the scarab beetle (Scarabaeus) which
was adopted as the symbol of creation. In a similar manner,
the orangutan retains spiritual value for people in Sabah and
Sarawak today. Such regard is not confined to the conspicuously sentient however. Individual plants, such as a particular
sacred tree or other “monumental” long-lived plant, are also
sometimes regarded as being sacred, including ancient trees
that are preserved outside Shinto temples in Japan, and trees in
Thailand that are ritually decorated by Buddhist monks.
Sacred tree groves exist in many countries. As with animals,
the entire species of plants can also be important, such as the
olive tree which has significance in the creation myths of
ancient Greece and Rome, in Judaism and in Christianity
(Dudley et al. 2005).
Beyond these various biotic phenomena and of more direct
relevance to geodiversity conservation, sacredness is also
attributed to some particular physical landscape features
(Kshirsagar 1991). These include water bodies, such as the
Ganges River in India which is important to Hindus, Jains,
Sikhs and Buddhists, and also rocks and landforms such as
sacred islands, mountains and caves. Sites believed significant
as loci of “Earth energy”, such as Glastonbury in Britain, or
perhaps the Nazca Lines of Peru, add another dimension to
this portfolio of spiritual geoheritage. Wright (1966) coined
the term “geopiety” to refer to such reverence for, and worship
of, natural landscape features. The geopiety common among
Tibetans, for example, entails ongoing acts of appeasement
and subjugation to various deities. Such rituals to appease
feared chthonic deities are almost universal among polytheistic and animist traditions, with transgressions usually believed
to be liable to attract retribution (Coggins and Hutchinson
2011). Some of the Tibetan deities reside in the sky while
others dwell in the landscape or the underworld. Most MesoAmerican religious traditions focus heavily on terrestrial
phenomena.
Pilgrimages linking multiple sites have become deeply
enshrined in some faiths, such as Christian pilgrimage to
Lourdes in France. Whole towns may sometimes be involved,
such as Assisi, Varanasi or Bethlehem. For over 2,000 years,
Buddhists have travelled to the serial holy sites of Sri Lanka to
learn the Dhamma, sometimes in such numbers that foreign
governments built accommodation establishments there to
house their nationals. Similarly, the spiritual significance of
landforms may also derive not only from an individual site but
also from the wider landscape in which it occurs, various
individual component landforms being stations along a pilgrimage route, the value and significance of the whole being
greater than that of the sum of its component parts. Australian
Aboriginal tradition recognises a maze of songlines or dreaming tracks that before time began are believed to have been
followed by totemic ancestral beings who created landforms
and creatures by singing their names as they passed. Such
beings included the Rainbow serpent who is believed to have
created ranges, hills and watercourses as she crossed northern
Australia. Other landforms are believed to have been shaped
along the Native Cat Dreaming route from the Pacific Ocean
into the Simpson Desert. Songlines are kept alive in songs,
stories, dances and artworks that are each the sacred property
of particular groups. Because their rhythm follows a “melodic
contour”, individuals well versed in them may navigate hundreds of kilometres across untracked lands following their
guidance, irrespective of changes in the language of the songs
as tribal and other boundaries are crossed (Bradley and
Yanyuwa families 2010).
Sacred Natural Places
Islands
Numerous islands have at times been accorded sacred status in
the past, such as Rapa Nui (Easter Island; Isle de Pascua) in
the South Pacific. Maria Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria
remains deeply sacred to the Marra Aboriginal people who
consider it part of the Kangaroo Dreaming from the central
Australian desert, but specifics of their creation stories cannot
be discussed with outsiders (Murdoch 2011). Sacred status has
been accorded to Sri Lanka on the basis of several visits by
Buddha who on one flight is believed to have left his footprint
in a mountain summit. He is said to have taught the seminal
text of the Ch'an and Zen schools, the Lankavatara Sutra,
while on the island, where all principal schools of Buddhism
blossomed in a mostly tolerant climate that also allowed other
Geoheritage
religious traditions, such as Judaism (Bernbaum 1997). The
sacred status of Sri Lanka is further reinforced by the presence
of important relicts of the Buddha, including his tooth, hair
and alms bowl. Poot’oo in China’s Chusan archipelago is
home to various sacred rocks and grottoes together with three
main temples: the Universal Salvation Temple, the Rainproducing Temple and Wisdom’s Salvation Temple. One
stone inscription reads in part “With reverence be cautious
not to kill living creatures. Do not pour hot water upon the
ground, lest living creatures be injured, and when walking, be
careful not to step on anything living”. A rainbow formed in
the sea-spray of Fan Yin Tung (Buddhist Echo Cave) that is
visible from a temple bridge is believed to be a living Buddha.
In Western Christian tradition, the island of Iona off the west
coast of Scotland is considered a holy place by virtue of its
association with the pioneering missionary St Columba.
Water Bodies
Jeju Island, Korea, has thousands of endemic gods, many
traditions associated with its landforms and tales of sadness
forever recorded in the tears that drip into Sanbang Cave or
emerge as springs from the cliffs at Suwolbong. Shamanistic
and other ceremonies continue to take place at numerous sites
on Jeju (Ch’oe 2006; Hilty 2011). Natural geothermal heating
may add another dimension to sacred springs. In New
Zealand, the Ketetahi Springs comprise around 40 fumaroles
and many boiling springs and mud pools. The local Ngati
Tuwharetoa tribe retains control of the site which forms an
enclave within the surrounding national park—itself a group
of sacred volcanoes gifted to the New Zealand people by the
Maori in 1887 (Potton 1987). Moroccan Jews believe in the
curative or purifying powers of waters in areas where saints
have been buried (Ben Ami 1998). Frozen rivers that descend
as glaciers from Mt St Elias on the border of Alaska and
British Columbia are also considered by the Tinglit tribes
around Yukatat to be inhabited by spirits, requiring respectful
good clothes and behaviour whenever it is necessary to venture near them (Fig. 3). These people had the experience of the
entire villages having been destroyed by surging glaciers
(De Laguna 1972) which they perceived to both possess
life and give life to the landscapes they inhabited, and
capable of making moral judgements and punishing offences
(Cruikshank 2005). These local Tinglit shade around their
eyes with black because the glaciers, both aggressive males
and more benign but unpredictable retreating female glaciers,
find any direct gaze offensive (Bernbaum 1997). For
Christians, water has been symbolic of liberation since the
Hebrew exodus is said to have passed through the parted Red
Sea, or the trickle observed by the prophet Ezekiel grew to a
stream that purified the Dead Sea and watered the desert as a
sign of the abundance associated with the Christian God.
Similarly, Jesus is said to have proclaimed God’s mercy and
Fig. 3 The mist enshrouded glaciers of the St Elias Range of southeastern Alaska are considered by local Tinglit tribes to be inhabited by
spirits. Local people shade their eyes to avoid the offence of gazing
directly upon the glaciers, a practice that probably assists in averting
snow blindness when they venture into the mountains
forgiveness in baptising John, and the blind who washed in the
Pool of Siloam to have regained their sight. Many Christians
still baptise their children with water and seek to quench their
thirst for their God in remembrance of the water said to have
flowed from the side of Christ when he was pierced.
Rock Outcrops and Boulders
In animist traditions, natural rock outcrops and boulders can
have great spiritual significance. Crystals were employed in
some Australian Aboriginal cultural practices, while in
MesoAmerica they were used in ceremonies performed by
Mayan shaman and have been found in numerous temples and
associated caves. Stalagmites also played a role in Mayan
ceremony, sometimes being removed from caves for various
religious purposes, including erection as stele (Brady et al.
1997). The original inhabitants of Jeju Island, Korea, are said
to have been three demi gods who sprang from the Earth via
three small depressions at Samseonghyeol that have been
worshiped since prehistoric times (Fig. 4). After three maidens
arrived across the East Sea, the demi-gods fired arrows to
determine where each couple would settle, and one mark on
a rock at Samsaseok is said to have resulted from one of these
arrow-head impacts. Animist hill-tribes in the mountains of
Indochina still associate various rock outcrops with spirits
and regard them as sacred places (Fig. 5). Rocks can also be
sacred for Buddhists (Munier 1998). Tibetan Buddhists consider ammonite fossils found in the Kali Gandaki gorge of
Nepal to represent a serpent diety, Gawo Jogpa. Among
Hindus, these fossils are known as saligrams, and they are
considered manifestations of Vishnu. It is believed that wherever they are present so too is Vishnu. It was once considered
that if someone testifying in a court of law held a saligram in
Geoheritage
Fig. 4 A subtle topographic depression at Samseonghyeol on Jeju Island,
Korea, has been worshipped since prehistoric times as the point at which
an original demi-god sprang from the earth
their hand it would guarantee long and severe punishment
were they to utter a falsehood, and the belief persists today that
if a dying person sips water in which a saligram has been
bathed he will be freed from all sins and assured of reaching
Vishnu’s heavenly abode. There are many other cases of rocks
playing important roles in Asian faiths. In Australia, boulders
scattered beneath the northern slope of Uluru are the bodies of
women and children who were slaughtered by a vicious
monster by a distant offended tribe (Fig. 6) (Layton 1986).
Fig. 5 A simple wooden stick artefact leaning against a rock outcrop in
the forests of Mae Hong Son province, Thailand, one of many such
outcrops considered sacred by the local hill-tribe people of this region
Fig. 6 Some rocks scattered around the foot of Uluru, central Australia,
in a similar manner to these examples (photographing the actual sacred
boulders is inappropriate), are believed by local Australian Aborigines to
be the bodies of women and children that were slaughtered by a monster
In Europe, unwrought stones were worshipped in ancient
Greece instead of images, according to Pausanias (VII, 24. 4).
Later, shaped stones and the erection of standing stones and
stone arrangements continued the tradition of sacred rocks in
Europe. The indigenous Sami of Sweden, many of whose
sacred sites were focused on visually striking landforms, still
practice sieidi gifting, whereby stones are among various
objects to which gifts are given to express thanks or to promote successful hunting or fishing (Dudley et al. 2005). The
writings of some present-day Western neopagans allude to
their having “found that the ancient stones speak’ (Christ
2012). Within some faiths, there is also recognition of sacred
petrosomatoglyphs, impressions in rock that are considered to
represent body parts. While some have been artificially produced by adherents, others are not of this origin. In Australia,
the Yarralin people consider Walujapi, the Dreaming Spirit of
the black-headed python, to be responsible for creating a
serpentine track across a cliff-face and to have left the
impression of her buttocks when she sat at her camp.
Depressions considered to be footprints left by Buddha
in lands where his teachings would be recognised are
widespread in Asia (Fig. 7). The discovery of one footprint
near Chengzhou in Tang Dynasty China marked commencement of the Dazu (Big Foot) era with the ascendancy of
Empress Wu Zetian in 701 CE. Another footprint atop
Adams Peak in Sri Lanka is considered by Buddhists to be
that of Buddha, and by Hindus to have instead been left by
Shiva (Bernbaum 1997).
Rocks are also significant in various ways within monotheistic faiths. The Bible records Christ having said of apostle
Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Peter is thus regarded as the “rock” upon which the Catholic
church was founded. Christian psalms record: “The Lord is
my Rock. He is my strength, my fortress and my defence” (Cf.
Geoheritage
Fig. 7 Subtle petrosomatoglyph in Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR,
believed to be a footprint left by Buddha. The toe depressions discernible
in the upper left-hand side of the image (arrowed) have been gilt-lined by
local monks
Fig. 8 Mountain pathways that wind through the Atlas Mountains of
Morocco are subject to frequent rock falls. Some of the fallen boulders are
associated with local Jewish traditions that saints who fell victim to rockfall lie buried beneath them
Ps. 143, 1.2). In Christianity, Touching the Rock is akin to
leaning on the shoulder of a friend. Millions of Christian
pilgrims annually seek to touch the rock at Lourdes in
France. Not dissimilar is the significance for Jewish pilgrims
of The Rock or Foundation Stone in Jerusalem, which they
consider the holiest place on Earth and which they traditionally face during prayer in the belief that it was the location of
the Holy of Holies. In Jewish tradition, this is where Abraham
is said to have prepared to sacrifice his son Issac. It appears to
be the peak of what was originally the highest summit in
biblical Jerusalem, overlooking the City of David, but which
has subsequently become obscured through the construction
of vaults and the artificial platform known as the Temple
Mount. This site is also significant in Islam, some scholars
considering it to be the place from which Muhammad
ascended to heaven with the angel Gabriel, and where he
was taken by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses and
Jesus. Similarly, the Black Stone at Mecca is also significant
for Muslims. In Morocco, some boulders are associated with
Jewish traditions of their fall having killed saints who lie
buried beneath them (Ben Ami 1998) (Fig. 8). Some
Christians and Muslims consider the petrosomatoglyphs
atop Adams Peak in Sri Lanka to be the footprints of
neither Buddha nor Shiva, but instead to be where
Adam first set foot after his exile from the Garden of
Eden. There are also said to be footprints trodden by
Jesus in the Church of the Ascension in Jerusalem,
while footprints attributed to Muhammad occur at the
Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and in mosques as far
afield as Bangladesh. A footprint considered that of
Abraham occurs next to the Ka’bah in Mecca, while marks
on one end of the Foundation Stone are said to have resulted
from the Archangel Gabriel restraining its ascent with
Muhammad as he began to rise to heaven.
Mountains
Many faiths have viewed mountains as lofty, inviolate and
eternal, their white snows being particularly symbolic of purity (Snow 1977; Eck 1987; Bernbaum 1997). For the ancient
Greeks, mountains were the home of the gods. The Atlas
Mountains of North Africa were the place where Zeuss
condemned Atlas to bear the weight of the sky and prevent
it crushing the Earth, eventually turning to stone. At the limits
of the known Greek world, these mountains formed a pillar
that both connected and separated different levels of the
Cosmos. They were also the place of Homer’s Titan. To the
Romans, the Atlas Mountains were created when Perseus
killed Medusa and displayed the head of the Gorgon to the
Titan, and turned to stone. Mt Halla, an extinct volcano that
dominates Jeju, Korea, is said to have been created by a large
women named Scolmundae who used her skirt to move the
Earth from which it is formed, the many smaller volcanoes on
the island having resulted from grains falling through holes in
her garment (Ch’oe 2006). In China, mountains were revered
as the bodies of cosmic beings, the rocks being their bones.
Mountains were symbols of power and fertility, and divine
sources of life-giving water. Most Chinese belief systems are
founded upon the principles of Yin and Yang. These terms
were originally used to describe the shaded and sunlit sides of
a mountain peak, then later extended to cover the complementarity of opposites of which the world consists, and which
must be kept in balance (Bernbaum 1997). Under the ethical
code and rituals of Confucianism that were developed from
~2,600 BP, mountains embodied stability, and were perceived
as a great mass sitting on the earth that prevented it from
moving. Mountains provided sacred links with heaven and
mandates to rule. They were also places of risk, but came to be
seen as places of sanctuary after the invasion of the imperial
Geoheritage
capital of Loyang in AD311 caused officials to scatter into the
mountains, where they found both safety and a greener land
than that from which they had fled (Bernbaum 1997). The
Tien Shan (“Mountains of Heaven”) in central Asia remain
particularly important for Daoists. The Kunlun Mountains on
the edge of Taklamakan Desert (Fig. 9), the setting for the
Monkey legend, are regarded by Daoists as the site of a
garden containing the peaches of immortality. Elsewhere
in Asia, the Elburz mountains are significant to followers of
Zoroastrianism, while various Himalayan peaks are sacred to
Hindus, as are some mountains elsewhere, such as Gunung
Agung in Bali. Shatrunajaya in Gujarat, India, is believed to
be where most of the Jain Tirthankaras attained nirvana, and
hence is the holiest of Jain sacred mountains. Mountains are
also important to Buddhists, whose traditions hold that
Buddha delivered many of his most important sermons from
a rocky peak. In Mongolia, there are over 600 mountains that
are considered sacred by Buddhists (Dudley et al. 2005).
Some sacred Asian mountains are shared between different
faiths, the Himalayas being sacred to five different Asian
religions, namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism
and the indigenous Bon tradition of Tibet. To the indigenous
people of southern Patagonia, the Torres del Paine (Fig. 10)
are warriors who were killed when an evil spirit flooded the
Earth, while at the opposite end of the Americas Denali (Mt
McKinley) in Alaska (Fig. 11) is considered by the indigenous
inhabitants of the Koyukuk and adjacent valleys to be a giant
wave that was created to punish the Raven deity for a misdeed
but which he succeeded in turning to stone (Bernbaum 1997).
Mountains are also of some significance for mainstream
monotheistic faiths. For Christians, Mt Ararat was the resting
place of Noah’s Ark after the Biblical flood. Mt Sinai is where
God is said to have delivered the Ten Commandments to
Moses. Its sanctity thus derives from its being a place to which
God descended and where he demonstrated his power. It
was also a place of ascent by Moses and the site of God’s
revelation to him. Hills and mountains figure in many other
Christian traditions from which they derive sacredness. These
include God having chosen a mountain as the place at which
to reveal Jesus was his son. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and
his crucifixion on Calvary further illustrate this significance
of mountains in Christianity. Similarly, Mt Zion is a great
importance to adherents of Judaism, and in Morocco many
mountains are considered the burial places of Jewish saints
and hence consecrated ground. Mountains also played an
important role in the life of Prophet Mohammad who founded
Islam about 2.7 ka BP. He is said to have received his
revelations on Mt Hera where he heard the first words of
the Koran and saw the Archangel Gabriel. Mt Moriah and the
Mount of Mercy are among other important Islamic mountain
Fig. 9 The Kunlun Mountains on the edge of the Taklamakan Desert,
central Asia, are the setting of the ancient Monkey legend, and are regarded
by Daoists as the site of a garden containing the peaches of immortality
Fig. 11 The Denali massif of Alaska, highest of all North American
mountains and considered by indigenous people to be a giant wave sent to
punish the Raven deity but which the intended victim succeeded in
turning to stone
Fig. 10 The Torres del Paine in southernmost Chile, believed by local
indigenous people to be the remains of warriors who were killed when a
Great Flood was unleashed upon the Earth by an evil spirit
Geoheritage
sites. The Khirghiz people who moved into the region around
the central Asian summit of Muztagh Alta in the Pamir
Mountains created a spiritual palimpsest, overlaying Islam
upon residual Buddhism. They regard this mountain as the
tomb of 70 Muslim saints, including Moses, whose soul is
said to reside within it, and Alt, the son-in-law of Islam’s
founder Muhammad (Bernbaum 1997).
Caves
While mountains are conspicuous features that attract the eye,
caves are at the opposite extreme. Because they are hidden
from sight beneath the ground surface, they are perhaps less
obvious targets for veneration, but nevertheless caves have
also been viewed as sacred by many faiths. Flower pollen
associated with a Neanderthal burial in Shanidar Cave in
northern Iraq suggests spiritual practices have occurred in
caves for at least 60,000 years. Some ice age art in certain
European caves is suggestive of the same, as is the mixing of
human blood with the ochre used to create hand stencils in
Wargata Mina Cave, Tasmania (Jones et al. 1988). Human
burials in caves have occurred in northern Thailand for over
10,000 years. Very large log coffins, some exceeding 9 m
length, were placed in various caves of this area (Kiernan et al.
1988). These coffins are now believed to date from 1,200 to
2,000 years ago. Many local hill-tribe people still consider
caves to be inhabited by spirits known as pi that are said to be
larger than humans, which may conceivably account for the
disproportionately large size of the log coffins (Sidisunthorn
et al. 2006). In China and elsewhere, caves continue to be used
to inter human remains (Fig. 12). The Daoist canon is divided
into three “Caverns” or “Grottoes”, and the central altar in
Taoist ritual is referred to as a cave table. Daoist adepts
meditate in caves, which are believed to contain a special
purified form of qi, the life force that animates the world.
Dragons, which are symbolic of immortality, were also
Fig. 12 Interment of human remains in caves remains common in
southern China and in many other parts of the world
believed to dwell in caves. In Buddhism, the importance of
caves derives partly from their role at various stages in
Buddha’s life: during his Noble Quest, he sought out a guru
in a cave; later he received the Prime Minister of Magadha
State in a cave; and upon his death his followers are said to
have gathered there. In northern Thailand, about 30 % of
all known caves have been used as Buddhist temples
(Sidisunthorn et al. 2006). In Hinduism, the significance of
caves is linked to perceptions of the Earth as the nurturing
source of all things, including springs of water. Caves are
perceived as being womb-like, and phallic connotations of
speleothems such as stalagmites are recognised, typically as
symbols of fertility (Burgess 1988). In Meso-America, many
Mayan temples were constructed over cave entrances or are
aligned with caves that pass beneath them, while entirely
artificial caves were excavated beneath other Mayan temples
in non-limestone areas where no natural caves were available
(Brady and Veni 1992; Bower 1998). Throughout MesoAmerica caves are associated with rain and fertility, and some
caves in sacred mountains continue to be used for spiritual
purposes (Brady et al. 1997). Caves also had a wellestablished role in Greco-Roman religions, the passage of
the dead along the underground Styx River providing just
one example of the linkage between landforms and water that
is also recurrent in some traditions. Caves are also significant
to some present-day neopagans, Christ (2012) indicating that
“Descending into caves we feel grounded in Mother Earth and
in the sure knowledge of the power of our female bodies”.
Among the monotheistic faiths, the Christian tradition records that Jesus was born in a cave-like manger, and was later
buried in, and resurrected from, an artificial cave. The Bible
also records caves to have been places of sanctuary, as for the
persecuted David, and as places in which to recoup strength,
as the prophet Elias is said to have done. The monastic
tradition in Christianity can be traced to a cave in the eastern
desert of Egypt near the Red Sea, within which Paul is said to
have dwelt as the first Christian ascetic to seek isolation and
spiritual communion with his God. This cave was later artificially enlarged and decorated, and churches and a monastery
were built at the site. It was abandoned in the late fifteenth
century until the patriarch John XVI re-consecrated the cave
church. Constantine is said to have built his churches in the
Holy Land on the site of the “mystical caves” associated with
the life of Jesus, and the tradition of cave churches spread to
places such as Cappadocia in Turkey (Lyster 2008).
Worldwide, caves have since been used as churches or special
church services held within them. The springs that some caves
contain have sometimes come to be regarded as sources of
Holy water, as at Lourdes in France, which is today visited by
over 5 million Christian pilgrims and tourists annually. In
most Christian countries, virtually all caves used for commercial tourism contain a stalagmite group that has been christened the “Madonna and Child” and also a “Cathedral
Geoheritage
Chamber”. Indeed, the influence of caves may extend very
much further, for the parallels between the morphology of
caves and the architecture of classical Christian churches and
cathedrals are unmistakable. This form includes their lofty
domed chambers, speleothem-like pillars and their niches
and windows that strongly parallel the shapes of flowstones
and stalagmites. The subdued light within most traditional
Christian churches, and the fact that many are entered through
a single small portal, enhances their cave-like atmosphere. In
nineteenth century Palestine Jews would spend up to three
nights in the Cave of Elijah on Mt Palestine. A cavern known
as the Well of Souls that is entered via a small hole on the
south-eastern corner of The Rock in Jerusalem gives rise to its
alternative name of the Pierced Stone. This cave forms part of
the most sacred site in Judaism. Islam too has its linkages with
caves, the Prophet Mohammad’s revelations being said to
have been delivered to him in a rocky cave on Mt Hera. The
cave Mul Jebel El-Kebir near Sefrou in Morocco attracts both
Jewish and Moslem worshippers, and Moroccan Jews also
used caves for human burial (Ben Ami 1998). The foregoing
are but a few examples of the innumerable caves used for
religious purposes around the world (Kiernan 1997, 2004).
Discussion
…protecting the sacred from harm requires education,
thoughtfulness and constant vigilance to be sure that we are
accurate in our assumptions and appropriate in our action.
(Sherman 2003: p vii)
There are many connections between elements of
geodiversity and the diverse faith systems that influence the
behaviour of the vast majority of the Earth’s human inhabitants. These connections highlight the significance of geopiety
both as a source of cultural geoheritage and as an influence on
the fate of natural geoheritage. These connections have important implications for those to whom facilitating religious
observance may be the primary concern, but where that activity may have the potential to generate environmental injury
that is inconsistent with some aspects of their faith. Equally, it
has implications for those whose principal concern may be the
protection of natural heritage values and whose goals might be
advantaged by the proxy protected areas status that can result
from respect being accorded to sacred natural sites, albeit that
some religious practices may impose management challenges.
Many aspects of this situation warrant consideration because
spiritual values have implications for the entire relationship
between humans and geodiversity, involving both specific
natural sites and wider environmental management in general.
Some of the most fundamental issues arise from contrasts
between the different perspectives from which site significance is recognised; from some of the implications of geopiety
for natural heritage management and of natural geosystem
functioning for sacred value management; from variations in
the perceptions and requirements of those on either side of the
culture-nature equation; and from the need to anticipate and
accommodate the complexities in site governance to which
these factors inevitably give rise.
Contrasting Philosophies in Significance Evaluation
To the adherents among faith groups for whom particular
natural sites are held sacred, such places are “special”. The
attribution of sacredness to landforms for religious reasons,
and their subsequent celebration, thus bears some similarity to
the earlier focus of natural heritage conservation on sites that
were considered to be outstanding in their scenic or inspirational qualities. However, as science has become a more
potent force, and perhaps also because aesthetic tastes differ
between individuals and fashions change over time, this approach to nature conservation has largely given way in recent
decades to strategies directed instead towards the conservation
of representative examples of particular types of natural phenomena (Davey 1974). This trend has probably been accentuated by the fact that some twentieth century nature conservation battles were conducted in a climate of accelerating
acceptance of science and economic rationalism; hence, advocates for the protection of natural areas were sometimes
successfully dismissed by more powerful and better resourced
opponents for being emotional rather than invoking factual
scientific arguments. Hence, the dominant paradigm of those
who advocate on behalf of nature conservation now generally
entails the retention of representative examples of biota.
The representative approach to nature conservation has
undoubted merit, but biodiversity conservation has to some
extent also become the tail that wags the entire nature conservation dog. Other aspects of wider environmental diversity,
such as geodiversity, are relatively ignored, and at least within
secular Western societies the religious significance of natural
places has been similarly marginalised. The dominance of the
representation paradigm also tends to have resulted in sites
that could reasonably be considered as outstanding in some
way being overlooked when decisions are being made to
allocate land for conservation and in developing management
protocols for protected areas. The World Heritage system is an
unusual but welcome exception, for it continues to recognise
some sites as being of “outstanding universal value”.
Otherwise, it may well be that if faced today with the same
decisions about which areas to conserve as resulted in some of
the most celebrated national parks and similar reserves being
established in earlier decades, the criteria now adopted by
most scientifically based “representative” nature conservation
programs would no longer result in protection being given to
some of the most outstanding natural physical environments
that surround us. Under such circumstances, what prospects
exist for values and places that do not lend themselves to the
Geoheritage
sorts of taxonomic identification that would allow identification of representative areas in which to conserve them?
Moreover, it is not generally appropriate to seek a “representative” approach to religious site protection or management,
which may be akin to asking a parent which of their children
they would like to keep as representative of others that could
be culled. The diversity capture approach that has gained
ascendancy in secular nature conservation is simply unsuited
to sacred natural sites because they remain places that are
“special”. One question that arises is how this philosophical
and methodological divide might best be bridged in a manner
that offers scope for more productive and satisfying interplay
between cultural and natural heritage site management, in a
way that does not merely involve one side just being exploitative of the other but instead finds useful synergies of mutual
benefit.
Recognising some inconsistencies in the present preoccupation with the representation paradigm may open some avenues for change that are advantageous to both natural heritage
and cultural heritage. For example, while the representative
approach to nature conservation may appear to overcome the
perceived shortcomings of “emotional” arguments,
operationalizing the conservation of biodiversity also has
value dimensions that are themselves closely allied to human
emotions. A population of feral animals or weed species may
actually increase the biodiversity present in an area, but a
value-based decision is generally made as to which species
and communities are appropriate conservation targets at specific sites. Similarly, the idea that organisms responsible for
painful disfiguring diseases or plagues should be retained
finds little public support. Hence, human values underpin
even putatively rational scientific approaches to nature conservation. Moreover, families are commonly regarded as the
foundation stones of human society, and family units are
themselves held together by the human emotion of love.
Hence, those who would deny the entry of emotional arguments into conservation debates in favour of a supposedly
objective, purely scientific approach perhaps overlook the
scientific fact that people have emotions as an inevitable and
legitimate part of their being, and that those emotions and the
beliefs that arise from them are of fundamental importance for
how society operates. Thus, there seems to be a crucial and
dysfunctional disconnect, and such loaded language as evident in such dichotomies as “rational” and “non-rational”
when describing different types of values does nothing to heal
the breach.
Modern-day conservationists now occasionally disavow
accusations that their advocacy for nature is only emotional
rather than rational, and that they are acting like religious
zealots. However, those who are most deeply touched by the
natural world act from a depth of awareness, connection and
faith that means that they actually do have much in common
with those who hold religious beliefs (Easthope and Holloway
1989). Indeed, the same might sometimes be said of their
opponents who often seem to exhibit an acceptance of the
legitimacy of being emotional about the ethos of economic
development, or simply money. Many advocates for nature
may also see danger in aligning themselves with religious
groups whose activities may compromise natural values at
sacred natural sites. Little trust is encouraged by the many
cultural heritage advocates who are dismissive of concepts
such as “nature” and “wilderness”, claiming instead that all
conservation is the domain of cultural heritage managers
simply because they perceive human values to underpin all
environmental concerns. For either natural heritage or cultural
heritage interests to effectively assert hegemony over the
entire conservation agenda in such a manner can only prove
counter-productive. But while there are places where the
protection of nature might reasonably be considered paramount, and other places where the converse is the case, there
are many shades of grey between these two poles, including
some where improved protection of one value can be achieved
with no impact upon the other provided knowledge, trust and
goodwill are brought to bear.
Improved Management of Sacred Geoheritage
With a few notable exceptions, such as the guidelines for the
World Heritage List, there is a common tendency for natural
heritage management and cultural heritage management to be
the province of different constituencies in a political sense,
and different management agencies and professions at a practical implementation level. This dichotomisation poses challenges in fully recognising and harmonising protection of the
full the range of values that can exist at specific sites. The first
steps along that path to improving the present situation involve simply value recognition and site characterisation.
Recognising a place as being important and committing to
its protective management is unlikely to be successful if the
specific values that underlie that importance are not clearly
understood and management strategies are not explicitly
based on those values, nor if the diversity and changing nature
of the beliefs held at a variety of scales—individuals, families,
community groups, entire societies—is not acknowledged and
its legitimacy recognised. Accommodating cultural heritage
within the criteria used to identify and manage natural heritage
properties, and vice versa, needs to be made explicit. While
natural heritage advocates may dismiss what others see as
cultural heritage to be instead only an undesirable human
impact on natural values, recognising some shades of grey
and striking some balances may sometimes be as much to their
advantage as it is to cultural heritage advocates and those
people who hold elements of natural heritage to be sacred
and of paramount concern. Appropriate initiatives remain
seriously undeveloped.
Geoheritage
One approach to achieving better integration of nature and
culture into management can be illustrated by reference
to the Australian Natural Heritage Charter (ANHC)
which was developed by consensus among a broad range of
natural heritage experts by the Australian Council of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
This charter is a distillation of “best practice” conservation
principles intended to assist in establishing and managing any
place with natural heritage values of any kind, including
geodiversity values (ACIUCN 1996). It seeks to inform and
guide individuals, organisations and governments at any level
to make sound decisions, and to support and implement
policies, agreements, strategies and plans, although it does
not replace statutory obligations. The ANHC emphasises the
need to consider all of a site’s heritage values, both natural and
cultural, recognising that these values may be related and
difficult to separate, and that for many indigenous peoples
the two are in fact inseparable. It explicitly recognises that
management of the cultural values may influence the selection
of appropriate conservation processes, actions and strategies
for the place’s natural values. Implicit in this approach is a
need to transcend traditional discipline boundaries.
A corresponding capacity to accommodate natural heritage
places within the criteria for identification of cultural heritage
is made explicit in the Burra Charter that complements the
ANHC in Australia. The Burra Charter was developed by the
Australian section of the International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS) to provide guidance for the conservation
and management of places of cultural significance
(AICOMOS 1999). This document provides a formal framework by means of which cultural heritage status can be
accorded to natural heritage that is of spiritual or religious
significance. Cultural significance is defined as comprising
aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past,
present or future generations. It is recognised as being embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations,
meanings, records, related places and related objects. Social
value is defined as embracing the qualities for which a place
has become a focus of spiritual, political, national or other
cultural sentiment to a majority or minority group. Cultural
heritage places are defined as including both anthropogenic
works and landscapes, spaces and views. The Burra Charter
explicitly recognises the physical location of a place as being
part of its cultural significance, and stresses the need for
retention of the contribution of related places and objects to
the cultural significance of a place. It acknowledges that
conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual
setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural
significance of the place. In terms of conservation process, the
Burra Charter indicates that the cultural significance of a
place and other issues affecting its future are best understood
by a sequence of collecting and analysing information
before making decisions, starting with understanding cultural
significance, followed by policy development and finally
management in accordance with the policy. That places may
have a range of values for different individuals or groups is
also recognised. An appended Code on the Ethics of Coexistence in Conserving Significant Places recognises cultural
values as comprising “those beliefs which have significance
for a cultural group—often including, but not limited to,
political, religious and spiritual, and moral beliefs” and it
indicates that “each cultural group has a primary right to
identify places of cultural significance to it and this right
may include the withholding of certain information”.
Conclusions
Natural geoheritage values may be afforded some protection
where an element of geodiversity is considered sacred, but that
is not the inevitable consequence of sacredness, because pressures imposed by worshippers also have the potential to cause
significant site degradation. Hence, managers of geoheritage
sites where there are both natural and cultural values may be
faced with challenges related to allowing continuation of the
religious activities that may underpin its cultural geoheritage
versus the harm these practices may cause to its natural
geoheritage values. Additional challenges are posed where
sites are shared between multiple faiths; by interfaith or
intrafaith conflict; by the structures and evolution of faithbased site governance; by necessary confidentiality
concerning some sites such as some Australian Aboriginal
Dreaming sites; and in the encouragement and shaping of
liaison and cooperation between disparate stakeholders.
While there is presently a tendency for either natural or
religious values to dominate management of particular sites,
considerable scope exists for much improved integration of
management in order to optimise outcomes for both goals. For
this to occur, there is a need for better understanding of the
sorts of conflicts that can arise, their impacts and possible
means of resolving them. Whether an individual geoheritage
professional follows any particular faith matters much less
than whether they recognise that spiritual and religious values
have implications for their discipline, whether they have an
adequate understanding of the challenges and possibilities
before them, and whether they possess the capacity to demonstrate genuine respect, build trust, negotiate and work constructively through apparent conflicts.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to Anne McConnell and Jenny Scott
for helpful comments on a draft. I must especially express my thanks to
various local people at sacred natural sites around the world who have
generously paid me the complement of helping an unbeliever in his quest
to better understand the nature of their faith and its relationship to those
elements of geodiversity that they hold sacred. That my understanding of
their personal truths remains imperfect reflects upon only my own
inadequacies.
Geoheritage
References
Abdu'l-Bahá (1951) Paris talks. Bahá'í Publishing Trust, London
ACIUCN (1996) Australian Natural Heritage Charter—standards and
principles for the conservation of places of natural heritage significance. Australian Committee for IUCN & Australian Heritage
Commission, Sydney
AICOMOS (1999) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural
Significance. Australia ICOMOS, Sydney
Baer RA Jr (1966) Land mis-use: a theological concern. Christ Century
83:1240
Bahai International Community (1986) A Bahai perspective on
nature and the environment. Bahai Office of Public Information.
www.bcca.org/ief/bicpne.htm Accessed 35 April 2103
Bahá'u'lláh (1978) Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'í World Centre, Haifa,
p 142
Barrett DB, Kurian GT, Johnson TM (2001) World Christian encyclopedia. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ben Ami I (1998) Saint veneration among the Jews of Morocco. Wayne
University Press
Bernbaum E (1997) Sacred mountains of the world. University of
California Press, Berkeley
Bower B (1998) Sacred secrets of the caves (Mayan archaeology) Sci
News
Boyce M (2007) Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices.
Routledge, London
Bradley J, Yanyuwa families (2010) Singing saltwater country: journey to
the songlines of Carpentaria. Allen and Unwin, Sydney
Brady JE, Veni G (1992) Man-made and pseudo-karst caves: the implications of subsurface geologic features within Maya centers.
Geoarchaeology 7:149–167
Brady JE, Scott A, Neff H, Glascock MD (1997) Speleothem breakage,
movement, removal and caching: an aspect of ancient Maya cave
modification. Geoarchaeol: Int J 12(6):725–750
Burgess J (1988) Cave temples of India. South Asia Books, New Delhi,
556 pp
Ch’oe C (2006) Folk-religion: the customs in Korea. Ewha Women’s
University Press, Seoul
Chan W (1969) A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
Christ, C 2012 Words about the goddess and Greece and her life.
http://www.goddessariadne.org/carolwords.htm. Accessed 18
January 2013
Coggins C, Hutchinson T (2011) The political ecology of geopiety: nature
conservation in Tibetan communities of northwest Yunnan. Asian
Geogr 25(1–2):85–107
Cruikshank J (2005) Do glaciers listen?: local knowledge, colonial encounters and social imagination. UBC Press, Vancouver
Davey AG (ed.) (1974) Evaluation criteria for the cave and karst heritage
of Australia. Report of the ASF National Heritage Assessment
Study. Helictite 15(2): 1-40
De Laguna F (1972) Under Mount Saint Elias: the history and culture of
the Yakutat Tlingit. With transcriptions of native music by David P
McAlester, 3rd edn. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 7,
Washington DC
Dobb F (2013) Living an environmentally conscious Jewish Life. My
Jewish Learning. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/
Nature_and_the_Environment/Contemporary_Concerns/Ecoconscious_Jewish_Life.shtml. Accessed 31 May 2013
Dudley N, Higgins-Zogib L, Mansourian S (2005) Beyond belief: linking
faiths and protected areas to support biodiversity conservation.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland & Alliance of
Religions & Conservation, Manchester
Durkheim E (1915) The elementary forms of the religious life. Translated
[from the French] by Joseph Ward Swain. Allen & Unwin, London
Easthope G, Holloway G (1989) Wilderness as the sacred: the Franklin
River Campaign. In: Hay PR, Eckersley R, Holloway G (eds)
Environmental politics in Australia and New Zealand. Centre
for Environmental Studies. University of Tasmania, Hobart,
pp 189–201
Eck DL (1987) Mountains. In: Eliade M (ed) The encyclopedia of
religion, 10th edn. Macmillan, New York, pp 30–34
Flood J (1983) Archaeology of the dreamtime. Collins, Sydney
Flood GD (1996) An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Greenwood S (2005) The nature of magic: an anthropology of consciousness. Berg, Oxford
Gyatso K (2008) Introduction to Buddhism: an explanation of the
Buddhist way of life. Tharpa Publications, Glen Spey
Hilty A (2011) Transrational gods on Jeju Island. http://www.
weblogtheworld.com/countries/eastern-asia/transrational-gods-onjeju-island/. Accessed 12 August 2013
Hinnels JR (ed) (1991) Zoroastrianism. Penguin dictionary of religions,
2nd edn. Penguin Books, London
Jones R, Cosgrove R, Allen J, Cane S, Kiernan K, Webb S, Loy
T, West D, Stadler E (1988) An archaeological reconnaissance
of karst caves in the southern forests region of Tasmania. Aust
Archaeol 26:1–23
Khalid FM (2002) Islam and the environment. Vol 5. Social & economic
dimensions of global environmental change. In: Timmerman P (ed)
Encyclopedia of global environmental change. Wiley, Chichester,
pp 332–339
Kiernan K (1985) I saw my temple ransacked. In: Brown B (ed) Lake
pedder. The Wilderness Society, Hobart, pp 18–23
Kiernan K (1997) Genesis 1:31 versus managing the devout: on the
spiritual and religious use of karst. Cave Karst Manag Australas
11:208–221
Kiernan K (2004) Religious sites. In: Gunn J (ed) Encyclopedia of caves
and karst science. Fitzroy-Dearborn, NY
Kiernan K (2010a) Human impacts on geodiversity and associated
natural values of bedrock hills in the Mekong Delta. Geoheritage
2:101–122
Kiernan K (2010b) Environmental degradation in karst areas of
Cambodia: a legacy of war? Land Degrad Dev 21(6):503–519
Kiernan K, Spies J, Dunkley J (1988) Prehistoric occupation and burial
sites in the mountains of the Nam Khong area, Mae Hong Son
Province, northwestern Thailand. Aust Archaeol 27:24–44
Kshirsagar K (1991) Conserving geological heritage—religious. 1st
Symp. Internat. Sur la Protection du Patriomoine Geologiques,
Digne, France, June 1991 (abstract only) Terra Abs., Suppl. 1
Terra Nova 3:12
Lama D (1988) An ethical approach to environmental protection. Office
of the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala
Layton R (1986) Uluru: an aboriginal history of Ayers Rock. Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra
Lyster W (ed) (2008) The cave church of Paul the Hermit at the monastery
of St Paul, Egypt. Yale University Press, New Haven
Munier C (1998) Sacred rocks and Buddhist caves of Thailand. White
Lotus, Bangkok
Murdoch L (2011) If miners talked to us, they'd know about sacred
island's poison tree, say elders. Sydney Morning Herald
Nash R (1990) The rights of nature. Primavera Press, Sydney
Nobutaka I, Satoshi I, Jun E, Mori M, Teeuwen M, Breen J (2003) Shinto,
a short history. Routledge Curzon, London
Norgay JT, Coburn B (2002) Touching my father’s soul. Ebury Press,
Surrey
Potton C (1987) Tongariro. A sacred gift. Lansdowne Press, Auckland
Rinschede G (1986) The pilgrimage town of Lourdes. J Cult Geogr 7(1):
21–34
Rountree K (2012) Neo-paganism, animism and kinship with Nature. J
Contemp Relig 27(2):305–320
Geoheritage
Santmire HP (1975) Reflections on the alleged ecological bankruptcy of
western theology. Angl Theol Rev 57:131–152
Sherman M (2003) Editors foreword. Report of the Native Americans
Sacred Lands Forum. Natural Resources Law Center, University of
Colorado, Boulder
Shomali M (2008) Aspects of environmental ethics: an Islamic perspective. Thinking Faith 11 November 2008. www.thinkingfaith.org
Jesuit Media Initiatives, UK
Sidisunthorn P, Gardner S, Smart D (2006) Caves of Northern Thailand.
River Books, Bangkok
Smyth FS (1950) The spirit of the hills. Hodder & Staughton,
London
Snow CJ (1977) These mountains are our sacred places: the story of the
Stoney people. Samuel Stephens, Toronto
Stutfield HEM (1918) Mountaineering as a religion. Alp J 32(218):241–247
Tobias M (1991) Life force: the world of Jainism. Jain Publishing Co,
Fremont
Vogel D (2001) How green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish environmental
ethics. Bus Ethics Q 11(2):349–363
White L (1967) The historic roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155:
1203–1207
White L (1978) The future of compassion. Ecum Rev 30:106–108
Wright JK (1966) Human nature in geography: fourteen papers, 19251965. Harvard University Press, Cambridge