The Conservation of Cham Cultural Heritage in Vietnam

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the conservation of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam and its significance to the country’s rich cultural history. It specifically focuses on the heritage sites and artifacts in Ninh Thuan Province, which is home to a significant number of Cham communities. The chapter highlights the importance of preserving Cham cultural heritage for future generations and for understanding the cultural diversity of Vietnam. The aim of this chapter is to give readers an understanding of the history and current state of Cham cultural heritage conservation in Vietnam, and provide a foundation for further exploration and analysis.

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the conservation of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam and its significance to the country’s rich cultural history. It specifically focuses on the heritage sites and artifacts in Ninh Thuan Province, which is home to a significant number of Cham communities. The chapter highlights the importance of preserving Cham cultural heritage for future generations and for understanding the cultural diversity of Vietnam. The aim of this chapter is to give readers an understanding of the history and current state of Cham cultural heritage conservation in Vietnam, and provide a foundation for further exploration and analysis.

Tracing the History of Heritage Conservation in Vietnam

In Vietnam, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as a crucial aspect of preserving national independence (Binh, 2001). Throughout its history, Vietnam has been enriched by the cultural contributions of various ethnic communities, resulting in a unique and diverse cultural heritage. The Vietnamese embrace and incorporate various customs and traditions, regardless of their origin, into their cultural identity (Thien, 2017). The conservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam has been shaped by different approaches, from the French colonial period to the present day.

The preservation of Cham cultural heritage has not only been carried out by Vietnamese authorities, but also by foreigners, especially the French. Upon their arrival in Southeast Asia, the French paid special attention to the remaining relics and cultural heritage of the kingdom of Champā, a Hindu-influenced civilization. Consequently, the conservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam has evolved unevenly throughout its history.

Initially, the French researchers who arrived in Vietnam during the late nineteenth century showed great enthusiasm for preserving cultural heritage. However, a hundred years later, after the defeat and withdrawal of the French colonial government from Southeast Asia, heritage conservation came to a halt. The country’s subsequent civil war between the North and the South, in which available resources were directed towards the battlefields, further hindered the preservation of cultural heritage.

Finally, with the reunification of Vietnam on April 30, 1975, the conservation of cultural heritage reappeared and has continued until the present day.

In the French colonial period (1887–1945), the French had a significant impact on heritage conservation in Vietnam (Chapman, 2018; Phuong, 2006; Stubbs et al., 2016). In 1898, the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO) was established in Saigon and later moved to Hanoi, which was the French capital of Indochina. The EFEO’s mission was to conduct scholarly research and carry out architectural restoration and conservation of key historical monuments in Vietnam and its surrounding areas (Chapman, 2018; Stubbs et al., 2016). In addition to preserving architectural ruins, the EFEO was also interested in Vietnamese history, language, and prehistoric archaeology, such as the Sa Huynh, Oc Eo, Bac Son, and Dong Son cultures. However, the Champā civilization was the main focus of their attention, and several projects were launched to document, study, and conserve Cham cultural heritage (Chapman, 2018; Stubbs et al., 2016). These efforts greatly improved the Western world’s understanding of Vietnamese languages, history, and cultural expression (Stubbs et al., 2016). Today, these documentation and conservation methodologies are still employed in Vietnam (Chapman, 2013; Kinh, 2012; Stubbs et al., 2016).

In pre-unified Vietnam, various policies and laws were enacted for the preservation of the country’s cultural heritage (Phuong, 2005; Saltiel, 2014). In November 1945, President Ho Chi Minh signed Decree No 65, which prohibited the destruction of temples, historical sites, and documents of historical significance (Phuong, 2005; Thuc, 2015). However, these directives were largely ignored during the land reform from 1953 to 1955, as the state aimed to establish control over religious affairs in local communities (Roszko, 2011). As a result, many sacred objects from temples, shrines, and pagodas were destroyed and deemed to be “powerless effigies” by the state (Roszko, 2011, p. 156). Some structures that were not destroyed were repurposed for secular use. Although religious sites were referred to as “historical monuments,” “heritage of feudalism,” or “monuments of resistance to foreign aggression,” they were officially recognized as having national heritage significance, but not religious significance (Roszko, 2011).

Years later, several institutions were established in Vietnam to manage and protect cultural heritage more effectively (Saltiel, 2014). One such institution is the Vietnam Oriental Institute, which was founded for the protection of the country’s antiquities. In 1955, the Ministry of Culture and Information was established to supervise and manage culture and museums in Vietnam. In 1957, Ho Chi Minh passed the Decree on the Management, Classification, and Methods of Organizing the Protection and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Monuments [Di tích lịch sử văn hóa] in Vietnam (Thinh, 2012, pp. 212–213). This decree, which strengthened the provisions of the 1945 decree, was aimed at protecting and restoring tangible cultural heritage, including historic and cultural relics and revolution monuments (Roszko, 2011).

It is said that the conservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam from the 1940s to 1950s mainly focused on immovable heritage due to the economic difficulties brought about by years of war. Many intangible cultural heritages were overlooked during this time (Phuong, 2005). However, since the 1960s, the state has paid more attention to preserving intangible cultural heritage and has carried out research and training in this field. For example, the Vietnam Commission of Social Sciences, which is now known as the Vietnam Institute of Social Sciences, was founded and has collaborated with the Ministry of Culture (currently known as the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) to collect, study, and promote the cultural values of Vietnam to build a modern cultural life (Phuong, 2005). The cultural heritage of ethnic minorities has also become a focus of national attention, leading to a range of research on the ethnology, folklore, and folk art performance of these groups (Binh, 2001; Phuong, 2005).

In the 1980s and 1990s, during the economic and governmental reforms of Đổi Mới, Vietnam ratified the World Heritage Convention and issued the Ordinance on the Protection of Historical Cultural Relics and Scenic Sites (Stubbs et al., 2016). The government then signed the World Heritage Convention in order to develop its cultural heritage management systems (Stubbs et al., 2016). During this period, several important heritage sites in Vietnam received international support, including the royal tombs of Minh Mang and Ta Tung Tu (Hue), Hội An Old Town and My Son Sanctuary (Quang Nam province), and the Old Town and Temple of Literature (Hanoi city) (Chapman, 2013; Logan, 2001, 2009; Stubbs et al., 2016).

To further protect and promote the cultural values of Vietnam, the government launched and implemented the “National Programme for Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage” in 1994 (Stubbs et al., 2016). This period marked the government’s efforts to issue laws and policies for the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage in the country. In 1998, the 5th Plenum of the Party Central Committee, 8th Tenure, adopted “Resolution No. 5 on Building a Progressive Culture, Imbued with National Identity” which emphasized the importance of the nation’s culture in modern life during industrialization, modernization, and international integration (Salemink, 2012; Thien, 2017; Thinh, 2012). These efforts demonstrate the government’s commitment to protecting and promoting cultural heritage in Vietnam, both through domestic initiatives and international collaboration.

Cultural heritage plays a crucial role in the socio-economic development of the nation and is recognized by the government as a valuable resource. It acts as a link between the ethnic communities and forms the foundation of national identity, facilitating the creation of new values and cultural exchange. To maximize the benefits of cultural heritage, the government places a high value on the conservation, preservation, and promotion of traditional cultural values, including scholar and folk culture, as well as revolutionary culture, both tangible and intangible. This includes studying and educating on the national ethics passed down from previous generations.

Cultural heritage plays a crucial role in connecting the ethnic community and forms the foundation of national identity. It is imperative to safeguard and enhance traditional cultural values, including both scholar and folk cultures, as well as revolutionary culture, whether tangible or intangible. The education and study of the national ethic passed down from our ancestors is also crucial. In order to protect and promote the values of heritage, we must value, preserve and promote traditional values, cultivate new values in the culture, literature and arts of ethnic minorities, and protect and develop the languages and scripts of different ethnic groups. (Thien, 2017)

In recent years, the significance of cultural heritage has become increasingly important in the national development and preservation of Vietnam. To address this, the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam established a modern legal framework for the preservation of cultural heritage in 2001 through the passage of the Law on Cultural Heritage (National Assembly Vietnam, 2001). This law encompasses seven chapters and 74 articles that cover both natural and cultural heritage, with a full chapter dedicated to intangible cultural heritage, highlighting the state’s importance placed on it.

According to the law, cultural heritage encompasses both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, which are spiritual and material products embracing cultural, historical, or scientific values and passed down through generations in Vietnam. They are closely related but can also be comparatively separate. In particular, tangible cultural heritage encompasses material forms of historical, cultural, or scientific value, such as historical-cultural relics, famous landscapes and beauty spots, vestiges, antiques, and national precious objects. Meanwhile, intangible cultural heritage encompasses spiritual products of historical, cultural, or scientific value, such as speech, scripts, literary and artistic works, oral philology, folk oratorios, life style, way of life, rites, traditional craft know-how, knowledge about traditional medicine and pharmacy, gastronomic culture, traditional costumes, and other folk knowledge, which are saved in memory or scripts, handed down orally and through professional teaching and performance (National Assembly Vietnam, 2001).

The law requires all policies related to cultural heritage preservation to have both economic and social benefits for the nation’s development (Lask & Herold, 2004). However, this law does not cover cultural tourism policies and strategies, which could potentially lead to issues related to mass tourism and its impact on cultural heritage sites. A solution for a sustainable use of heritage for future generations is yet to be pursued (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 1996 cited from Lask & Herold, 2004).

Since the passing of the 2001 law, numerous National Target Program projects have been initiated to study, document, and collect Vietnamese cultural heritage (Binh, 2001; Van, 2001). The law has also been amended to enhance the management of intangible cultural heritage and to adapt to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The preservation and protection of cultural heritage should prioritize the cultural carriers who embody these intangible cultural practices (Salemink, 2012).

Leveraging International Partnerships for Cultural Heritage Preservation

Heritage conservation in Vietnam has been greatly influenced by international policies and approaches since the French colonial era, independence, and the Doi Moi reform process. During these periods, collaborations between Vietnam and international organizations have been established (Chapman, 2013; Hoi, 2001; Kinh, 2009; Kazimierz, 1995; Stubbs et al., 2016). The collaboration became particularly significant when Vietnam joined UNESCO and the protection and promotion of the country’s cultural heritage became a major focus of collaboration between Vietnam and international organizations (Saltiel, 2014). The first technical and financial support was provided by UNESCO to protect the cultural heritage of Hue in the 1990s, followed by the protection of Hanoi cultural heritage.

Vietnam has been actively participating in international institutions in cultural heritage preservation and has collaborated on a range of projects with numerous countries and institutions (Binh, 2001; Phuong, 2005). For example, the Vietnamese government and the Polish Ateliers for Conservation of Cultural Properties signed an agreement for support in conservation work on Cham heritage sites between 1981 and 1991 (Kinh, 2009; Kazimierz & Kinh, 1995). Polish conservationists and Vietnamese archaeologists worked together to document, examine, restore, and preserve various Cham temples, such as My Son, Chien Dan, Duong Long, Hung Thanh, Po Klaong Girai, and others (Chapman, 2013; Stubbs et al., 2016).

In 1992, the Moon Gate of Hue received support from the UNESCO Japanese Trust for Preserving World Heritage. The An Dinh Palace was also conserved in 2008 through a collaboration between the Hue Monuments Conservation Centre and the German Conservation, Restoration, and Education Project (GCREP). Many other projects were also undertaken in the 1990s, and in 1993, Hue became the first Vietnamese heritage site to be recognized as a World Heritage Site. Later, My Son Sanctuary and Hoi An Ancient Town were both listed as World Heritage Sites in 1999. In the same year, Vietnam and UNESCO signed an agreement in Paris to continue the effective implementation of cultural heritage projects in the country. For the My Son World Heritage Site, UNESCO organized a project team with the collaboration of the Italian government, the Italian Lerici Foundation of Milan’s Polytechnic University, and Vietnamese authorities to establish a master plan and conduct extensive restoration work. In 1994, the American Express Corporation, through the World Monuments Fund, preserved the commemorative stele at the Temple of Literature, a Confucian Temple of the Imperial Academy.

Vietnamese heritage sites have received international technical assistance for heritage conservation from countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United States (Stubbs et al., 2016).

As a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Vietnamese government has made significant efforts to protect and promote cultural heritage in the region. Vietnam’s commitment to cultural heritage is demonstrated by its signing of the “ASEAN Declaration on Cultural Heritage” in 2000, which aimed to carry out projects to protect and promote cultural heritage in Southeast Asia (Hoi, 2001).

To further its efforts, Vietnam has established international collaborations with organizations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM, ASEANCOCI, and SPAFA (Binh, 2001). These organizations have established various bilateral and multilateral diplomatic relationships with Vietnam to protect cultural heritage. These international collaborations have provided Vietnamese conservationists with the opportunity to learn advanced technology and conservation methodologies for heritage protection and enhancement in Vietnam (Binh, 2001, p. 64).

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is the major federal institution responsible for heritage management in Vietnam. It works in consultation with other smaller agencies such as the Conservation of Monuments and the Department of Cultural Heritage, which oversee architectural heritage and the conservation of heritage architecture (Binh, 2001; Dung, n.d.). In 2003, the Museum Conservation Department was renamed to the Department of Cultural Heritage, forming the management board of world cultural heritage. The National Council of Cultural Heritage was established in 2004 to advise the government on the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage values (Thuc, 2015). In the same year, the Vietnam Cultural Heritage Association, a non-governmental organization, was established to bring together members in the country. The Prime Minister of Vietnam issued a decision on November 23, 2005, declaring it Vietnam Cultural Heritage Day (President Ho Chi Minh signed Decree No. 65) (Thuc, 2015).

These efforts show that the Vietnamese government takes the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage seriously and is committed to ensuring that this important aspect of its culture is protected for future generations to appreciate and learn from.

To be recognized as a local, national, or specific national cultural heritage, a cultural heritage must be documented in a technical file. The Provincial People’s Committees are provided with guidelines for establishing the technical file, and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism decides on the procedures for evaluating the technical file. The National Council of Cultural Heritage, which examines the scientific value of intangible cultural heritage, provides comprehensive advice to the Ministry to determine which cultural heritage should be considered as national cultural heritage (Dung, n.d.).

Vietnam has made great strides in recent years, with several of its cultural heritage sites being listed by UNESCO as globally significant sites. This recognition highlights the diversity and richness of Vietnamese cultural heritage and shows that Vietnam is actively contributing to the global inventory of heritage and diversifying humanity’s spiritual life (Stubbs et al., 2016). Furthermore, these cultural heritage sites have become a significant economic resource and attract international tourists to Vietnam. Despite this progress, Vietnamese cultural heritage, like in many other countries, is facing the challenges of modernization and conservation failures, though the country continues to be a regional leader in conservation efforts (Stubbs et al., 2016).

Principles of Conservation and Promotion of Cultural Heritage in Vietnam

The principles of conservation and promotion of cultural heritage in Vietnam aim to protect and preserve the unique elements and qualities of these sites. As recognized by Thinh (2012), the essence of conservation activities lies in maintaining the original features of cultural heritage sites. To do so, it is important to understand the cultural heritage within its specific historical, economic, and cultural context, as Bai (2013) emphasized. This requires clarifying the relationship between the cultural heritage and the historical period in which it was created to gain insight into its history, experience, and even lessons, particularly in regard to its integrity and authenticity.

Integrity, as defined by Bai (2013) and Kinh (2012), refers to the constituent physical parts of a historical monument as it was originally created. Authenticity, also defined by Bai (2013) and Kinh (2012), pertains to the creative style of the monument. These two factors contribute to the value of cultural heritage sites and distinguish them from copies or imitations. The root element, as stated by Thinh (2012), refers to the heritage’s original source and creativity, while authenticity differentiates it from a counterfeit. These elements are based on factual evidence rather than conjecture or misinformation (Bai, 2013).

The preservation and transfer of cultural heritage to future generations is crucial, and the renovation and restoration of monuments in conjunction with sustainable tourism development has become a widely adopted modern trend (Bai, 2013; Thinh, 2012). Cultural heritage conservation should be seen as a scientific effort to achieve its fundamental goals, including removing elements from the heritage that do not contain historical, cultural, or scientific value, and establishing the material and technical conditions to showcase the valuable elements of the monument with the greatest efficiency for visitors (Bai, 2013).

Moreover, the acceptance of the principle of adaptation and necessary changes in protected areas, including relic protection zones, is crucial to the success of conservation efforts. This view is supported by provisions in the Cultural Heritage Law (Bai, 2013). The preservation of cultural heritage not only requires its protection, but also its ability to continue to meet the diverse needs and enjoyment of human use, making it a dialectical way to connect the past with the present and prepare it for future generations (Bai, 2013).

In terms of intangible cultural heritage, each type of intangible cultural heritage is a product of a certain environment and its preservation requires the protection of the whole cultural system as a principle. This includes the protection of the traditional ecological culture in which the cultural heritage is embedded (Thinh, 2012). Changes to the human environment and displacement of the local population can negatively impact the traditional practitioners who act as keepers of cultural heritage (Salemink, 2016; Thinh, 2012, pp. 94–95).

The conservation of cultural heritage should be approached flexibly, taking into account the historical and natural conditions, as well as the characteristics and values of each specific site (Thien, 2017). However, some heritage authorities prioritize development, especially sustainable tourism development, over the preservation of cultural heritage (Thinh, 2012). This can lead to development goals taking precedence over preserving cultural heritage, which is a problem currently observed in the conservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam.

The history of cultural heritage conservation in Vietnam has been shaped by various periods of influence, including French colonialism, a long period of war (1946–1975), national reunification, Soviet influence, and the market economy. The conservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam has been influenced by French conservation practices in the past, and by international conservation efforts in recent times, through collaborations with various countries and organizations (Thinh, 2012).

Cultural Heritages of Ethnic Minorities in Vietnam

Vietnam is home to 54 different ethnic groups, each with its own unique cultural heritage that makes up the rich and diverse Vietnamese culture, referred to as a “garden of many colorful flowers” (Van, 2001, p. 37). The preservation and promotion of the cultural heritage of these ethnic groups is not only the responsibility of the cultural sector but also of the entire Party and community, as it serves the goals of national pride, unity, and economic development (Thinh, 2012; Van, 2001).

The Vietnamese government is committed to building unity in diversity, and recognizes the importance of respecting and celebrating the cultural similarities and differences of each ethnic group in Vietnam (Hong, 2015; Van, 2001). To this end, the state has implemented plans to preserve and promote the cultural heritage of these groups, in order to protect cultural diversity and prevent threats to national cultural identity in the face of globalization and acculturation (Lask & Herold, 2004; Thinh, 2012).

Furthermore, the state affirms the equality of all cultures in Vietnam and does not accept the concept of “high” or “low” culture (Van, 2001). Each of the 54 ethnic groups contributes greatly to the cultural heritage of the Vietnamese people, regardless of their population size or economic status. The government is dedicated to implementing the National Targeted Programme on Culture policy to care for and promote the cultural features of these groups and enrich their cultural heritage legacies (Salemink, 2013; Van, 2001).

The culture of ethnic minorities plays a crucial role in the rich and diverse fabric of Vietnamese culture, and as such, the Vietnamese government places great importance on preserving, protecting, and promoting the cultural heritage of these communities (Thien, 2017). The Cultural Heritage Laws of 2001 and 2009 establish a comprehensive framework for the preservation of cultural heritage in Vietnam, without differentiating between the cultural heritage of various ethnic groups (Thinh, 2012).

In order to specifically address the preservation of ethnic cultures, the government has implemented the “General Inventory of the Cultural Heritage of Vietnamese Ethnicities” (Salemink, 2013). Central and local institutions such as the Association of Vietnamese Folklorists, the Society of Minority Peoples’ Culture, and the Department of Culture and Information have established policies and programs aimed at collecting and preserving the cultural heritage of these communities (Hong, 2015). In addition, national and regional museums such as the Museum of the Cultures of Ethnic Groups of Vietnam and the Museum of Minority Peoples’ Culture in Thai Nguyen have been established to showcase the rich cultural heritage of Vietnam’s ethnic minorities (Lask & Herold, 2004).

In order to preserve and promote cultural heritage, the Vietnamese government also recognizes the role of tourism, particularly cultural tourism, as a key economic and diplomatic tool. The Strategy on Cultural Development of Vietnam to 2020, with a vision to 2030, links cultural development with national economic and social development, highlighting the economic value of cultural heritage, and promoting creative diversity among individuals, groups, and communities (Binh, 2001; Thien, 2017). All provinces of Vietnam are encouraged to follow this strategy and promote the cultural heritage of their localities as an important economic resource (Thien, 2017; Thinh, 2012). Today, the cultural heritage of ethnic groups is a significant source of income for Vietnam, contributing to the country’s social and economic development and providing funds for the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations (Logan, 2009).

Issues of Heritage Law in Vietnam

In recent years, the Vietnamese government and people have placed great emphasis on the protection and promotion of cultural heritage. The new awareness about the crucial role of cultural heritage in Vietnam is reflected in the Resolution of the 5th Plenum of the Central Committee, 8th Tenure (Roszko, 2011), the Resolution of the 9th Plenum, 11th Tenure, and the basic contents of the Law on Cultural Heritage (Giang, 2015). At the same time, many policies have been implemented to exploit the potential of heritage for socio-economic development. However, the implementation of the Law on Cultural Heritage has resulted in the transformation of all types of cultural and religious heritage into only one type of cultural heritage (Roszko, 2011). This has led to the secularization of many spiritual sites and the governmentalization of many folk festivals, which are a part of intangible cultural heritage (Cham, 2017). For example, the Cham Po Klaong Girai temple and the Cham practices of ceremonies and festivals have become increasingly secularized and have lost their inherent values in their conservation practices (Cham, 2017).

The protection and preservation of heritage in Vietnam has been a concern since the establishment of the state in 1945. The first mention of the protection of heritage in Vietnam was in the Constitution of 1980, when article 45 was added to prepare for Vietnam’s accession to the World Heritage Convention in 1987 (Giang, 2015). The recognition of the Complex of Hue Monuments as a World Cultural Heritage Site in 1993 with the support of UNESCO marked a turning point in the heritage conservation of Vietnam, leading to greater consideration and interest in participating in international conventions related to heritage (Giang, 2015). To date, Vietnam has participated in 9 Conventions and Protocols related to the protection of world cultural and natural heritage (Giang, 2015).

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Vietnam has participated in several international conventions and protocols related to the protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage. These include:

• 1. The World Heritage Convention 1972

• 2. The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970

• 3. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003

• 4. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 1971

• 5. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973

• 6. The Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

• 7. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000

• 8. The Nagoya—Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 2010

These international agreements demonstrate Vietnam’s commitment to the protection and preservation of its cultural and natural heritage for future generations.

Furthermore, based on the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam adopted the Law on Cultural Heritage in 2001 and revised and supplemented it in 2009 with provisions related to the management of different types of heritage. Although this law primarily focuses on the management of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, it is also applicable to natural heritage management as Vietnam currently does not have a specific law for this area. The management of natural heritage is also governed by other laws such as the Law on Environmental Protection, the Biodiversity Law, the Law on Forest Protection and Development, the Land Law, and various implementing guidelines for these laws (National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2001, 2009).

In the law of cultural heritage, intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is considered importantly and receives significant attention. As a State Party to the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Vietnam revised its legislation in 2009 to improve its compliance with the Convention and address practical considerations (Park, 2013, p. 130). The 2009 Cultural Heritage Law was supplemented with several articles, including the requirement for an ICH inventory and the establishment of an ICH database as legal professional activities (Park, 2013, p. 130). However, the law still lacks provisions that would make it more effective in many cases in Vietnam.

According to Nguyen Linh Giang (2015), the Cultural Heritage Law, in general, provides protection for human rights related to cultural heritage such as property rights, cultural rights, and other rights. However, the author also points out several limitations in the provisions, such as the absence of the right to participation of individuals or communities in decision-making processes related to their own cultural heritage. The law also does not include provisions regarding the traditional use of cultural heritage by communities. Additionally, the law does not mention traditional and religious ceremonies of host communities that are connected to cultural heritage in protected areas. Issues related to religion and belief are governed by the 2004 Ordinance on Belief and Religion, which lacks specific regulations regarding the practice of religion and belief in heritage areas. Finally, the law fails to provide provisions regarding the obligations of the state and organizations to ensure the rights of people living in heritage areas (Giang, 2015, p. 7).

As discussed previously, the Cultural Heritage Law of Vietnam incorporates strong influence from UNESCO’s conventions and adjusts to address current issues at the national and international levels. However, it appears that sacred places are not specifically mentioned in the law. These sacred places are associated with various issues such as religious and cultural practices, land ownership, and other factors that can negatively impact communities if only the current cultural heritage law is applied.

In Vietnam, there is a need for special provisions to accommodate Indigenous cultures within its territory. Sacred places play a significant role in Indigenous groups in Vietnam, but they are not acknowledged in the cultural heritage law. However, there is a need for a clear definition of sacred places as they are not just related to spirituality, but also to land use rights, economic benefits, and cultural rights.

A research team from Quang Binh University presented the issues faced by the Rem Indigenous people after the Phong Nha—Ke Bang National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2003 and designated as a protected area. This area is the living space of many Indigenous groups, including the Arem people, who rely on the forest for their livelihoods and conduct many spiritual ceremonies there. However, after the area was protected, the Arem people were prohibited from using forest resources for their daily needs and were also banned from entering their ancestral lands for spiritual ceremonies (Luong et al., 2015). This demonstration shows that applying the law within a national framework may not be appropriate in the local context where Indigenous people are closely connected to their environment. This can result in the loss of cultural rights, livelihoods, and habitats.

The Cham culture highlights the crucial role of spirituality in its connection to ancestors and nature. The sacred in the Cham culture, referred to as “ganreh,” encompasses objects, both human-made and natural, that possess mysterious powers that can either protect or harm human beings. The Cham people believe that by respecting these sacred places, they will be protected, and by neglecting them, they will be punished. In Cham culture, there is a close relationship between gods, ancestors, and descendants, with the spirits of the gods, ancestors, and the dead connected to the living through spiritual and religious ceremonies. Temples and graves, such as Awal graves and Ahier Kuts, serve as the resting place of these spirits and are protected from disturbance. The living have a duty to ensure that their relatives are buried or cremated in the proper place and manner, and to protect them from desecration. The failure to perform these duties not only harms the dead, but also the living. These traditions exhibit a strong continuity in Cham culture.

Despite the importance of sacred places in Cham culture, they are not specifically mentioned in the Cultural Heritage Law of Vietnam. While the Ordinance on Belief and Religion in 2004 recognizes the right to the spiritual practices of any group, it has no specific regulations regarding the practice of religion and belief in heritage areas. It is important to supplement the spiritual aspect into the Cultural Heritage Law and to have specific regulations for the Cham people to ensure the protection of their cultural heritage.

Conservation of Cham Cultural Heritage in Vietnam and Ninh Thuan Province

History of the Conservation of Cham Cultural Heritage

The French Colonial Period: 1902–1954

French archaeologists Henri Parmentier and Charles Carpeaux, working with the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), made significant contributions to the inventory and preservation of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam (Baptiste, 2009). Through clearing debris, preparing annotated descriptions, taking photographs, conducting excavations, documenting, and evaluating the conditions of Cham temples, Parmentier and Carpeaux helped to establish an important body of information for the study and conservation of Cham heritage (Baptiste, 2009).

The EFEO also played an important role in the management and restoration of Cham monuments in the twentieth century. During the period of 1931–1942, several Cham temples, including My Son, Bang An, and Po Inâ Nâgar, were preserved and reconstructed (Phuong, 2006, 2011). In 1931, Jean-Yves Claeys consolidated and restored the main temple of Po Inâ Nâgar in Khanh Hoa Province, building upon Parmentier’s restoration of the southern temple in 1902 and 1907 (Phuong, 2006, 2011). Claeys also collaborated with irrigation engineer Crocquet in 1933 to restore the vestibule of Bang An temple in Quang Nam Province (Phuong, 2006, 2011).

In 1937, Louis Bezacier and Nguyen Xuan Dong began the restoration work at My Son, which involved the use of cement, gravel, and iron to shore up the foundations and walls of the structures (Hy, 2012). To address the damage caused by the course of the Khe Thẻ river, the conservators built a dam in 1939 (Patrizia, 2009; Phuong, 2011). Despite the use of brute force in the restoration, the aim was to preserve the original surfaces of the structures as effectively as possible, with broken structural elements being repaired accordingly (Phuong, 2008).

The Polish-Vietnamese Conservation Period: 1975–1998

During this time, the conservation of Cham cultural heritage was a collaborative effort between Polish architects and Vietnamese preservationists. In the 1980s, Professor Tadeusz Polak, General Director of the Polish Federation of Historical Heritage Restoration Workshop, initiated the Federation’s efforts to preserve Champā’s cultural heritage. He proposed a bilateral cooperative effort and established the Poland Joint Sub-Committee for the conservation of Champā’s architectural heritage, based in Vietnam (Kinh, 2009). From 1980 to 1986, conservators conducted an inventory and evaluated the condition of Champā’s heritage in Central Vietnam, including the Po Klaong Girai temple, after the American War (Tieu et al., 2000). Polish conservation workers followed the principles and techniques of archaeological restoration, using the conservative anastylosis method (Kinh, 2009, p. 27), which involves the use of original materials as much as possible. They used both fallen bricks and modern cement to restore damaged walls and temples and applied methods of consolidation, anastylosis, and fragmentary restoration to preserve the authenticity of the temples (Phuong, 2002). Decorative reliefs on walls were restored at Po Klaong Girai and other temples. However, the use of sanding to restore original brick walls sometimes resulted in indentations in the reinforced walls that were 5 cm deeper/wider than the original walls. This was due to the extensive bombing raids of the American War that reduced many temples to ruins, leading to large numbers of broken bricks being moved and rearranged in many Central Vietnamese temples (Hy, 2012, p. 3).

The Contemporary Period: From 1999 to Today

The My Son temple, a Cham heritage site in Central Vietnam, was recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1999 and has been preserved through the efforts of conservation specialists. However, the preservation of other Cham heritage sites, such as Po Klaong Girai, is carried out by individual Vietnamese archaeologists and architects who have used their own methods, some of which have been untested and improvised. For example, the Center for Design and Conservation Vestiges, as noted by Kien (2000) and Kien and Tuyen (2012), used a brick-making technique that contradicts the original Cham design and has resulted in modifications that have damaged the surfaces and diminished the aesthetic value of the decorative motifs. Despite these efforts, as Phuong (2006) notes, there have been instances of adverse impacts on the Cham temples, particularly during the later period when Vietnamese conservators applied their own techniques. Nevertheless, the combined efforts of these conservators, as Phuong (2002, 2006) points out, have created a valuable resource for future research and conservation. Additionally, they have acted as advocates, protecting the Cham temples through international legislation and diplomacy.

The conservation and restoration efforts of Cham’s architectural heritage have undergone three distinct periods. In the first period, French archaeologists Henri Parmentier and Charles Carpeaux, working with the EFEO, greatly contributed to the inventory of Champā’s remains through excavation, documentation, photography, and preparation of annotated descriptions (Baptiste, 2009). During this period, the EFEO also investigated the management of the restoration of Cham monuments, resulting in the preservation and reconstruction of many temples such as My Son, Bang An, and Po Inâ Nâgar (Phuong, 2006, 2011). In the second period, Polish architects and Vietnamese preservationists conducted conservation work through a bilateral cooperative effort, using a conservative anastylosis method that emphasized the use of original materials (Kinh, 2009; Phuong, 2002). During the 1980s, the Poland Joint Sub-Committee for the conservation of Champā’s architectural heritage was established and conducted an inventory of Champā’s heritage in Central Vietnam (Tieu et al., 2000). Finally, in the third period, individual Vietnamese archaeologists and architects have used untested and improvised methods to preserve and protect Cham heritage sites, including Po Klaong Girai (Phuong, 2002, 2006). However, some of these methods have resulted in adverse impacts on the temples, such as the modification of original decorative designs (Kien & Tuyen, 2012). Despite these instances, the collective efforts of these conservators have provided a valuable resource for future research and conservation efforts, and have acted as advocates in providing protection and security for the Cham temples through international legislative and diplomatic efforts.

In short, the conservation and restoration efforts of Cham’s architectural heritage have undergone three distinct periods. In the first period, French archaeologists Henri Parmentier and Charles Carpeaux, working with the EFEO, greatly contributed to the inventory of Champā’s remains through excavation, documentation, photography, and preparation of annotated descriptions (Baptiste, 2009). During this period, the EFEO also investigated the management of the restoration of Cham monuments, resulting in the preservation and reconstruction of many temples such as My Son, Bang An, and Po Inâ Nâgar (Phuong, 2006, 2011). In the second period, Polish architects and Vietnamese preservationists conducted conservation work through a bilateral cooperative effort, using a conservative anastylosis method that emphasized the use of original materials (Kinh, 2009; Phuong, 2002). During the 1980s, the Poland Joint Sub-Committee for the conservation of Champā’s architectural heritage was established and conducted an inventory of Champā’s heritage in Central Vietnam (Tieu et al., 2000). Finally, in the third period, individual Vietnamese archaeologists and architects have used untested and improvised methods to preserve and protect Cham heritage sites, including Po Klaong Girai (Phuong, 2002, 2006). However, some of these methods have resulted in adverse impacts on the temples, such as the modification of original decorative designs (Kien & Tuyen, 2012). Despite these instances, the collective efforts of these conservators have provided a valuable resource for future research and conservation efforts, and have acted as advocates in providing protection and security for the Cham temples through international legislative and diplomatic efforts.

Conservation of Cham Cultural Heritage in Ninh Thuan Province

Vietnamese government’s Policies for the Preservation of Cham Cultural Heritage

Indigenous Cham heritage plays a prominent role in the larger project of Vietnam’s development, specifically in the tourism sector. Since reunification in 1975, the Vietnam Communist Party and State have issued many policies and guidelines for the socio-cultural and social development of ethnic minorities in general and Cham people in particular. On October 26, 1981, the Prime Minister issued Directive No.121/CT stipulating the protection and preservation of typical historical relics and culture:

The cultural sector should continue to collect the cultural heritage of the Cham. For precious cultural heritages scattered among Cham families, it should be active in collecting them for effective preservation and maintenance as well as building a museum of ethnic Cham culture. At the places where Cham are living, the establishment of professional art needs to be at the core of the development of the popular Cham cultural movement.

The legal basis for policy construction in the Provinces of Thuan Hai, Ninh Thuan, and Binh Thuan is Directive No. 121/CT issued by the Prime Minister on October 26, 1981, as described by Dop et al. (2014). This directive tasked the Culture and Sports and Tourism Department with protecting and preserving the cultural heritage of the Cham people, including collecting valuable cultural objects and establishing a museum of ethnic Cham culture. However, evidence suggests that the collection of cultural objects for preservation has resulted in the removal of many objects from the daily life and religious practices of the Cham people, rendering them “dead” cultural objects within the museum.

After a decade of implementation, a conference was held by the Secretariat in 1991 to review the progress of the Circular No.03/TT-TW dated October 17, 1991 on the work of Cham people. This conference led to plans for restoring Cham temple-towers and re-establishing the Cham Cultural Center in Phan Rang city, as well as continued investment in teaching the Cham language, rewriting textbooks, and consolidating the establishment of a Cham Folk Art Troupe.

Finally, Directive No. 06/2004/CT-TTg, issued by the Prime Minister on February 28, 2004, emphasized the importance of continuing socio-economic and cultural development, ensuring security in the regions of the Cham people. This directive specifically highlighted the task of developing cultural forms to preserve and promote the traditional culture and identity of the Cham people.

The Ninh Thuan Province’s Ministry of Culture and Information (now the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) has made significant efforts to preserve and promote Cham culture. The provincial Party committee and People’s committee have worked to enhance the capability of the Cham Cultural Research Center and established the Cham Folk Art Troupe to carry out cultural exchanges. The Ministry organized the “Cham Cultural Days” which comprised of events to publish, disseminate, and compile cultural studies, literary, and artistic works. The aim of these activities was to increase the understanding of Cham culture and promote tourism in the province.

Tourism is considered a crucial industry for the province’s economic development, second only to the energy sector. In line with this, the Ninh Thuan Province issued Resolution No. 07-NQ/TW (Ninh Thuan Tourism Development from 2012 to 2020 with a vision towards 2030) on April 10, 2012. The purpose of this plan was to establish sustainable and effective guidelines for the province’s economic, social, and tourism development and create a unified basis for managing and utilizing the potential of the tourism market.

Ninh Thuan Tourism specifically emphasizes the comprehensive development of marine tourism, ecotourism, and cultural tourism. Cham culture is prioritized for preservation to support the development of tourism, which will contribute to the socio-economic development of the province and the Cham community.

The Provincial Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism has initiated a project to develop ecological and cultural tours, with a specific focus on Cham tourist destinations (Anh, 2012). Additionally, local authorities have restored Cham temples and improved the infrastructure at these sites, such as the newly built downhill path at the Po Klaong Girai temple and the exhibition area of the Cham Cultural Research Center (Anh, 2012).

Phan Quoc Anh, former director of the Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, emphasized the crucial role of stakeholders in contributing to the development of the provincial tourism. These stakeholders include travel agents, central and local tourism associations, hotels, and facilities (Anh, 2012). However, the roles and responsibilities of cooperation between the Cham people and government authorities have not yet been clearly defined, and most notably, the role of the Cham community in the tourism development of Ninh Thuan Province seems to have been overlooked.

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage

Since the re-establishment of Ninh Thuan Province in 1993, local authorities have made significant efforts to preserve and promote the intangible cultural heritage of the Cham people. These efforts include renovating and embellishing cultural monuments, promoting the recognition of these monuments, and establishing cultural institutions like the Cham Cultural Research Center, the Provincial Museum, the Committee for Drafting School Textbooks in the Cham Language, and the Cham Folk Art Group.

The Cham Cultural Research Center, in particular, has been tasked with the research, collection, conservation, and development of Cham culture, not just in Ninh Thuan Province but throughout the country. Despite facing challenges such as limited human resources, funding, and equipment, the center has conducted numerous surveys, fieldwork investigations, and research projects in recent years. However, these research projects tend to be small, scattered, and unsystematic, with limited dissemination of the findings beyond the provincial level. Given the rich cultural heritage of the Cham people, it is important to conduct a comprehensive survey of the Cham culture in Ninh Thuan Province to identify what has been lost, what remains, and what may be at risk in the future. This will provide a basis for more informed and effective preservation and promotion efforts in the future.

The preservation and promotion of Cham manuscripts has been an important focus for local authorities and scholars in Ninh Thuan Province. Written in the Akhar Thrah script, these manuscripts hold significant value for the Cham community as they contain valuable information on literature, history, astronomy, medicine, religious beliefs, ceremonial practices, and daily activities of the Cham people (Hao, 2015; Phan, 2012). Despite being maintained primarily by Cham families, many manuscripts have been deteriorating and disappearing due to the humid and hot conditions in the Cham regions (Hao, 2015). To address this, numerous initiatives have been undertaken in recent years. For instance, the Center for Vietnamese and Southeast Asia Studies has digitized manuscripts in collaboration with Dr. Phan Hao of Northern Illinois University, and has trained Cham people to preserve them. These documents are now easily accessible through the British Library. Additionally, a joint project between the Cham Cultural Research Center and the State Records Management and Archives Department of Vietnam is underway to renovate, restore, and digitize all Cham manuscript collections at the Center. Furthermore, scholars such as Thanh Phan, Inrasara, and Sakaya have individually collected, preserved, and studied many Cham manuscripts. These documents remain a significant part of the living heritage of the Cham community and are still used for religious practices and daily life, such as the popularly kept stories of King Po Klaong Girai in Cham families.

The transmission of traditional Cham culture to future generations is a crucial aspect of preserving and revitalizing the intangible cultural heritage of the Cham community. To achieve this goal, the Ninh Thuan Province has implemented various projects focused on promoting handicraft skills, festival activities, and other cultural traditions.

The Cham Cultural Research Center took the lead in this effort by conducting a project from 1994 to 1996 entitled “Festivals of Cham people in Ninh Thuan Province.” In 2003, the project results were published in a book by author Sakaya, providing a comprehensive investigation of the Cham festival system, including an in-depth analysis of the natural and social factors that have shaped and sustained these festivals.

With over 75 festivals and rituals, the Cham have effectively passed down their cultural heritage through generations, making Ninh Thuan Province a thriving center of Cham cultural heritage. This is a testament to the Cham community’s commitment to preserving their cultural traditions, and the efforts of the Ninh Thuan Province to support and enhance these efforts.

Temple Reconstruction as a Method of Preserving Tangible Culture

In Ninh Thuan Province, there are three clusters of Cham temples, namely Po Klaong Girai (13th–fourteenth centuries), Hoa Lai (eighth century), and Po Rome (17th–eighteenth centuries), that symbolize the construction techniques and architectural styles of the Cham people throughout history. These temples are significant in preserving the tangible cultural heritage of the Cham people.

The Po Rome temple, located about two kilometers west of the Cham village in Ninh Phuoc district, is a group of towers built during the final period of Cham architecture in the 17th and the eighteenth centuries (Doanh, 2002). The temple consists of a Kalan erected in honor of King Po Rame, a temple dedicated to his wife, and his relative’s tomb. At the beginning of the last century, it also included a repository for offerings, but only traces remain today due to severe damage. It is considered the last tower showcasing the art, history, architecture, and sculpture of the Cham people.

Hoa Lai or Ba Thap temple (Yang Bakran in the Cham language) is dedicated to Adidiveshavara, a form of Shiva (Schweyer, 2011). The temple, which was once comprised of three Kalans, saw the destruction of the middle tower during the American war. At the beginning of the twentieth century, French scholars documented the remains of a wall surrounding the three kalans and other sites such as a main tower (Mandapa) and a Gorupa (gateway tower) (T. K. Phuong, 2008, p. 103). The Hoa Lai complex is constructed in traditional Cham style, but the decorative patterns on the temple are unique. This temple is believed to be a style typical of the end of the 8th and the beginning of the ninth centuries (T. K. Phuong, 2008, p. 106). It is considered one of the most valuable art forms among the existing temples in Ninh Thuan Province (Doanh, 2002; Parmentier, 1909; Tieu et al., 2000). According to Parmentier, it is a masterpiece of ancient Cham architecture that features a multi-tower complex with unique design patterns reflecting cross-cultural influences. The “Hoa Lai style,” which marked the end of the first phase of Cham art, is characterized by square shapes, themes of symmetry, and the absence of small decorative towers on the floor of the complex, with motifs such as cylindrical flower motifs and naturalistic foliage (Parmentier, 1909, pp. 118–120).

Conservation works have been undertaken at the Hoa Lai temple and at Po Rome temple. As well as these restoration projects, heritage authorities have undertaken conservation works at a range of heritage places to build facilities to promote the purpose of tourism development (Binh, 2001). However, the conservation of Cham heritage sites and objects is faced with numerous challenges, including a lack of funding (Dharma, 2001), inappropriate policies, and the inadequate abilities of heritage practitioners (Binh, 2001; Dharma, 2001) (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1

Locations of Cham temples in Ninh Thuan Province

A Case Study of Po Klaong Girai Temple: Preserving Cham Heritage in Vietnam

The Po Klaong Girai temple complex is located on the Hala hill in Phan Rang—Thap Cham city and is considered one of the most iconic and visually distinctive Cham temples. The complex was constructed during the late thirteenth century to the early fourteenth centuries (Doanh, 2006). According to local Cham beliefs, the temple was dedicated to King Po Klaong Girai in the late fourteenth century by the Champā monarch Jaya Simhavarman III. This king played a significant role in the development of the Champā kingdom in the late thirteenth century, having helped the Cham people in the Panduranga principality with infrastructure improvements and irrigation projects (Doanh, 2006).

King Po Klaong Girai is credited with the construction of many dams and canals (ditches) that helped regulate the supply of water to rice fields. Many of these irrigation systems, such as the Nha Trinh and Lâm Cấm networks, are still in use today and serve as a testament to the king’s contributions (Dharma & Weber, 2005). Further details on these irrigation systems can be found in Appendix 1 and 2 and Dharma and Weber’s (2005) publication.

Po Klaong Girai temple is a prime example of the intricate and sophisticated construction techniques utilized by the Cham people (Viet, 2007). Despite being in ruins today, the temple was once a unique testament to the Cham architectural style, with its abundance of intricate details, according to Parmentier (1919, p. 96). Currently, only a few structures of the temple complex remain, including vestiges of the central tower, the entrance tower, and the southeast building (Fig. 4.2).

Fig. 4.2

Plans of Po Klaong Girai temple (Parmentier, 1909)

Schweyer (2011, p. 88) has written extensively about the architecture of the remaining structures at Po Klaong Girai temple, pointing out that the structure is open from east to west to allow passage and features false doors on the south and the north. The central tower, which stands at 20.50 m high and is 13.80 m long and 10.71 m wide, is an impressive example of Cham architecture. The tower features five flat pilasters on each side, with capital decorations of delicate lotus petals and a three-tiered roof, as described by Schweyer (2011, p. 89). The corners of the tower feature small towers in the shape of a lotus bud and the summit is decorated with accentuating details in stone, including spirals and figures in prayer. The entrance and false doors are surmounted by four superimposed arches, decorated with flame-like leaves, and the carved pediment above the door depicts a dancing Shiva (Schweyer, 2011, p. 89) (Fig. 4.3).

Fig. 4.3

Some architectural features of the Po Klaong Girai temple (Courtesy of the author, 2012)

Inside the temple’s vestibule, a statue of the bull Nandin can be found. The main tower houses a Mukha-linga, a unique type of linga featuring a painted image of King Po Klaong Girai’s face (Fig. 4.4). A wooden pyramid has been erected above the Mukha-linga. On the opposite side of the entrance to the sanctuary, wooden columns demonstrate the sophisticated building techniques employed by the Cham people, supporting the lightweight roof. According to Doanh (2006), the structure adjacent to the Mukha-linga served as the original key entrance to the temple. A nearby hill bears a rock inscription from the year 1050 that commemorates the erection of a linga by a Cham prince.

Fig. 4.4.

King Po Klaong Girai, painted on the Mukha-Linga (Courtesy of the author, 2012)

The Po Klaong Girai temple is an important center of the traditional Cham belief system, hosting many festivals and ceremonies annually, such as the Katé festival, Cambun festival, Peh Bambeng Yang, and Yuen Yang. As a result of its significance, the temple has undergone several preservation and restoration efforts over the years, particularly between 1982 and 1987 under the direction of Polish experts.

The conservation efforts began with reinforcing damaged elements with steel bars and consolidating materials in 1982. The following year, the fundamental parts of the temple were restored and consolidated, with one-third of these parts being listed as severely damaged. In 1983, the main tower was restored by removing damaged bricks and restoring stone statues inside the tower. In 1985, restoration work was conducted on the three towers in the Po Klaong Girai group, with almost 500 sculptural details or designs on arches being restored and replicated to their original designs. In 1987, the conservators repaired falling walls, bringing the conservation efforts to a close.

As a result of these efforts, the Po Klaong Girai temple is considered to be the best conservation project in the Ninh Thuan Province in comparison to other central Vietnamese provinces (Phuong, 2006, 2011; Tieu et al., 2000). Although the temple is still in good condition today, the use of cement during the restoration work has led to the rapid erosion of the original brickwork and the spread of conditions to surrounding bricks. Furthermore, the intervention has created a black patina of surface lichens on the new bricks. While the conservation work at Po Klaong Girai temple has helped to restore some damaged decorative elements and has placed original features back into place as harmoniously as possible, the use of cement has ultimately done more harm than good.

The recognition of all Cham temples in Vietnam as national historical sites by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism highlights the cultural significance of these sacred sites. The Hoa Lai and Po Klaong Girai temples in Ninh Thuan, in particular, have been designated as special national architectural relic sites and the Katé festival of the Cham people has been recognized as the national intangible cultural heritage. This dual recognition acknowledges the rich cultural heritage of the Cham community and helps to preserve and promote its heritage values for local economic development. In 2005, the local government invested 15 billion VND (approximately USD $643,000) to construct a tourism area at the Po Klaong Girai temple, covering 7.8 hectares. This area includes an exhibition hall, art performance space, a traditional game area, and a traditional Cham house located behind the temple. The project has had both positive and negative impacts on the temple and the Cham people. The positive impacts include the cultural presentation of Cham culture to tourists and the economic benefits of preserving the temple. On the other hand, the project has also had negative impacts on the temple and the Cham community, which are the focus of the research for this book.

The author aims to conduct an assessment and analyze the implications of this project on the Cham cultural heritage, highlighting the importance of preserving cultural heritage while also considering the impact of tourism and development on these sacred sites.