From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity
Author(s): Christina Cameron
Source: APT Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008), pp. 19-24
Published by: Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433947 .
Accessed: 15/10/2014 04:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to APT Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage
Committee and Authenticity
CHRISTINACAMERON
How authentic are reconstructed
heritage sites reborn out of the
ashes of war?
The Convention concerning the Protec
tion of theWorld Cultural and Natural
Heritage, known as theWorld Heritage
Convention, is perhaps themost widely
recognized and effective international
conservation instrument, mobilizing
a
global effort to protect the shared her
itage of humanity. Since its adoption in
1972, this UNESCO international
treaty has encouraged intercultural dia
logue
on
heritage
matters and brought
about unprecedented levels of interna
tional co-operation. The 21-member
World Heritage Committee, which
makes decisions about listing and con
servation matters, is elected from repre
sentatives of the now-185 countries that
have ratified the treaty. The committee
receives professional and technical
Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the historic center ofWarsaw. Photograph by Murat Ayranci, courtesy of
Superstock.
advice from international advisory
bodies, including the International
Council onMonuments and Sites (ICO
MOS). This article documents how the
World Heritage Committee has defined
and applied the concept of authenticity
to the evaluation and inscription of two
reconstructed European sites.
Inscription of a site on theWorld
Heritage List requires that a property
satisfy
one or more of 10 criteria as well
as other qualifying conditions, including
authenticity for cultural sites. Between
1978, when the nomination of the his
toric city center of Warsaw, Poland, was
first considered, and 2005, when the
Old Bridge Area ofMostar, Bosnia
Herzegovina,
was listed, the committee's
approach
to
authenticity has evolved.
The committee itself has changed over
this same period, moving from an initial
composition of professionals and ex
perts to having a strong diplomatic
component. This paper follows the
debates within the committee as its
membership has expanded and become
truly global.1
Concept of Authenticity
The word authenticity is not found in
the 1972 convention. Rather, it appears
in the first version of the committee's
main procedural document, known as
the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of theWorld Heritage
Convention (1977). It is important to
note that these guidelines are adjusted
periodically by the committee in re
sponse to
evolving perceptions of her
itage and other needs.
In the first version of the Operational
Guidelines (1977), authenticity is one of
the qualities
a cultural property must
have in order to qualify as aWorld
Heritage Site. The so-called "test of
authenticity" defines the concept as
19
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008
"authenticity in design, materials, work
manship and setting; authenticity does
not limit consideration to original form
and structure, but includes all subse
quent modifications and additions, over
the course of time, which in themselves
possess artistic or historical values."2 In
other words, authenticity refers to the
truthfulness of a cultural place and is
defined through physical attributes
found in various historical layers.
The World Heritage Committee was
immediately challenged by the proposed
nomination of the historic center of
Warsaw submitted by Poland in 1978.
This site was
essentially
a reconstruc
tion, since approximately 85 percent of
the historic center had been destroyed
during World War II (Fig. 1). Each
committee meeting is preceded by a
preparatory Bureau of the Committee,
an executive group elected from its
membership. Just before the first bureau
meeting in June 1978, ICOMOS cau
tioned that "there is a question as to
whether theHistoric Centre ofWarsaw
meets the general rule of authenticity,
and it is accordingly believed that fur
ther expert opinion is required on this
nomination."3 At the bureau meeting
itself, ICOMOS stated that theWarsaw
proposal "needed further expert study
to see if itmet the criterion of authentic
ity."4
A year later, at the second bureau
meeting inMay 1979, ICOMOS took a
clear position, recommending inscrip
tion on the list because "the documenta
tion is excellent and the centre of War
saw is an
exceptional example of
reconstruction ...
[and] has been made
into a symbol by the patriotic feeling of
the Polish people."5 But bureau mem
bers were not so sure. "Opinion
was
divided in the Bureau, since the site did
not meet the criteria of authenticity, and
the Bureau deferred its decision so that
the questions raised in this respect could
be thoroughly studied."6 The third
bureau session, held inEgypt inOctober
1979, recommended deferral.7
At that same meeting the third bu
reau examined general policy documents
of exceptional importance
to the future
implementation of theWorld Heritage
Convention. These came from two
working groups (nature and culture) set
up to propose amendments to the crite
ria and guidelines for the evaluation of
nominations. The committee even at this
early date was concerned about consis
tency and credibility of theWorld Her
itage List, insisting that the overriding
consideration be the threshold of out
standing universal value.8 Policies on
inventories, typologies, comparative
analysis, and transboundary nomina
tions, still in effect today, originated in
these reports.
The cultural-heritage report, entitled
"A Comparative Study of Nominations
and Criteria forWorld Cultural Her
itage," was prepared byMichel Parent,
Inspecteur g?n?ral des monuments
historiques in France and Rapporteur
for the 1979 committee meeting.9 Faced
with a flood of proposed nominations
for cultural properties, he saw his report
as the basis for committee discussion
and fundamental choices about the
future implementation of theWorld
Heritage Convention. "Its purpose was
to identify the dilemmas which face us
today
?
today, while theweight of
precedent is not too
heavy
to be over
turned, forcing us into irremediable
anomalies," he wrote.10
With regard to heritage policy,
Michel Parent could draw on the Athens
Charter (1931) and theVenice Charter
(1964). The Athens Charter for the
Restoration of Historic Monuments
focuses on tangible elements and respect
for existing materials, calling for mini
mal intervention in the built fabric to
prevent a "loss of character and histori
cal values to the structures" and for the
reburial of archaeological resources. It
does not use the word authenticity,
nor
does itoffer much guidance in cases of
wholesale urban reconstruction.11 The
International Charter for the Conserva
tion and Restoration of Monuments and
Sites, known as the Venice Charter, uses
theword authenticity in the preamble,
pointing to the duty to conserve historic
monuments "in the full richness of their
authenticity." Like the Athens Charter, it
generally focuses on the preservation of
existing fabric and specifically rules out
reconstruction work for archaeological
sites, while remaining silent on the
question of large urban reconstruction.12
In his advice on authenticity, Parent
began by noting that "the Committee
having laid down that authenticity is a
sine qua non, at first sight theWHList
should not include a town or part of a
town which has been entirely destroyed
and reconstructed, whatever the quality
of the reconstruction." He then won
dered whether Warsaw "could neverthe
less be placed on the List because of the
exceptional historical circumstances
surrounding
its resurrection." Parent
remarks that "authenticity is relative
and depends
on the nature of the prop
erty involved," illustrating his argument
with examples of wooden Japanese
temples and European stained-glass
windows. He noted that a situation can
arise where a restoration, however well
done, consists of a reconstruction of a
property that has in fact completely
disappeared,
as is the case with Warsaw.
While acknowledging theVenice Char
ter's emphasis
on historical fabric, Par
ent referred to the dilemma ofWarsaw
and asked the question,
can "a system
atic 20th century reconstruction be
justified for inclusion on grounds, not of
Art but of History?"13 Parent's line of
argument, suggesting inscription
on
associative values alone, implies the use
of criterion (vi). This criterion, accord
ing to the guidelines in effect at that
time, required that the property "be
most importantly associated with ideas
or beliefs, with events or with persons,
of outstanding historical importance or
significance."14
The committee's response to the
Parent report shows its reluctance to
proceed with the inscription of sites on
the basis of associative value alone. It
began by affirming that "the authentic
ity of a cultural property remains an
essential criterion."15 It then pondered
the pitfalls of using criterion (vi) alone:
Particular attention should be given to cases
which fall under criterion (vi) so that the net
result would not be a reduction in the value of
the List, due to the large potential number of
nominations as well as to political difficulties.
Nominations concerning, in particular, historical
events or famous people could be strongly
influenced by nationalism or other particu
larisms in contradiction with the objectives of
theWorld Heritage Convention.16
The following year, at the fourth bu
reau, inMay 1980, ICOMOS repeated
its positive advice onWarsaw. Calling it
an exceptional example of a global
reconstruction, ICOMOS stated that
Warsaw "illustrates, in an
exemplary
fashion, the efficiency of the restoration
techniques of the second half of the
20th century" and advised that "its
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FROM WARSAW TO MOSTAR 21
authenticity is associated with this
unique realization of the years 1945 to
1966."17 The fourth bureau accepted
this advice and recommended its in
scription "as a
symbol of the exception
ally successful and identical reconstruc
tion of a cultural property which is
associated with events of considerable
historical significance." That the bureau
was concerned with setting
an
inappro
priate precedent is evident from the
next sentence, which reads, "There can
be no question of inscribing in the
future other cultural properties that
have been reconstructed."18 The com
mittee accepted the bureau's recommen
dation and inscribed the property on
theWorld Heritage List without com
ment.19
Despite that decision, the committee
clearly did not want to deal with a rash
of reconstructions. They therefore tight
ened up their brand-new guidelines, in
part as a result of the Warsaw decision.
In the 1980 revision of the Operational
Guidelines they directed that criterion
(vi) should be used only in exceptional
circumstances or in conjunction with
other criteria. As to the definition of
authenticity, the concept of
layering
over
time was dropped and a new proviso
added, echoing article nine of theVenice
Charter, "that reconstruction is
only
acceptable if it is carried out on the basis
of complete and detailed documentation
on the original and to no extent on
conjecture."20 One might observe that,
from a professional perspective, this
condition is technically impossible to
meet.
Evolution of the Concept of
Authenticity
The definition of authenticity remained
unchanged in the Operational Guide
lines from 1980 until 1994. During that
period the committee applied the term
inconsistently, as documented by French
archaeologist L?on Pressouyre, who
presented the ICOMOS evaluations for
most of that time.21 For the 1983 nomi
nation of Rila Monastery, Bulgaria, the
committee disregarded ICOMOS's
recommendation that the inscription be
deferred because the property was
nearly entirely reconstructed and "does
not answer the criterion of authentic
ity.
"
Instead the committee inscribed
Rila "not ...as a
testimony of mediaeval
civilisation but rather as a symbol of the
19th Century Bulgarian Renaissance
which imparted slavic cultural values
upon Rila in trying to re-establish an
uninterrupted historical continuity."22
In contrast the 1985 French proposal to
inscribe the historic city of Carcassonne
was deferred on the grounds that the
ramparts had "undergone important
modifications in the 19th century which
impinge upon the authenticity of the
site."23Yet in 1988 the medieval city of
Rhodes was
accepted, despite
a
negative
evaluation from ICOMOS on the
"pseudo-medieval monuments" and
"grandiose pastiches
... devoid of ar
chaeological rigor" that had been re
constructed in the first half of the twen
tieth century.24 In 1990 the proposed
nomination of Dresden's reconstructed
historic center was not recommended
by the bureau and was withdrawn at
the committee meeting by the German
Democratic Republic.25
In 1994 the Operational Guidelines
were modified following the committee
discussion on the definition and eligibil
ity of cultural landscapes. The 1994 text
required properties to "meet the test of
authenticity in design, material, work
manship,
or
setting and in the case
of
cultural landscapes their distinctive
character and components" (italics
added for emphasis). The existing pro
viso concerning reconstruction was
retained: "the Committee stressed that
reconstruction is only acceptable if it is
carried out on the basis of complete and
detailed documentation on the original
and to no extent on
conjecture."26
While ideas about the limitations of a
materials-bound approach to authentic
ity were
circulating among experts, the
formal debate began inNorway and
culminated in an expert meeting in
Nara, Japan, inNovember 1994, with
the preparation of theNara Document
on
Authenticity.27 This document pro
poses a doctrinal shift towards a greater
recognition of regional and cultural
diversity, as well as of the associative
values of heritage sites. The World
Heritage Committee was slow to react,
despite the fact that it had encouraged
the debate among experts. In the years
that followed, World Heritage Commit
tee records reveal a schism between
those who continued to support a mate
rials-based approach rooted in the
Venice Charter and those who promoted
a vision of authenticity
as more
intangi
ble, relative, and culturally diverse.
As sponsors of the conference, ICO
MOS and the Japanese government
worked hard to place theNara Docu
ment on the agenda of theWorld Her
itage Committee. A month after Nara
the Japanese delegate obtained commit
tee support to study modifications that
could be made to the Operational
Guidelines to take into account the
conclusions of the Nara meeting.28 Two
years later the committee was still dis
cussing what to do, suggesting that the
Nara Document could be annexed to
the nomination form as
explanatory
notes.29 Once again the delegate of
Japan asked that a document be pre
pared for discussion at the 1997 com
mittee meeting "on how the principles
of theNara Document could be applied
in the implementation of theWorld
Heritage Convention."30
The 1997 committee debate on au
thenticity
was
sparked by the renomina
tion and inscription of the fortified city
of Carcassonne. Having been deferred in
1985 on the question of authenticity,
Carcassonne was inscribed in 1997 in
recognition of itsmedieval fortifications,
as well as for its "exceptional impor
tance by virtue of the restoration work
carried out in the second half of the
19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, which
had a profound influence on subsequent
developments in conservation principles
and practice."31 Concerns were raised by
the Greek delegate and others on the
implications of theNara approach to
conservation. These delegations spoke to
"the validity of the principles contained
in theVenice Charter of 1964, in partic
ular on authenticity which presently
serves as a reference text for all heritage
specialists." Following debate the com
mittee adopted a resolution asking
ICOMOS to reexamine the approach to
authenticity in light of the "differenti
ated cultural approach" of Nara.32
At the 1998 committee session the
Japanese chairman, Ambassador
Koi'chiro Matsuura, opened the meeting
by emphasizing the importance of un
derstanding authenticity and pointing
out regional differences, saying, "The
question of authenticity for cultural
heritage is very important. The challenge
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008
?*
Fig. 2. The Old Bridge at Mostar in 1974, before its destruction in 1993.
Courtesy of alangellerphotography.com.
?iipfillllJj^^^^H
Fig. 3. The reconstructed bridge at Mostar. Photograph by Sinisa Sesum
and UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
lies in finding a balance between 'a cul
ture of stone,' which is easier to transmit
to future generations, with 'a culture of
wood,' which requires restoration for its
conservation."33 The Greek delegation
expressed concern, arguing that no
ancient monument is absolutely authen
tic, given alterations over time, and that
the current ambiguity in the use of the
word authenticity could have negative
impacts
on proper conservation policy.34
The Australian delegation, reporting on
the Amsterdam expert meeting of 1998,
"stressed the need for more
rigour
to
deter o ver-restoration" and "the need to
understand the link between authenticity
and cultural value ...
[in] geo-cultural
contexts."35
Itwas only in 1999 that the commit
tee formally endorsed theNara Docu
ment on Authenticity. ICOMOS, having
long held the view that such a formal
adoption
was necessary, informed the
committee that the ICOMOS 1999
General Assembly had approved the
Nara Document as an official doctrinal
text. ICOMOS emphasized its impor
tant features, including the acknowl
edgement of different regional contexts,
cultural diversity, and the spiritual
as
pects of heritage.36 The committee re
ferred theNara Document to the experts
working on the revision of the Opera
tional Guidelines.
In 2003 the committee held an ex
traordinary session to resolve any out
standing policy issues, in order to final
ize the revision of the Operational
Guidelines. A proposal to include the
Nara Document as an annex was dis
cussed briefly and approved, with rec
ommendations to add references to the
Nara preparatory meetings and a bibli
ography.37 These changes appeared in
the 2005 Operational Guidelines, in
cluding a revised list of attributes for
authenticity: form, substance, use, func
tion, traditions, techniques, management
systems, location, language, forms of
intangible heritage, spirit, feeling, and
other factors.38 These revisions indicate
a shift towards a greater recognition of
intangible values as part of a
property's
authenticity.
The 2003 policy session also ap
proved new wording for the text on
reconstructions. The drafting group
proposed adding
a sentence to the exist
ing text stating that reconstruction is
acceptable only on the basis of complete
documentation and to no extent on
conjecture. The additional text, stating
that reconstruction "is justifiable only in
exceptional circumstances," might be
understood as
encouraging the commit
tee to look more favorably on such
properties.39
Old Bridge Area of Mostar
As a measure of these policy changes, it
is illuminating to follow the discussion
at the 2005 committee during the in
scription of the Old Bridge Area of the
Old City ofMostar in Bosnia-Herzo
govina. This was the first session to use
the revised Operational Guidelines
(2005). Mostar had been heavily im
pacted by the 1990s war, which de
stroyed its celebrated bridge and in
flicted severe damage on the historic
center, with its pre-Ottoman, eastern
Ottoman, Mediterranean, and western
European architectural features. The
property had previously been deferred
by the committee in 1999, 2000, and
2003, due to lack of clarity about
boundaries, management, and criteria.
In its 2003 evaluation ICOMOS ex
pressed doubts about the quality of the
reconstruction work at Mostar and also
recalled the 1980 committee directive
that the listing of reconstructed Warsaw
was not to be taken as a
precedent. The
committee deferred the proposal to
allow completion of the reconstruction
work, redefinition of significance using
relevant criteria, and clarification of the
boundaries.40
In 2005 the revised proposal for the
Bridge Area ofMostar had significantly
reduced boundaries and contained many
reconstructed buildings, including the
medieval bridge, which was rebuilt
through the efforts of an international
team of experts under the auspices of
UNESCO and theWorld Bank. Debate
focused on two intertwined issues
?
authenticity and appropriate criteria.
In itswritten evaluation ICOMOS
attempted
to balance the committee's
policy
on reconstruction with the new
attributes of authenticity. On the one
hand, ICOMOS had "considerable
reservations about the authenticity of
Mostar. Much of the urban fabric was
destroyed in 1992-1995, and has been
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FROM WARSAW TO MOSTAR 23
the subject of major reconstruction
activity or is still under reconstruction
...The proportion of reconstructed
buildings is very high, and much new
material has also been used."41 On the
other hand, ICOMOS recognized that
the attributes of authenticity had
changed, advising that, in light of the
changes inOperational Guidelines
(2005)
the result of a test of authenticity is rather more
positive. Looking as an example at the recon
struction of the Old Bridge, this is based on in
depth and detailed, multi-faceted analyses,
relying on high quality documentation, and
almost every required condition has been ful
filled. The authenticity of form, use of authentic
materials and techniques are
fully recognizable.
The result is not a kind of invented or manipu
lated presentation of an architectural feature
which never before existed in that form, rather
the reconstructed bridge has a kind of truthful
ness, even though in strictly material terms a
considerable portion is not of identical or
original pieces.42
ICOMOS went on to propose the idea
of an overall authenticity with strong
intangible dimensions. "Evaluating this
reconstruction on a
larger scale, namely
as a
key element of urban and natural
landscape there is no doubt of a special
kind of 'overall'
authenticity...this
reconstruction of fabric should be seen
as being in the background compared
with restoration of the intangible di
mensions of this property, which are
certainly the main issue concerning the
Outstanding Universal Value of this
site."43
The committee was divided on the
question of authenticity. While certain
delegations believed that the exceptional
quality of the reconstruction complied
with policy, the delegate of St. Lucia
expressed doubts about the site's overall
authenticity following her review of the
nomination files. While acknowledging
the scientific reconstruction of the
bridge, which had been the focus of the
ICOMOS evaluation, the delegate stated
that the rest of the site had been inap
propriately rebuilt without reference to
historical documentation.44 It is note
worthy that an independent external
evaluation supports St. Lucia's point,
contrasting the high quality of the
bridge reconstruction with the less
successful, ad hoc development of the
surrounding area which "does not
complement the completed bridge"
(Figs. 2 and 3).45
ICOMOS had argued in favor of
using criterion (iv) because themethods
and material used in the reconstruction
had been thoroughly researched and
that research had been applied. Crite
rion (iv) requires the property to "be an
outstanding example of a type of build
ing, architectural or
technological
en
semble or landscape which illustrates (a)
significant stage(s) in human history."46
Some committee members supported
this argument, in particular the Leba
nese delegate, who insisted that using
criterion (iv)would effectively recognize
the quality of the reconstruction work
by those architects, historians, and
archaeologists involved in the project.
The United Kingdom disagreed on the
grounds that the bridge and buildings
were replicas dating from 2003-2004
and hence not historical.47
ICOMOS had also recommended the
use of criterion (vi) on the grounds that
theMostar site isprincipally "a place of
memory, in the same manner as the
Historic Centre ofWarsaw."48 In 2005
criterion (vi) required a property to "be
directly or tangibly associated with
events or
living traditions, with ideas, or
with beliefs, with artistic and literary
works of outstanding universal signifi
cance."49 Various delegations spoke to
the value of the bridge as a symbol of
hope and reconciliation among different
cultural groups. In the end the site was
listed under criterion (vi) alone. The
inscription citation underlines its intan
gible values:
With the "renaissance" of the Old Bridge and its
surroundings, the symbolic power and meaning
of the City of Mostar
? as an exceptional and
universal symbol of coexistence of communities
from diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious
backgrounds
?
has been reinforced and
strengthened, underlining the unlimited efforts
of human solidarity for peace and powerful
cooperation in the face of overwhelming catas
trophes.50
Conclusion
From 1978 to 2005, the period span
ning the nominations of Warsaw and
Mostar, theWorld Heritage Committee
modified its
policy stance on reconstruc
tions and their authenticity. This change
reflects a
tendency in the international
heritage field to place greater emphasis
on associative and intangible values.
This new perspective was explored in
the expert meetings leading up to the
Nara Conference and enshrined in the
Nara Document on Authenticity. It
took theWorld Heritage Committee
more than a decade to debate the impli
cations of Nara and to integrate these
ideas into itsOperational Guidelines.
Further evidence of a shift towards
associative values may be found in the
2003 UNESCO Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, where cultural practices are of
prime importance, secondarily sup
ported by the physical cultural spaces
they inhabit.51
For professionals trained in the con
servation disciplines, this evolution,
along with the current
emphasis
on
values-based management of historic
places, raises questions about what
priority
to
place
on
conserving existing
fabric. Is meticulous conservation neces
sary, or are reconstructions acceptable,
sometimes or in all circumstances?
Should these two examples ofWarsaw
andMostar be considered as special
cases, given the deliberate destruction of
cultural resources through war and the
deep-seated desire to resurrect identity?
What does thismean for the practice of
conservation and preservation technol
ogy? Does this give a blank check for
reconstruction? At this time, one could
argue that the question remains open.
CHRISTINA CAMERON studied art and
architectural history and worked for 36 years
with Parks Canada, where she was responsible
for the National Historic Sites and World
Heritage programs. Since 2005 she has held the
Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at
the University of Montreal.
Notes
1. In 1978 there were 40 countries that had
joined theWorld Heritage Convention; in 2005
there were 180 countries.
2. Operational Guidelines for the Implementa
tion of theWorld Heritage Convention, CC-77/
CONF.001/8 Rev. 3, para. 9. See http://whc
.unesco.org/archive/opguide77a.pdf. This
requirement is rooted in the doctrine of the
Venice Charter, which calls for respect for the
valid contributions of all periods, in art. 11. See
http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html.
3. Letter from Ernest Allen Connally, Secretary
General of ICOMOS, to Committee Chairman
Firouz Bagerzadeh, June 7, 1978, Advisory
Body Evaluation (1980), http://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/30/documents.
4. Report of the Rapporteur on the first meet
ing of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental
Committee for the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage in Paris, 8-9
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008
June 1978 (Paris, 1978): CC-78/CONF.010/3,
4. para. 14. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
repbur78.htm.
5. Report of the Rapporteur on the second
meeting of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental
Committee for the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage in Paris, 28-30
May 1979 (Paris,20 July 1979):CC-79/CONF
.005/6, Annex II/3. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/repbur79.htm.
6. Ibid.
7. Report of the Rapporteur
on the third
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee in Cairo, 21 October 1979 (Paris,
30November 1979):CC-79/CONF.003/12
Rev. 3, para. 13B. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/repbur79.htm.
8. Report of the Rapporteur on the third
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Cairo and Luxor, 22-26 October 1979 (Paris,
30 November 1979): CC-79/CONE003/13, 8,
para. 32. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
repcom79.htm.
9.Michel Parent, "Comparative Study of
Nominations and Criteria forWorld Cultural
Heritage," in Third session of the World
Heritage Committee, CC-79/CONF.003/11
Annex.
10. Ibid., 26.
11. The Athens Charter for the Restoration of
Historic Monuments, adopted at the First
International Congress of Architects and
Technicians of Historic Monuments, n.p.
12. The International Charter for the Conserva
tion and Restoration of Monuments and Sites
(The Venice Charter), n.p.
13. Parent, 19-20.
14. Operational Guidelines 1977, CC-77/
CONF.001/8 Rev., 3, para. 7.
15. Report of the Rapporteur on the third
session of the World Heritage Committee,
CC-79/CONE003/13, 9, para. 35.
16. Ibid.
17. ICOMOS Evaluation of the Historic Center
of Warsaw, May 1980, 1-2, http://whc.unesco
.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/030.pdf
18. Report of the Rapporteur on the fourth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee in Paris, 19-22 May 1980 (Paris, 28
May 1980): CC-80/CONE017/4,4. See http://
whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur80.htm.
19. Report of the Rapporteur
on the fourth
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Paris, 1-5 September 1980 (Paris, 29 September
1980):CC-80/CONE016/10, 4. Seehttp://
whc .unesco. org/archi ve/repcom 80. htm.
20. Ibid., 8.
21. L?on Pressouyre, The World Heritage
Convention, Twenty Years Later (Paris:
UNESCO Publishing, 1996), 11-14.
22. Report of the Rapporteur on the seventh
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Florence, 5-9 December 1983 (Paris, January
1984): SC-83/CONF.009/8, 6. See http://whc
.unesco.org/archive/repcom83.htm. ICOMOS
Evaluation of Rila Monastery, 29 April 1982,
http ://whc. unesco. org/archi ve/ad visory_body
_evaluation/216.pdf.
23. Report of the Rapporteur on the ninth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee in Paris, 3-5 June 1985 (Paris, 12
August 1985): SC-85/CONE007/9, 11. See
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur85.htm.
24. Report of the Rapporteur on the twelfth
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Brasilia, 5-9 December 1988 (Paris, 23 Decem
ber 1988): SC-88/CONE001/13, 17. See
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom88.htm.
ICOMOS Evaluation of theMediaeval City of
Rhodes, September 1988, http://whc.unesco
.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/493.pdf,
accessed 6March 2008.
25. Report of the Rapporteur on the fourteenth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee in Paris, 11-14 June 1990 (Paris, 7
September 1990): CC-90/CONF.003/12, 13B.
See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur90
.htm. Report of the Rapporteur on the four
teenth session of the World Heritage Commit
tee in Banff, 7-12 December 1990 (Paris, 12
December 1990):CLT-90/CONE004/13, 4,
para. 16. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
repcom90.htm.
26. Operational Guidelines for the Implementa
tion of theWorld Heritage Convention, WHC/
2/Rev., para. 24 (b).
27. For a reference on the Norway meeting, see
Knut Einar Larsen, ed. "Nara Document on
Authenticity," inNara Conference on Authen
ticity (Paris: UNESCO, 1995), xxi-xxiii.
28. Report of the Rapporteur on the eighteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Phuket, 12-17 December 1994 (Paris, 31
January 1995):WHC-94/CONE003/16, 66,
para. XIV.4. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
repcom94.htm.
29. Report of the Rapporteur
on the twentieth
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Merida, 2-7 December 1996 (Paris, 10March
1997): WHC-96/CONF.201/21, 12, para.
VII.8. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
repcom96.htm.
30. Ibid., 13,para.VII.12.
31. Report of the Rapporteur on the twenty
first session of the World Heritage Committee
inNaples, 1-6 December 1997 (Paris, 27 Feb
ruary 1998): WHC-97/CONE208/17, 43. See
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom97.htm.
32. Ibid., 49-50, para.VIII.il.
33. Report of the Rapporteur on the twenty
second session of theWorld Heritage Commit
tee in Kyoto, 30 November-5 December 1998
(Paris, 29 January 1999): WHC-98/CONF
.203/Annex II.6. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/repcom98.htm. Original French text:
"La question du crit?re d' 'authenticit?' du
patrimoine culturel est tr?s importante. Il s'agit
de savoir comment harmoniser la diff?rence
entre la 'culture de la pierre', plus facile ?
l?guer aux g?n?rations futures, et la 'culture du
bois' qui n?cessite des restaurations pour sa
conservation."
34. Ibid., Annex VIII.
35. Ibid., 32, para. IX.8.
36. Report of the Rapporteur on the twenty
third session of the World Heritage Committee
inMarrakesh, 29 November-4 December 1999
(Paris, 2March 2000): WHC-99/CONF.209/
22.para. XIII.6. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archi ve/repcom 9 9. htm.
37. Summary Record of the sixth extraordinary
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Paris, 17-22 March 2003 (Paris, 1 June 2004):
WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INE8, 69-70. See
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/6extcom.htm.
38. "Operational Guidelines for the Implemen
tation of theWorld Heritage Convention,"
Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Con
vention (Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Cen
ter, 2005), 54, para. 82, 129-134, Annex 4.
39. Third Draft Annotated Revised Opera
tional Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention prepared by the
March 2002 Drafting Group (Paris, 3 Decem
ber 2002): WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.5B, 29,
U.C. 10. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
6extcom.htm.
40. "Nominations of Properties to theWorld
Heritage List," in Twenty-seventh session of the
World Heritage Committee in Paris, 30 June-5
July 2003 (Paris,26 June2003):WHC-03/27
.COM/8C, 23-24. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/decrec03.htm.
41. ICOMOS Evaluation Reports for World
Heritage Nominations (Paris, 2005), 181.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Summary Record of the twenty-ninth
session of the World Heritage Committee in
Durban, 10-17 July 2005 (Paris, 25 April
2006): WHC-05/29.COM/INF.22, 183-187.
See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc
05-29com-22e.pdf.
45. Brian Goodey and Werner Desimpelaere,
External Evaluation of UNESCO's Action in
the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Damaged
by Conflict: Bosnia-Herzogovina 1996-2003
(Paris: UNESCO, 2003): IOS/EVS/PI/24,
11-14.
46. Operational Guidelines 2005, 54, para. 77.
47. Summary Record of the twenty-ninth
session of the World Heritage Committee,
WHC-05/29.COM/INF.22, 183-187.
48. Ibid.
49. Operational Guidelines 2005, 54, para. 77.
50. Report of the Rapporteur on the Decisions
of the twenty-ninth session of the World
Heritage Committee inDurban, 10-17 July
2005 (Paris, 9 September 2005): WHC-05/
29.COM/22, 141. See http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/2005/whc05-29com-22e.pdf.
51. Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage (Paris: UNESCO,
2003). It is available at http://www.unesco.org/
culture/ich/index.php ?pg=00006.
This content downloaded from 193.225.122.113 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:24:48 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions