From 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 [email protected].

.

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

CHRISTINA CAMERON

How authentic are reconstructed The Convention concerning the Protec advice from international advisory tion of theWorld Cultural and Natural the International heritage sites reborn out of the bodies, including known as theWorld Council on Monuments and Sites (ICO ashes of war? Heritage, Heritage Convention, is perhaps the most widely MOS). This article documents how the recognized and effective international World Heritage Committee has defined a conservation instrument, mobilizing and applied the concept of authenticity global effort to protect the shared her to the evaluation and inscription of two itage of humanity. Since its adoption in reconstructed European sites. 1972, this UNESCO international Inscription of a site on theWorld treaty has encouraged intercultural dia Heritage List requires that a property on one or more as logue heritage matters and brought satisfy of 10 criteria well as about unprecedented levels of interna other qualifying conditions, including tional co-operation. The 21-member authenticity for cultural sites. Between World Heritage Committee, which 1978, when the nomination of the his makes decisions about listing and con toric city center of Warsaw, Poland, was servation matters, is elected from repre first considered, and 2005, when the sentatives of the now-185 countries that Old Bridge Area of Mostar, Bosnia was have ratified the treaty. The committee Herzegovina, listed, the committee's to receives professional and technical approach authenticity has evolved. The committee itself has changed over this same period, moving from an initial ex composition of professionals and 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 as main procedural document, known 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 to sponse evolving perceptions of her itage and other needs. In the first version of the Operational Guidelines (1977), authenticity is one of a must the qualities cultural property have in order to qualify as aWorld Heritage Site. The so-called "test of Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the historic center of Warsaw. Photograph by Murat Ayranci, courtesy of defines the concept as Superstock. authenticity"

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

even "authenticity in design, materials, work nominations. The committee at this town which has been entirely destroyed was manship and setting; authenticity does early date concerned about consis and reconstructed, whatever the quality not limit consideration to original form tency and credibility of theWorld Her of the reconstruction." He then won and structure, but includes all subse itage List, insisting that the overriding dered whether Warsaw "could neverthe quent modifications and additions, over consideration be the threshold of out less be placed on the List because of the course on the of time, which in themselves standing universal value.8 Policies exceptional historical circumstances or its possess artistic historical values."2 In inventories, typologies, comparative surrounding resurrection." Parent other words, authenticity refers to the analysis, and transboundary nomina remarks that "authenticity is relative on truthfulness of a cultural place and is tions, still in effect today, originated in and depends the nature of the prop defined through physical attributes these reports. erty involved," illustrating his argument found in various historical layers. The cultural-heritage report, entitled with examples of wooden Japanese The World Heritage Committee was "A Comparative Study of Nominations temples and European stained-glass immediately challenged by the proposed and Criteria forWorld Cultural Her windows. He noted that a situation can nomination of the historic center of itage," was prepared by Michel Parent, arise where a restoration, however well monuments consists a reconstruction of a Warsaw submitted by Poland in 1978. Inspecteur g?n?ral des done, of was a reconstruc in This site essentially historiques in France and Rapporteur property that has fact completely as case tion, since approximately 85 percent of for the 1979 committee meeting.9 Faced disappeared, is the with Warsaw. the historic center had been destroyed with a flood of proposed nominations While acknowledging the Char saw ter's on historical Par during World War II (Fig. 1). Each for cultural properties, he his report emphasis fabric, committee meeting is preceded by a as the basis for committee discussion ent referred to the dilemma of Warsaw can "a preparatory Bureau of the Committee, and fundamental choices about the and asked the question, system an executive group elected from its future implementation of theWorld atic 20th century reconstruction be was on not of membership. Just before the first bureau Heritage Convention. "Its purpose justified for inclusion grounds, meeting in June 1978, ICOMOS cau to identify the dilemmas which face us Art but of History?"13 Parent's line of ? on tioned that "there is a question as to today today, while the weight of argument, suggesting inscription not too to be over associative values the use whether the Historic Centre of Warsaw precedent is heavy alone, implies meets the general rule of authenticity, turned, forcing us into irremediable of criterion (vi). This criterion, accord to in at that and it is accordingly believed that fur anomalies," he wrote.10 ing the guidelines effect ther expert opinion is required on this With regard to heritage policy, time, required that the property "be on most with ideas nomination."3 At the bureau meeting Michel Parent could draw the Athens importantly associated or itself, ICOMOS stated that theWarsaw Charter (1931) and the Venice Charter or beliefs, with events with persons, historical or proposal "needed further expert study (1964). The Athens Charter for the of outstanding importance to see if it met the criterion of authentic Restoration of Historic Monuments significance."14 on elements and The committee's to the ity."4 focuses tangible respect response for mini Parent shows its reluctance to A year later, at the second bureau for existing materials, calling report of sites on meeting inMay 1979, ICOMOS took a mal intervention in the built fabric to proceed with the inscription a "loss of character and histori the basis of associative value alone. It clear position, recommending inscrip prevent tion on the list because "the documenta cal values to the structures" and for the began by affirming that "the authentic a an tion is excellent and the centre of War reburial of archaeological resources. It ity of cultural property remains not use the word nor essential criterion."15 It then saw is an exceptional example of does authenticity, pondered ... in cases of the of criterion alone: reconstruction [and] has been made does it offer much guidance pitfalls using (vi) into a symbol by the patriotic feeling of wholesale urban reconstruction.11 The Particular attention should be given to cases which fall under criterion so that the net the Polish people."5 But bureau mem International Charter for the Conserva (vi) result would not be a reduction in the value of was of Monuments and bers were not so sure. "Opinion tion and Restoration the List, due to the large potential number of the site did known as the Venice uses divided in the Bureau, since Sites, Charter, nominations as well as to political difficulties. in Nominations in historical not meet the criteria of authenticity, and the word authenticity the preamble, concerning, particular, events or famous could be the Bureau deferred its decision so that pointing to the duty to conserve historic people strongly influenced by nationalism or other particu the raised in this could monuments "in the full richness of their questions respect larisms in contradiction with the objectives of Like the Athens it be thoroughly studied."6 The third authenticity." Charter, the World Heritage Convention.16 bureau held in inOctober focuses on the of session, generally preservation The following year, at the fourth bu recommended deferral.7 fabric and rules out 1979, existing specifically reau, inMay 1980, ICOMOS repeated At that same the third bu reconstruction work for meeting archaeological its positive advice on Warsaw. Calling it reau examined documents sites, while remaining silent on the general policy an exceptional example of a global to future of urban reconstruction.12 of exceptional importance the question large reconstruction, ICOMOS stated that on Parent of theWorld In his advice authenticity, an implementation Heritage Warsaw "illustrates, in exemplary came from two that "the Committee Convention. These began by noting fashion, the of the restoration a efficiency and culture) set laid down that authenticity is working groups (nature having techniques of the second half of the to amendments to the crite sine qua non, at first theWHList up propose sight 20th century" and advised that "its a town or a ria and guidelines for the evaluation of should not include part of

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

is associated with this Rila "not ...as a authenticity testimony of mediaeval rials-based approach rooted in the realization of the 1945 to as a unique years civilisation but rather symbol of the Venice Charter and those who promoted 1966."17 The fourth bureau 19th a as more accepted Century Bulgarian Renaissance vision of authenticity intangi this advice and recommended its in which slavic imparted cultural values ble, relative, and culturally diverse. "as a of the Rila in to an scription symbol exception upon trying re-establish As sponsors of the conference, ICO successful and identical reconstruc ally uninterrupted historical continuity."22 MOS and the Japanese government tion of a cultural is In contrast property which the 1985 French proposal to worked hard to place the Nara Docu associated with events of considerable inscribe the historic city of Carcassonne ment on the agenda of theWorld Her historical the was on significance." That bureau deferred the grounds that the itage Committee. A month after Nara was concerned with an setting inappro ramparts had "undergone important the Japanese delegate obtained commit is evident from the in priate precedent modifications the 19th century which tee support to study modifications that next which "There can sentence, reads, impinge upon the authenticity of the could be made to the Operational be no question of inscribing in the site."23 Yet in 1988 the medieval city of Guidelines to take into account the future other cultural that Rhodes was a conclusions of properties accepted, despite negative the Nara meeting.28 Two have been reconstructed."18 The com evaluation from ICOMOS on the years later the committee was still dis mittee the bureau's recommen accepted "pseudo-medieval monuments" and cussing what to do, suggesting that the dation and on ... inscribed the property "grandiose pastiches devoid of ar Nara Document could be annexed to theWorld List without com that had been re the nomination as Heritage chaeological rigor" form explanatory ment.19 constructed in the first half of the twen notes.29 Once again the delegate of that the committee tieth Despite decision, century.24 In 1990 the proposed Japan asked that a document be pre did not want to deal with a rash clearly nomination of 's reconstructed pared for discussion at the 1997 com of reconstructions. therefore historic center was not They tight recommended mittee meeting "on how the principles ened up their brand-new in the bureau and was withdrawn at guidelines, by of the Nara Document could be applied as a result of the Warsaw decision. the part committee meeting by the German in the implementation of theWorld In the 1980 revision of the Democratic Operational Republic.25 Heritage Convention."30 Guidelines they directed that criterion In 1994 the Operational Guidelines The 1997 committee debate on au (vi) should be used only in were modified the committee was exceptional following thenticity sparked by the renomina circumstances or in with discussion on the definition and conjunction eligibil tion and inscription of the fortified city other criteria. As to the definition of of cultural text ity landscapes. The 1994 of Carcassonne. Having been deferred in authenticity, the concept of over to "meet the test of on layering required properties 1985 the question of authenticity, time was and a new dropped proviso authenticity in design, material, work Carcassonne was inscribed in 1997 in added, article nine of the Venice or and in the case echoing manship, setting of recognition of itsmedieval fortifications, Charter, "that reconstruction is cultural their as only landscapes distinctive well as for its "exceptional impor if it is carried out on the basis acceptable character and components" (italics tance by virtue of the restoration work of and detailed complete documentation added for emphasis). The existing pro carried out in the second half of the on the and to no extent on viso original concerning reconstruction was 19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, which conjecture."20 One might observe retained: "the Committee stressed that a that, had profound influence on subsequent from a professional this reconstruction is if it perspective, only acceptable is developments in conservation condition is to principles technically impossible carried out on the basis of and and were complete practice."31 Concerns raised by meet. on detailed documentation the original the Greek delegate and others on the and to no extent on conjecture."26 implications of the Nara approach to Evolution of the of While ideas about the limitations of a conservation. Concept These delegations spoke to materials-bound to Authenticity approach authentic "the validity of the principles contained were ity circulating among experts, the in the Venice Charter of 1964, in partic The definition of authenticity remained formal debate began inNorway and ular on which in the Guide authenticity presently unchanged Operational in an culminated expert in serves as a reference text for all lines from 1980 until 1994. that meeting heritage During inNovember with Nara, Japan, 1994, specialists." Following debate the com period the committee applied the term the preparation of the Nara Document mittee a resolution as documented French adopted asking inconsistently, by on This document Authenticity.27 pro ICOMOS to reexamine the approach to archaeologist L?on Pressouyre, who a poses doctrinal shift towards a greater in of the "differenti presented the ICOMOS evaluations for authenticity light recognition of regional and cultural ated cultural of Nara.32 most of that time.21 For the 1983 nomi approach" diversity, as well as of the associative At the 1998 committee session the nation of Rila Monastery, Bulgaria, the values of heritage sites. The World committee ICOMOS's Japanese chairman, Ambassador disregarded Committee was slow to Heritage react, Koi'chiro Matsuura, the recommendation that the inscription be opened meeting despite the fact that it had the un deferred because the was encouraged by emphasizing importance of property the debate In among experts. the years derstanding authenticity and nearly entirely reconstructed and "does pointing that followed, World Heritage Commit out not answer the criterion of regional differences, saying, "The authentic tee " records reveal a schism between of for cultural ity. Instead the committee inscribed question authenticity those who continued to a mate is support heritage 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

?iipfillllJj^^^^H

?*

Fig. 2. The Old Bridge at Mostar in 1974, before its destruction in 1993. Fig. 3. The reconstructed bridge at Mostar. Photograph by Sinisa Sesum Courtesy of alangellerphotography.com. and UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

lies in finding a balance between 'a cul Nara Document as an annex was dis pacted by the 1990s war, which de ture of stone,' which is easier to transmit cussed briefly and approved, with rec stroyed its celebrated bridge and in to future generations, with 'a culture of ommendations to add references to the flicted severe damage on the historic a wood,' which requires restoration for its Nara preparatory meetings and bibli center, with its pre-Ottoman, eastern conservation."33 The Greek delegation ography.37 These changes appeared in Ottoman, Mediterranean, and western no expressed concern, arguing that the 2005 Operational Guidelines, in European architectural features. The monument a ancient is absolutely authen cluding revised list of attributes for property had previously been deferred over tic, given alterations time, and that authenticity: form, substance, use, func by the committee in 1999, 2000, and the current ambiguity in the use of the tion, traditions, techniques, management 2003, due to lack of clarity about word authenticity could have negative systems, location, language, forms of boundaries, management, and criteria. on impacts proper conservation policy.34 intangible heritage, spirit, feeling, and In its 2003 evaluation ICOMOS ex The Australian delegation, reporting on other factors.38 These revisions indicate pressed doubts about the quality of the a a the Amsterdam expert meeting of 1998, shift towards greater recognition of reconstruction work at Mostar and also more to as a "stressed the need for rigour intangible values part of property's recalled the 1980 committee directive o deter ver-restoration" and "the need to authenticity. that the listing of reconstructed Warsaw was not to as a understand the link between authenticity The 2003 policy session also ap be taken precedent. The ... new text on and cultural value [in] geo-cultural proved wording for the committee deferred the proposal to contexts."35 reconstructions. The drafting group allow completion of the reconstruction was a sentence to It only in 1999 that the commit proposed adding the exist work, redefinition of significance using tee formally endorsed the Nara Docu ing text stating that reconstruction is relevant criteria, and clarification of the ment on Authenticity. ICOMOS, having acceptable only on the basis of complete boundaries.40 long held the view that such a formal documentation and to no extent on In 2005 the revised proposal for the was adoption necessary, informed the conjecture. The additional text, stating Bridge Area of Mostar had significantly committee that the ICOMOS 1999 that reconstruction "is justifiable only in reduced boundaries and contained many General Assembly had approved the exceptional circumstances," might be reconstructed buildings, including the as an as Nara Document official doctrinal understood encouraging the commit medieval bridge, which was rebuilt text. ICOMOS emphasized its impor tee to look more favorably on such through the efforts of an international tant features, including the acknowl properties.39 team of experts under the auspices of edgement of different regional contexts, UNESCO and theWorld Bank. Debate ? as on two cultural diversity, and the spiritual Old Bridge Area of Mostar focused intertwined issues re pects of heritage.36 The committee authenticity and appropriate criteria. As a measure of these it ferred the Nara Document to the experts policy changes, In itswritten evaluation ICOMOS on is to follow the discussion to working the revision of the Opera illuminating attempted balance the committee's at the 2005 committee the in on tional Guidelines. during policy reconstruction with the new of the Old Area of the In 2003 the committee held an ex scription Bridge attributes of authenticity. On the one out Old of Mostar in Bosnia-Herzo traordinary session to resolve any City hand, ICOMOS had "considerable This was the first session to use standing policy issues, in order to final govina. reservations about the authenticity of the revised Guidelines ize the revision of the Operational Operational Mostar. Much of the urban fabric was Mostar had been im Guidelines. A proposal to include the (2005). heavily 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 ICOMOS had argued in favor of Nara Conference and enshrined in the or is still under reconstruction activity using criterion (iv) because the methods Nara Document on Authenticity. It ...The proportion of reconstructed and material used in the reconstruction took theWorld Heritage Committee is and much new had been researched and more than a to buildings very high, thoroughly decade debate the impli material has also been used."41 On the that research had been applied. Crite cations of Nara and to integrate these other hand, ICOMOS recognized that rion (iv) requires the property to "be an ideas into its Operational Guidelines. the attributes of authenticity had outstanding example of a type of build Further evidence of a shift towards in of the or en changed, advising that, light ing, architectural technological associative values may be found in the changes in Operational Guidelines semble or landscape which illustrates (a) 2003 UNESCO Convention for the in (2005) significant stage(s) human history."46 Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural the result of a test of is rather more Some committee members authenticity supported Heritage, where cultural practices are of as an positive. Looking example at the recon this in the Leba argument, particular prime importance, secondarily sup struction of the Old Bridge, this is based on in nese delegate, who insisted that the cultural depth and detailed, multi-faceted using ported by physical spaces analyses, criterion would relying on high quality documentation, and (iv) effectively recognize they inhabit.51 almost condition has been ful the of the reconstruction every required quality work For professionals trained in the con filled. The of form, use of authentic authenticity by those architects, historians, and servation this are disciplines, evolution, materials and techniques fully recognizable. a archaeologists involved in the with the current on The result is not kind of invented or manipu project. along emphasis The United on lated presentation of an architectural feature Kingdom disagreed the values-based management of historic which never before existed in that rather that the form, grounds bridge and buildings places, raises questions about what the reconstructed has a kind of truthful bridge were from 2003-2004 to on replicas dating priority place conserving ness, even though in strictly material terms a existing and hence not historical.47 fabric. Is meticulous neces considerable portion is not of identical or conservation ICOMOS had also recommended the or are original pieces.42 sary, reconstructions acceptable, use of criterion on the or ICOMOS went on to propose the idea (vi) grounds that sometimes in all circumstances? theMostar site is "a of Should two of an overall authenticity with strong principally place these examples of Warsaw memory, in the same manner as the and Mostar be considered as intangible dimensions. "Evaluating this special reconstruction on a Historic Centre ofWarsaw."48 In 2005 cases, the deliberate destruction of larger scale, namely given as a criterion a to "be cultural resources war key element of urban and natural (vi) required property through and the or associated with to resurrect landscape there is no doubt of a special directly tangibly deep-seated desire identity? events or kind of 'overall' living traditions, with ideas, or What does this mean for the authenticity...this practice of with with artistic and reconstruction of fabric should be seen beliefs, literary conservation and preservation technol works of universal Does a as being in the background compared outstanding signifi ogy? this give blank check for cance."49 Various to with restoration of the intangible di delegations spoke reconstruction? At this time, one could the value of the as a of mensions of this property, which are bridge symbol argue that the question remains open. the main and reconciliation different certainly issue concerning the hope among cultural In CHRISTINA CAMERON studied art and Outstanding Universal Value of this groups. the end the site was architectural and worked for 36 site."43 listed under criterion alone. The history years (vi) with Parks Canada, where she was responsible citation underlines its intan The committee was divided on the inscription for the National Historic Sites and World values: question of authenticity. While certain gible Heritage programs. Since 2005 she has held the With the Canada Research Chair on Built at believed that the "renaissance" of the Old Bridge and its Heritage delegations exceptional the of Montreal. surroundings, the symbolic power and University quality of the reconstruction meaning complied of the of Mostar ? as an with City exceptional and policy, the delegate of St. Lucia universal of symbol coexistence of communities Notes expressed doubts about the site's overall from diverse cultural, ethnic, and ? religious authenticity following her review of the backgrounds has been reinforced and 1. In 1978 there were 40 countries that had the nomination files. While strengthened, underlining unlimited efforts joined the World Heritage Convention; in 2005 acknowledging of human solidarity for peace and powerful there were 180 countries. the scientific reconstruction of the in cooperation the face of overwhelming catas 2. Guidelines for the bridge, which had been the focus of the trophes.50 Operational Implementa tion of the World Heritage Convention, CC-77/ ICOMOS evaluation, the delegate stated CONF.001/8 Rev. 3, para. 9. See http://whc that the rest of the site had been inap Conclusion ..org/archive/opguide77a.pdf. This propriately rebuilt without reference to requirement is rooted in the doctrine of the Venice which calls for historical documentation.44 It is note From 1978 to the Charter, respect for the 2005, period span valid contributions of all periods, in art. 11. See worthy that an independent external ning the nominations of Warsaw and http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html. evaluation the supports St. Lucia's point, Mostar, World Heritage Committee 3. Letter from Ernest Allen contrasting the of the modified its stance on reconstruc Connally, Secretary high quality policy General of ICOMOS, to Committee Chairman reconstruction with the less tions and their This Firouz bridge authenticity. change Bagerzadeh, June 7, 1978, Advisory a Evaluation successful, ad hoc development of the reflects tendency in the international Body (1980), http://whc.unesco.org/ en/list/30/documents. surrounding area which "does not heritage field to place greater emphasis the on associative and 4. the on the meet complement completed bridge" intangible values. Report of Rapporteur first new ing of the Bureau of the (Figs. 2 and 3).45 This perspective was explored in Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection the World the expert to the of meetings leading up Cultural and Natural Heritage in , 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

ICOMOS 34. Annex VIII. June 1978 (Paris, 1978): CC-78/CONF.010/3, .unesco.org/archive/repcom83.htm. Ibid., para. 14. See Evaluation of Rila Monastery, 29 April 1982, 4. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ 35. Ibid., 32, para. IX.8. ://whc. unesco. ve/ad repbur78.htm. http org/archi visory_body _evaluation/216.pdf. 36. Report of the Rapporteur on the twenty 5. the Rapporteur on the second Report of third session of the World Heritage Committee the Bureau the 23. the Rapporteur on the ninth meeting of of Intergovernmental Report of inMarrakesh, 29 November-4 December 1999 Protection the World session the Bureau the World Committee for the of of of Heritage 2 March WHC-99/CONF.209/ 1985 12 (Paris, 2000): Cultural and Natural Heritage in Paris, 28-30 Committee in Paris, 3-5 June (Paris, 22.para. XIII.6. See http://whc.unesco.org/ 1979 20 1979): CC-79/CONF August 1985): SC-85/CONE007/9, 11. See May (Paris, July archi ve/repcom 9 9. htm. .005/6, Annex II/3. See http://whc.unesco.org/ http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur85.htm. 37. Record the sixth archive/repbur79.htm. on Summary of extraordinary 24. Report of the Rapporteur the twelfth session of the World Heritage Committee in 6. Ibid. session of the World Heritage Committee in Paris, 17-22 March 2003 (Paris, 1 June 2004): Brasilia, 5-9 December 1988 (Paris, 23 Decem on the third WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INE8, 69-70. See 7. Report of the Rapporteur ber 1988): SC-88/CONE001/13, 17. See session of the Bureau of the World Heritage http://whc.unesco.org/archive/6extcom.htm. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom88.htm. Committee in , 21 October 1979 (Paris, ICOMOS Evaluation of the Mediaeval City of 38. "Operational Guidelines for the Implemen 30 November 1979): CC-79/CONF.003/12 Rhodes, September 1988, http://whc.unesco tation of the World Heritage Convention," Rev. 3, para. 13B. See http://whc.unesco.org/ 1972 Con .org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/493.pdf, Basic Texts of the World Heritage archive/repbur79.htm. accessed 6 March 2008. vention (Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Cen 129-134, Annex 4. 8. the Rapporteur on the third on ter, 2005), 54, para. 82, Report of 25. Report of the Rapporteur the fourteenth session the World Heritage Committee in of session of the Bureau of the World Heritage 39. Third Draft Annotated Revised Opera Cairo and , 22-26 October 1979 (Paris, Committee in Paris, 11-14 June 1990 (Paris, 7 tional Guidelines for the Implementation of the 30 November 1979): CC-79/CONE003/13, 8, 13B. the September 1990): CC-90/CONF.003/12, World Heritage Convention prepared by para. 32. See 3 Decem http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur90 March 2002 Drafting Group (Paris, on repcom79.htm. .htm. Report of the Rapporteur the four ber 2002): WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.5B, 29, teenth session the World Commit U.C. 10. See 9. Michel Parent, "Comparative Study of of Heritage http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ 1990 12 Nominations and Criteria for World Cultural tee in Banff, 7-12 December (Paris, 6extcom.htm. in Third session the World December 1990): CLT-90/CONE004/13, 4, Heritage," of 40. "Nominations of Properties to the World CC-79/CONF.003/11 para. 16. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ Heritage Committee, Heritage List," in Twenty-seventh session of the Annex. repcom90.htm. World Heritage Committee in Paris, 30 June-5 26. Guidelines for the Implementa 2003 (Paris,26 June 2003):WHC-03/27 10. Ibid., 26. Operational July tion of the World Heritage Convention, WHC/ .COM/8C, 23-24. See http://whc.unesco.org/ Athens Charter for the Restoration of 11. The 2/Rev., para. 24 (b). archive/decrec03.htm. Historic Monuments, adopted at the First 27. For a reference on the meeting, see 41. ICOMOS Evaluation Reports for World International Congress of Architects and Knut Einar ed. "Nara Document on Nominations 2005), 181. Technicians of Historic Monuments, n.p. Larsen, Heritage (Paris, in Nara on Authen Authenticity," Conference 42. Ibid. 12. The International Charter for the Conserva ticity (Paris: UNESCO, 1995), xxi-xxiii. tion and Restoration of Monuments and Sites 43. Ibid. 28. the Rapporteur on the eighteenth (The Venice Charter), n.p. Report of in session of the World Heritage Committee 44. Summary Record of the twenty-ninth 13. 19-20. 31 in Parent, Phuket, 12-17 December 1994 (Paris, session of the World Heritage Committee 2005 25 CC-77/ January 1995):WHC-94/CONE003/16, 66, Durban, 10-17 July (Paris, April 14. Operational Guidelines 1977, para. XIV.4. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ 2006): WHC-05/29.COM/INF.22, 183-187. CONF.001/8 Rev., 3, para. 7. repcom94.htm. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc 15. the on the third Report of Rapporteur on 05-29com-22e.pdf. 29. Report of the Rapporteur the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee, session the World Heritage Committee in 45. Brian and Werner Desimpelaere, CC-79/CONE003/13, 9, para. 35. of Goodey Merida, 2-7 December 1996 (Paris, 10 March External Evaluation of UNESCO's Action in 16. Ibid. Preservation Cultural 1997): WHC-96/CONF.201/21, 12, para. the of Heritage Damaged VII.8. See Bosnia-Herzogovina 1996-2003 17. ICOMOS Evaluation of the Historic Center http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ by Conflict: repcom96.htm. (Paris: UNESCO, 2003): IOS/EVS/PI/24, of 1980, 1-2, Warsaw, May http://whc.unesco 11-14. .org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/030.pdf 30. Ibid., 13,para.VII.12. 46. Guidelines para. 77. on on Operational 2005, 54, 18. Report of the Rapporteur the fourth 31. Report of the Rapporteur the twenty the World Committee the session of the Bureau of Heritage first session of the World Heritage 47. Summary Record of twenty-ninth 1980 28 1997 27 Feb Committee in Paris, 19-22 May (Paris, in , 1-6 December (Paris, session of the World Heritage Committee, See 43. See 183-187. May 1980): CC-80/CONE017/4,4. http:// ruary 1998): WHC-97/CONE208/17, WHC-05/29.COM/INF.22, whc.unesco.org/archive/repbur80.htm. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom97.htm. 48. Ibid. on 19. the Rapporteur the fourth 32. Ibid., 49-50, para.VIII.il. Report of 49. Guidelines 77. Committee in Operational 2005, 54, para. session of the World Heritage 33. the Rapporteur on the twenty 1-5 1980 29 Report of the on the Decisions Paris, September (Paris, September Commit 50. Report of Rapporteur second session of the World Heritage CC-80/CONE016/10, 4. See http:// the session of the World 1980): tee in 30 November-5 December 1998 of twenty-ninth 8 0. htm. , 10-17 whc .unesco. org/archi ve/repcom Heritage Committee in Durban, July (Paris, 29 January 1999): WHC-98/CONF 2005 (Paris, 9 September 2005): WHC-05/ 20. Ibid., 8. .203/Annex II.6. See http://whc.unesco.org/ text: 29.COM/22, 141. See http://whc.unesco.org/ Original French 21. L?on The World archive/repcom98.htm. Pressouyre, Heritage "La du crit?re d' 'authenticit?' du archive/2005/whc05-29com-22e.pdf. Years Later question Convention, Twenty (Paris: est tr?s Il patrimoine culturel importante. s'agit 51. Convention for the Safeguarding of the UNESCO 11-14. Publishing, 1996), comment harmoniser la diff?rence de savoir Intangible Cultural Heritage (Paris: UNESCO, on the seventh entre la 'culture de la facile ? at 22. Report of the Rapporteur pierre', plus 2003). It is available http://www.unesco.org/ in aux et la 'culture du session of the World Heritage Committee l?guer g?n?rations futures, culture/ich/index.php ?pg=00006. sa , 5-9 December 1983 (Paris, January bois' qui n?cessite des restaurations pour 1984): SC-83/CONF.009/8, 6. See http://whc conservation."

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