applying authenticity to cultural landscapes

Applying Authenticity to Cultural LandscapesAuthor(s): Mechtild RösslerSource: APT Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008), pp. 47-52Published by: Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)Association for PreservationTechnology International (APT)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433952Accessed: 18/11/2010 02:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Preservation Technology International (APT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to APT Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aptech



http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433952?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Applying Authenticity to Cultural

Landscapes

MECHTILD R?SSLER

Many cultural landscapes have been

inscribed on UNESCO's World

Heritage List since the adoption of

the cultural-landscape categories in

1992, but how can the conditions for

integrity and authenticity be fully

applied to these sites?

Introduction

The introduction of cultural landscapes into the Operational Guidelines for the

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 1992 was a milestone in

recognizing the interaction between

people and their environment at a

global scale. It was the first time that an

international legal instrument in her

itage conservation recognized the im

portance of the conservation of cultural

landscapes of universal value. An inter

national expert meeting on World Her

itage cultural landscapes held in

Schorfheide, Germany, in 1993 pro

posed an Action Plan for the Future, which was subsequently adopted by the

World Heritage Committee at its 17th session.1 In this Action Plan and in

further international expert meetings,

?fT-J- ' ' '' '' '. ?"

* C?;?^: %'*' W.^'

Fig. 1. Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan, a site on the World Heritage List, with its traditional dwellings,

agriculture, and the niches of the Buddhas in the background. Courtesy of Junaid Sorosh-Wali.

an in-depth analysis of the application of authenticity, as well as for the condi tions of integrity, was requested. This

matter is still evolving and being dis

cussed today, and this discussion is

intended to highlight the key issues of

forthcoming revisions to the Opera

tional Guidelines.2

Authenticity and Integrity

Although in the preparatory works for

the 1972 World Heritage Convention the notion of integrity was more promi

nent than authenticity, both concepts were integrated into the Operational Guidelines as "conditions of integrity" for natural heritage and the "test of

authenticity" for cultural heritage.3

Sarah M. Titchen pointed out that "in

the intervening period between the

adoption of the World Heritage Con

vention by the seventeenth General Conference of UNESCO in November 1972 and the time the Convention

actually became operational in Decem

ber 1975, and before UNESCO moved to establish cultural and natural her

itage criteria, the United States National Park Service developed a set of 'Signifi cance,' 'Integrity' and 'Suitability' crite

ria for the assessment of United States

cultural sites for inclusion in the World

Heritage List."4

As early as the first session of the

World Heritage Committee in 1977, intense discussions on the word authen

ticity took place, as it was challenged by some Committee members who were of

the opinion that in order to ensure

preservation of a structure, its original

function could in many cases not be

maintained, thus allowing for adapta

tion. Others noted that functions could

change, but only in cases when the

forms and structures changed would

authenticity be lost. Even terms such as

47

48 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 39:2-3, 2008

progressive authenticity, which would allow for certain modifications while

maintaining some form of authenticity, were discussed.5 Herb Stovel also refer red to the early history of the implemen tation of the World Heritage Conven tion and a number of expert meetings

that were held to further clarify the con

cept and that progress was made over

time. He states:

It should be stressed that over-elaboration of the

methodologies can be dangerous... Human

existence is complex; the material vestiges of that

complexity are inherently rich in layered and

interwoven meanings... All evaluative method

ologies we employ to help us make better and more consistent conservation decisions must be

designed with care in order not inadvertently to

reduce or homogenize the richness that it is our

overriding goal to understand and maintain.6

This analysis is particularly apt for

multilayered cultural landscapes, much more than for single monuments or

ensembles, as they cover the multitude

of interactions between people and

nature, between humans and their

environment, over time and by different

cultures, including associative values

related to the natural environment and

the universe.

Until 2005 the application of the term integrity exclusively to natural

heritage and of authenticity exclusively to cultural heritage may have also dis torted the attempt of unity between natural and cultural heritage intended

by the 1972 World Heritage Conven

tion, as different concepts were applied to World Heritage properties in addition to the four natural- and six cultural

heritage criteria.

Over time the conditions of integrity were further elaborated and detailed for

the four natural criteria. On the other

hand, the "test of authenticity" was not

detailed much further for each of the six

cultural criteria. In the early 1990s the World Heritage List grew rapidly, in

particular for cultural heritage, and the

types of properties nominated became much more diverse. During this period a

number of expert groups looked into the

question of authenticity, including those at the Bergen meeting in 1994, which laid the groundwork for the Nara con

ference later that year. The Nara Docu

ment on Authenticity, which was later

integrated into the Operational Guide lines (Annex IV of the Operational

Guidelines of 2005), provided a practi

cal basis for examining the authenticity of properties proposed for World Her

itage listing. The information document submitted to the 18th session of the

World Heritage Committee in December 1994 on the outcome of the Nara con

ference specifically mentioned cultural

landscapes, which had just been intro duced into the operations of the Con vention two years before:

The results of the experts' deliberations are

contained in the Nara Document on Authentic

ity. The World Heritage Committee will note

that there was a general consensus that authen

ticity is an essential element in defining, assess

ing, and monitoring cultural heritage. The

experts gave particular attention to exploring the

diversity of cultures in the world and the many

expressions of this diversity, ranging from monuments and sites through cultural land

scapes to intangible heritage. Of particular

importance is the view that the concept and

application of authenticity as it relates in cultural

heritage is rooted in specific cultural contexts

and should be considered accordingly.7

The broadening of the definitions of

authenticity with the Nara Document in 1994 was sufficiently large to encompass all types of cultural heritage and their cultural context. These expanded defini tions were then included in the Opera tional Guidelines, and it was made clear that for all nominations to the World

Heritage List "to be deemed of out

standing universal value, a property

must also meet the conditions of in

tegrity and/or authenticity and must

have an adequate protection and man

agement system to ensure its safeguard

ing" (paragraph 78). The discussions advanced over time

and further elaborated the test of au

thenticity in different cultural contexts, such as at the Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and

Management of the Cultural Heritage, held in San Antonio in 1996, which

produced the San Antonio Declaration, and the conference on New Views on

Authenticity and Integrity in the World

Heritage of the Americas, held in San

Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mex

ico, in 2005.8 These meetings document specifically

the new and emerging thinking in terms

of the diversity of heritage, including the interaction between people and their environment in all forms, and reflect the evolution in the interpretation of the

heritage of outstanding universal value since the Global Strategy adopted by the

World Heritage Committee in 1994.

Fig. 2. Humahuaca, Argentina. Courtesy of

UNESCO.

However, in most international and

regional expert meetings on cultural

landscapes held between 1992 and 2007 the conditions of integrity were seen as

potentially the more important concept,

and often experts noted that the test of

authenticity was less relevant than the

functional, structural, and visual in

tegrity of these large-scale properties, particularly for living cultural land

scapes.

This belief was further confirmed at

the recent Expert Workshop on Integrity and Authenticity of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes (Aranjuez, Spain, December 2007), which discussed in

tegrity and authenticity of cultural

landscapes with a view toward con

tributing to the future revision of the

Operational Guidelines. It produced recommendations and draft texts to

provide guidance in the ongoing process of defining the integrity and authenticity of cultural properties and evaluated the condition of integrity of cultural land

scapes and other large-scale cultural

properties. Cases in point where in

tegrity was discussed as the key issue for cultural landscapes and their manage

ment were the Expert Meeting on

Deserts and Oasis Systems (Egypt, 2001) and the International Expert Meeting on

the Management of Cultural Landscapes (Pasagarde, Persepolis, Iran, 2006).9

However, the analysis of the test of

authenticity as applied to cultural

landscape nominations may further

reveal the key issues of the matter and the difficulties of applying it to the

changing interaction between people and their environment.

APPLYING AUTHENTICITY TO CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 49

The Application of Authenticity to

Cultural Landscapes: Case Studies of Nominations for World Heritage Listing

Although integrity was considered by practically all the expert meetings held on cultural landscapes as more appro

priate than authenticity to cultural land

scapes, until 2005 the test of authentic

ity was required alone for this type of

property. How was this test interpreted in different cultural contexts?

A selection of the 60 evaluations of cultural landscapes that were nominated

and inscribed on the World Heritage List under the cultural-landscape cate

gories was reviewed.10 This analysis of

the evaluations by ICOMOS Interna

tional illustrates that this dilemma was

already addressed and was often solved

by a section in these evaluations entitled

"Authenticity and Integrity." In the case

of the Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan (Fig. 1), it reads:

Authenticity and integrity: The heritage re

sources in Bamiyan Valley have suffered from

various disasters, and are in a fragile state. A

major loss was the destruction of the large Buddha statues in 2001. Nevertheless, the valley represents important authentic remains as

testimonies to the different cultural phases of its

history. Seen as a cultural landscape, Bamiyan

Valley, with its artistic and architectural remains, the traditional land use and the simple mud

brick constructions has retained an integrity, which may be vulnerable in face of development, and requires careful conservation and manage

ment.11

In many cases, however, the statement

on integrity is extremely general, such

as for the cultural landscape of the Madriu Perfita Claror Valley in An

dorra: "The nominated valley forms a

natural and cultural unit, which gives it

integrity in cultural terms. Its integrity, as with its authenticity, will rely on

cultural practices being sustained."12

In some instances the intertwining of

integrity and authenticity of World

Heritage cultural landscapes becomes

evident, such as the Quebrada de Humahuaca in Argentina, a part of the

Camino Inca Route (Fig. 2): "The cores

of the main settlements still hold onto

their distinctive low-rise form and tradi tional spatial planning but around the

margins show diminishing authenticity in response to development pressures.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the use of introduced modern materials

is being countered by an increasing

interest in the use of traditional local materials and techniques as a means of

asserting identity. "] 3

For the earlier inscribed cultural

landscapes, such as Hallstatt Dachstein in Austria, the evaluation text refers to

"cultural authenticity" and "natural

integrity" for the material and spatial structure.14 For sites inscribed since

2000, often both integrity and authen

ticity were analyzed in tandem, such as

at Fert?-Neusiedlersee in Austria or in

the Middle Rhine Valley in Germany, for which ICOMOS noted: "In the case of a

cultural landscape of this type the qual ity of integrity is as relevant as that of

authenticity, and it can confidently be asserted that the level of integrity of the

Middle Rhine Valley is very high. To a

considerable extent as a result of its

geomorphology and its geology, the

Valley has undergone few major distur bances to its socio-economic structure or

its overall appearance over a millen

nium. Policies currently in force in the

region will ensure that this integrity will be preserved for the foreseeable future."15

This approach might stem from the

requirement of IUCN inputs for the evaluation of cultural landscapes, and it

is more the case for sites proposed as

living cultural landscapes with high natural values than for designed ones.

For a newly inscribed rock-art landscape in the Gobustan area in Azerbaijan, the

advisory body noted, "In conclusion ICOMOS considers that authenticity of the property is adequate. However, the

integrity of the property has not been

sufficiently established due to the contin

uing need for a large-scale survey of the

wider area."16

For Cuban coffee plantations, au

thenticity was not covered by the 2000

evaluation as such, but the threats to the

sites indicated that integrity issues were

taken into account.17 This evaluation is

different seven years later with the Mexican Agave Landscape and Ancient

Industrial Facilities of Tequila (Fig. 3): "In terms of the cultivated landscape,

haciendas, distilleries and the centres of the urban settlements, there is no doubt

of their authenticity as reflecting the way the landscape has been used and still is

used to grow and process the agave

plant and distill tequila."18 The IUCN comment for this evaluation contributes

Fig. 3. The Agave Landscape, of Tequila, Mex

ico, is an example of how humans have im

pacted the landscape and its authenticity.

Courtesy of UNESCO.

to a better understanding of the authen

ticity in terms of continued use: "Most of the original natural ecosystems have been modified by mankind for hundreds of years, in order to adapt it for agricul ture and industry. In particular the

domestication of the blue maguey plant, Agave tequiliana, leading to the produc

tion of mezcal and mezcal wine, has created a unique type of landscape. Cul

ture influenced this trait to the extent

that the blue agave is now known in

cultivation only, with no wild relatives in the area."19

For the first African cultural land

scape ever included on the World

Heritage List, Sukur in Nigeria, the ICOMOS evaluation summarizes

authenticity as follows (Fig. 4): "The

key features of this cultural landscape have not been significantly modified since they were laid down. The way in

which they have been maintained since that time has been in traditional form

using traditional materials and tech

niques. It may therefore be asserted that

the Sukur cultural landscape has an

exceptionally high degree of authenticity and integrity."20

The examples illustrate that the attributes identified by the Nara Docu

ment ? materials and substance; use

and function; traditions, techniques, and

management systems; as well as to a

lesser degree location and setting ?

were taken into account for assessing

authenticity. Surprisingly for cultural

landscape nominations language and

other forms of intangible heritage, as

well as spirit and feeling, were hardly taken into account for the specific

con

siderations and paragraphs on authen

ticity and/or integrity. The lack of taking


Fig. 4. Sukur, Nigeria, the first African cultural

landscape included on the World Heritage List.

Courtesy of UNESCO.

these important attributes into account

was already the case for the evaluation

of the first cultural landscape inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1993,

Tongariro National Park, New Zealand, an associative cultural landscape and

sacred place of the Maori people. The situation is different for cultural

landscapes that have been nominated under both set of criteria. For these sites

integrity and authenticity were taken into account by the two advisory bodies: ICOMOS for cultural values and au

thenticity and IUCN for natural values and integrity. The merged criteria and

application of integrity to both cultural and natural heritage could be an open

ing to a more integrated approach to

World Heritage conservation. As the new approach was only tested with one

cycle of nominations for the World

Heritage List, it is too early to judge its effectiveness.21

Linking Authenticity and Outstanding Universal Value

With the integration of the statement of

authenticity and/or integrity into the statement of outstanding universal

value in the framework of the 2005

Operational Guidelines, another step was made to strengthen the links be

tween these concepts and the values for

which the site was inscribed. It was

applied for the first time for the sites nominated in 2006, and such state

ments were adopted by the committee at its 31st session (Christchurch, New

Zealand, July 2007). Previously, at the Nara meeting, it was

pointed out that

the diversity of values and the dynamic nature of

cultural landscapes test the established approach for evaluation of the authenticity of cultural

properties. The traditional focus on material

authenticity is appropriate for certain designed

landscapes but proves insufficient for other types of landscapes whose significance derives from

dynamic processes and associated cultural values as well as physical features. It is therefore

important that the existing test of authenticity be

expanded to encompass new aspects and a wider

range of values.22

Unfortunately this expansion took place only in terms of values recognized, not

for the test of authenticity. Instead, as

the evaluations of selected cultural

landscape nominations demonstrate

over time, the concept of integrity moved more to the foreground and was

seen as more appropriate for the whole

ness and intactness of cultural-land

scape properties. In 2000 an important meeting on

integrity and authenticity in the African context took place in Zimbabwe. In the ICCROM position paper at the time, the

concept of authenticity was interpreted as follows with regard to the six cultural criteria:

three types of notions can be seen to be repre

sented, each with its specific test for authenticity within the above mentioned parameters:

a. criterion (i) refers to human creative genius;

meeting the test of authenticity means that the

proposed resource has the quality of human

creativity, i.e., the work is genuine and stands on

its own merits.

b. the criteria (iii), (iv) and (v) refer to a testi

mony or representative example; the test of

authenticity would consist of a verification that

what is proposed is a true representation of the

cultural tradition indicated, or a legitimate

example of the building type or land-use.

c. the criteria (ii) and (vi) refer to interchange of

values or association of ideas; the test of authen

ticity should verify that the interchange of values

has indeed taken place, or that the events or

ideas are really associated with the site in ques tion.23

This meeting highlighted the fact that the notion of authenticity continues to

develop as a key factor in modern con

servation of cultural heritage. However,

it was clearly underlined that specifically for living heritage, for all forms of na

ture-culture interactions, and for cul

tural landscapes, authenticity had to be

complemented with the notion of in

tegrity. By further developing these

qualifiers one could also better acknowl

edge cultural diversity. Denyer pointed out that "the authenticity of cultural

landscapes cannot only be related to

their physical manifestations. Cultural

landscapes are about dynamic forces

and dynamic responses which have both

physical and intangible attributes.

Authenticity needs also to be related to

intangible attributes, the forces that

shape the landscapes, and the values

they are perceived to have. All of these have the capacity to evolve. Thus au

thenticity may also change and

evolve."24

Links between the World Heritage Convention and Other Instruments with Regard to Cultural Landscapes and Authenticity

Another interesting point is the unequal relevance of authenticity comparing the 1972 Convention and the 2003 Con vention on the Safeguarding of the

Intangible Heritage. World Heritage properties must fulfill the test of authen

ticity in terms of "design, material,

workmanship or setting and in the case

of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components."25 As noted

by a working document prepared for the World Heritage Committee on the

cooperation between the 2003 and 1972 Conventions, according to the 2003 Convention intangible cultural

heritage is evolving continuously, and

therefore a reference to the concept of

authenticity was omitted.26

The Yamato Declaration on Inte

grated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Her

itage (Nara, Japan, 2003), which was

presented in 2003 to the 7th Extraordi

nary Session of the World Heritage Committee, specifically promoted a

comprehensive approach, taking the

1972 and the 2003 Conventions to

gether. This 2003 expert meeting high lighted the need to elaborate on inte

grated and consistent approaches for

safeguarding tangible and intangible cultural heritage, taking into account the

interdependence and differences between them. The experts specifically realized "that the elements of the tangible and

intangible heritage of communities and

groups are often interdependent," and

they deemed "it appropriate that, wher ever possible, integrated approaches be elaborated to the effect that the safe

guarding of the tangible and intangible heritage of communities and groups is consistent and mutually beneficial and

reinforcing."27

APPLYING AUTHENTICITY TO CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 51

The expert meeting on Community

Involvement in Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards the Imple mentation of the 2003 Convention

(March 2006, Tokyo, Japan) and in

particular the expert meeting on criteria

for inscription on the lists established by the 2003 Convention for the Safeguard ing of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Paris, December, 2005) referred to

cultural landscapes.28 The latter stated:

The experts considered that cultural landscapes fall under the legal coverage of the 2003 Con

vention because they are included in the defini tion of ICH [intangible cultural heritage] itself

under the term 'cultural spaces' and because

they, like objects, artifacts and instruments, may be associated with any of the ICH domains. The

experts concluded that no separate domain

should therefore be established.

For cultural spaces under the 2003 Convention the concept of authenticity is not applied,

as such. In view of an

integrated approach of different Her

itage Conventions and synergy effects between them, it would be useful to review if the concept of authenticity

would be more appropriate.

Conclusions and Future Steps

The application of the test of authentic

ity alone did not do justice to complex large-scale and multilayered cultural

landscape properties. The integration of the concept of integrity for all proper ties in the Operational Guidelines in 2005 was a major step forward in

bringing together the conservation of

cultural and natural properties and for

providing an integrated approach for all

heritage of outstanding universal value.

Dawson Munjeri, director and site

manager responsible for Great Zim

babwe World Heritage Site, summarized this at the 2000 African meeting on

authenticity and integrity in one sen

tence: "Authenticity of the cultural

landscape cannot be distinguished from the integrity of the same."29

In 2005 the World Heritage expert meeting on the notion of outstanding universal value (Kazan, Russian Federa

tion) recommended that the notion of

authenticity be also explored for natural

heritage.30 This study could be extremely useful for further development of au

thenticity and its application to cultural

landscapes, as it concerns the interaction

between people and their environment.

The next revision of the Operational Guidelines, planned for 2009, should take into account major work carried

out by different expert groups in order to review any potential changes to the relevant paragraphs on authenticity and

integrity.

The merging of the cultural and natural criteria into one unified set was

made fully acknowledging the spirit of the World Heritage Convention to pro tect both natural and cultural heritage through one single conservation instru

ment. To review the close links between

authenticity and integrity would be a

further step for an integrated approach to heritage conservation, which is neces

sary because since 2005 the statements

of outstanding universal value require not only the inclusion of management

conditions but also statements of au

thenticity and/or integrity. The reflections on this topic provided

in this special issue of the APT Bulletin will certainly enrich the debate, support this in-depth reflection, and assist site

managers and authorities in the every

day protection, decision making, and transmission to future generations of

their cultural landscapes.

MECHTILD R?SSLER, PhD, has been work

ing in the Secretariat of the UNESCO World

Heritage Convention since 1992 on natural and cultural heritage, with a focus on cultural

landscape conceptual work. She is currently Chief of Europe and North America Section at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France.

Notes

1. See the report of the meeting presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1993 as WHC

93/Conf 002/INF 4e, available at http://whc .unesco.org/archive/1993/whc-93-conf002-inf

4e.pdf, as well as the proceedings: Bernd von

Droste, Harald Plachter, and Mechtild R?ssler, eds., Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value.

Components of a Global Strategy (Jena: Gustav

Fischer, 1995).

2. The next major revision of the Operational Guidelines is planned for 2009.

3. Sarah M. Titchen, "On the Construction of

Outstanding Universal Value: UNESCO's World Heritage Convention (Convention

concerning the Protection of the World Cul tural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the Identification and Assessment of Cultural

Places for Inclusion on the World Heritage List" (PhD dissertation, Australian National

University, Canberra, Australia, 1995). See Titchen on the early history of the World

Heritage Convention with regard to authentic

ity and integrity.

4. Titchen, 102-103, n. 3.

5. Report of the First Session of the World

Heritage Committee, UNESCO, Paris, 1977.

6. Herb Stovel, "Considerations in Framing the

Authenticity Question for Conservation," in

Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to

the World Heritage Convention, 1 -6 November

1994, ?d. K. E. Larsen (Paris: UNESCO,

ICCROM, ICOMOS, 1995), 398.

7. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94 .htm.

8. Javier Lopez Morales, ed., Nuevas Miradas

Sobre la Autenticidad e Integridad en el Patri

monio Mundial de la Americas. New Views on

Authenticity and Integrity in the World Her

itage of the Americas (San Miguel de Allende,

Guanajuato, Mexico: ICOMOS, IUCN, 2005.)

9. For the full list of all cultural-landscape expert meetings in the context of the World

Heritage Convention and the related reports, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/.

10. All cultural landscapes inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List from 1992 to

2007 can be found at http://whc.unesco.org/ en/culturallandscape/. In each case a link is

provided to the original ICOMOS evaluation

presented to the World Heritage Committee.

11. ICOMOS evaluation, 2003, http://whc

.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/ 208rev.pdf.


.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/ 1160.pdf.



14. ICOMOS, 1997, http://whc.unesco.org/

archive/advisory_body_evaluation/806.pdf.



16. ICOMOS evaluation 2007, http://whc

.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/ 1076rev.pdf.

17. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_ body_evaluation/l 008.pdf.



19. IUCN evaluation 2007, http://whc.unesco

.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1209

.pdf.



21. This statement applied only to nominations which were submitted by February 1, 2006, and reviewed by the World Heritage Commit tee in July 2007.


22. Nora J. Mitchell, "Evaluating Authenticity of Cultural Landscapes: A Perspective from the

U.S.," in Nara Conference on Authenticity, 380.

23. See http://whc.unesco.org/events/

gt-zimbabwe/jukka-a.htm.

24. Susan Denyer, "Authenticity in World

Heritage Cultural Landscapes: Continuity and

Change," in New Views on Authenticity and

Integrity in the World Heritage of the Ameri

cas, 59.

25. The 2005 Operational Guidelines rein

forced the use of intangible elements for deter

mining the authenticity of properties nominated to the World Heritage List: "properties may be

understood to meet the test of authenticity if

their cultural value... is truthfully and credibly

expressed through... attributes including:... traditions,... language, and other forms of

intangible heritage; spirit and feeling."

26. See document WHC-04/7 EXTCOM/9 and

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.phpPlg

=EN6cmeeting_id=00047#meet_00047.

27. The Yamato Declaration on Integrated

Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and

Intangible Cultural Heritage, see WHC-04/7

EXT.COM/INE9.

28. See also the 2007 Workshop for Youth

Participation for Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Community Develop ment (Tsuruoka, Japan), http://www.accu.org

. jp/ich/en/reports/reports 1 .html.

29. See http://whc.unesco.org/events/

africa-authenticity.htm.

30. See specifically WHC-05/29.COM/9, Assessment of the conclusions and recommen

dations of the special meeting of experts

(Kazan, Russian Federation, 6-9 April 2005).

References

http://whc.unesco.org

http://www.icomos.org/

http://whc.unesco.org/events/africa-authenticity .htm

http://cms.iucn.org/

http://www.iccrom.org/

Agnoletti, Mauro. The Conservation of Cultural

Landscapes. Wallingford and Cambridge: CAB International, 2007.

Deny er, Susan. "Authenticity in World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: Continuity and

Change." In Nuevas Miradas Sobre la

Autenticidad e Integridad en el Patrimonio

Mundial de la Americas. New Views on

Authenticity and Integrity in the World

Heritage of the Americas, edited by Javier

Lopez Morales, 57-60. San Miguel de

Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico: ICOMOS,

IUCN, 2005. von Droste, Bernd, Harald Plachter, and

Mechtild R?ssler, eds. Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value. Components of a Global

Strategy. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1995.

von Droste, Bernd, Mechtild R?ssler, and Sarah

Titchen, eds. Linking Nature and Culture.

Report of the Global Strategy Natural and

Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting. The

Hague: UNESCO/Ministry for Foreign

Affairs/Ministry for Education, Science, and

Culture, 1999.

Fowler, Peter. World Heritage Cultural Land

scapes 1992-2002. World Heritage Papers 6.

Paris: UNESCO, 2003.

Hill, S., and T. T. Cable. "The Concept of Au

thenticity: Implications for Interpretation."

Journal of Interpretation 11, no. 1 (2006): 55-65.

Jokilehto, Jukka. "Considerations on Authentic

ity and Integrity in World Heritage Context."

City & Time 2, no. 1 (2006), 1-16.

Mitchell, Nora J. "Evaluating Authenticity of

Cultural Landscapes: A Perspective from the

U.S." In Nara Conference on Authenticity in

Relation to the World Heritage Convention, edited by K. E. Larsen, 375-381. Paris:

UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, 1995. Phillips, Adrian. Management Guidelines for

IUCN Category V Protected Area. Protected

Landscapes/Seascapes. Gland, WCPA Best

Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.

9, IUCN, 2002.

R?ssler, Mechtild. "World Heritage Cultural

Landscapes." In The George Wright Forum.

The Journal of the George Wright Society 17, no. 1 (2000): 27-34.

R?ssler, Mechtild. "World Heritage: Linking

Biological and Cultural Diversity." In Art and

Cultural Heritage Law for the Twenty-First

Century: Policy and Practice, edited by Barbara Hoffmann. New York, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Stovel, Herb. "Considerations in Framing the

Authenticity Question for Conservation." In

Nara Conference on Authenticity, 393-398.

Stovel, Herb. "An Overview of Emerging Au

thenticity and Integrity Requirements for

World Heritage Nominations." In New

Views on Authenticity and Integrity in the

World Heritage of the Americas, 61-66.

Titchen, Sarah. "Including Cultural Landscapes on the World Heritage List." World Heritage Review 2 (1996): 34-39.

UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

adopted by the General Conference at its

17th session, Paris, 16 November 1972.

UNESCO Cultural Landscapes - The Challenges

of Conservation. Proceedings of the Interna

tional Workshop, Ferrara, Italy, 2002. World

Heritage Papers 7. Paris, 2003.

UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Imple mentation of the World Heritage Convention, 2002.

UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Imple mentation of the World Heritage Convention, 2005.

UNESCO Proceedings of the International

Conference on the Safeguarding of Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards an

Integrated Approach, Nara, Japan, 20-23

October 2004,

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/0014

70/147097M.pdf.

zi

LE

Dedicated to the

quality design,

manufacture and

installation of

architectural cast

metal ornament.

1(00)22541414 0 www.historicalarts.com

applying authenticity to cultural landscapes

Documents