Preserving Local Preservation

Preservation is not a phenomenon inherent in most cultures.[1] Even in cultures, which embrace preservation it is not static, nor a unidirectional process[2] but one that is constantly changing, adapting and evolving. As the world moves towards becoming one global village and movements of people from various cultures take place, the preservation of what would previously be considered local cultures and local heritage has become today a concern at an international or global scale.

At a recent seminar held by the Asia Society and the World Monuments Fund in New York, the international community voiced their concerns regarding the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. James Cuno, the director of the Harvard museums, expressed his view that, if these Buddhas had been brought over to New York, it could have been saved. The justification given was that “International Heritage” was more important compared to the “Local Heritage” and hence took precedence. There were no Afghanis in the panel. This concept of international or universal heritage, which is perpetuated by UNESCO and ICOMOS with ideals such as “the cultural heritage of each is the cultural heritage of all”[3], seemed at that moment catering to the “all” and not for that particular “each”. This universal theme did not seem to favor the local and seemed to favor the international over the local leading to this query:

“Is any preservation local?” The word “Preservation” derived from the noun “preserve” is described as the:“…process of keeping or maintaining something in an unaltered condition; Keeping in safety and protecting from harm, decay, loss, or destruction, and reserving for personal or special use; preventing from rotting, as of food; maintaining in safety from injury, harm, or danger and keeping undisturbed for personal or private use for hunting, shooting, or fishing.”[4]

The field of preservation extends beyond this dictionary definition. The U.S. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended identifies preservation as involving an array of activities that include but are not limited to:

“…Identification, evaluation, recordation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance, and reconstruction, or any combination of the foregoing activities” [5].

What to preserve is given varying levels of importance by people of various cultures and now from within a culture. Some cultures are driven with a material focus; others where the intangible essence of its culture and the processes that leads on to creation of its physical creations are also taken into account in preservation- where the means is as important as the end. Values and significance attributed to cultural heritage differ between persons and cultures.[6] Conflicts with preservationists occur when preservation interventions deviate from the original intentions of the inherent culture and its inheritors.

While examples of international preservation can be found as early as the 19th Century (Marshall in India, Evans in Crete), its regular and organized practice was firmly in place by the 1960's, a decade that saw the founding of the Venice Charter (1964), several notable international preservation projects, and the establishment of several NGO's dedicated to this aspect of the field.[7] The Venice Charter was adopted as a single international model even though the charter was predominantly based on the cultural and social developments in Europe after the two world wars. Cultures outside Europe had not necessarily passed through these social changes nor had these societies been affected by the damage brought about by the various wars.

These cultures “outside” the European model have constantly evolved independently. As preservation as a field gained popularity international, countries and cultures have adopted this Venice model[8] as a transnational approach to tackle with preservation of their heritage[9] and used the charter to guide their preservation laws, treatments and professional approaches to preservation. Various international agencies including UNESCO, ICOM and the World Heritage Committee have adopted the Venice and the latter charters as guiding principles in their approach towards the preservation of cultural heritage. Over the years, some cultures have realized the flaws in the universal adoption of the Venice Charter.[10]

Since the 60’s, preservation has evolved from a specialized European concern and expanded to an international movement and numerous cultural institutions formed that have assumed the task to preserve the cultural heritage of our diverse cultures. While the activities towards the preservation of our cultural heritage are performed by these cultural institutions with genuine intent, the results have not always been completely desirable. One of the fundamental reasons for these failures is a lack of comprehension of the local values and local significance. Interventions have been made by preservationists who decide what is culturally needed by the locals instead of leaving the decision making process to the locals regarding their cultural heritage.[11] This kind of intervention has been seen as an imposition by the preservationists on the locals. While there may be some similarities in ideas and values held by different cultures, none are identical and cannot be fully comprehensible. There are some cultural traditions, which are beyond the comprehension of those outside that cultural tradition and value judgments of that relation to the built heritage requires more thought.

[1]Preservation is known by various terms in different places. While the term “conservation” seems to define the movement in a more ideal manner, the term preservation has been preferred in the United States Legislation – the National Historic Preservation Act. The term conservation derived from conserve seems to suggest a process which is more active and continuous.
[2] In the words of Philip Marshall, Professor of Historic Preservation in Roger Williams University, Rhode Island, “Preservation today is only possible when a society has achieved a disconnection between the past tradition, values and resources and the present. In societies which retain a continuity, it is only possible through change and congruity within a society.”
[3] The Nara Document of Authenticity. Article 8. Available online: http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/documents/Nara.html
[4] Word Net. Ed. George A Miller. Princeton University. 23 March.2003 <http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/p/preserve.shtml>
[5] National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As amended through 2000 with annotations. 16U.S.C., Section 470 w. 23 March 2003.< http://www2.cr.nps.gov/laws/NHPA1966.htm>
[6] The concepts of value and significance in preservation have been explained to some detail in the appendix.
One of the biggest identified problems in preservation is the protection of community owned cultural properties in a legal system, which favors the individuals with laws of copyrights, and intellectual property rights, which favor individuals but fail to recognize traditional creations and community works.
[7] See attached Appendix 1. on “The history of the field.” Various instances of preservation practiced internationally have been seen in various cultures historically. One of the earliest documented cases was in India, where the King of Burma (present-day Myanmar) in the 10th Century sent a shipload of treasures to finance the restoration of the Mahabodhi temple in Bodhgaya, the sacred Buddhist site in India.
[8] The Venice Charter developed from the Athens Charter of 1931 and expanded on the concept of monuments to include the settings. The charter encourages the narrative of significance to be based on its relationship with certain given fixed assets and calls for documentation without any deference to the present or the historic community values.
[9]In most cases the Venice Charter has been adopted, as standards recommended by various funding agencies. In the words of Prof. Philip Marshall, “ It seems that many local, or nationally-driven local, preservation projects continue to promote such standards for their projects when they are seeking endorsements or funding from a source that is inclined to validate reference international standards by the project principals who which to evidence "due diligence". These standards provide a convenient lingua franca to describe preservation to potential funders, professionals, and others. But these standards do not translate well into most of the six-thousand languages that remain.”
[10] The US/ICOMOS have found the Venice Charter to be catering to monuments of stone in the Mediterranean climates. This approach cannot be adopted in the conservation of wooden structures. Similarly, the Japanese refuted the concept of authenticity in terms of material where the authenticity in terms of the process was given precedence. The Ise shrine, one of the foremost Shinto shrines in Japan were dismantled every 20 years for the last 800 years and re-assembled, casting away the deteriorated parts. Preservation is seen as a means to preserve self-determination through capacity building.
[11] In working towards community management in Nepal, Ms. Bhim Kumari Ale, a social worker found the attitude in most NGO’s reflecting a syndrome which she calls- “You don’t know, I know attitude.”