Values, Authenticity and Preservation

Heritage, Culture and its Preservation

The field of preservation often requires clarifying the questions: What is heritage? What is culture? Why preservation? The answers are deeply embedded in human memory, its associations and its need to identify with other humans, values and objects- culture is a broad term.

The working definition offered to cultural heritage by the World Bank defines that it “ encompasses material culture, in the form of objects, structures, sites and landscapes, as well as living (expressive) cultures in the form of music, crafts, performing arts, literature, oral tradition and language.” Much of the material culture can generally be classified under “ cultural property” while the latter is slowly finding its way into this definition. There are two schools of thought in the treatment of this “cultural property”. One, which is object-centric, focusing on the “primacy of the object” while the other, places the “user” of the cultural heritage into the center- a functionalist view for cultural heritage[1].

There has been a long discussion regarding the ownership of cultural heritage – two approaches dominate this debate. One which places cultural heritage within the realm of national law- a cultural nationalistic approach while the other argues for cultural heritage to be a part of the common heritage of mankind- the approach of an internationalist.[2]


“Values” in Preservation.

All cultural components have by virtue of age and association some intrinsic traits in them. These traits may be both tangible and intangible. Some components may have more than one trait or value, which may be associated with them. In the case of cultural heritage preservation, values are essential in determining what aspect of heritage requires to be preserved in what form for the future generations. Values give some things significance over others and thereby transform some objects and places into heritage. [3] The aim of preservation is not the materiality of the culture but rather maintaining the cultural values, which are embodied in it thereby making it essential to realize to understand the heritage and the people whom this heritage affects.


Assessing values.

The assessment of values is one of the most important aspects of preservation. It determines the shape of decisions and the priorities. Some of the values which cultural heritage comes to embody are known to all but some values are unique to certain cultures and an understanding of these values is difficult to persons from other cultures. It is accepted that value assessments is a difficult task due to the diverse nature of the values- social, political, religious, economic etc. and secondly due to the presence of diverse cultures. Values of one culture sometimes conflict with that of others and within cultures the priorities placed on the values may vary.

Randall Mason[4] classifies the challenges that this process of assessment faces as being threefold:
1. Identifying all the values of the heritage in question.
2. Describing them
3. Integrating and ranking these values.

The traditional values which culture comes to embody can be grouped together in a few broad categories like political, religious, social, historical etc. In most cases, the values cannot be placed in just one broad category; these groups overlap and are difficult sometimes to distinguish. The process of description is also not without difficulty as much of the cultural heritage lies in the intangible realm. The assessment of values for cultural heritage is most often influenced by personal preferences and prejudices. This process of analysis does not work firstly within a particular culture and secondly for preservationists working with other cultures. Heritage is not fixed in time; it is an intervention, which looks at the past, works in the present and plans towards a future. The priorities, which are attributed to a certain values of cultural heritage, do not in most cases remain the same. Cultures are not static and are always evolving. Certain values, which are given precedence at a particular period, may cease to be important in the future and some attribute of culture, which may have been trivial in the past, may become the central focus in the present.


Statements of significance and assessments in preservation.

Value assessments lead to the creation of a statement of significance. This significance statement is an articulation of all the aspects of the cultural heritage in question along with all the conflicting values that are embodied in it and along with making comparisons with others to give an idea of the relativity of the cultural heritage. These value judgments and assessments are then identified with the tangible heritage, in most cases buildings and objects. Once the relation between the significance of the material is established conservation and planning mechanisms come into play to ensure its preservation.


Authenticity

The preservation of monuments and cultural heritage involves a message, which is “authentic”[5]. The term authentic refers to something, which possesses genuineness rather than a falsified version of the authentic or genuine. A copy of an original can be authentic if it shares the sense of actuality and does not misrepresent the original. All originals are authentic but not vice versa. The concept of authenticity was predominant from the earliest preservation works of Ruskin and Viollet with the latter preferring authenticity in the form of “unity of style” and Ruskin towards “minimal intervention”. The debate on authenticity is an ever- continuing one. In the 70s,the World Heritage Convention emphasized for cultural properties meet the test of authenticity in “ design, materials, workmanship and settings”. [6] Jukka Jokilehto and Sir Bernard Fielden in Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites further elaborate the authenticity in materials and workmanship in terms of age, patina and techniques of treatment. The guidelines suggest respecting the authenticity of design and settings.


Authenticity and the dynamic nature of authenticity.

As heritage, the criteria that authenticate it are equally diverse.[7] Authenticity is seen as being complimentary to values. While the spectrum of values remains broad and keeps changing, the test of authenticity, which is applied, is not as diverse. It is recognized that in several cultures- Herb Stovel [8]suggests that in Japan the craftsmanship does not play as great a role as the techniques and the traditions, which produce such substances. In the US the Secretary of Interiors Standards acknowledges the four authenticities and adds three others – location, feeling and association in its examination of the integrity of rural landscapes[9]. These authenticities of location and association refer to significant personalities or events and the significance of this phenomenon on the authenticity of the site. The “feeling” of a site is intangible and comprises of certain physical characteristics, which reflect the historic site.

The test of Authenticity was applied in the Venice charter to the original design and material. In the Burra, it applied to a “sense of place”, setting and social meaning while in the Nara Document it is used in the cultural context and diversity. Lowenthal[10] classifies changes in authenticity as a result of changes over time and changes in culture. He argues that present day with relevant ease of communications and contact with other cultures, foreign cultures seem more closer than the past of ones own culture. He argues that as authenticity is based on values, which are constantly, changing and which are reflective of a culture at a particular time. The criteria, which authenticate it at a given time, may not be relevant in the future. He also argues that authenticity seems different to people in various environments and cultures and context. An example used by Lowenthal is the shift in the medieval focus on faith and revelation to a more material focus-, which he terms as “faith to fact”.


[1] Markus M Muller. Cultural Heritage Protection: Legitmacy, Property and Functionalism. International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol.7 (1998). No 2. Oxford University Press.
[2] Ibid. P. 396.
[3]Edited by Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, Marta de la Torre. Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P.7 .
[4] Randall Mason, Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P. 5- 30.
[5] Michael Petzet. “ In the full richness of their authenticity”- The test of Authenticity and the New Cult of Monuments. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
Authenticity is defined as something that is credible and based on authentic traditions of different cultures and attested to monuments as authentic evidence. Something which is beyond the authenticity of the material.
[6] Unesco. Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Committee. December 1993. Attiele 24.
[7] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[8] Herb Stovel. Notes on Authenticity. . The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[9] L. F. McClelland, J.T. Keller, G. P. Keller and R.Z. Melnich; Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 30. p. 22-23.
[10] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.