CI PA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September-04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
In 1992, the Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural 
Heritage Value adopted by ICOMOS New Zealand (New 
Zealand Charter) in which distinctions are made with regard to 
those cultural heritage values relating to the indigenous and the 
more recent peoples respectively. By definition, cultural 
heritage value means possessing historical, archaeological, 
architectural, technological, aesthetic, scientific, spiritual, 
social, traditional or other special cultural significance, 
associated with human activity. 
By adopting a broad definition, place here refers to “any land, 
including land covered by water, and the airspace forming the 
spatial context to such land ... and anything fixed to the land 
and any body of water ... that forms part of the historical and 
cultural heritage of New Zealand.” In addition to 
archaeological site, garden, building, or structure affixed to the 
land, the categories of land include any landscape, traditional 
site, or sacred place associated with indigenous culture. The 
charter also establishes that, in principle, the historical setting 
of a place should be conserved with the place itself. 
In 1994, an international conference focusing on authenticity 
was organized by Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs and the 
Nara Prefecture in cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM and 
ICOMOS. Representatives of international organizations from 
28 countries took part in a historic discourse and produced the 
landmark Nara Document on Authenticity (The Nara 
Document). While affirming the spirit of the Venice Charter, 
the Nara Document sets out to formally recognize and advocate 
the necessity of maintaining diversity in culture and its 
heritage for the benefit of human development in the artistic, 
historic, social, and scientific dimensions. Instead of relying on 
a set of fixed criteria, the assessment of authenticity and value 
of cultural heritages can only be carried out within their 
respective cultural context. 
Furthermore, the intangible expression of culture is to be 
respected as much as the tangible in the preservation of 
heritage. Accordingly, the defining sources for authenticity 
have been further expanded by the Nara Document to include 
form and design, materials and substance, use and function, 
traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and 
feeling, and other internal and external factors 
2,2. Authenticity and Integrity 
In the decades since the adoption of the Venice Charter, 
heritage properties have continued to multiply in terms of range 
and variation in physical character as well as related 
associations and meanings. Meanwhile, the diversity in cultural 
values represented by the participants in assessing and 
evaluating historic resources also continues to grow with the 
ascent of cultural pluralism and social inclusion. As a result, the 
prevalent definition and assessment of authenticity steeped in 
Western Euro-perspective has been increasingly called into 
questioned, and eventually led to the international conference in 
Nara. 
At its official debut, the test of authenticity was primarily 
applied to physical recreation in the case of restoring a 
monument. The core concerns lied with the validity, the 
legitimacy, and the realness of the references on which 
architectural restoration is carried out, including designs, 
materials and construction. Whereas new materials and 
technology may be permitted, a genuine distinction between the 
new and the old is required in the same spirit of upholding 
authenticity. Similarly, the test of integrity, while emphasizing 
completeness, or wholeness, along with soundness in moral and 
artistic conviction, also started with aesthetic and the historical 
concerns related to the physical aspects of monuments and their 
surrounding areas. 
Nearly half a century later, the test of authenticity and that of 
integrity when applied to places of cultural heritage have 
become, by necessity, multi-dimensional, since a place is 
defined as much by its man-made and/or natural parameters and 
forms as its social and cultural constructs that are not 
necessarily expressed in physical and tangible terms. Where 
historic places are concerned, the expanded echelon of defining 
constructs is also interrelated parts that form a whole. The quest 
for authenticity thus in fact becomes interconnected with that 
for integrity. The more dynamic, the more fluid, and the more 
extensive a place is, as in the case of an urban neighborhood, 
the more difficult to sever the two. 
In fact, the term “integrity” is generally used in place of 
“authenticity” in the United States (Crocker, 1996). Defined as 
"the ability of a property to convey its significance", it is 
comprised of seven qualities, including design, materials, 
workmanship, setting, location, feeling and association. (U. S. 
Department of Interior, 1997). It is worth noting that, but for the 
inclusion of feeling and association, the U. S. version of 
“integrity” in connection with historic properties is, in fact, 
identical with the definition of “authenticity” provided by the 
aforementioned UNESCO Operating Guidelines concerning 
cultural heritage properties. 
3. THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY 
AND THE USE OF MULTITECHNOLOTY 
3.1 The Role of the Community 
The Athens Charter, recognizing the right of the community in 
regard to private ownership, recommends that the related 
administrative and legislative measures “should be in keeping 
with local circumstances and with the trend of public opinion, 
so that the least possible opposition may be encountered.” In the 
Venice Charter, it is further noted that in the case of restoration, 
“the evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and 
the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely on 
the individual in charge of the work.” 
The Nairobi Recommendation brings to the forefront the 
necessity of integrating historic areas into the life of 
contemporary society through planning and land development. 
In so doing, it confronts the operating context for the practice of 
conservation and preservation, one that is marked by expansion, 
modernization, and demolition. As recommended, the 
reciprocal links between protected areas and surrounding 
zones, ways of life and social relationships should be covered, 
whenever possible. Most significantly, it is recommended that, 
“This programming operation should be undertaken with the 
closest possible participation of the communities and groups 
of people concerned. ” 
A similar stance is echoed in both the Burra Charter and the 
Cracow Charter on Restoration adopted in 2000. The former 
emphasizes the need to involve people in the decision-making 
process, particularly those that have strong associations with a 
place, regardless of their social standing or ethnicity. The latter 
points out that, “cultural heritage should be an integral part of 
the planning and management processes of a community, as it 
757