×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
New perspectives to save cultural heritage
Author
Altan, M. Orhan

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