Applying Authenticity to Cultural Landscapes

Author(s): Mechtild Rssler

Source: APT Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008), pp. 47-52
Published by: Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433952
Accessed: 09/06/2010 06:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

to Cultural

Authenticity
Applying
Landscapes
MECHTILD R?SSLER

Many

cultural

landscapes

have been

inscribed on UNESCO's World

Heritage

List since the adoption

of

categories

in

1992, but how can the conditions

for

the cultural-landscape

integrity and authenticity

applied

to these

be fully

Introduction
The introduction of cultural landscapes
into the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of theWorld Heritage
in
in 1992 was a milestone
Convention
recognizing the interaction between
and

people

environment

their

itage

conservation

portance
landscapes
national

of

the

recognized
conservation

of universal
expert

meeting

value.

the
of

im

cultural

An

on World

inter
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

?fT-J-

international

expert

meetings,

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

to the Opera

revisions

forthcoming

at a

global scale. Itwas the first time that an

international legal instrument in her

sites?

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
tional Guidelines.2
and Integrity

Authenticity

in the preparatory works for

Although
the 1972 World Heritage Convention
the notion

of

was

integrity

more

promi

nent than authenticity, both concepts

were integrated into the Operational
Guidelines as "conditions of integrity"
for natural heritage and the "test of
for

authenticity"

cultural

heritage.3

Sarah M. Titchen pointed out that "in

the intervening period between the
adoption of theWorld Heritage Con
vention by the seventeenth General
inNovember
Conference of UNESCO
1972 and the time the Convention
became

actually

in Decem

operational

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

crite

'Suitability'

ria for the assessment of United States

cultural sites for inclusion in theWorld
List."4

Heritage

As early as the first session of the

World Heritage Committee in 1977,
intense

on

discussions

the word

authen

ticity took place, as itwas challenged by

some

Committee

the opinion

members

that

in order

who

were

of

to ensure

its original
of a structure,
preservation
cases not be
in many
function
could
thus

maintained,

for

allowing

adapta

tion. Others noted that functions could

change,
forms
a site on the World Heritage List, with
its traditional dwellings,
Fig. 1. Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan,
in the background.
of Junaid Sorosh-Wali.
and the niches of the Buddhas
Courtesy

agriculture,

but
and

authenticity

in
only
structures

cases

when

changed

the
would

be lost. Even terms such as

47

48

APT

BULLETIN:

OF

JOURNAL

PRESERVATION

progressive authenticity, which would

allow for certain modifications while
some form of authenticity,
maintaining
were discussed.5 Herb Stovel also refer
red to the early history of the implemen
tation of theWorld Heritage Conven
tion

a number

and

of

expert

meetings

that were held to further clarify the con

cept

and

that

time.

He

states:

was

progress

over

made

be stressed that over-elaboration

of the
can be dangerous...
Human
methodologies
existence

is complex;
the material
vestiges of that
are inherently rich in layered and
complexity
All evaluative method
interwoven meanings...
ologies we employ to help us make better and
more consistent
conservation
decisions must be
to
designed with care in order not inadvertently
reduce or homogenize
the richness that it is our
and maintain.6
overriding goal to understand

This analysis is particularly apt for

cultural landscapes, much
multilayered
than

for

single

as

ensembles,

they

or

monuments
cover

of interactions between people and

between

nature,

humans

and

their

over time and by different

environment,

associative
values
including
to the natural
environment
and

cultures,
related

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
as different

tion,

concepts

toWorld Heritage
to the

four

were

natural-

applied

in addition

properties
and

six

cultural

criteria.

heritage

Over time the conditions of integrity

were further elaborated and detailed for
the

four

hand,

criteria.

natural

the

"test

of

the other

On

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

2008

two

years

before:

are
The results of the experts' deliberations
on Authentic
in the Nara Document
contained
will note
Committee
ity. The World Heritage
that there was a general consensus
that authen
ticity is an essential element in defining, assess
cultural heritage. The
ing, and monitoring
to exploring
the
experts gave particular attention
diversity of cultures in the world and the many
of this diversity, ranging from
expressions
monuments
and sites through cultural land
scapes to intangible heritage. Of particular
is the view that the concept and
importance
as it relates in cultural
of authenticity
application
heritage is rooted in specific cultural contexts
and should

the multitude

/ 39:2-3,

cal basis for examining the authenticity

of properties proposed forWorld Her
itage listing. The information document
submitted to the 18th session of the
World Heritage Committee inDecember
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

It should

more

TECHNOLOGY

be considered

accordingly.7

The broadening of the definitions of

in
authenticity with the Nara Document
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 itwas made clear
that for all nominations to theWorld
Heritage List "to be deemed of out
a property
universal
value,
standing
must
also meet
the conditions
of in

tegrity and/or authenticity

have

an

protection
to ensure

adequate

agement

system

and must
and man
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
of
the Cultural Heritage,
Management
held in San Antonio in 1996, which
produced the San Antonio Declaration,
and

the

conference

on New

Views

on

Authenticity and Integrity in theWorld

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,
UNESCO.

Argentina.

in most

However,
expert

regional

international
on

meetings

conditions

of

potentially

were

integrity

the more

and

cultural

1992 and 2007

landscapes held between

the

of

Courtesy

seen

as

concept,

important

and often experts noted that the test of

was

authenticity
functional,

less

than

relevant

the
in

visual

and

structural,

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
a view

with

landscapes

con

toward

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
and

scapes

other
Cases

properties.

cultural
large-scale
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
theManagement
of Cultural Landscapes
Iran, 2006).9

(Pasagarde, Persepolis,
the

However,

authenticity
landscape

analysis

of

the

test

of

as applied to cultural
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

to
The Application of Authenticity
Cultural Landscapes: Case Studies of
forWorld Heritage
Nominations
Listing
Although integrity was considered by
practically all the expert meetings held
on

cultural

priate

as more

landscapes

than

appro

to cultural

authenticity

land

scapes, until 2005 the test of authentic

itywas required alone for this type of
property. How was this test interpreted
in different cultural contexts?
A selection of the 60 evaluations of
cultural

that were

landscapes

nominated

and inscribed on theWorld Heritage

List

cate
cultural-landscape
reviewed.10
This
of
analysis

the

under

gories

was

the evaluations by ICOMOS Interna

tional illustrates that this dilemma was
already addressed and was often solved
by

a section

in these
and

"Authenticity

evaluations

entitled
In the

Integrity."

case

to the different cultural phases of its

testimonies
Seen as a cultural landscape, Bamiyan
its artistic and architectural
remains,
Valley, with
the traditional
land use and the simple mud
has retained an integrity,
brick constructions
history.

in face of development,
may be vulnerable
and manage
and requires careful conservation
ment.11
which

In many

cases,

integrity

statement

the

however,
is extremely

such

general,

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
In some
instances
the

sustained."12

integrity and authenticity

ofWorld

cultural

Heritage

in Argentina,

Humahuaca

of

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

in Austria,

the

"cultural

text

evaluation
and

authenticity"

integrity" for the material

structure.14

For

sites

to

refers

"natural

and spatial
since

inscribed

2000, often both integrity and authen

were

ticity

in tandem,

analyzed

as

such

at Fert?-Neusiedlersee
inAustria or in
theMiddle 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
as a result

extent

considerable

its

of

and its geology, the

geomorphology
Valley has undergone few major distur
to

over

appearance

or

structure

its socio-economic

a millen

is more

cultural

the case

for

values

than

as

ones.

for designed

For a newly inscribed rock-art landscape

in the Gobustan area inAzerbaijan, the
advisory body noted, "In conclusion
ICOMOS considers that authenticity of
is adequate.

the property

the

However,

integrity of the property has not been

sufficiently established due to the contin
uing
wider

need

for

of

survey

large-scale

the

area."16

For

Cuban

coffee

evaluation

as

the

but

such,

materials

is being countered by an increasing

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

haciendas,
the urban

of

the

cultivated

landscape,

distilleries and the centres of

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

in order

ture

industry.

and

domestication

authen

to

it for agricul
adapt
In particular
the

of the blue maguey

tequiliana,

plant,

to the produc

leading

and mezcal wine, has

a unique

type

of

Cul

landscape.

area."19

For the first African cultural land

scape ever included on theWorld
Heritage List, Sukur inNigeria, 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
traditional

using

materials

It may

niques.

and

to the

threats

the

and

therefore

be

tech
that

asserted

the Sukur cultural landscape has an

exceptionally high degree of authenticity

au

plantations,

of years,

in the

living cultural landscapes with high

natural

of

understanding

ticity in terms of continued use: "Most

of the original natural ecosystems have
been modified by mankind for hundreds

ture influenced this trait to the extent

that the blue agave is now known in
cultivation only, with no wild relatives
it

and

landscapes,
sites proposed

to a better

tion of mezcal

This approach might stem from the

requirement of IUCN inputs for the
of

of UNESCO.

Courtesy

created

future."15

evaluation

of Tequila, Mex
Fig. 3. The Agave Landscape,
of how humans have im
ico, is an example
pacted the landscape and its authenticity.

Agave

nium. Policies currently in force in the

region will ensure that this integrity will
be preserved for the foreseeable

taken

de

a part

For the earlier inscribed cultural

landscapes, such as Hallstatt Dachstein

sites indicated that integrity issues were

becomes

evident, such as the Quebrada

of

thenticity was not covered by the 2000

intertwining

landscapes

asserting

its overall

and integrity: The heritage re

Authenticity
sources in Bamiyan Valley have suffered from
various disasters, and are in a fragile state. A
of the large
loss was the destruction
major
Buddha statues in 2001. Nevertheless,
the valley
represents
important authentic remains as

on

techniques
"] 3
identity.

49

LANDSCAPES

local

as a means

and

bances

inAfghanistan

of the Bamiyan Valley

(Fig. 1), it reads:

interest in the use of traditional

materials

TO CULTURAL

AUTHENTICITY

integrity."20

The examples illustrate that the

attributes identified by the Nara Docu
ment
and

materials

function;

traditions,
systems;

management
lesser
were

location

degree
taken

substance;

use

and
techniques,
as well
as to a
?
and setting

account

into

authenticity.
landscape

and

for assessing

Surprisingly for cultural

nominations

language

and

other forms of intangible heritage, as

well as spirit and feeling, were hardly
taken

into

siderations

account
and

for

the

paragraphs

ticity and/or integrity. The

con
specific
on authen

lack of taking

50

APT

BULLETIN:

JOURNAL

OF

PRESERVATION

TECHNOLOGY

/ 39:2-3,

2008

is appropriate
for certain designed
landscapes but proves insufficient for other types
of landscapes whose
significance derives from
and associated
cultural values
dynamic processes
as well as physical features. It is therefore
be
important that the existing test of authenticity
new aspects and a wider
to encompass
expanded
authenticity

range of values.22

this expansion

Unfortunately

took place

in terms of values
only
recognized,
for the test of authenticity.
Instead,
the evaluations
of selected
cultural
Fig. 4. Sukur, Nigeria, the first African cultural
included on the World Heritage List.
landscape

these

important

was

the case

already

account

into

attributes
the

for

evaluation

cultural

and

landscape

sacred place of theMaori 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

be

could

demonstrate

for the whole

appropriate
intactness
of cultural-land

properties.

In 2000 an important meeting on

integrity and authenticity in the African
context took place inZimbabwe.
In the
ICCROM position paper at the time, the
concept of authenticity was interpreted
as follows with regard to the six cultural

and Outstanding

statement

of outstanding

universal

was

made

tween

to strengthen

these

concepts

the
and

links

be

the values

for

the site was inscribed. Itwas

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
which

Nara

meeting,

it was

pointed

out

the diversity of values and the dynamic

cultural landscapes test the established

that
nature

approach
for evaluation
of the authenticity
of cultural
The traditional
focus on material
properties.

of

au

Thus
and

change

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
or

workmanship

of cultural

material,

"design,
setting

case

in the

and

landscapes their distinctive

by a working document prepared for

theWorld Heritage Committee on the
cooperation between the 2003 and
1972 Conventions,
according to the
2003 Convention
intangible cultural

a. criterion
(i) refers to human creative genius;
the test of authenticity means
that the
meeting
resource has the quality of human
proposed
is genuine and stands on
i.e., the work
creativity,
its own merits.
b. the criteria (iii), (iv) and (v) refer to a testi
or representative
the test of
example;
consist of a verification
that
authenticity would
is proposed
is a true representation
what
of the
cultural tradition indicated, or a legitimate
example of the building type or land-use.

This meeting highlighted the fact that

the notion of authenticity continues to
develop
servation

value in the framework of the 2005

Operational Guidelines, another step

may

thenticity
evolve."24

also

character

tion.23

the integration of the statement of

authenticity and/or integrity into the

With

to evolve.

capacity

three types of notions can be seen to be repre

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

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

effectiveness.21

the

the values

to have. All of these

criteria:

mony

cycle of nominations for theWorld

Heritage List, it is too early to judge its

have

and

landscapes,

they are perceived

as

an open

ing to a more integrated approach to

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

Linking Authenticity
Universal Value

as more
and

scape

of the first cultural landscape inscribed

on theWorld Heritage List in 1993,
Tongariro National Park, New Zealand,
an associative

seen
ness

the

shape

not

over time, the concept of integrity

moved more to the foreground and was

of UNESCO.

Courtesy

nominations

landscape

physical and intangible attributes.

Authenticity needs also to be related to
intangible attributes, the forces that

as a
of

con
in modern
key factor
cultural
However,
heritage.

itwas 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

and dynamic responses which

heritage
therefore

and

is evolving
a reference

noted

and
continuously,
to the concept
of

was
omitted.26
authenticity
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 theWorld Heritage
Committee, specifically promoted a
comprehensive

approach,

taking

the

to
1972 and the 2003 Conventions
This
2003
expert meeting high
gether.
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

forces

have both

As

components."25

reinforcing."27

AUTHENTICITY

APPLYING

The

expert

on Community

meeting

Involvement in Safeguarding Intangible

Cultural Heritage: Towards the Imple
mentation of the 2003 Convention
(March 2006, Tokyo, Japan) and in
the

particular

expert

on

meeting

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

The

landscapes.28

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
that no separate domain
experts concluded
should therefore be established.

For cultural spaces under the 2003

Convention the concept of authenticity
is not

as

applied,

In view

such.

an

of

integrated approach of different Her

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

would

Conclusions

appropriate.

and Future Steps

and multilayered

the

together

cultural

of

cultural and natural properties and for

an integrated approach for all

providing
heritage

Dawson Munjeri,
manager

universal

value.

director and site

for Great

responsible

Zim

babwe World Heritage Site, summarized

this at the 2000 African meeting on
and
authenticity
tence:
"Authenticity

sen
in one
integrity
of the cultural

landscape cannot be distinguished

the

integrity

In 2005
meeting
universal

on

of

the

from

same."29

theWorld Heritage

expert

the notion

value

of outstanding
Russian
Federa
(Kazan,

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,
between

as
people

it concerns
and

their

relevant

the

interaction

environment.

major

work

on

paragraphs

5. Report
Heritage

and

authenticity

The merging
criteria

natural

of the cultural and

one

into

unified

set was

the spirit of
made fully acknowledging
theWorld Heritage Convention to pro
tect both natural and cultural heritage
through
ment.
To

one

conservation
single
review
the close
links

Convention

with

51

to authentic

regard

integrity.

4. Titchen,

carried

integrity.

102-103,

n. 3.

of the First Session

Committee,

UNESCO,

of the World
Paris, 1977.

in Framing
6. Herb Stovel, "Considerations
the
in
for Conservation,"
Question
Authenticity
on Authenticity
in relation to
Nara Conference
1 -6 November
the World Heritage
Convention,
1994, ?d. K. E. Larsen
(Paris: UNESCO,

ICCROM, ICOMOS, 1995), 398.

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

instru

authenticity and integrity would be a

further step for an integrated approach

8. Javier Lopez Morales,

ed., Nuevas Miradas
e Integridad
en el Patri
Sobre la Autenticidad
monio Mundial
de la Americas. New Views on
in the World Her
and Integrity
Authenticity

to heritage
because

itage of the Americas

Mexico:
Guanajuato,

conservation,

sary

since

of outstanding
not only
the

inclusion

conditions

2005

which
the

between

is neces

statements

universal

but

also

value
require
of management
statements
of au

and

authorities

their

cultural

in the

decision making,

to future

generations

every

and

10. All cultural

inscribed on the
landscapes
UNESCO World Heritage
List from 1992 to
2007 can be found at http://whc.unesco.org/
In each case a link is
en/culturallandscape/.
to the original
ICOMOS
evaluation
provided
to the World Heritage
Committee.
presented

landscapes.

12. ICOMOS

at

http://whc

evaluation,

2004,

http://whc

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

2003, http://whc
evaluation,
.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/
1116.pdf.

15. ICOMOS

1. See the report of the meeting

to the
presented
World Heritage
Committee
in 1993 as WHC
at http://whc
93/Conf
002/INF
4e, available
.unesco.org/archive/1993/whc-93-conf002-inf
Bernd von
4e.pdf, as well as the proceedings:
Droste, Harald
Plachter, and Mechtild
R?ssler,
Value.
eds., Cultural Landscapes
of Universal
Components
of a Global
Strategy
(Jena: Gustav
1995).

2. The next major

revision of the Operational
is planned
Guidelines
for 2009.
"On the Construction
Titchen,
Universal
Value: UNESCO's
Outstanding
World Heritage
Convention
(Convention
the Protection
of the World
Cul
concerning
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

2003,

14. ICOMOS,
1997, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/advisory_body_evaluation/806.pdf.

Notes

3. Sarah M.

evaluation,

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

MECHTILD
PhD, has been work
R?SSLER,
of the UNESCO World
ing in the Secretariat
Convention
since 1992 on natural and
Heritage
cultural heritage, with a focus on cultural

Fischer,

de Allende,
2005.)

IUCN,

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

11. ICOMOS

of

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

(San Miguel
ICOMOS,

9. For the full list of all cultural-landscape

in the context of the World
expert meetings

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

transmission

conservation

of outstanding

account

into

day protection,

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

take

Heritage
ity and

out by different expert groups in order

to review any potential changes to the

managers

The application of the test of authentic

ity alone did not do justice to complex
large-scale

The next revision of the Operational

Guidelines, planned for 2009, should

LANDSCAPES

TO CULTURAL

evaluation,

2002,

http://whc

.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/
1066.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.
18. ICOMOS

evaluation
2006, http://whc
.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/
1209.pdf.

19. IUCN
of

evaluation
2007, http://whc.unesco
.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1209
.pdf.

20.

ICOMOS

evaluation

1999,

http://whc

.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/
938.pdf.
21. This statement
applied only to nominations
which were submitted
1, 2006,
by February
and reviewed by the World
Commit
Heritage
tee in July 2007.

52

APT

BULLETIN:

JOURNAL

OF

22. Nora J.Mitchell,

"Evaluating
Authenticity
A Perspective
from the
of Cultural
Landscapes:
on Authenticity,
inNara Conference
U.S.,"
380.
23.

TECHNOLOGY

PRESERVATION

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

gt-zimbabwe/jukka-a.htm.
inWorld
Susan Denyer,
"Authenticity
Cultural Landscapes:
and
Continuity
inNew Views on Authenticity
and
Change,"
in the World Heritage
Integrity
of the Ameri

2008

/ 39:2-3,

von Droste,

R?ssler, and Sarah

Bernd, Mechtild
eds. Linking Nature
and Culture.
and
Report of the Global Strategy Natural
The
Cultural Heritage
Expert Meeting.
for Foreign
Hague: UNESCO/Ministry
for Education,
Science, and
Affairs/Ministry
1999.
Culture,
Cultural Land
Fowler, Peter. World Heritage
scapes 1992-2002. World Heritage
Papers 6.
Paris: UNESCO,
2003.
Hill, S., and T. T. Cable. "The Concept of Au

29.

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

Titchen,

30. See specifically WHC-05/29.COM/9,

Assessment
and recommen
of the conclusions
dations of the special meeting
of experts
6-9 April 2005).
(Kazan, Russian
Federation,

24.

Heritage

cas, 59.
rein
2005 Operational
Guidelines
for deter
the use of intangible elements
the authenticity
of properties
nominated
mining
to the World Heritage
List: "properties may be
to meet the test of authenticity
if
understood
25. The

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

for Interpretation."
thenticity: Implications
11, no. 1 (2006):
Journal of Interpretation
55-65.
on Authentic
Jokilehto, Jukka. "Considerations

forced

is truthfully and credibly

their cultural value...
attributes
through...
including:...
expressed
traditions,...
language, and other forms of
spirit and feeling."
intangible heritage;
26. See document

WHC-04/7

EXTCOM/9

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.phpPlg
=EN6cmeeting_id=00047#meet_00047.
27. The Yamato Declaration
for Safeguarding
Intangible Cultural Heritage,

Approaches

on Integrated
and
Tangible
see WHC-04/7

EXT.COM/INE9.
for Youth
the 2007 Workshop
the Intangible
for Safeguarding
Participation
and Community
Cultural Heritage
Develop
ment
(Tsuruoka, Japan), http://www.accu.org
.
1 .html.
jp/ich/en/reports/reports
28.

See also

and

http://cms.iucn.org/
http://www.iccrom.org/
The Conservation
of Cultural
Agnoletti, Mauro.
and Cambridge:
Landscapes. Wallingford

ity and Integrity inWorld Heritage Context."

City & Time 2, no. 1 (2006), 1-16.
Nora J. "Evaluating Authenticity
of
Mitchell,
from the
Cultural Landscapes: A Perspective
on Authenticity
in
U.S." InNara Conference
to the World Heritage
Relation
Convention,

CAB International,
2007.
inWorld Heritage
Deny er, Susan. "Authenticity
and
Cultural Landscapes:
Continuity
In Nuevas Miradas
Sobre la
Change."
e Integridad en el Patrimonio
Autenticidad
Mundial
de la Americas. New Views on

edited by K. E. Larsen,

Paris:

Guidelines
for
Phillips, Adrian. Management
IUCN Category V Protected Area. Protected
Best
Gland, WCPA
Landscapes/Seascapes.
Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No.

in the World

and Integrity
Authenticity
edited by Javier
Heritage
of the Americas,
57-60.
San Miguel
de
Lopez Morales,
Mexico:
ICOMOS,
Allende, Guanajuato,
IUCN, 2005.
von Droste, Bernd, Harald Plachter, and
Mechtild
R?ssler, eds. Cultural Landscapes
Universal Value. Components
of a Global
Strategy. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1995.

375-381.

UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, 1995.

of

9, IUCN, 2002.
"World Heritage Cultural
R?ssler, Mechtild.
In The George Wright Forum.
Landscapes."
The Journal of the George Wright Society 17,
no. 1 (2000): 27-34.
"World Heritage:
R?ssler, Mechtild.
Linking
In Art and
and Cultural Diversity."
Biological
Law for the Twenty-First
Cultural Heritage
Century: Policy and Practice, edited by
Barbara Hoffmann.
New York, Cambridge:
Press, 2005.
Cambridge University
in Framing the
Stovel, Herb. "Considerations

zi
LE

In
for Conservation."
Authenticity
Question
on Authenticity,
393-398.
Nara Conference
of Emerging Au
Stovel, Herb. "An Overview
for
thenticity and Integrity Requirements
InNew
World Heritage Nominations."
Views on Authenticity
and Integrity in the
61-66.
World Heritage
of the Americas,
Sarah. "Including Cultural Landscapes
Titchen,
on theWorld Heritage
List." World Heritage
Review 2 (1996): 34-39.
the Protection
concerning
Cultural and Natural Heritage,
at its
adopted by the General Conference
1972.
17th session, Paris, 16 November
Cultural Landscapes
UNESCO
The Challenges
of Conservation.
of the Interna
Proceedings
tional Workshop,
Ferrara, Italy, 2002. World
Papers 7. Paris, 2003.
Heritage
UNESCO

Convention

of theWorld

Dedicated to the
quality design,
manufacture and
installationof
architecturalcast
metal ornament.

UNESCO
for the Imple
Guidelines
Operational
mentation
of theWorld Heritage Convention,
2002.
UNESCO
Guidelines
for the Imple
Operational
mentation
of theWorld Heritage Convention,
2005.
UNESCO
of the International
Proceedings
on the Safeguarding
of Tangible
Conference
an
and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards
Integrated Approach, Nara, Japan, 20-23
October

1(00)22541414
0
www.historicalarts.com

2004,

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/0014
70/147097M.pdf.