Abstract

Continuity is a key theme in conservation and one that appears in the text of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which requests States Parties to continue to protect, conserve and present properties situated on their territories (Article 26). Despite this fact, it is not put into effect. Instead, the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of this Convention retain authenticity as a benchmark for assessing cultural heritage. This article scrutinizes Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV) to prove that continuity is the evidence presented to justify inscription. It reveals that at least 263 properties were inscribed on the World Heritage List not because their values are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes as per the Operational Guidelines (Paragraph 82), but because their values and attributes continue to exist. It also reveals that continuity is a recurring concept in other sections of the SOUV, and this holds true for natural properties. Indeed, continuity applies to both cultural and natural heritage, and to tangible and intangible attributes, but this is never admitted in the Operational Guidelines. In terms of future research directions, the article suggests exploring how change within properties affects judgements about authenticity and how guidance on impact assessment can be improved to better achieve the goal of compatible change, concluding that “an effective system of collective protection”, which is the raison-d’être of the Convention, is not one that aims at “conserving the authentic”, but one that aims at “managing continuity and compatible change” in an ever-evolving world.

Highlights

  • States Parties to the World Heritage Convention can include properties situated on their territories in Tentative Lists and subsequently nominate them for inscription on theWorld Heritage List

  • Heritage institutions really look for, it is continuity over time, be it continuity of material, form, usage, or some other aspect mentioned in the Venice Charter or the Nara Document

  • This article scrutinizes Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV), which are more reliable than nomination files prepared by States Parties or evaluation reports prepared by International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) because they are official statements adopted by the World Heritage Committee to justify the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and to guide their “future effective protection and management” [2]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

States Parties to the World Heritage Convention can include properties situated on their territories in Tentative Lists (national inventories) and subsequently nominate them for inscription on theWorld Heritage List. States Parties to the World Heritage Convention can include properties situated on their territories in Tentative Lists (national inventories) and subsequently nominate them for inscription on the. A State Party can plan when to prepare a nomination file that meets the requirements set out in the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of this Convention [2]. Natural, or mixed properties must meet at least one of the selection criteria (i)–(x), the conditions of integrity, and the protection and management requirements. Nominations of cultural and mixed properties must meet the conditions of authenticity. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) evaluates nominations of cultural properties, including monuments, groups of buildings, and sites. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) evaluates nominations of natural properties, including natural

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call