Concepts of heritage A comparison of the UNESCO conventions concerning tangible (1972) and intangible (2003) heritage

Transcription

1 Brandenburg University of Technology World Heritage Studies Summer Semester 2005 Master Thesis Concepts of heritage A comparison of the UNESCO conventions concerning tangible (1972) and intangible (2003) heritage Student: Hilde Naurath M.A. Student ID: Supervisors Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert Prof. Dr. Klaus Hüfner Submitted on 23 rd of August 2005

2 Hilde Naurath M.A. M.A. Master Thesis in World Heritage Studies BTU Cottbus, Brandenburg 2005 Concepts of heritage a comparison of the UNESCO conventions concerning tangible (1972) and intangible (2003) heritage Hypothesis The concepts of heritage in the two UNESCO conventions are based on a universal ethical standpoint and should express it through (associative) ethical standards. Abstract The master thesis at hand addresses the main concepts of UNESCO s heritage conventions. Understanding them depends highly on their contexts and the goals behind them. This became evident in the case of a notion like authenticity. It exemplifies a tendency to a certain cultural relativism, because initial empirical or mechanical criteria failed in a world-wide application. However, UNESCO as an intergovernmental organisation has the task of promoting its mission of peace, which implies the need to judge between its member states. Therefore, it needs criteria, standards and patterns to structure the world. These standards have to be based on its universal ethical standpoint, namely on human rights. Consequently, standards of heritage concepts need to be of an associative or ethical nature. The final goal needs to be to interpret national or local symbols in a global context. This goal was certainly not explicitly set from the beginning of the World Heritage Convention on, but crystallized through changing heritage concepts in its application. As a consequence, the later Intangible Heritage Convention avoids mere empirical criteria and stresses an introduction of a universal ethic. To illustrate concepts of heritage and to point out the differences, this thesis pursues three interrelated issues. Firstly, it analyzes the main concepts, and it shows how they were developed and how they have been modified over the course of time. Concept means the dichotomy of an idea and a specific word definition. Certainly, both cannot be separated, therefore, concepts of heritage are analyzed both as a word (lexicographically) and as a thought or idea behind this word (in the conventions). Secondly, this paper demonstrates that standards within these concepts are required in order to be able to judge; in other words, in order to list items as heritage a comparison is needed, and any comparison requires standards. Thirdly, this paper states that these standards need to be of a universalistic ethical nature, and it proposes basic standards which justify the maintenance of something as vague as heritage.

3 Table of contents A. Introduction. 001 B. Development I. Concepts and their contexts 1. The dichotomy of concepts: lexicological definitions.. 2. The dichotomy of concepts: UNESCO s ethical standpoints Universal changes and modern standards Traditions : an example for the flexibility of a concept Culture : an example for a universalistic ethical interpretation.. 6. Heritage : a transformation of symbols Concepts of heritage in the two UNESCO conventions II. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of Conservation and protection in a world of modernization a) Introduction: internal paradoxes and shifts of standards.. b) Initial concepts of World Heritage Adaptations to a more universal concept? a) The changing concept of nature and culture... b) Changing concepts in the Operational Guidelines... c) Global Strategy: representativity versus outstanding The concept of outstanding universal value a) A unique combination of values..... b) Standards from the point of view of special disciplines? Main concepts in the Operational Guidelines a) Authenticity: an evidence of meaning... b) Integrity: an impression of wholeness

4 III. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Safeguarding in a world of globalisation a) Avoidance of paradoxes b) Concepts in preceding programmes: Recommendation and Masterpieces.. 2. Main concepts in the convention a) Compatible with existing international human rights instruments, mutual respect and sustainable development.. b) Identity: a reliable postulation.. c) Continuity: a creative adaptation C. Conclusion D. Literature I. Sources a) Legal instruments: conventions, recommendations, national laws etc.... b) Reports, speeches and announcements from within UNESCO and related bodies.... c) Dictionaries and encyclopaedias II. Secondary Literature E. Annexes I. Chronology. II. Abbreviations

5 A. Introduction In a world of modernization and globalization, in which inherited customs and riches are often lost, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) created its heritage conventions. They are modest instruments intended to prevent the loss of cultural and natural treasures; to prevent the dissolution of ties between people of yesterday, today and tomorrow; and to prevent a one-sided interpretation of heritage. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (in the following: World Heritage Convention or old Convention) was adopted by UNESCO s General Conference at its seventeenth session on 23 November It aims at the protection of long-lasting testaments to extraordinary characteristics of humanity and its surroundings. It is striking how successful this Convention has been, above all in Northern countries, in which the World Heritage emblem is cherished as a certificate of quality. Influenced by the success of this first UNESCO heritage convention, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (in the following: Intangible (Cultural) Heritage Convention or new Convention) 1 was adopted by the General Conference at its thirty-second session on 17 October It designates customs which were formerly known as folklore, folk art, traditional rites and festivities and celebrates the cultural diversity of people. The overwhelmingly fast acceptance of the Intangible Heritage Convention, adopted after only two years of concrete preparation and without any votes against it, gives confidence that it will succeed. Both conventions reveal different concepts of heritage and therefore exemplify the flexibility of (heritage) concepts in general. By concept, it is meant the dichotomy of an idea and a specific word definition; the concept as idea is reflected upon the concept as word. Certainly, both cannot be separated. Therefore, concepts of heritage are analyzed both as a word (lexicographically) and as a thought or idea behind this word (in the conventions). Lexicological definitions indicate how differently heritage is understood in different times and in different parts of the world. Based on these definitions, the respective descriptions in the conventions and explanatory documents illustrate how UNESCO wants heritage to be understood and how its own understanding has changed over the course of time. 1 Intangible (cultural) heritage is a new concept (explained in chapter III) whose wording is still not fixed: both intangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage are used interchangeable within UNESCO and accordingly, in this thesis; compare Smeets, Rieks: Réflexions autour d un projet de convention internationale pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, p In: Duvignaud, Jean and Khaznadar, Chérif (Ed.) (2004): Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Les enjeux, les problématiques, les pratiques. Publié dans Maison des cultures du monde: Internationale de l imaginaire. Nouvelle Série N , p

6 This thesis concentrates on UNESCO s ideas of heritage in the conventions as reproduced in the following table. 2 It focuses on the marked, most significant expressions. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session on 16 November 1972 Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "cultural heritage": monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view. Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "natural heritage": natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. Convention for the Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage adopted by the General Conference at its thirty-second session on 17 October 2003 Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, 1. The intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. 2. The intangible cultural heritage, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship. 2 Compare UNESCO (1972a): Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session at Paris, 16 November Entry into force URL: and UNESCO (2003): Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Signed in Paris, 17 October (Not entered into force yet). URL: 2

7 Altogether, to illustrate concepts of heritage and to point out the differences in the two conventions, this thesis pursues three interrelated issues. Firstly, it analyzes the main concepts used in them; it shows how they were developed and how they have been modified in the course of time, both in lexicological definitions and in UNESCO s descriptions. Secondly, it demonstrates that standards within these concepts are required to be able to make a judgement; in other words, in order to list items as heritage a comparison is needed, and any comparison requires standards. UNESCO has the task of judging between its member states and therefore, it structures the world. This is exemplified by the conventions. Thirdly, it is stated that UNESCO s ethical standpoints need to be reflected in every single standard within its heritage concepts, because mere empirical or mechanical criteria fail(ed) in a worldwide application. Moreover, only ethical standards are in line with UNESCO s mission of peace. This idealistic mission justifies an adaptive interpretation of symbols; heritage is [ ] a profession of faith tailored to present-day purposes 3. UNESCO takes the part of a tailor; the conventions shall help to make a dress of peace. 4 The final goal needs to be to interpret national or local symbols in a global context. This final goal was not explicitly set from the beginning of the World Heritage Convention on, but one can crystallize it through changing heritage concepts during its application. Accordingly, in the following, the old Convention serves to illustrate the change of concepts extensively. Differently, concepts in the new Convention, which is not yet ratified, are mainly shown as a (preliminary) outcome of these changing heritage perceptions. It is shown that the later Intangible Heritage Convention avoids mere empirical criteria and stresses an introduction of a universal ethic. The structure of the thesis follows this conceptual argumentation. The first large part sets the theoretical background for both conventions. Afterwards, the conventions are each explained with their respective backgrounds. Particularly, sources and theories confirm the statements given in the first part. For all main concepts, associative ethical standards are indicated to point to what is meant by them. 3 Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p. x. This becomes evident in the following statement: To recognize that the past has been altered understandably arouses anxiety. [ ] When a past we depend on for heritage and continuity turns out to be a complex of original and altered remains enlarged by subsequent thoughts and deeds, if not an outright sham, we lose faith in our own perceptions, in: Lowenthal, David (2002): The Past, p. 411f. 4 World Heritage properties do not need to be linked profoundly to the past, they can also be of primarily aesthetic or scientific value. However, as long-lasting witnesses they usually refer to a certain continuity to past times; the same is true for natural heritage, which usually takes ages to grow to a unique formation. 3

8 The first part considers lexicological definitions as basic examples that final truths are not possible, especially not empirical or mechanical fixations. Every word can only be interpreted according to its context. As this insight is easy to illustrate, examples of the use of the main terms of the heritage conventions are given to demonstrate the flexibility of word definitions, which depend on the respective contexts. Moreover, the first part introduces universalism and relativism as forms of judgements. It reflects the role of human rights, which were established as universal principles and are an essential example of ethical standards. Based on that, it analyzes the concepts of tradition, culture, and heritage. The first part ends with a basic outline of the two heritage conventions and underlines their differences. The second and third parts verify these statements; they show how UNESCO s ideas actually shifted and that ethical standards have become necessary. The second large part introduces initial concepts of World Heritage as well as (changing) concepts of outstanding universal value, nature and culture, authenticity and integrity. The third part presents concepts decisive for the Intangible Heritage Convention in preceding programmes and the concepts of identity and continuity. The later convention reflects clearly ethical standards. This thesis deals with a wide range of concepts to outline relations to each other and to UNESCO s idealistic mission. It needs to remain on an introductory conceptual level. The structural and political characteristics of the United Nations (UN), its sub systems and related organisations are not considered as far as they are not necessary to understand basic conceptual difficulties. Accordingly, decisive organisations like the UN, UNESCO and its Advisory Bodies come to the fore in cases in which main documents like their constitutive documents or statements of General Conferences are quoted. The Advisory Bodies are namely the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), both concerned chiefly with (World) Cultural Heritage, and the World Conservation Union (formerly the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, that is IUCN), mainly concerned with World Natural Heritage. Sources and literature are readily available. It is not possible to consider all of them; the written material on a concept like culture alone fills numerous shelves. That is why this thesis is based on original sources from UNESCO and its Advisory Bodies, such as session reports, legal documents, operational guidelines etc; an overview of main documents used is given in the Chronology, Annex II. To quote but three single members, the explanations of 4

9 Jim Thorsell 5 are particularly helpful for World Natural Heritage. The words of Janet Blake 6 and Rieks Smeets 7 elucidate the development of the Intangible Heritage Convention Some independent authors were especially fruitful for this thesis. The interrelationship of language, the human being and the world is based on the research of Iwar Werlen 8, even though he is only shortly mentioned; his description of universalism and relativism is decisive for this thesis. Both the division between traditional and modern societies and the idea of human rights as a consequence of modernization are taken from Dieter Senghaas 9. The proposal to speak from an invention of tradition comes from Eric Hobsbwam 10 and is moreover seen to be exemplary for the concepts of culture, heritage, authenticity and identity: they are invented according to the needs of specific (i.e. modernizing) societies. The most decisive author for the interpretation of heritage in this thesis is David Lowenthal 11 ; he is remarkable not only as independent author, but also as contributor to the Nara Conference on Authenticity 12. Jan Turtinen s 13 explanations of the role of UNESCO as an authoritative standard-setting organization as well as his portrayal of the World Heritage Convention as 5 Thorsell, Jim (1995): How natural are World Heritage natural sites? In: World Heritage Centre, UNESCO (Ed.): World Heritage Newsletter. N 9. December URL: ; Thorsell, Jim and Paine, Jim (1997): An IUCN/WCMC Perspective on Safeguarding the Integrity of World Heritage Properties. Canada URL: ; Thorsell, Jim and Sigaty, Todd (1997): Human Use of World Heritage Natural Sites A Global Overview. A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites. Natural Heritage Programme, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. September URL: 6 Blake, Janet (2002): Developing a New Standard-setting Instrument for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Elements for Consideration. Revised edition, Addendum: paragraph 6.4. UNESCO (CLT- 2001/WS/8 Rev.) Blake did this research on behalf of UNESCO, she is Honorary Visiting Research Fellow. 7 Smeets, Rieks, Chief Intangible Heritage Section, UNESCO: Keynote Speech. On the background, the interpretation and the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, p , In: Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) (2004): Promotion of Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage. Final Report of the 2004 ACCU Regional Meeting in Asia and the Pacific. Osaka, Japan, 26 February 1 March and: Smeets, Rieks: Réflexions, in: Duvignaud, Jean (2004). 8 Werlen, Iwar (2002): Sprachliche Relativität. Eine problemorientierte Einführung. Tübingen, Basel Senghaas, Dieter (1998): Zivilisierung wider Willen. Der Konflikt der Kulturen mit sich selbst. Frankfurt am Main Hobsbawm, Eric: Introduction. Inventing Traditions, p. 1-14; and the same: Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, , p : in: Hobsbawm, Eric (Ed.) (2003): The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge Lowenthal, David (2002): The Past. Lowenthal, David (2003): Heritage Crusade. 12 Lowenthal, David (1995): Changing Criteria of Authenticity, in: Larsen, Knut Einar (1995): Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention. Conférence de Nara sur l Authenticité dans le cadre de la Convention du Patrimoine Mondial. Nara, Japan / Japon 1-6 November / Novembre Proceedings / Compte-Rendu. UNESCO World Heritage Centre / Centre du Patrimoine Mondial. Agency for Cultural Affairs / Direction des Affaires Culturelles (Japan / Japon) ICCROM. ICOMOS. Rome 1995, p Turtinen, Jan (2000): Globalising Heritage On UNESCO and the Transnational Construction of a World Heritage. Stockholm Center for Organizational Research. Stockholm URL: 5

10 being inherently paradoxical and promoting a world-citizenship were highly influential. The concept of identity is based on descriptions of Stuart Hall and Zygmunt Baumann 14. To master the wide range of concepts, detailed encyclopaedias are used additionally, namely the Encyclopaedia of social and cultural anthropology, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics. 15 Three editions of the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 16 are used to illustrate changing concepts in a language. 14 Hall, Stuart (1997): The Work of Representation. In: the same (Ed.): Representation: Cultural Representations and signifying practices. London 1997, p Hall, Stuart (Ed.) (1996): Questions of Cultural Identity. London Hall, Stuart: Introduction: Who Needs Identity? P Baumann, Zygmunt: From Pilgrim to Tourist or a Short History of Identity, p Barnard, Alan and Spencer, Jonathan (1998): Encyclopaedia of social and cultural anthropology. London New York Encyclopaedia Britannica (2003), Inc. and its licensors (Ed.): Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM. London Kelly, Michael (Ed.) (1998): Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics. Volume 4. New York: Oxford University Press Cowie, A.P. (Ed.): Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary of current English. Oxford Hornby, A.S. (Ed.): Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary of current English. Oxford Wehmeier, Sally (Ed.): Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary of current English. Oxford URL: 6

11 B. Development I. Concepts and their contexts 1. The dichotomy of concepts: lexicological definitions The UNESCO heritage concepts are expressed by language. Lexicological definitions are combined with specific ideas of the organisation. This demonstrates how malleable every fact is; already lexicological definitions change from one edition of a dictionary to another. They serve as example that nothing is static, and that however, definitions are needed to be able to communicate and to convey meaning, because meaning is the result, not of something fixed out there, in nature, but of our societal, cultural and linguistic conventions 17. Every concept is a compromise, every legal instrument of UNESCO as well. 18 Any definition shows not as much a final truth as the goal of its use and this is true for the heritage conventions as well. In the following, both lexicological and idealistic parts of concepts related to heritage serve as examples of how meanings are created, accepted, altered, rejected and created anew. The heritage conventions provide and implement keystones for global, primarily cultural pattern. The vagueness of meaning is mirrored in the fact that both heritage instruments work on the one hand through fixed conventions, which are comparatively kept open 19, and on the other hand through more precise, but relatively flexible operational guidelines (for the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, operational guidelines still need to be developed 20 ). Only the conventions are agreed upon and signed by the state parties; the operational guidelines are modified in the course of time. This solution relieves the load on the conventions; they can be used for decades. Unavoidable changes are made within the operational guidelines. Moreover, UNESCO asks for a global understanding. As global extensive concepts are not established (yet), its ideas and local definitions are not always easily compatible. Mostly, such conflicts are passed over. Only sometimes they turn out to be crucial, mainly through practical problems. It is often hard for nominations to comply with both UNESCO s ideas and local understandings. Until now, the notion of authenticity as a criterion for World Heritage is the most discussed example and illustrates how malleable meaning is: 17 Hall, Stuart (1997): Representation, p. 23; compare also the entire text. 18 The following statement regarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is equally valid for the World Heritage Convention and for any other set definition: Does this [final text of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention] mean we have an ideal text? No, that s not what we have. We have a useful text of compromise, which can be implemented ; Smeets: Keynote Speech. In: ACCU (2004), p If they would not be relatively vague, operational guidelines would not be necessary. 20 This will be done by a future Committee after ratification of the Convention by the thirtieth state party. 7

12 The long-standing debate over authenticity seems to originate from an expectation that it would be possible, once and for all, to establish the true meaning of authenticity. [ ] It may perhaps be better and more realistic to assume that there is not and will never be, an unambiguous concept of authenticity. Instead of trying to adjust the World Cultural Heritage to a narrow concept of authenticity, let us try to make the concept of authenticity evolve into a concept which encompasses all the different, cultural, architectural expressions and manifestations of the world. 21 This statement is certainly appropriate to exemplify the flexibility of concepts. Nevertheless, it seems to suggest that it is possible to establish the true meaning of any other term, which is not the case. This thesis illustrates in which cases the heritage conventions are or need to be deliberated from narrow concepts like mere lexicological or ethnocentric definitions, and in which cases global expressions need to be adjusted to ethical standpoints of UNESCO. Explicitly, a concept is seen to be the dichotomy of a word definition and the idea behind it. Evidently, the concept of heritage is neither only the word heritage nor only a special idea (of UNESCO). If it was only a word, then the conventions would not need to explain what they regard as heritage. If it was only an idea (of UNESCO), local misunderstandings would not appear. However, lexicological definitions and UNESCO s ideas cannot be separated; therefore, concepts of heritage are analyzed both lexicographically and as UNESCO s thought or idea behind this word. Lexicography 22 is the recording and explanation of the vocabulary of a language or of the terms of one or several technical fields. Dictionaries observe how a term is used in a society and give examples of this use. Samples of lexicography help to approach daily meanings; the meanings with which people in a certain time and place connect most likely with. 23 Lexicological definitions are not goal-directed in the sense that the editors want to convince their readers from a certain point of view. This is an essential difference to every definition of (linguistic) analysts and of authorities, to which UNESCO belongs. 24 Variations of meanings are widely recognized between different languages. Already the English heritage and the French patrimoine evoke different connotations 25 ; but this will be 21 Droste, Bernd von and Bertilsson, Ulf (1995): Authenticity and World Heritage. In: Larsen (1995), p. 14f. 22 Lexicography is a sub discipline of linguistics. Linguistics analyzes how meanings are expressed, it is the scientific study of language or of particular languages. 23 Compare Linke, Angelika et al (1996): Studienbuch Linguistik. Tübingen , p. 160f. 24 Taking one specific example, the following differences are essential: The Oxford English dictionary [ ] remain[s] grounded on the actual use of the language, including all words that have some sort of meaning to those who use them, even if what they state cannot be verified by the methods of the physical scientists. The lexicographers preserve the language while the truth theorists, logicians, and linguistics dissect and analyze it to determine how it functions. In: Hipkiss, Robert A. (1995): Semantics. Defining the discipline. Erlbaum 1935; The basic compendia of English word; p In general, patrimoine correlates more with the English term inheritance ; but in the expression patrimoine mondial it is in line with expressions like patrimoine national / industriel etc. and relates to a larger entity. 8

13 no subject for discussion. Instead, it is emphasised that in just one language, word definitions vary from one group, place and time to another. In the following case, the focus is on English as one of the official UNESCO languages. As it is used worldwide, it is a good example of how divergent expressions can be interpreted; there is no final definition. In the following, lexicological examples are taken from three editions of the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (OALD). It is well-known, and it is easy to get access to the last edition being available free of charge in the internet. Definitions out of the second, fourth and sixth edition of Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary (1974, 1989, 2000) 26 will be given for three reasons: Firstly, to illustrate what a certain group associates with essential concepts of heritage within a time relevant mainly for the World Heritage Convention. Secondly, to expose how definitions changed within one single dictionary. Thirdly, a comparison of these neutral definitions with UNESCO s ideas enlightens the goals of the organisation. UNESCO uses some lexicological methods to define heritage; they illustrate how difficult it is to express meaning. Already in dictionaries, they are used more pragmatically than systematically. Each case is defined individually; strict schemes or patterns are not forced 27. Both UNESCO and lexicologist use paraphrases to define meaning. Paraphrases follow the principle that every sense can be expressed differently; particularly word meanings can be expressed by whole syntactical structures. 28 Accordingly, World Heritage is described as the priceless and irreplaceable possessions, not only of each nation, but of mankind as a whole. Frequently, UNESCO defines terms by enumeration, which is a rare lexicological method; it helps mainly to outline abstract terms. Enumeration barely limits an idea into fixed boundaries; it remains open to modifications. This is certainly wished and even a basis for any success of an international instrument. 29 A UNESCO example of enumeration is: intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills. This is so broad a list that indefinite expressions of the world cultures can be included. At the same 26 The seventh edition of the OALD of 2004 is online since the beginning of April 2005, which is in the writing time of this thesis. The definitions used herein are still from before April and thus from the sixth edition, dates of access were in February and March However, the definitions of the terms presented here did not change; only some illustrating examples are modified in the OALD 2004 (but not herein). 27 Compare Linke (1996), p. 160f. 28 Compare Ibid. 29 Certainly, UNESCO is not the only one using this method. One of the longest lists so far is given by the Rio Earth Summit (1992), which considers the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components, in: Preamble. Convention on Biological Diversity / The Jakarta Mandate (COP, UN). Rio de Janeiro URL: 9

14 time, it might become difficult to definitely exclude something. It is neither an observation of a use within a certain society nor a clear restriction of UNESCO. It is a flexible compromise. Terms can be explained by creating binary concepts, by opposing one construction to another one. The binary concept of traditional and modern societies 30 is taken to explain the creation of universal concepts emerging out of universal changes 31. For the World Heritage Convention, the binary concept of nature and culture is highly significant 32. For the Intangible Heritage Convention, individual identity and cultural identity 33 might become critical. Other examples are secular and religious, reason and faith, sacred and profane 34. This method can be useful to understand priorities in structural frameworks within one society. However, other societies do often not have equivalent frameworks; in these cases the limits of language become evident. Clearly, this is one reason why the heritage conventions are often understood divergently in different societies. Frequently, UNESCO experts use etymology to explain a term 35. Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words and their meanings; as such it is not a lexicological method. As no language is static, the meaning of a word some centuries ago or the root of a term does not need to have any significance for the meaning of this term in a contemporary context. An original truth or a truth of the beginning does not exist. 36 Positively, an etymology can help to approach the socio-cultural background of a term; this might help to understand the current use of a term. But to know which precise meaning a term has in another context, etymology alone is not enough. 2. The dichotomy of concepts: UNESCO s ethical standpoints UNESCO s heritage concepts cannot consist of only lexicological definitions, they need to be widened by its specific ideas. Moreover, they need to consciously reflect its ethical standpoints. Only this justifies their application. In other words, ethical standards need to connect lexicological definitions and UNESCO s ideas. 30 Compare chapter I Compare chapter I Compare chapter II.2.a. 33 Compare chapter III.3.a. 34 They are relevant chiefly for modern, secularized societies and should be beard in mind for chapter II Two examples are: Jokilehto, Jukka (1995): Authenticity, a General Framework for the Concept, in Larsen (1995), p Jeong-Ok, Kim (2004): Les problématiques de patrimoine culturel immatériel en Corée, in: Duvignaud (2004), p Compare Linke (1996), p

15 Certainly, UNESCO as an intergovernmental authoritative organization needs and is expected to promote universal standards, being at the same time interested in seeming depoliticised and innocent 37. The heritage conventions are modest examples of how UNESCO s power works: Member states grant UNESCO the ability to judge their heritage. Accordingly, its conventions have a set of cultural principles that are centrally involved and that the organisation[ ] embody, enact and promote. These are universalism, individualism, rationality (often based on the grounds of science), and world citizenship 38. Altogether, these four principles outline UNESCO s general framework in which also its conventions are to be interpreted. To implant these principles into the world, they establish criteria and standards, and UNESCO s instruments become righteous interpreters of the past and of the cultural and natural environment 39. In other words, the heritage conventions reflect a pragmatic categorization and classification of the world, based on universalistic principles. UNESCO structures the world by establishing (heritage) concepts. The following table 40 defines universalism as opposed to relativism, which would not allow any intergovernmental judgements: Relativism Universalism Point of view All are equal One is privileged Description of the world All are equally true Only one is true Values All are equally valid Privileged validity To be certain, neither universalism nor relativism is applicable in extreme ways. Again, compromises are needed 41. However, UNESCO s standard-setting is based on a universalistic point of view, which allows justifying its role as a global mediator. It emphasises on individualism and rationality (compare the following chapter). Especially a world-citizenship is herein seen to be a crystallizing ethical standard of the World Heritage Convention and, in a 37 Turtinen (2000), URL. 38 Ibid. First, it needs to be seen as an idealistic, peace promoting goal, not as an e.g. concrete supranational institutional goal. 39 Ibid. 40 Werlen (2002), p. 1-30, p. 2f. 41 Languages seem to be an example of relativism. No language can be seen as a scientific standard, that is as an outstanding, better-quality example compared to other languages: in modern nation-states it is usually assumed that the standard language is a superior mode if communication, a view completely at odds with that of both linguists and anthropologist who hold that no language is inherently inferior to any other. Hierarchies of languages are social phenomena; they have nothing to do with intrinsic linguistic features, Ralph Grillo: Language and linguistics. In: Barnard (1998): Encyclopaedia of social and cultural anthropology, p. 327f. 11

16 slightly different manner, as an indirect goal of the new Convention. However, it is preferred to speak from global collective feelings to avoid political associations. 42 Accordingly, an ethical universalism has not been carried through from the beginning of the World Heritage Convention on. To start with its application in the course of time, some of UNESCO s heritage criteria remain open or turn out to be insufficient. In some cases an explanation was left out consciously, because a limited definition could not be agreed upon. This is the case for the criterion of outstanding universal value for World Heritage, which has been highly discussed since the first session of experts. 43 In other cases, a standard was left out rather unconsciously, because the meaning seemed to be clear enough by e.g. former legal documents. This is the case for the notion of authenticity 44 which was introduced as a measure of formal authority 45 in the first Operational Guidelines of However, since then, the [World Heritage] committee and the state parties to the Convention have met problems in applying the test [of authenticity] due to, on the one hand, the vagueness of the concept, and, on the other, the different cultural interpretations of the concept 46, and these difficulties are exemplary for other concepts as well. An emphasis on ethical standards instead of cultural approaches should simplify the application of both conventions. 47 Moreover, different kinds of relativism exist, and not all of them are equally relevant for the conventions. Anthropologists 48 define three kinds of relativism: a (conventional) cultural relativism, an ethical relativism and an epistemological or cognitive relativism. 42 Firstly, it needs to be seen as an idealistic, peace promoting goal, not as an e.g. concrete supranational institutional goal. 43 It took place in Compare Titchen, Sarah M. (1996): On the construction of outstanding universal value. Some comments on the implementation of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In: Teutonico, Jeanne Marie and others (Ed.): Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites. Reprinted from Volume 1 Number 4, London, 1996, p Compare also Chapter II Particularly the former Venice Charter enshrined the principle of authenticity; the World Heritage Convention was inspired by this instrument; compare chapter II.1.b and Lévi-Strauss, Laurent (2000): Renewal of the notion of authenticity. In: UNESCO publishing (2000) (Ed.): World Culture Report 2000, p Authenticity is the most discussed criterion of World Cultural Heritage. 45 Stovel, Herb (1995): Foreword. Working Towards the Nara Document. In: Larsen (1995), p. xxxiii. 46 Larsen, Knut Einar (1995): Preface, in: the same (1995), p. xi-xiii. 47 Compare Chapter II and III. 48 The discipline of anthropology is important for this thesis. Nonetheless, an extensive explanation cannot be given, already because the discipline covers different fields, depending on the region of application. E.g., in the US, cultural anthropology is a sub-field of anthropology and ethnology a tool of cultural anthropology. In Great Britain, the term social anthropology is used either instead of cultural anthropology or instead of the European continental meaning of ethnology (i.e. éthnologie in France and (becoming antiquated) Völkerkunde or Ethnologie in Germany). In translations, these terms are frequently mixed. Compare British Encyclopaedia: cultural anthropology. In France and Germany, Anthropologie and Ethnologie cover slightly different fields of research. Fischer, Hans: Ethnologie als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. In: Beer, Bettina and Fischer, Hans: Ethnologie. Einführung und Überblick. Neufassung. Berlin 2003, p Compare also: Kottak, Conrad Phillip (2004): Cultural Anthropology. Michigan ; and: Lenkeit, Roberta Edwards (2001): Introducing Cultural Anthropology. New York

17 Ethical relativism rejects intercultural moral judgements 49 and justifies violations against human rights. Evidently, the UN system opposes it by promoting ethical standards 50, namely human rights (its justification is addressed in the following chapter). The later Intangible Heritage Convention reflects clearly an ethical standardizing; above all, intangible heritage needs to be compatible with existing international human rights instruments and mutual respect. A similar complex principle does not exist for the World Heritage Convention. This shows that firstly, the Intangible Heritage Convention converts experiences with World Heritage and other preceding programmes, and secondly, the new Convention concerns people directly. It is therefore based in a field more usual for the United Nations although not for UNESCO s work with heritage. Epistemological relativism states that different cultures are incommensurable; therefore comparison and universal assertion is impossible 51. Following this idea, every culture is absolutely alien to each other. Obviously, the UN has to reject this position as well. Thus, both heritage conventions are instruments against these points of view. The case of cultural relativism is more delicate. It claims that insofar as there are behavioural differences between various populations of people, these differences are the result of cultural (sometimes societal) variation rather than anything else 52, it means that each culture should be understood and appreciated in terms of itself 53. It is usually seen as the opposite of ethnocentrism, which is the name given to a tendency to interpret or evaluate other cultures in terms of one s own 54. Then, the own culture is seen as being the only valid standard. The problem of cultural relativism is its unclear rejection of any definite standard, even though it might admit that some behavioural patterns seem to be more effective than others in e.g. providing people with basics for their life, and it neglects the influence of universals like birth and death. It is rather a conventionally sloppy framework a kind of work-ethic, or disciplinary common sense than a philosophical position, but it is a very safe view to propound 55. Certainly, UNESCO promotes an embracing appreciation of cultures. The 49 Whitacker, Mark P. (1998): Relativism, in: Barnard (1998): Encyclopaedia, p. 479f. Human rights as universal values are ethical principles and should not be confused with the outstanding universal value of World Heritage, for which an outstanding value is seen in tangible elements. 50 A great defender of a universalistic ethical point of view is the former UN Secretary-General de Cuéllar, Javier Pérez (Term of Office ), who stated that: Universalism is the fundamental principle of a global ethics ; in: Our Creative Diversity. Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development UNESCO publishing / Oxford & IBH Publishing Fourth Edition 1998, p. 16, p. 46; compare also p. 54f. 51 Whitacker (1998): Relativism, in: Barnard (1998): Encyclopaedia, p Ibid, p. 478f. 53 Encyclopaedia Britannica (2003): Culture. 54 Ibid. 55 Whitacker (1998): Relativism, in: Barnard (1998): Encyclopaedia, p

18 desperate tolerance of UNESCO cosmopolitanism 56 was even satirized once. However, it appreciates a culture only as long as it fulfils certain ethical standards and as long as it rejects epistemological viewpoints. 57 Hence, UNESCO needs to find compromises between cultural relativism and an ethical universalism without promoting ethnocentrism. This is a complex task; the heritage conventions frequently reveal (originally unconscious) influences of ethnocentrism, like in the case of authenticity. Accordingly, the debate about this notion reveals how cultural dependency is steadily taken into consideration in the field of preservation: The Nara Document [explaining authenticity] reflects the fact that international preservation doctrine has moved from a Eurocentric approach to a post-modern position characterized by recognition of cultural relativism. This is not to say that international debate on the authenticity of cultural heritage is without meaning after the Nara Document. In this situation, preservation experts are forced to clarify the use of the concept of authenticity within their own countries and cultural spheres. Only then can they encounter their colleagues from other parts of the world in an open dialogue in the understanding that the search for authenticity is universal, but recognizing that the ways and means to preserve the authenticity of cultural heritage are culturally dependent. 58 The shift to cultural relativism is not done with. It is too large a step to go. The existence of universal principles is defended. However, criteria like authenticity need to be verified at a different level, within the respective cultures. The new Convention comprehends this shifted verification; particularly the notion of identity gives a final decision to tradition-bearers. Hence, while the World Heritage Convention still defends universal cultural standards, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is principally based on universal ethical standards. This is an essential difference between the two Conventions the later Convention converted a certain fuzziness of cultural criteria by focusing on ethical principles. In the following, it will be argued that non-ethical and non-epistemological standards of heritage need to be re-considered due to universal changes. Differently, some ethical standards can indeed be said to be universally relevant in a world of modernization and globalization. 56 Geertz, Clifford (1985): The Uses of Diversity. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Delivered at The University of Michigan November 8, URL: p Compare chapter I Larsen (1995): Preface, in: The same (1995). 14

19 3. Universal changes and modern standards Both heritage conventions promote the maintenance of divergent cultural expressions in a world of change. This is crucial for their understanding, because both consider the fear of loss as a main reason for their establishment. The World Heritage Convention notes in the first paragraph of its preamble that the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction. In the following, these changing conditions are called modernization. The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention recognizes in its preamble that the processes of globalization and social transformation [ ] give rise, as does the phenomenon of intolerance, to grave threats of deterioration, disappearance and destruction of the intangible cultural heritage. Consequently, modernization and globalization are essential to understand UNESCO s ideas of heritage, because both conventions exist due to threats to an inherited richness of cultural expressions 59. Moreover, both conventions (should) promote universalistic principles, namely human rights, which emphasise on the value of the individual 60. Such values of individualism or even selfrealization have a widespread significance mainly in modern societies. That means, UNESCO promotes principally modern standards to compensate modern pressures. In an ethically relativistic point of view, the two goals of maintenance of traditional ways of life on the one hand and of a promotion of modern human rights on the other would be contradictory. Only based on universal ethical standpoints, they can become complementary. Only then, UNESCO can reasonably demand to adapt inherited symbols to modern demands. Accordingly, this chapter divides between modern and traditional societies. 61 This is neither a qualitative nor a political division, but principally a division between ever faster changing societies 62 and societies which are not yet essentially confronted with change which is the 59 Culture and UNESCO s appreciation of cultural diversity are explained in chapter I In its specific wording and definition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is seen as the product of a specific modern, occidental, problematical constellation. It is not forgotten that this is only a declaration without any legal binding character. Legal instruments are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UNHCHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UNHCHR, which both came into force in They are the core instruments of the international protection of human rights. How far these texts are good compromises for a definitively existing need is not the topic of this thesis. 61 This division is taken from Senghaas (1998), whose interpretation is basic to this chapter. It seems to be to early to speak from globalized societies; herein, the phenomenon is mainly important as a change as such. 62 The impression of an ever faster change might be more a feeling than a reality in old modern societies like in Western Europe, in which it is a common belief that technical innovation has soared without precedent in recent decades. [ ] our precursors were no less estranged by novelty, rueing lost familiar vistas just as we do. But they were less ceaselessly reminded of their loss. Nor did a socially certified nostalgia sanction their yearnings, they 15

20 case for ever less societies. Universal changes from traditional to modern societies lead to a far-reaching establishment of modern standards, namely of human rights. By modernization, it is meant a change from a traditional to a modern society. A traditional society is meant to be a more collectivistic, family-based, group-oriented, hierarchystructured, hard-work-promoting, economically-restricted society. Conversely, a modern society is seen to be a more individualistic, pluralistic, politicized, democratic society. 63 Several mass movements are typical for this (preliminary) transformation: industrialization, migration, urbanization, mass-information, a demographic increase etc. Individualism and rationality are also characteristic for modern societies. A main difference between modern and traditional societies is their approach towards the past; until modern times most peoples trusted tradition 64. Modern societies feel the pace of change, traditional societies scarcely differentiated past from present 65. At this point, a creation of traditions and of heritage becomes relevant. Traditions are not necessarily original customs of traditional societies. The notion was evidently created in modern societies and it is more complex: it reflects a conscious, though not always genuine approach towards the past, as heritage does 66. Hence, in modernizing societies, meanings and standards change accordingly, away from collective to individual patterns. At this point, UNESCO s promotion of human rights becomes reasonable. It can be justified by the observation that societies in comparable stages of modernization (and globalization) have similar value patterns, independent from their original culture, religion or other value-setting disciplines. 67 When inherited values and structures are questioned by crucial transformations pushing the individual into the foreground, human rights have to be established as a kind of compensation to the loss of former collectivistic patterns. To give an example, the first societies to change from traditional to modern were European and North American regions. Before modernization, they had comparatively the same (collectivistic) values which are now said to be typical for still more traditional societies, like were enjoined to praise the new and take change in their stride. They suffered change more violent than ours, but we perceive ourselves to be its unexampled victims. Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p. 8. By contrast, in Asian or Latin-American regions, the last decades were indeed reigned by unpredicted rapid and profound changes. 63 This transformation in its different ways is described by Senghaas (1998). 64 Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p. 13. The difference between traditions and heritage is one between life-styles and cherished items, compare chapter I Lowenthal (2002): The Past, p Compare chapter I.4. and I This observation is taken from Senghaas (1998). 16

21 for China, the Islam etc. During modernization, they were the first to slowly establish human rights, not as a logical irreversible development, but as a bitter search for compromises. In the following, the need for individual rights has been crucial in every modernizing society. It implies that these standards are not exclusively Western 68. Also a philosophical explanation for the validity of human rights does not exist. They are basically a necessity in changing contexts. This observation allows speaking from truly universal ethical standards emerging out of cultural characteristics. This view of life underlies both conventions. It is essential to understand their goals. Then, both heritage conventions are based on a promotion of modern ethical standards based on inherited symbols. They reflect parallel and only sometimes conflicting worldwide movements of a modern establishment of human rights on the one hand and an re-orientation on traditional ways of life on the other. A conflict appears if criteria are not only culturally, but also ethically relevant and ethically against UNESCO s universalistic standpoints. Certainly, there is not only one way of applying human rights, but many like each of the modern societies illustrates. 69 Also human rights need to be seen as perspectives of truth, not as a one-dimensional doctrine 70. Paralleling the concept of authenticity and any other concept, it is appropriate to say [The concept of] human rights is not a static concept. Our understanding of human rights is constantly evolving as we come to know more about the human condition 71. That implies, human rights need to find an individual manifestation in every modern society. 72 This is another essential background of both conventions; this point 68 Senghaas (1998), particularly p. 18f. Rüsen, Jörn (1998): Einleitung: Für eine interkulturelle Kommunikation in der Geschichte. Die Herausforderungen des Ethnozentrismus in der Moderne und die Antwort der Kulturwissenschaften. In: The Same et al (Eds.) (1998): Die Vielfalt der Kulturen. Erinnerung, Geschichte, Identität 4. Frankfurt am Main 1998, p : The history of the slow acceptance of human rights also in the West demonstrates this. The confessional wars, the political repression by the absolutistic police state, the social impoverishment in the course of the industrial revolution, the anti-modern Nazism terror etc. played a crucial role in the establishment of these rights. Human rights resulted out of the experience of misery, of a refusal to freedom of responsibility and of brutal fights between groups defending no human ideals, but their own supremacy. They were and are an often bitter compromise. This becomes evident again with regard to other continents, Western suppressions like colonization, religious intolerance and the absolutistic state influenced the history of human rights dramatically. On the one hand, this requested a kind of compensation. On the other hand, a simple implementation of strange principles by invaders is doomed to failure, p. 20f. 69 Senghaas (1998), particularly p Rüsen (1998), in: The Same et al (Eds.) (1998); p. 24f. 71 American Anthropological Association (AAA) (1999): Committee for Human Rights. Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights. Adopted by the AAA membership June URL: 72 A search for common values is going on: against the backdrop of the positivistic abstinence on questions of value and of relativism of values of the preceding decades, there is a search for universal values and principles that could serve as the basis for peaceful and productive interaction among nations and societies, prevention of conflicts and crises, and collective efforts towards peace and prosperity especially also by UNESCO, see Kim, Yersu (1998), in: UNESCO publishing (1998): World Culture Report Culture, Creativity and markets. Paris 1998, p. 254f. 17

22 of view was affirmed in the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity 73 in The Declaration and especially the new Convention are also a response to the recent challenge globalization. Globalization is taken to mean an increasing exchange between modern societies. Modernization concerns mainly changes in one society, globalization concerns mainly changes between societies. Globalization is meant to be the growing networking of trade, money markets, products and services. The heritage conventions are undeniably not only global in scale, but also inherently globalising 74. They set universal standards and categorize the world in a strictly globalising manner; their goal is to establish or strengthen a fruitful exchange between societies. UNESCO takes an active part on this changing planet; the principle of compatible with existing international human rights instruments in the new Convention 75 points to its universalistic sewing kit. In summary, UNESCO encourages (traditional) societies to express and follow their ways of life, as long as they abide by the rights established in modern societies. A smooth modernization and globalization needs to be seen as UNESCO s inherent goal. Human rights as individual rights exemplify a consequence of a world in which traditional, collective bounds are transformed into a modern vague, though more and more crystallizing idea of selfrealization. On a less explosive level, these movements are reflected in the widened scope of the World Heritage Convention and in the establishment of the Intangible Heritage Convention. Also the heritage conventions pay inherent tribute to the human being as such, the new Convention more than the old Convention. The value of the individual is becoming more of a point of reference, a standard in an ever-changing world. This needs to be an idealistic part of any concept of heritage promoted by UNESCO. One crucial point is still the question about where one comes from historically. 73 UNESCO (2001): Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity Adopted by the 31 st session of the UNESCO General Conference. Paris, 2 November URL: Compare chapter III.1.a. 74 Turtinen (2000), URL; he considers only the World Heritage Convention as he wrote before the establishment of the new Convention, but this statement is equally valid for the new Convention. 75 Compare chapter III.2.b. 18

23 4. Traditions : an example for the flexibility of a concept In modern societies, the concept of traditions reflects a conscious approach towards the past, because the ability to recall and identify with our own past gives existence meaning, purpose, and value 76. A similar background is decisive for heritage as well; however, heritage is an even broader concept than traditions. That is why the concept of traditions is taken to introduce and exemplify a modern desire to assure meaning by linking past and present. The ethical standard of traditions, covered especially in the new Convention, needs to be a reliable link to the past; this is a difference to the concept of heritage 77. Traditions depend logically on their maintenance. If they can be given again to coming generations, they assure a link to the future as well. Clearly, in a world of change, links to the past and to the future become fragile, and again, a fear of loss is reason for both conventions. In all three OALD definitions of traditions, they are seen to be beliefs and customs connecting past and present, according to UNESCO s interpretation. OALD 1974 OALD 1989 OALD 2000 Tradition (handing down from generation to generation of) opinions, beliefs, customs etc; opinion, belief, custom, etc. handed down: The stories of Robin Hood are based mainly on tradition(s). It is a tradition in that family for the eldest son to enter the army and for the second son to become a lawyer. 1 passing of beliefs or customs from one generation to the next, esp. without writing: by tradition, people play practical jokes on 1 April. They decided to break with (ie not observe) tradition. 2 belief or custom passed on in this way; any long-established method, practice etc: It s a tradition to sing Auld Long Syne on New Year s Eve. James Joyce s Ulysses challenged the literary traditions of his day. a belief, custom or way of doing sth that has existed for a long time among a particular group of people; a set of these beliefs or customs: religious / cultural, etc. traditions This region is steeped in tradition. The company has a long tradition of fine design. The British are said to love tradition (= to want to do things in the way they have always been done). They broke with tradition (= did things differently) and got married quietly. By tradition, children play tricks on 1 April. There s a tradition in our family that we have a party on New Year s Eve. He s a politician in the tradition of (= similar in style to) Kennedy. In green: acceptable interpretations for UNESCO Historically, the concept was developed in Europe due to complex changes, as were several other concepts of the conventions. 78 Most decisive was the enlightenment, which started in England at the end of the 17 th century. It influenced all of Europe and North America. Its 76 Lowenthal (2002): The Past, p Compare chapter I E.g. authenticity, chapter II.4.a, and identity, chapter III.3.a. 19

24 central concern was the application of reason to any question; from faith to fact 79. Traditions were nostalgically seen as those endangered items, ideas and life styles which were about to change or even to die due to modernization: Ever since then [the enlightenment], tradition has come to mean anything that is threatened by change. Indeed, it is modernity that invented tradition [ ], just as it continues to create traditions 80. A new concept was born. It was one of the first concepts pointing (only) to the past, looking for meaning not by referring to a transcendent being, but to continuity. Nowadays, traditions is a well-known concept in Europe. Conversely, in regions which are not yet fundamentally confronted by modernization, links between past and present are not yet essentially questioned. In these societies equivalent concepts might not exist. Regardless, the concept is so flexible that one can turn the perspective and make it meaningful for still predominantly traditional societies. Moreover, this can help (Europeans) discover characteristics of societies in a deep economical or identity crisis. This is the case for many Muslim societies. Out of this perspective, one can state: The identification of new ways, new methodologies, new conceptions, new tools, to provide for an enabling culture and thought that would stop the process of rupture with the classical legacy, would help to recognize the living tradition and, at the same time, would contribute to the invention of modernity in Muslim societies 81. Invention of tradition or invention of modernity this exemplifies how a society can find an own interpretation of a concept taken to be universal. Yet, traditions do actually not always genuinely relate past and present, the link can be faked. One can distinguish between genuine and invented traditions. Old or genuine traditions played a significant role already in a traditional society. They are taken to mean specific and strongly binding social practices. Many rites-de-passages belong into this concept. By contrast, invented traditions are not age-old expressions, but are taken to be quite unspecific and vague as to the nature of the values, rights and obligations of the group membership they inculcate: patriotism, loyalty, duty, playing the game the school 79 Lowenthal (1995): Authenticity, p. 126ff. He does not refer explicitly to the enlightenment, but describes the changes from the Middle Ages to modern times. 80 Graburn, Nelson in King, D. Anthony: Repräsentation neu aufgerollt: Zur Entstehung der Gegenüberstellung von Modernität und Traditionalität, p , in: Hauser-Schäublin, Brigitta and Braukämper, Ulrich (Ed.) (2002): Ethnologie der Globalisierung. Perspektiven kultureller Verflechtungen. Berlin 2002, p. 63. He explains: just as it invented Anthropology and Folklore to study traditions. Both anthropology and folklore influenced UNESCO s heritage concepts; for anthropology, compare footnote 48, page 12. Folklore is now part of intangible heritage. For concepts of traditions compare Hobsbawm, Eric (Ed.) (2003). 81 Arkoun, Mohammed (1990): Islamic Cultures, Developing Societies, Modern Thought. In: Powell, Robert (Ed.): Expressions of Islam in Buildings. Singapore: Concept Media/The Aga Khan Award for Architecture URL: My emphasis. 20

25 spirit and the like 82. They have been chiefly introduced to establish national feelings for new states and new governments. Nations were built by eliminating hierarchical bounds and creating political interests. 83 Age-old ties were erased for radical innovations. Resulting societal voids were covered by new, sometimes shallow slogans. Faked traditions are usually not embedded in a society. The strength and adaptability of genuine traditions is not to be confused with the invention of tradition 84. But both genuine and invented traditions reflect a conscious approach towards or a modern tailoring of the past. This approach is reflected in both conventions. They direct to the past and try to assure meaning by linking eras of history. Out of this attempt grow a modern search for links to the past, as does the concept of heritage. UNESCO certainly sets a standard by preferring genuine instead of new traditions. Especially the new Convention emphasises on an actual continuity with the past. Nonetheless, the concept of traditions shows that a fixed dualistic concept of traditions and modern life styles is not a given reality out there, but a modern construction. As such, it is more or less helpful, as is any other concept. Moreover, it indicates that most people identify with a certain way of life emerged out of a certain past, called nowadays culture. 5. Culture : an example for a universalistic ethical interpretation The concept of culture is highly relevant for both conventions. Anthropological ideas influenced UNESCO s idea, which apparently influenced lexicological definitions. This is an impressive example of firstly, how human beings and language influence each other and construct a new way of seeing the world 85. Secondly, it indicates the power of the UN, in this case of chiefly UNESCO, as a global standard-setting mediator 86 even though this is certainly not a one-way, but a reciprocal influence between UNESCO and peoples. The organization has redefined culture by altering the idea behind the word. To start with, culture, as a people s way of life, is such a common concept nowadays that its relatively short history has been almost forgotten. Its success started with the work of 82 Hobswam (2003): Introduction. Inventing Traditions, In: The same (Ed.) (2003), p Ibid, p. 8. He refers to the European 19 th century, in which the liberal ideology rejected conventional modes as hindering development. Support for newly created nations was needed; the situation is highlighted by: We have made Italy, now we must make Italians, D Azeglio, quoted in Hobsbawm (2003), p Hobsbawm (2003): Introduction, p Compare e.g. Gipper, Helmut (1992): Theorie und Praxis inhaltsbezogener Sprachforschung. Aufsätze und Vorträge Band II. Sprache und Denken in sprachwissenschaftlicher und sprachphilosophischer Sicht. Münster 1992; and Werlen (2002). 86 Compare chapter I.2. about the power of UNESCO. 21

26 anthropologists only in the 19 th century. It is said that its positive reception started by the work of one single anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who was most responsible of making culture in its anthropological sense into a household word 87 ; a broad invention of culture started only from 1934 on. Since then, culture has been widely discussed, the word culture is probably the single most central concept in twentieth-century anthropology. The profound discussions around the (anthropological) concept, its background and alteration have been reflected in the broadening scope of World Heritage and the creation of the Intangible Heritage Convention. Anthropology is a central discipline for UNESCO, particularly in the first decades. Like the concept of traditions, it was established in modern societies of the 19 th century. The close relationship between anthropology and culture is comprehended especially in UNESCO s early work. Remarkably, World Heritage sites need to be of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view in a line with the conventional fields of history and aesthetics, anthropology and with it ethnology 88 are really modern inventions, which might not have equivalents in traditional societies. Even more relevant is UNESCO s high appreciation of the new field of culture. Culture is one of its main sectors. The term cultural appears in both heritage convention titles. Consequently, UNESCO s characterization of culture is broadly positive. An optimistic expression like fruitful diversity of the cultures 89 is already fixed in its constitution. Culture is seen as a source of creativity and inspiration. Cultural variations are interpreted as an expression of wealth, a capital of answers on how to give sense to human existence. The Mexico City Declaration of 1982 gives an explicit definition of what UNESCO associates with culture. 90 The Declaration was reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which emphasises its significance. Culture is set in the centre of life; 87 Mathews, Gordon (2000): Global Culture, Individual Identity. Searching for home in the cultural supermarket. New York 2000, p. 3. Ruth Benedict published her highly influential book Patterns of Culture in The anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn ( ) collected more than 60 definitions of culture 88 For the relations between anthropology and ethnology compare footnote 48, page UNESCO (1945): Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Adopted in London on 16 November. Entry into force on 4 November Article 1.3. URL: html 90 That is ten years after the adoption of the World Heritage Convention, consequently, the Declaration did not influence the Convention. Still, it is taken to be characteristic for UNESCO in general and thus for the interpretation of the old Convention, because firstly, the general approach of UNESCO to culture is supposed to have been similar ten years before, and secondly, because the application of the Convention from 1982 on was oriented towards this declaration, which is the longest time of its existence. 22

27 without it, human actions cannot be understood 91. The value of each lies per se in its sole way of expression. It concerns a people as a whole, every single class within a society. It enables all its members to participate meaningful in daily life. It is a main reference point in UNESCO s structural framework of the world. That means, cultures are seen to be the basis for creating global collective feelings, and not politics, economics or religions for example. Cultures shall be able to convince people to live in peace. Accordingly, both conventions are based on an intrinsic value of culture. Through heritage, they emphasise on roots of cultures and on a specific understanding of cultural symbols 92. In doing so, they address cultures to provide for a vivid understanding between member states. Especially the Intangible Heritage Convention highlights the invaluable role of the intangible cultural heritage as a factor in bringing human beings closer together and ensuring exchange and understanding among them 93. Both conventions promote respect between member states that includes between different cultures. Certainly, this remains a challenge because cultures are not easily to grasp. A characteristic which is currently emphasised is their internal dynamics. Cultures are not given, static entities. They exchange with each other; and within themselves, they embed different value patterns. 94 Societies are seen to be stable groups less than ever before. All the more and against the danger of cultural relativism, UNESCO requests ethical standards for and within cultures. Respect is vital to be respected oneself, there are some cultures that may not be worthy of respect because they themselves have been shown to be intolerant, exclusive, exploitative, cruel and repressive 95. A culture is only respected as long as it falls into UNESCO s ethical framework. Hence, UNESCO s idea of culture sets a standard and creates cultures itself: UNESCO is indeed a powerful producer of culture, and a highly influential actor, capable of defining and framing conditions, problems, and solutions, and thus framing the interests and desired actions of others, especially those of the nation- 91 That is also the essence of the World Culture Report, ordered by UNESCO and edited by Cuéllar, Javier Pérez de (1995): Our Creative Diversity. Compare also Nie, Halina (Ed.) (1998): Cultural Rights and Wrongs. A collection of essays in commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNESCO Paris Compare the concept of heritage, chapter I UNESCO (2003): Preamble. 94 Compare: Cultures are often regarded as unified systems of ideas and beliefs. [ But] cultures overlap [ they] do not have sharply delineated boundaries. [ ] cultures usually do not speak with one voice on religious, ethical, social or political matters and other aspects of people s lives [ ]. Cultures do not commonly form homogeneous units [...] numerous cultural differences may exist along gender, class, religion, language, ethnicity and other fault lines, Cuellar (1995), p. 35f. 95 Ibid, p

28 states. Culture is not only a question of meaning-making in a communicative sense, but also of exercising power 96. Conversely, this definition rejects elitism between nations. UNESCO s idea of culture has been highly successful. A comparison with OALD definitions demonstrates how its specific interpretation has been accepted in the reader s community of the dictionary. Formerly even opposing meanings were given up. OALD 1974 OALD 1989 OALD advanced development of the human powers; development of the body, mind and spirit by training and experience: Physical culture is important, but we must not neglect the culture of the mind. 2 evidence of intellectual development (of arts, of science, etc.) in human society: He is a man of considerable culture. Universities should be centres of cultures. 3 state of intellectual development among a people; [C] particular form of intellectual development: We owe much to Greek culture. He has studied the cultures of Oriental countries. 4 all the arts, beliefs, social institutions etc. characteristic of a community, race, etc.: the culture of the South Sea Islanders. 5 cultivating; the rearing of bees, silkworms, etc. He has five acres devoted to bulb culture; to the growing of such flowers as daffodils, tulips, etc. culture(d) pearl, pearl produced in an oyster shell into which a piece of grit has been introduced. 6 (boil) growth of bacteria (for medical or scientific study) a culture of cholera germs. 1 (a) refined understanding and appreciation of art, literature, etc: a society without much culture. She is a woman of considerable culture. Universities should be centres of culture. (b) (often derog) art, literature etc collectively: tourists coming to Venice in search of culture 2 state of intellectual development of a society: twentieth-century mass-culture. A period of high / low culture 3 particular form of intellectual expression, eg in art and literature: we owe much to Greek culture. She has studied the cultures of Oriental cultures. 4 customs, arts, social institutions, etc of a particular group or people: the culture of the Eskimos. working-class culture. 5 Development through training, exercise, treatment, etc: physical culture, ie developing one s muscles and fitness by doing exercises. The culture of the mind is vital. 6 growing of plants or rearing of certain types of animal (eg bees, silkworms, etc) to obtain a crop or improve the species: bulb culture, i.e. the growing of flowers from bulbs. 7 (biology) group of bacteria grown for medical or scientific study: a culture of cholera germs. Culture WAY OF LIFE 1 [U] the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group: European / Islamic / American culture; working-class culture 2 a country, group, etc. with its own beliefs, etc: The children are taught to respect different cultures; the effect of technology on traditional cultures ART / MUSIC / LITERATURE 3 [U] art, music, literature, etc., thought of as a group: Venice is a beautiful city full of culture and history; popular culture (= that is enjoyed by a lot of people); the Minister for Culture BELIEFS / ATTITUDES 4 the beliefs and attitudes about sth that people in a particular group or organization share: The political cultures of the United States and the United Kingdom are very different. A culture of failure exists in some schools; company culture. We are living in a consumer culture. GROWING / BREEDING 5 (technical) the growing of plants or breeding of particular animals in order to get a particular substance or crop from them: the culture of silkworms (= for silk) CELLS / BACTERIA 6 (biology, medical) a group of cells or bacteria, especially one taken from a person or an animal and grown for medical or scientific study; the process of obtaining and growing these cells: a culture of cells from the tumour. Yogurt is made from active cultures; to do / take a throat culture In yellow: non-acceptable interpretations for UNESCO In green: acceptable interpretations for UNESCO Without colour: indifferent meaning for UNESCO 96 Turtinen (2000), p

29 The definitions of culture in the OALD within about thirty years illustrate an interesting shift: some definitions of 1974 are completely at odds with the UNESCO declaration; they are not only different, but also not compatible with the positive, all-embracing view of the organization. Definitions like evidence of intellectual development (of arts, of science, etc.) in human society, which leads to statements like he is a man of considerable culture 97 concedes culture only to an elite, to some particularly educated people. A definition like state of intellectual development of a society which results in sentences like a period of high / low culture 98 is against UNESCO s appreciation of all cultures as having an equal value, independent from time and space. Interestingly, these elitist definitions do not appear any more in the OALD edition of By contrast, definitions like the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group and a country, group, etc. with its own beliefs, etc seem to follow the political correct understanding of UNESCO. As a result, nowadays not only each individual, but also each culture is seen to merit respect. The heritage conventions are in line with this point of view; they try to assure the maintenance of cultural diversity. Culture is also often explained by a relation to nature. It is even said that in European contexts, it impossible to understand the concept of culture without reference to its opposing concept, nature 99, that is by a dualistic framework. However, the last decades emphasise on a less contradictory relation between the two. Accordingly, the World Heritage Convention still separates between natural and cultural heritage, the Intangible Heritage Convention focuses on cultural heritage created in interaction with nature. In these frameworks, culture is seen to be truly human. Only culture gives him the possibility to live a meaningful life and to value his environment. Modern societies tend to appreciate a wide spectrum of heritage items. 97 OALD (1974): Culture. 98 OALD (1989): Culture. 99 Carrithers, Michael (1998): Nature and Culture. In: Barnard, Alan and Spencer, Jonathan: Encyclopaedia of social and cultural anthropology. London New York , p ; p. 393, my emphasis. The nature-culture concept is explained in chapter II.2.a. Compare as well: Heyd, Thomas: Natural Heritage: Culture in Nature. In: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.v. and Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus (Ed.) (2002): Natur und Kultur. Ambivalente Dimensionen unseres Erbes. Perspektivenwechsel. Nature and Culture. Ambivalent Dimensions of our Heritage. Change of Perspective. Cottbus 2002, p

30 6. Heritage : a transformation of symbols Right from its beginning, UNESCO has explicitly promoted the conservation and protection of the world s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science 100 for the overall goal to contribute to peace and security, as its Constitution of 1945 declares. This obvious appreciation of heritage gave reason to both the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Heritage Convention. Thereby, ideas of heritage in the two conventions are inherently linked with concepts of tradition and culture. All of these concepts try to assure meaning: traditions link to the past, a culture connects a community, and heritage emphasises on a profound affection for symbols. But what is the world s heritage exactly and is it capable to contribute to peace? Essentially, the concept is taken to contain symbolic meanings. What symbols do people associate with heritage? It is worth mentioning that a lexicological definition of the word inheritance shifted to the term heritage and vice versa. This is shown by the definitions of the three OALD editions. OALD 1974 OALD 1989 OALD 2000 Heritage n/ That which has been or may be inherited. 1 things such as works of art, cultural achievements and folklore that have been passed on from earlier generations: our literary heritage; These ancient buildings are part of the national heritage 2 (dated or fml) property that has been or may be inherited by an heir noun [usually sing.] the history, traditions and qualities that a country or society has had for many years and that are considered an important part of its character: Spain's rich cultural heritage. The building is part of our national heritage. Inheriting: receive s.th by inheritance; (fig) what is inherited, an inheritance of ill-feeling 1 inheritance (of sth) (from sb/sth) inheriting (sth from sb): The title passes by inheritance to the eldest son. (fig) the inheritance of good looks from one s parents (attrib) inheritance tax. 2 inheritance (from sb) what is inherited: When she was 21 she came into (ie received) her inheritance. (fig) a bitter dispute which left an inheritance of ill-feeling Inheritance 1 [C usually sing, U] the money, property, etc. that you receive from sb when they die; the fact of receiving sth when sb dies: She spent all her inheritance in a year. The title passes by inheritance to the eldest son. She came into (= received) her inheritance at eighteen. 2 [U, C] something from the past or from your family that affects the way you behave, look, etc: our artistic / cultural inheritance. Physical characteristics are determined by genetic inheritance. Altogether, the definition of heritage shifted from a more technical expression, which concerns mainly individuals, to a concern of a whole community. This shift is already incorporated in the World Heritage Convention, which uses the term heritage instead of 100 UNESCO (1945): Constitution, Article 1.2.c. 26

31 inheritance. 101 At the end, the OALD definition of 2000 is to be re-found in UNESCO s appreciation; like UNESCO s idea of culture, also its idea of heritage seems to be taken over by the dictionary s reader s community. To start with its history, initial stages of heritage existed before modern times; e.g. they can be seen in the worship of religious relics: Over ensuing centuries [ ] material relics played an increasing role as emblems of power and piety, then of popular purpose. Heritage today is more substantial, more secular, and more social 102. Like tradition, heritage seems to be a widespread invention in times of changes. In the current times of modernization and globalization, it is more successful than ever before. Moreover, it is not taken for granted any more, but it is encompassed with meaning. Critics complain that caring for heritage draws away means from more basic necessities like food or health care. This seems to be a short-sighted point of view. Heritage is not a superficial extra, if its function is seen to be a vital self-assurance: First, the having, creating and caring for heritage is, in a sense, a basic social need. The need to remember, to reinterpret the past individually and collectively, and to do so using material culture (among other means) is a social phenomenon woven into the very fabric of modernity. The existence and conservation of material heritage is thus observable in most modern cultures (which are almost all existing cultures today) [ ] The second assumption is that heritage and heritage conservation are best understood as social processes and not in physical terms as a set of static artefacts with fixed meaning. This suggests that the goal of conservation is to preserve what is relevant in other words, what is valuable to the particular culture in a particular time and place, not simply preserving a certain collection of things. 103 In other words, one can speak of a basic heritage-creation-process or a socio-cultural construction 104 of heritage. Heritage is essential for communities; it is something significant for a group in a certain way. 105 This is an early insight of UNESCO and certainly the reason for both conventions. But, to admit the truth of heritage, a special appreciation is almost all what can be said about its general aspects. 101 The distinction between heritage and inheritance is pointed out in an American cartoon: Why so sad? a man asks a friend. Well, the National Trust said to Celebrate your inheritance, and I don t have any to celebrate. Cheer up. It s celebrate your heritage, not your inheritance ; quoted in Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p Mason, Randall and Torre, Marta de la (2000): Heritage Conservation and values in globalizing societies, p In: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p Mason and Torre (2000), p Even complicated attempts exist to express this value in economical terms; compare Klamer, Arjo and Throsby, David (2000): Paying for the past: the economics of cultural heritage. In: UNESCO publishing (2000) (Ed.): World Culture Report p

32 The reason is a conceptual problem of the term. It does not limit which history, traditions and qualities a country or society (or whatever other group or even individuals) can consider as an important part of its character 106. This lexicological enumeration is excessively broad; in fact it does not limit which items fall into the concept of heritage. The reason is simple: there is no mechanical standard for heritage: Heritage today all but defies definition. Overuse reduces the term to cant. So routinely is heritage rated for a good thing that few ask what it is good for. [ ] Yet its very lack of explicit meaning endears heritage to many custodians. [ ] Untrammelled by definition, heritage agencies feel free to back whatever they favour at any given moment [ ] Since what is valued is always in flux, it is best to let heritage go on redefining itself. 107 What is a rare treasure and what a random left-over? This vagueness becomes more and more evident in the case of the World Heritage Convention. Even though the Convention and its operational guidelines enumerate criteria, it turns out to be difficult to definitely exclude special types of properties. In order not to become arbitrary, new, associative standards have to be taken into consideration. Until now, it does not seem like UNESCO wants to limit the scope of heritage. The list is growing at an unforeseen pace. Frequent re-definitions of (World) heritage, which are actually supported by UNESCO, can be observed through the constant changes to the guidelines. By doing this, the scope of World Heritage was widened respectively. This follows a general and ever faster trend of broadening the (European) concept of heritage : Three dimensions of its enlargement merit attention: from the elite and grand to the vernacular and everyday; from the remote to the recent; and from the material to the intangible 108. In the sixty years of its existence, UNESCO promoted these enlargements. Particular the recent discovery of intangible heritage is highly supported by the organization, as the adoption of the new Convention illustrates. 109 It will be interesting to see what is going to be included next. Only one limitation seems to be common. By repeated lexicological definitions, heritage is somehow related to the past. Accordingly, the conventions cover either long-lasting witnesses of human characteristics or ask for a continuity of customs. As said above, a link to the past seems to be decisive for meaning. Nonetheless, a link to the past does not need to be a link to history; on the contrary, the significance of heritage is of another nature than the characteristics of history. One can even see ideas behind heritage and history as being contradictory. A difference lies in objectivity, which remains a holy grail for even the most 106 OALD (2000): Heritage. 107 Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p Ibid, p The development of the concept of intangible cultural heritage is explained in chapter III. 28

33 engaged historian 110, while heritage admirers do not care much about objective facts. Consequently, history is about knowledge and shall explain things; heritage is about a personal relationship and moves us. Heritage is not about a truth or a search for truth. It is more about self-assurance than about the real self, heritage diverges from history not in being biased but in its attitude toward bias. Neither enterprise is value-free. But while historians aim to reduce bias, heritage sanctions and strengthens it 111. Heritage is not about anything which can be testified objectively. It is about symbols, and that is little about reliability. Heritage is not a compromise, but a statement of subjective devotion and often enough, it implies confrontation. This concept of heritage has serious consequences for the conventions. If heritage is based on a subjective fondness, how can an organization set objective criteria? Which idea does UNESCO combine with heritage, if it cannot be a measurable significance of an object? This explanation of heritage is certainly a late definition, influenced by the experiences of an ever-growing heritage industry. At the beginning of the 1970 s, heritage was not that popular; it was mainly seen in monumental sites threatened by decay or destruction. Practical and subsequent theoretical difficulties arose mainly in the decades of applying the World Heritage Convention. National heritage affection came into conflict with international interests. Items which were decisive for the self-assurance of one people were preferred to be repressed or forgotten by others. The scope of heritage has been essentially questioned. 112 One certainly extreme example demonstrates this challenge of World Heritage. On request of Japan, the Genbaku Dome, Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan, 113 was inscribed in 1996 as the only structure left standing in the area where the first atomic bomb exploded on 6 August The inscription was criticized by both China and the United States. China objected the inscription by stating that it might encourage people to deny the fact that during the 110 Lowenthal (2003): Heritage Crusade, p Ibid, p. 122: He explains vividly: Heritage is [ ] not testable or even a reasonably plausible account of some past, but a declaration of faith in that past. [ ] heritage is not history, even when it mimics history. It uses historical traces and tells historical tales, but these tales and traces are stitched into fables that are open neither to critical analysis nor to comparative scrutiny. Heritage and history rely on antithetical modes of persuasion. History seeks to convince by truth and succumbs to falsehood. Heritage exaggerates and omits, candidly invents and frankly forgets, and thrives on ignorance and error. [ ] Heritage is immune to critical reappraisal because it is not erudition but catechism; what counts is not checkable but credulous allegiance. To vilify heritage as biased is thus futile: bias is the main point of heritage. Prejudiced pride in the past is not a sorry consequence of heritage; it is its essential purpose. Heritage thereby attests our identity and affirms our worth, p. 119ff. 112 Compare Lowenthal (2002): The Past. 113 The Genbaku Dome is exceptional insofar as it is one of the few inscribed war memorials and insofar as it is one of the few sites inscribed solely by criterion C(vi). Compare Chapter XXX. 114 World Heritage Centre: Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome). Brief description. DOA 10 th April

34 Second World War, it was the other Asian countries and peoples who suffered the greatest loss in life and property 115. The United States interpreted the past obviously different than Japan and was concerned about the lack of historical perspective 116. Hence, Hiroshima, a crucial site for Japanese identity, is a site which China and the United States would rather stop commemorating about; their connotations to the past are evidently different. UNESCO decided in favour of the Japanese point of view. But there is indeed a dilemma about memorial sites within UNESCO. In 1979, the Committee inscribed Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland and decided to enter Auschwitz concentration camp on the List as a unique site and to restrict the inscription of other sites of a similar nature 117. This limitation to only one or few memorial sites has obviously not been kept, as besides of Genbaku Dome, several other memorial sites have been inscribed. 118 The scope of heritage has not been restricted. It shows how close UNESCO s heritage idea remains to national identity building, which is in its very nature often against others. Decisions are often close to (hostile) politics. Hence, what is the goal of an appreciation of subjective heritage? It can only mean that if heritage is about symbols, if it is based on subjective fondness, UNESCO s aim cannot be to erase these characteristics. On the contrary, the two heritage conventions promote the acceptance and respect of such heritage. 115 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1996): World Heritage Committee. Twentieth session. Merida, Mexico. 2-7 December WHC-96/CONF.201/ March Annex V: Statements by China and the United States of America during the inscription of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome). URL: Ibid, the full text is: The United States is concerned about the lack of historical perspective in the nomination of Genbaku Dome. The events antecedent to the United States use of atomic weapons to end World War II are key to understanding the tragedy of Hiroshima. Any examination of the period leading up to 1945 should be placed in the appropriate historical context. The United States believes the inscription of war sites outside the scope of the Convention. We urge the Committee to address the question of the suitability of war sites for the World Heritage List. 117 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1979): World Heritage Committee. Third session. Cairo and Luxor, October Report of the Rapporteur. CC-79/CONF.003/13. Paris, 30 November URL: Auschwitz was inscribed in hope that this project, supported by such terrible proof, will contribute to the maintenance of world peace. Compare also: ICOMOS: Advisory Body Evaluation (1978). World Heritage List Number 31. Nomination of the National Museum of Auschwitz- Birkenau. Panzwowe Muzeum. Oszwiecim-Brzezinka. 6 June URL: E.g. memorials of the slave trade. Other examples of how close heritage is related to self-identification are some African states, which have been reluctant to nominate heritage sites dating from the colonial era. Pakistan nominated a natural heritage site located in Kashmir; Jordan nominated Jerusalem etc; Turtinen (2000), p. 20. Political issues were also important when Iraq and Syria entered the World Heritage Convention by stating that this should not signify recognition of or entering into relations with Israel, Compare: Omland, Atle (1997): World Heritage - and the relationship between the global and the local. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of Archaeology, Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge. August URL: and Lévi-Strauss, Laurent: Impact of recent developments in the notion of cultural heritage on the World Heritage Convention, p , in: UNESCO Publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p

35 The goal 119 can only be to smooth down hostile nationalistic interpretations, to give old heritage a new meaning. Symbols need to be domesticated. The own heritage needs to be seen in a different, embracing context. National heritage needs to be transformed into global heritage. Biased symbols of nation-citizenship need to be turned into still biased, but all-round symbols of a world-citizenship. A representative of the United States understood this transformation, when he stated: As a mature nation we must accept this nomination [of Genbaku Dome] along with that of Auschwitz as powerful reminders of the destructive powers of the human race, and not as a statement of the painful political conflicts that afflicted our parents and grandparents a generation ago 120. A new associative, ethical standard of UNESCO heritage needs to be, then, the willingness of member states to transform their national treasures into a somehow open-minded worldwide concern. This standard of heritage clearly reflects UNESCO s ethical standpoints. An ethical transformation needs to be essential for both conventions, even though on different levels. World Heritage properties are ranked above national properties. Member states need to accept that treasures located within their boundaries are not mainly an expression of their prominence, but of a universal significance: what is it that makes us human? Intangible heritage remains grounded in its local contexts, but people need to transform eventual hostile or discriminative meanings into meanings respecting human rights. 121 Certainly, these alterations remain an internal contradiction. Concerning World Heritage, it is indeed paradoxical that parts of what used to be uniquely national jewels of the world s nation-states, and crucial to their formation, now are being tied to the international community, and reinterpreted from the point of view of humankind as a whole 122. Concerning intangible heritage, hostile or discriminative meanings need to be re-interpreted into meanings based on UNESCO s ethical standards, even though originally, traditional rites might have been far from containing anything like modern human rights. 123 These transformations are certainly idealistic and globally reformatory in aim, but, nevertheless, highly pragmatic, contradictory, and sometimes hypocritical in practice 124, as 119 This goal was certainly not explicitly set from the beginning on; it is an interpretation of Turtinen (2000) and myself of how an initial safeguarding project was turned into a project of world-citizenship; compare Chapter II. 120 Araoz, Gustavo F. (1996): Domestic threat to World Heritage. Letter from the Executive Director. In: US/ICOMOS Newsletter Number 5, URL: The ill-feelings between China and Japan about the role of Japan during the Second World War from mid April 2005 illustrate how painful the search for an appropriate interpretation of the past can be and indicate how much it is needed. 121 See the respective chapters XXX and XXX. 122 Turtinen, URL. 123 Compare chapter III Turtinen, URL. He speaks only about World Heritage, but this is valid for intangible heritage as well. 31

36 the example of the Genbaku Dome illustrates. The conventions aim to convince people to identify not only as citizens of a nation, but also of the world; they promote a smooth globalisation. In total, there seem to be only few nominations of World Heritage Sites which are consciously directed against someone else. Already from the site of member states, atrocities and injuries are often smoothed over or left out 125. The World Heritage project seems mostly to be successful in re-interpreting heritage as an international peace-supporting affair; the high support for the new Convention seems to tag on this success. Nonetheless, of course, willingness of transformation alone is not enough. UNESCO established other criteria and standards which World Heritage, on the one hand, and intangible cultural heritage, on the other, need to fulfil. 7. Concepts of heritage in the two UNESCO conventions UNESCO presents the two heritage conventions as complementary sister conventions. It promotes an international recognition of the profound relationship between tangible and intangible heritage and it emphasises that even if tangible and intangible heritage are very different, they are two sides of the same coin: both carry meaning and the embedded memory of humanity 126. However, the differences between World Heritage and intangible cultural heritage in definition and scope are indeed essential. World Heritage is to be seen in exceptional properties; it covers values incarnated in constructed or naturally grown properties and concentrates on long-lasting existence. Intangible heritage is to be seen in representative customs, it covers demonstrations performed by people and focuses on vibrant displays. 127 As said above, World Heritage needs to be re-interpreted as globally relevant, 125 Turtinen, URL. 126 Bouchenaki, Mounir: Keynote address of the Assistant Director General for Culture, UNESCO. The Interdependency of the Tangible and intangible cultural heritage. URL: related to ICOMOS (2003): Proceedings of the 14th General Assembly and International Scientific Symposium Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites", Victoria Falls Zimbabwe October URL: Also in arts, one can separate between long-lasting works of art and short-term manifestations. This leads to a distinction between autographic (the material instantiation and the work are one and the same) artefacts like paintings or sculptures and allographic (the work and its instantiations in performance are not one and the same works of art like in music, dance and theatre. This defines different works of art; but it is useful for heritage as well. World Heritage focuses on (artistic) tangible instantiations, intangible cultural heritage takes into account both works of art and their respective performances: It could be said that the tangible heritage list is dedicated to the autographic and the intangible [Masterpieces] list to the allographic, compare: Kirshenblatt- Giblett, Barbara: Le patrimoine immatériel et la production métaculturelle du patrimoine. In: Blackwell Publishing (Ed.) (2004): Museum International N Views and Visions of the Intangible. Volume 56 32

37 intangible heritage needs to transform hostile or discriminative attributes into new meanings mirroring human rights and mutual respect. The on-going confusions about the conventions concerning tangible and intangible heritage led the World Heritage Committee to discuss and emphasise the differences. In its seventh extraordinary session in December 2004, the Committee stated: The 1972 and 2003 Conventions have been drafted by Member States to address different forms of heritage and therefore to have different scopes and established a list enumerating the essential differences which exist between tangible and intangible heritage, as well as among the different means and measures of their respective protection and safeguarding 128. In the following, the vital points are summarized: intangible cultural heritage does not mean associative values of e.g. World Heritage intangible cultural heritage does not depend on a specific building or place but it is manifested in knowledge and skills or knowledge and processes intangible cultural heritage evolves continuously and hence does not need to fulfil a test of authenticity as World Heritage contrary to World Heritage, intangible cultural heritage needs to be safeguarded rather than protected. Safeguarding emphasises on aspects of artistic viability, transmission or revitalization. World Heritage needs to be of outstanding universal value, intangible cultural heritage needs to be representative. 129 Altogether, the World Heritage Convention follows a top-down approach ; the Intangible Heritage Convention realizes a bottom-up approach. Differences need also to be seen in the respective levels on which heritage is defined. The following sketch illustrates the various conditions which need to be fulfilled. Issue. May 2004, p , p. 53; in English as: Intangible Heritage as Metaproduction. URL: p. 60. The Masterpieces programme is explained in chapter XX. 128 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004): World Heritage Committee. Seventh Extraordinary Session. WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/9. Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 6-11 December Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda: Co-operation and coordination between UNESCO Conventions concerning heritage. Paris, 25 November 2004 (approved in the extraordinary session). 129 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004): WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/9. 33

38 Levels of defining World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage World Heritage Definition in Convention Esp. outstanding universal value Heritage State is party to the convention and able to fulfil the prerequisites / responsibilities (identification, nomination, protection, policy setting, tentative lists, comparative analyses, statement of outstanding universal value, authenticity / integrity, etc.) Definition and notions in Operational Guidelines from Esp. Authenticity and Integrity Management Plan Related former programmes with distinct definitions The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments 1931 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Legal instrument mentioned in the Convention: (Hague Convention) 1954 Constitution of UNESCO International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter, ICOMOS) 1964 Intangible Cultural Heritage Definition in Convention Compatible with human rights Identity, Continuity State is party to the convention and able to fulfil the responsibilities (see above) Definition in Operational Guidelines To be developed Action plan Heritage Related former programmes with distinct definitions Traditional Music of the World, 1961 (Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, 1998 Living Human Treasures, 1993 Endangered Languages, 2001 Other legal instruments mentioned in the Convention Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore of 1989 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2001 Istanbul Declaration of 2002 Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity,

39 Strikingly, the World Heritage Convention cites only the UNESCO constitution 130, while the preamble of the Intangible Heritage Convention lists eight other legal instruments with an emphasis on human rights instruments. All of them have to be taken into consideration before nominating a custom. Evidently, intangible cultural heritage, which concerns people more directly than World Heritage, is evaluated by clearly universalistic criteria. Also the wide range of preceding heritage programmes referred to in the new Convention indicates that it cut its losses from their experiences. It also emphasises new notions like dynamics, exchange, ethical values and identity, mirroring inter alia a broadening concept of culture. 131 Requirements like a convincing master or action plan or a complete nomination file should not be underestimated. The fulfilment of these background criteria can easily be decisive for a nomination, particularly if the heritage characteristics are difficult to interpret. For World Heritage, qualitative and structural problems are one reason for the felt imbalances of the List 132. For intangible heritage, the importance of a credible action plan and a convincing nomination file could become even greater, because the final decision about essential criteria like identity and continuity is given to the tradition-bearers; nonetheless, UNESCO needs to be able to reject nominations 133. As this thesis is about concepts of heritage, structural problems won t be discussed but, to proof the credibility of ethical standards, a sufficient amount of sources and convincing master plans might provide the best arguments for nominations. Another reason for the establishment of a new convention is seen in a certain ethnocentric influence and success of the old convention. Regrettably, the World Heritage idea booms 130 The Operational Guidelines, however, do quote other legal instruments, the version of 2005 inter alia twelve Conventions (those are included in the Chronology, Annex 1); most of them were created after Compare the change in the definition of culture, chapter I.5. A comment of Bouchenaki indicates the same shift: The quest for the message of cultural properties has become more important. It requires us to identify the ethical values, social customs, beliefs or myths of which intangible heritage is the sign and expression. The significance of architectural or urban constructions and the transformation of natural landscapes through human intervention are more and more connected to questions of identity in: ICOMOS (2003). 132 Compare ICOMOS president Petzet, Michael: It is frustrating that interesting and potentially worthy nominations from under-represented regions are sometimes referred or deferred because they are incomplete, do not properly justify the qualities and significances of a site, or because adequate legal or management frameworks are not in place. In many cases, nominations could have been presented more effectively with technical advice and support, in: ICOMOS (2004): The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps - an Action Plan for the Future. An Analysis by ICOMOS. Introduction by Michael Petzet. February URL: For the preceding Masterpieces programme (see chapter III.1.b), that is frankly admitted. A member of the jury, Regenvanu, Ralph, states: Why were 50 % of the candidatures not approved by jury for Proclamation? Almost all were qualified to be masterpieces: amazing expressions of culture chosen by the countries themselves. So, why were half of them not approved? While the candidature file has to demonstrate the outstanding quality of the expression, the jury tends to assume this outstanding quality is usually not the main factor involved in the non-approval of a file. Rather, main factors for not approving are (1) the candidature file s not following the set process and (2) weakness of the action plan, in: ACCU (2004), p

40 mainly in European countries, while in other parts of the world it is often only slowly carried through. As indicated, this is not only due to subject matters, but also to structural problems. Until now, the new Convention is particularly supported by non-european states, mainly in Asian countries. They possess extensive experience in the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Primarily Japan s understanding of (intangible) heritage influenced the new concept; even the phrase intangible cultural heritage comes from the Japanese translation into English 134. Admittedly, Japan is not under-represented on the World Heritage List. One can only hope that particularly under-represented African and Arab states will find enough resources to support the new Convention, but that also European and North American countries take part. Hopefully, a North-South conflict will not be a difference between the two conventions. 135 To express the differences more figuratively speaking, both conventions provide stones for a building of world-citizenship. They try to answer different questions about humanity. World Heritage helps to answer questions like: who are we? What have we done so far? What can we do to maintain witnesses of life on earth? Intangible cultural heritage helps to answer questions like: what are respected and respectful examples of humanity? What can we do to maintain our diversity? The goal of both conventions is a promotion of peace and prosperity. Therefore, both require a transformation of local treasures into entities of worldwide concern. 134 Prott, Lyndel (2000): Defining the concept of intangible heritage : challenges and prospects. In: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p , p Compare: Japon est le pays pionnier dans le domaine de l instauration du système de protection du patrimoine immatériel ; Isomura, Hisanori (2004): Le Japon et le patrimoine immatériel, in: Duvignaud (2004), p He compares also the appreciations and expectations in European, Asian and other countries towards intangible heritage, especially p. 44f. Also South- Korea is very engaged in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. 135 The UNESCO Secretary-General Ko chiro Matsuura explicitly expresses this wish: as a former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee [ ] I could not help but notice that there was a distinct imbalance in the geographical distribution of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, which were more broadly representative of the North. I very much hope that the Convention for the Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage does not begin with a reverse pattern because I am convinced that the protection of the world s intangible cultural heritage is of importance to all countries, developed and developing ; Address on the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1 June 2004.URL: As said above, the overwhelmingly fast acceptance of the Intangible Heritage Convention, which was adopted after only two years of concrete preparation and without any votes against it, encourages to look forward to a second success, compare: 120 states voted in favour, eight abstained, and there were no votes against adoption of the text, p. 40 in: Smeets (2004): Keynote Speech, in: ACCU (2004). Admittedly, the abstaining states were mainly Western, like Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Moreover, within the first ratification states, there are no Western (European) states; in mid August 2005, Algeria, Mauritius, Japan, Gabon, Panama, China, Central African Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Republic of Korea, Seychelles, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, Mali, Mongolia, Croatia, Egypt and Oman had ratified the new Convention. Moreover, the development of the concept itself took much longer; see Chapter III. 36

41 Undoubtedly, the two conventions do not cover all possible forms of heritage. Accordingly, in this analysis other heritage forms with possible respective programmes will be left out because of consistency and space reasons One part left out is the often called movable heritage which includes literature, music, handicrafts etc. Parts of these items might fall into the UNESCO programme Memory of the World. It guards documentary heritage against collective amnesia calling upon the preservation of the valuable archive holdings and library collections all over the world ensuring their wide dissemination, UNESCO, Communication and Information Sector (2005): Memory of the World. URL: URL_ID=1538&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html This programme does obviously not belong to the Cultural Sector, but to the Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO and is therefore left out. The programme Living Human Treasure Systems of 1994 designates persons who possess to a very high degree the knowledge and skills required for performing or creating specific elements of the intangible cultural heritage that the Member States have selected as a testimony to their living cultural traditions and to the creative genius of groups, communities and individuals present in their territory, UNESCO, Culture Sector (2005): Living Human Treasures. URL: URL_ID=2243&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html As this programme encourages single member states to support extraordinary skilled individuals within their boundaries and is therefore not an international programme, it will not be discussed herein. Moreover, UNESCO does not deal with intellectual property aspects, since this field belongs to the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), compare Blake (2002), p.vi. She discusses comprehensively the advantages and drawbacks of preceding programmes like the Living Human Treasures as well as the relations to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); she explains also the respective legal. It is certain that all of these expressions are just hints and helps and over-lapping categories. Nevertheless, in this thesis, only the heritage defined by UNESCO more precisely by its Culture Sector and the World Heritage Centre as tangible and intangible heritage is taken into consideration. 37

42 II. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of Conservation and protection in a world of modernization a) Introduction: internal paradoxes and shifts of standards The World Heritage idea is a paradoxical, challenging concept, which is nevertheless (or maybe because of it) highly successful. 1 A straight-forward definition or even a philosophy most likely cannot be created. 2 The principal reasons are conceptual difficulties. Some of them existed from the beginning on, like a missing definition of outstanding universal value; some were worked out due to a shifting interpretation of the whole project, paralleling a growing awareness of the vagueness of heritage characteristics. 3 To start with its history, 4 the World Heritage Convention was originally designed as a protection programme in a modernizing world; it primarily defended remainders of the past and resources for the future against decay, destruction, pollution etc. However, expectations were divergent. 5 In the course of time, the idea was adapted to the needs of a globalising world. It became politicised in the sense of promoting culture as a means to promote global collective feelings. This led to a shift from action to presentation. World Heritage has become deeply embedded in and influenced by the discourse of global equal rights. Increasingly, World Heritage is regarded not only as a duty but also as a right: all states and cultures have a right to equal opportunities of being part of the World Heritage 6. The idea 1 Compare: The 1972 Convention on the protection of world heritage has proved to be one of the most successful and visible programmes of UNESCO and has consequently obtained the status of flagship programme, UNESCO, Executive Board (2004): Hundred and sixty-ninth Session. 169 EX/14 Rev. Paris, 9 April Item of the provisional agenda. Strengthening of World Heritage Centre s Capacities to carry out its responsibility for the implementation of the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage The question after a philosophy has been asked from the first session of the World Heritage Committee on: It was the opinion of several members that the Committee should issue a statement on the whole philosophy underlying the Convention and, in particular, the need for a World Heritage List. Others felt that the discussion on the criteria for inclusion of properties on the list would necessarily raise the philosophical concepts involved, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1977): Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. First Session. UNESCO, Paris, 27 June - 1 July Final Report. CC- 77/CONF.001/9. PARIS, 17 October URL: Compare especially Lévi-Strauss, Laurent: Impact of recent developments in the notion of cultural heritage on the World Heritage Convention, p ; in: UNESCO Publishing (2000): World Culture Report Find ibid. an analysis of the success of and changing attitudes towards the Convention. 4 An early overview about the origins of the convention is given by Slatyer, Ralph O. (1984): The origin and development of the World Heritage Convention. In: Linstrum, Derek (Ed.) (1984): Monumentum. The International Journal of Architectural Conservation. Special Issue. The World Heritage Convention. Published for ICOMOS. Guildford 1984, p Compare also UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005): Brief history (of the World Heritage Convention). URL: 5 To a gradual deviation in purpose and [ ] partial change in aims compare: Lévi-Strauss, UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p The initial concepts will be presented below. 6 Turtinen (2000), p

43 became a global democratic and regulatory project 7. This history of World Heritage, of changes in the main concepts, is explained in this second chapter. Firstly, initial concepts and their respective changes are verified with sources like operational guidelines, session reports and constitutive instruments (II.1.b and II.2). Above that, specific concepts like outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity are discussed and ethical, associative standards are proposed (chapter II.3 and II.4). It is stated (again), that ethical principles are essential to interpret (World) heritage. To understand the principle of associative standards for World Heritage, three conceptual difficulties are herein essential. The respective headlines are in summary: The change of a (World) heritage concept in the course of time in both lexicological and idealistic associations (compare chapter I. in general and chapter I.6 about concepts of heritage specifically). It implies that dogmatic, solely empirical standards of World Heritage are not possible. Based on initial ideas (II.1.b), this position is verified by demonstrating on the one hand changing concepts (II.2) and on the other hand flexible applications of criteria (II.3-II.4). E.g. this point of view is evident in the discipline of aesthetics, which does not allow mechanical criteria (II.3.b). The internal paradox of World Heritage Sites: they need to be of outstanding universal value, in other words unique or highly exceptional, and at the same time representative and democratically spread over the world (see especially chapter II.2.c about the Global Strategy). This paradox exists due to the intergovernmental character of UNESCO as a global referee (I.2 about the need of universal standards). It is particularly interesting because it is avoided in the Intangible Heritage Convention (III, mainly chapter III.1.a). Both difficulties are grounded in an initially, very restricted, and often mechanical standardizing. Criteria were set mainly as a vertical hierarchy concerning single states and not as a horizontal inter-national scale; this is explained right now. The last point implies that the initial standard setting was oriented mainly as ethnocentric (and often empirical) criteria following principles established until then in documents like the Athens or the Venice Charter (compare chapter II.1.b). In the course of time, some of these standards turned out to be difficult to translate into other parts of the world; evidently, that was the assumption they proceeded from. 7 Turtinen (2000), p

44 This point can be illustrated by taking also the Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was adopted together with the World Heritage Convention. The different scopes of the two instruments are reproduced in the following table. Comparison of the Convention and the Recommendation concerning Cultural and Natural Heritage from 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, 16 November 1972 cultural Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view. natural Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view Geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, 16 November 1972 heritage Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, including cave dwellings and inscriptions, and elements, groups of elements or structures of special value from the point of view of archaeology, history, art or science Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of special value from the point of view of history, art or science Sites: topographical areas, the combined works of man and of nature, which are of special value by reason of their beauty or their interest from the archaeological, historical, ethnological or anthropological points of view. heritage Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of special value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view Geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of species of animals and plants, valuable or threatened, of special value from the point of view of science or conservation Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of special value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty, or in their relation to the combined works of man and of nature. 40

45 The Recommendation highlights the value of national heritage as being different from universal heritage. 8 It exposes an additional characteristic of universal : it is more valuable than national, regional or local. Even though this aspect could be taken as a matter of course, this different valuation of heritage elucidates the concept of World Heritage. It is illustrated in the following pyramidal hierarchy scheme of heritage: In this interpretation, some (national) properties are so exceptional that they are the jewels of heritage or World Heritage. With view to an ever-growing List, this concept has led to the question of how much down the Committee can shift the criteria; where is the line between universal and national heritage? Certainly, a clear border does not exist. It is the task of every single state to nominate only its most valuable heritage properties. Thus, this concept asks for comparison of properties mainly within single states, and not as much between states. This scheme is certainly valid, but in the following, another scheme is more important. The pyramid scheme is indirectly presuming that the criteria can actually be interpreted equally within every nation. But is this the case? The principal question is not how much the World Heritage standards can go down in a pyramidal heritage interpretation, but how much they can shift horizontally between nations, away from initial, ethnocentric ideas of Europe or the United States (compare chapter II.1.b). This leads to the following sketch: 8 UNESCO emphasised on the fundamental difference in the protective focus of these two international instruments. [ ] This often forgotten enjoinder, if implemented with greater rigour by member states of UNESCO through national heritage policy and practice, could provide, as was indeed intended, an avenue for greater recognition of heritage of national value while reserving the implementation of the Convention specifically for the protection of cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value, Titchen (1996): Outstanding universal value, p

46 Can linear standards be set, an international line above which World Heritage is situated? In the first chapter, associative principles were proposed for traditions in a reliable link to the past, for culture in mutual respect and for UNESCO heritage in the willingness to transform own heritage into heritage respecting a global context. In the following, this is explained and verified for the specific case of World Heritage. UNESCO s World Heritage idea covers a wide range of possible types of properties: monuments, groups of buildings, sites, natural features, geological and physiographical formations and natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas are seen to be worth of protection. In the course of time, Cultural Landscapes, Historic Towns and Town Centres, Heritage Canals and Heritage Routes 9 were added. Any nomination measurement must be enriched by further standards, which should be of an ethical nature. b) Initial concepts of World Heritage Changes in concepts of World Heritage can only be understood if initial ideas are known. Those were already divergent and gave reason for some later conceptual difficulties. Altogether, the World Heritage Convention united several ideas from the decades before its adoption, from which the following are remarkable: Documents showing a growing awareness about a loss of cultural heritage (Athens Charter, Hague Convention, Venice Charter) Missions of international organizations (UN, UNESCO, IUCN, ICOMOS) US American ideas and initiatives, to be re-found in laws of the Department of the Interior International protection campaigns of UNESCO (Nubian Temples, Venice) 9 Operational Guidelines 2005 Article I.5. 42

47 These ideas were combined in July 1972 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Subsequently, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the outcome as the World Heritage Convention in October Legal documents against the loss of cultural heritage 1931 Athens Charter: monuments of artistic, historic or scientific interest 1954 Hague Convention: monuments of architecture, art or history [ ]; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art 1964 Venice Charter great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value Missions of international organizations 1945 UNESCO Constitution world s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right [ ] of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 27 Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits IUCN Statutes: Preamble natural beauty is one of the sources of inspiration of spiritual life and a necessary framework for the needs of recreation, made ever more essential by humanity's increasingly mechanized existence Mission: to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable ICOMOS Influences on the World Heritage Convention Ideas and initiatives of the United States of America National Park Service Department of the Interior In the century between 1872 and 1972 the National Park System grew from a single, original great public reservation called Yellowstone National Park to embrace almost 300 natural, historical, recreational, and cultural properties situated throughout the United States, its territories, and island possessions White House Conference A World Heritage Trust proposed to protect the world's superb natural and scenic areas and historic properties for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry 1966 National Historic Preservation Act preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans 1969 National Environmental Policy Act preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice International Campaigns of UNESCO 1959/60 Abu Simbel / Nubian temples 1966 Venice, Italy (=> 1973 Buddhist temple compounds of Borobodur, Indonesia) (=> 1974 Moenjodaro, Pakistan) These influences will only be mentioned, as a profound analysis would be too far-reaching. 43

48 Growing awareness about the loss of cultural heritage The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments adopted by the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments in 1931 considered monuments of artistic, historic or scientific interest and aimed at protecting artistic and historic monuments 10. History, art and science are important for World Heritage monuments and groups of buildings which need to be of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science. These three disciplines are like a red thread in the following legal instruments regarding the protection of cultural heritage. Archaeological and architectural values are less emphasised. They appear e.g. in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, known as the Hague Convention, which was adopted in May Expressions which seem to have influenced the World Heritage Convention are monuments of architecture, art or history [ ]; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art 11. Accordingly, the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) was created in 1964 by the Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments and adopted by ICOMOS in It defined ancient monuments as a common heritage and spoke of either aesthetic and historic value 12 or of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value 13 ; emphasis is again set on aesthetics and history more than on archaeological values. As a result, an archaeological value is stressed only in the Recommendation at National Level. Altogether, the criteria for cultural World Heritage are inspired by these former legal instruments. Emphasis has been laid on immovable heritage, whose values are mainly historical, aesthetic / artistic or scientific. Ethnology and anthropology were added as fairly new disciplines The First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments (1931): The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. Adopted in Athens URL 11 Compare UNESCO (Depository party) (1954/1999): General Provisions, URL: 12 The Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments (1964): International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. The Venice Charter. Adopted in Venice Article 9; URL: 13 Venice Charter, Article About the importance of anthropology for UNESCO compare chapter I.5. and footnote 48, page

49 Missions of international organizations International organizations played a major role in the establishment of the Convention. Conceptual origins emerged in the League of Nations in the 1920 s and 1930 s by promoting the idea of a common heritage of humanity deserving of international conservation though international cooperation 15. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives a general background by stating a distinction between economic, social and cultural fields. This might be re-found (e.g. in a preference for non-profit properties), but lately with the inclusion of industrial heritage, borders become fuzzy. Particularly, principles of the UNESCO constitution, of the missions of IUCN and ICOMOS as well as results of discussions of these organizations are to be found again in the Convention. As mentioned above, the idea of assuring the conservation and protection of the world s inheritance of books 16, works of art and monuments of history and science is laid down in Article 2c of the UNESCO constitution and apparently inspired the wording of the Convention 17. From 1948 on, UNESCO s General Conference 18 discussed possibilities for international protection efforts, which resulted in draft conventions for the protection of sites, monuments and works of art of special significance in Titchen, Sarah M. (2001): Challenging the spirit. A brief history. In: IUCN (Ed.): World Conservation. Vision and Reality. The World Heritage Convention in Action. 2/2001, p. 6. URL: 16 Books are not included by the Convention, being movable they don t belong into its scope. 17 E.g.: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture [ ] which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science, World Heritage Convention Article Instrumental prerequisites were discussed as early as The idea of establishing a committee and a fund for international protection efforts was discussed in UNESCO s General Conference 3 rd session. UNESCO (1949), when in view of scientific and cultural history, the Director-General was instructed, 6.42 to consider during 1949, in cooperation with the International Council of Museums, the desirability of setting up, under UNESCO s auspices, an International Committee of Experts to co-operate with the States concerned in the preservation of monuments and sites of historical value; 6.43 to report to the General Conference on the possibility of establishing an international fund to subsidize such preservation and restoration. In 1962, during the twelfth session of the UNESCO General Conference, member states were invited (c) to co-operate with UNESCO in spreading knowledge within their own countries of the masterpieces of world art and of the representative works of various literatures, and in developing the artistic education of young people and adults In order to promote the cultural development of communities and mutual international understanding through the reciprocal appreciation of the artistic and literary heritage of the various peoples, UNESCO (1962). In 1963, the Executive Board of UNESCO promoted a study of measures for the preservation of monuments through the establishment of an international fund or by any other appropriate means UNESCO (1963). These efforts were discussed again in the 16 th Session of the General Conference 1970, in which the Conference stated in favour of adopting an international instrument for the protection of monuments and sites of universal value (doc.16c/19), and decided to entrust the Director-General with drafting an international convention and a recommendation to Member States [ ] The Director-General is authorized to assist Member States, at their request, in direct operations for the preservation and presentation of sites, monuments and works of art of special significance UNESCO (1970). My emphasis. 19 UNESCO (1970). 45

50 A prominent figure from UNESCO s side was Michel Batisse, at the time Assistant Director- General for Science. He was highly influential in the establishment of UNESCO s Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB), contributed to the Stockholm conference and made sure that the natural heritage would be introduced and given its proper place 20 in the World Heritage Convention. Also IUCN proposed to combine efforts to protect cultural and natural heritage of worldwide importance from the 1960 s on. IUCN stressed the value of natural beauty as well as the protection of integrity and diversity. 21 US American initiatives and ideas The United States of America promoted strongly the idea of combining the conservation of nature and culture in one single document. This follows early US politics to officially appreciate nature and history together; a movement which started already in the 19 th century (as said above, a wide-spread recognition of culture as an embracing phenomenon started only in the middle of the 20 th century). This seems to be a backbone of the US proposal. Legal instruments which show the US American concerns are the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of The responsible National Park System (NPS), belonging to the Department of the Interior, is concerned with the protection of not only National Parks, but also National Monuments, National Memorials, National Military Parks, National Parkways, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, National Scenic Riverways, National Scenic Trails, and others 23. This illustrates a wide range of properties worth to be protected as national heritage, a range which was possibly associated to be comprehended in the World Heritage project as well. The NPS foundation goes back to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, that is UNESCO The Man and Biosphere Programme (2005): Michel Batisse ( ). URL: 21 Compare i.e. the Statutes of IUCN (1948/1996/2000/2002). The aspect of natural beauty is frequently seen to be relevant for humans; in the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites, UNESCO (1962), it is even considered that on account of their beauty and character, the safeguarding of landscapes and sites, [ ] is necessary to the life of men. Compare also chapter II.2.a. 22 United States of America, Government of the (1966): National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended through 2000 [With annotations]. This Act became law in the United States of America on October 15, URL: United States of America, Government of the (1969): National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of Portions as amended. This Act became law in the United States of America on January 1, URL: 23 United States of America, The National Park Service (2005): Family Tree of the National Park System. Introduction. URL: 46

51 years before the adoption of the World Heritage Convention. The US took this first national park worldwide as a positive model of a protected (natural) area and used the occasion of its jubilee to promote the idea. Thus, World Heritage as globally influential heritage can be seen as one interpretation of universal value. 24 Main figures were the Co-founder of WWF, Russell E. Train, and his colleague Joseph Fisher. In 1965, during a White House Conference on International Cooperation, they proposed a World Heritage Trust. President Johnson convoked the Conference, which gave new emphasis to the importance of aesthetic values, primarily natural but also cultural: the aim was to protect the world s superb natural and scenic areas and historic properties for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry 25. In 1970, during a Council on Environmental Quality, President Nixon promoted again the idea of a World Heritage Trust by underlining the worldwide influence of the Yellowstone Park 26. During the development of the first Operational Guidelines, particularly Dr. Ernest Allen Connally, at the time in the NPS Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, before the first Chairman of US/ICOMOS ( ) played a major role in advising that historic concerns should be incorporated into environmental protection issues Train, Russell E.: World Heritage: A Vision for the Future, p , in UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2003a): World Heritage Shared Legacy, common responsibility. 25 United States of America, The National Park Service (2005): Part VI. Growth of the National Park System URL: 26 Compare Train (2003): In 1971, US-President Nixon gave an environmental message: on the occasion of the centennial celebration in 1972 of the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, it would be appropriate to mark this historic event by a new international initiative. [..] Yellowstone is the first national park concept to have been created in the modern world, and the national park concept has represented a major contribution to world culture. Similar systems have now been established throughout the world [ ] It would be fitting by 1972 for the nations of the world to agree to the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as a part if a World Heritage Trust. [ ] I believe that such an initiative can add a new dimension to international cooperation. I am directing the Secretary of the Interior, in co-ordination with the Council of Environment Quality, and under the foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State, to develop initiatives for presentation in appropriate international forums to further the objective of a World Heritage Trust, p. 37. Compare also: United States of America, The National Park Service (2005): Growth of the National Park System ; and: The National Park Service The National Park Service: A History. URL: 27 During his retirement years, Dr Connally had been writing a history of the events that led up to the drafting and adoption the World Heritage Convention. The work is apparently not published. Compare Araoz, Gustavo F. (2000): Death of Dr, Ernest Allen Connally ( ). In: World Heritage News of 24 January URL: Compare also Leblanc, François: An inside view of the Convention, in: Linstrum, Derek (Ed.) (1984), p. 21. The US was the first nation to ratify the Convention. 47

52 International Campaigns of UNESCO In 1960, UNESCO was asked by Egypt and Sudan to launch a project to save Abu Simbel and other Nubian temples against the River Nile flooding caused by the Aswan High Dam. This was the first heritage programme based on mutual assistance of nations. It was a surprisingly successful and popular enterprise. Obviously, the role of (cultural) heritage was newly interpreted: The Nubian campaign represented an entirely novel concept in UNESCO s approach to cultural heritage [ ] Until the 1960 s it had been widely accepted that all monuments located within the borders of a particular state were the sole concern of that state which was therefore responsible for their upkeep. However, the Nubian campaign introduced a new concept according to which these monuments could be seen as belonging to the cultural heritage of humanity and were therefore of concern to the entire international community and, consequently, to UNESCO. Nevertheless, it was clear that a state, Egypt in this case, should bear a reasonable share of the burden and should undertake to fulfil all the commitments id had accepted during the campaign. 28 Subsequently, UNESCO started another operation to conserve the city of Venice, Italy, after the great flood of The triumphant cooperation during these campaigns was certainly a reason for the adoption of the World Heritage Convention. In this interpretation, it is less the influence of heritage than its popularity among the people which is universal. All of these experiences and ideas were combined at the Stockholm Conference 30. Three different conceptions had been prepared: IUCN and UNESCO both proposed draft 28 Bouchenaki, Mounir: An outline of UNESCO s actions in heritage conservation and rehabilitation. In: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report p , p Compare UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2002): Shared Legacy, Common responsibility. The World Heritage Convention: 30 Years Old and Going Strong. URL: also: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (no date): Brief history (of the World Heritage Convention). URL: Only in the mid 1970 s followed campaigns to restore the threatened Bronze Age city of Moenjodaro, Pakistan, and the Buddhist temple compounds of Borobodur, Indonesia. 30 Compare: Kjell Engström: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm1972. In: Wise, Conrad (Ed.): Museum VOL XXV, NO. 112, Museums and Environment. URL: The United Nations held its Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm from 5 to 16 June In addition to 114 government delegations, this conference was attended by nearly 3 00 representatives of nongovernmental organizations and more than 1,500 representatives of the press, radio and television. The preparations had taken two years, during which time the participating governments drew up national reports on environmental problems and activities in their countries, and a preparatory committee, whose members were drawn from twenty-seven different nations, assembled reports in their countries and adopt some kind of policy in their national reports to the conference. [ ] The value of this conference has been the subject of much discussion, and opinions vary considerably. The most ardent and radical supporters of nature Conservation found the recommendations and resolutions far too vague and not sufficiently binding. They also pointed out that many burning issues had not even been touched upon. The conference, which was the first of its kind, could not, however, have been expected to achieve results in respect of all the far-reaching and highly complicated questions raised by environmental problems today. The mere fact that it was possible to hold the conference at all was the first positive achievement [...] The keen interest shown by the mass media, the man-in-the-street, many organizations, etc., helped at the same time to convince decision-makers that society as a whole attached great importance to the fact that environmental problems were being taken up at the international level, p The most visible result of this Conference was the Declaration on the Human Environment. 48

53 conventions based on the structure of the future World Heritage Convention. UNESCO emphasised on the protection of cultural heritage, while IUCN included both cultural and natural properties. A proposal of the US included natural and cultural heritage: The US urged a compromise, which led to the draft send to the Stockholm conference and examined by IUCN s Second World Congress on National Parks 31. Finally, a distinct text was agreed upon by all parties concerned. UNESCO s General Conference adopted the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage with 75 votes for, 1 vote against and 17 abstentions. Its novel concept was to combine the protection of nature and culture. 2. Adaptations to a more universal concept? a) The changing concept of nature and culture One influential concept and certainly a major reason for the immense success of the World Heritage Convention has been the protection of both nature and culture in one single document. But actually, how natural are World Heritage natural sites? 32 This question, asked in 1995, points to two conceptual difficulties behind this binary perception. Firstly, how much nature is left in a world without any pristine natural areas any more? 33 Secondly, it calls the whole concept generally into question. In fact, this separation seems to be a concept established in European regions and is consequently not carried through and sometimes not understood in other parts of the world. After all, it is not surprising also that the nature-culture opposition is not a given reality out there; the very concept is a product of, and is used by, only a small segment of the societies of the North Atlantic Rim in the twentieth century, and so may not enjoy the universal explanatory penetration that is sometimes claimed for it 34. In these societies, its enormous success made it seem like a reasonable logical separation. The World Heritage Convention reflects this, even though it was the first international instrument emphasising on an interdependence of nature and culture and thus rejecting an opposition between them; a main expression of this view is the existence of the category of mixed sites from the beginning of 31 Titchen (2001), Challenging the Spirit, p Thorsell, Jim (1995). URL: 33 A very similar question is asked by Heyd, Thomas: Natural Heritage: Culture in Nature. In: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.v. and Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus (Ed.) (2002): Natur und Kultur, p Carrithers, Michael (1998), in: Kelly (1998): Encyclopaedia, p

54 the list on. Nevertheless, it turned out that the idea is a controversial construction. More and more, it even cannot be hold within its regions of origin. The nature-culture interpretation of UNESCO reminds one of its cooperation with anthropology, a field in which this concept was vastly discussed. It contributed essentially to oppose culture to nature: at the foundation of cultural anthropology 35 lies the notion of a great fault line sundering the world of human culture from the rest of the living world 36. Especially the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss interpreted this binary system as a universal thinking structure and as a basic pattern of classification 37. However, in most societies, the concept simply does not exist. Also sub-classifications were not derived from this conception, but independently developed. Nature and culture describe arbitrarily created, variable sections of an all-embracing whole 38, but it has been the lenses through which (some) people interpret(ed) the world; between man and nature hung the veil of culture, and he could see nothing save through this medium 39. This is an impressive example of how a (artificial) concept is taken for reality. Certainly, any concept is artificial and can still be useful. The nature-culture concept is a powerful instrument. 40 As a (positive) keyword, nature evokes affection; it is successful in mobilizing resources for environmental protection. The World Heritage idea is seen to protect natural jewels and became authoritative in the rescue of ecosystems. Its success might be one reason why it cannot be given up: a scientific approach to life is evidently less 35 For the difference between anthropology and cultural anthropology compare footnote 48, page Carrithers, Michael (1998), in: Kelly (1998): Encyclopaedia, p It is not to deny that later-on, it were also anthropologist who perceived the character of a man-made nature. Initial tendencies towards this separation can be seen in Descartes description of animals as pure machines and human beings as machines with a soul, and in Rousseau s concept of an état civil. Compare altogether Hauser-Schäublin, Brigitta (2001): Von der Natur in der Kultur und der Kultur in der Natur. Eine kritische Reflexion dieses Begriffspaars. In: Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm et al (Ed.): Natur Kultur. Volkskundliche Perspektiven auf Mensch und Umwelt. Münster P Hauser-Schäublin, Brigitta (2001): Von der Natur in der Kultur, p. 14; also Carrithers (1998), in: Kelly (1998): Encyclopaedia, p Hauser-Schäublin (2001), p White, Leslie in: Man, culture and human beings. Address of the vice president and chairman of Section E (Anthropology) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C. 27 Dec Quoted in Marshall Sahlins: Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago Press Ltd. London 1976, p He happened to write a memorable quasi-myth about the creation of nature and culture, which in full is as follows: Thus [with symbols] man built a new world in which to live. To be sure, he still trod the earth, felt the wind against his cheek, or heard it sigh among the pines; he drank from streams, slept beneath the stars, and awoke to greet the sun. But it was not the same sun! Nothing was the same any more. Everything was bathed in celestial light ; and there were intimidations of immortality on every hand. [ ] Between man and nature hung the veil of culture, and he could see nothing save through this medium. He still used his senses. He chipped stone, chased deer, mated and begat offspring. But permeating everything was the essence of words: the meanings and values that lay beyond the senses. And these meanings and values guided him in addition to his senses and often took precedence over him. 40 Hauser-Schäublin (2001), p

55 passionate, and thus probably not able to evoke a comparable support for World Heritage. Altogether, a simple concept of nature is kept. Nevertheless, in the last decades, the concept was (even more) weakened (within the societies of its origin) and, at the same time, reflected a new understanding of the world. Nature is less interpreted as an embracing organism but as a complex of life forms. Nature as a fundamental force underlying the world became a research object of an scientific elite which promotes regularity and plausibility Nature is seen as a result of this reliability and turns into biology Nature is seen as a global environment and as such turns into a resource for an anthropocentric human being The key to nature (to human beings, animals, plants) is seen in micro parts = genes 41 Recent researches on what is now called biology and culture have shown that they do not only influence each other, but they create each other the cultural environment and the neuronal brain structure are dependent from each other. That means, not only the brain creates its environment, but also the surrounding culture influences the brain, which is consequently a dependent variable in a pattern of bio-cultural co-constructivism. A life-long musician has another brain structure than a taxi driver or a traumatized terrorist, the brain itself is a construction of biological predisposition and cultural reality 42. Even without these bio-cultural insights, it is obvious that nature and culture mix with each other, and the part of nature disappears under pressures of new, e.g. genetic, economic, industrial and aesthetic technologies. 43 This includes alteration, exploitation, pollution and destruction of nature or means a culturalization of nature. Consequently, attempts exist to change the perspective on the nature and culture concept and make it meaningful for changing insights; e.g. one can argue that natural heritage should be seen as culture in nature 44. Altogether, the changing perception needed to be reflected in the application of the World Heritage Convention. Instead of orientating on dispassionate scientific schemes, the World 41 Hauser-Schäublin (2001), p Schnabel, Ulrich (2005): Knetmasse der Kultur. In: Die Zeit. 10th of February 2005, p. 31f., p. 31. Compare also: Max Planck Institute for Human Development (2004): Brain, Mind, and Culture: From Interactionism to Biocultural Co-Constructivism. Das Gehirn, ein Produkt der Kultur? Brain-Behavior Dynamics across the Lifespan: Methods and Concepts. Conference, Döllnsee-Schorfheide, Germany, September 21-25, URL: 43 Hauser-Schäublin (2001): p Heyd, Thomas (2002): Natural Heritage: Culture in Nature. In: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.v. and Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus (Ed.) (2002): Natur und Kultur, p

56 Heritage Committee stressed even more an interdependence between nature and culture, particularly referring to the phrase the combined works of nature and of man. Among other things, the category of Cultural Landscapes was established in On the long term, the realization that what might appear natural is often indeed cultural 46 could not be overcome by creating new categories. In 1998, the Advisory Bodies IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM established a consolidated view: there is no clear distinction between nature and culture. Denying this fact is not only confusing, but also undermining the credibility of the list. Accordingly, it is not helpful to speak from natural, cultural and mixed sites and from cultural landscapes etc. They proposed to underline the interdependence of nature and culture by two major changes in the Operational Guidelines. Firstly, they recommended the application of conditions of integrity (incorporating the concept of authenticity) to cultural as well as natural properties 47. Before, the notion of integrity was seen to be relevant only for natural heritage. Secondly, they advised the abolition of the formal distinction between cultural and natural criteria and their amalgamation into a single list of ten criteria (without changes to the wording of the existing criteria) with a consequential focus on areas inscribed as World Heritage Sites rather than as World Heritage cultural and / or natural sites 48. Both recommendations were fulfilled in a complete revision of the Operational Guidelines, which went into force as the current version of February Do these changes in the Operational Guidelines mean that the Convention can be applied in a more adequate way? Did its understanding shift to a more collective interpretation of the world? After all, now the world-view of people who do not distinguish between nature and culture can be taken into consideration and thus, can be respected. A famous example is the Uluru-Kata Tjuta site in Australia. In 1987, the area was nominated as a National Park only 45 They were taken into the Operational Guidelines of In the version of 2005, Article IIA46-47 explicitly explains Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage as well as Cultural Landscapes. 46 Comment of Riezenkamp, Jan (1998), Director General for Culture in the Netherlands, in: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre in association with the Government of the Netherlands (1998): Report of the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting. 25 to 29 March 1998, Theatre Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands URL: Article 1.2. Similar: A natural area is one where bio-physical processes and landform features are still relatively intact and where a primary management goal of the area is to ensure that natural values are protected. The term natural is a relative one. It is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all natural areas are in a dynamic state, UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1996): Twentieth session. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris June Information Document: Report of the Expert Meeting on Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites. WHC-96/CONF202/INF.9. Parc national de la Vanoise, France, 22 to 24 March URL: ; my emphasis. 47 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre in association with the Government of the Netherlands (1998): Expert Meeting. 25 to 29 March 1998, Theatre Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands URL: 48 Ibid. 52

57 under natural criteria N(ii)(iii). Among other things, this neglected the highly symbolical associations to the area of the Anangu Aboriginal people. In 1994, the site was re-nominated as cultural and as associative landscape under criteria C(v)(vi). 49 Only with the new guidelines of 2005, however, the world-view of the Anangu Aboriginal people is also visibly respected as being equal indeed to the world-view of other people, whose heritage was nominated from the beginning on as being cultural. The appreciation of an interdependency of man and nature is reflected again in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, in which interaction with nature is seen to be significant for the sense of identity of a people; a separation of nature and culture is left out. Another separation between nature and culture emphasises that only human beings are able to create and understand symbols. Also the ability to speech makes him the culture-bearing animal par excellence, but it might be that culture is even more related to social awareness: We become culturally knowledgeable because we first become socially knowledgeable 50. With this interpretation, a tendency to discriminate between social and cultural aspects could be re-considered. In any case, conceptual changes find their expression in changes in the operational guidelines. 49 Compare: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1994b): World Heritage Committee. Eighteenth Session December WHC-94/CONF.003/16. Report. Phuket, Thailand, 31 January URL: IUCN (1987): World Heritage Nomination 447, Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park (Australia). Summary prepared by IUCN based on the original nomination submitted by Australia URL: 50 Carrithers (1998), in: Kelly (1998): Encyclopaedia, p

58 b) Changing concepts in the Operational Guidelines The operational guidelines are the flexible tool behind the fixed World Heritage Convention, but they cannot be arbitrarily designed: they must be consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Convention. They must therefore reflect, and not extend, the legal meaning of the Convention in all of its aspects, and ensure the basic scheme of the Convention is carried out to the highest standard 51. As the Convention itself, the guidelines basically follow a vague way of listing items rather than defining a philosophy of heritage. In the course of time, the operational guidelines were modified due to alterations in the heritage perception. For the most part, changes were more or less simple ad hoc additions, e.g. the above mentioned inclusion of Cultural Landscapes. Accordingly, in 1998, the category of Groups of Buildings (e.g. Towns, Historic City Centres) were added, which indicates a shift away from single monuments to embracing, that is integer properties. From the end of the 1990 s on, a basic revision was started to organise and simplify the confusing abundance of information originated. This resulted in a complete logical restructuring. Not only the concept of heritage was re-defined, also other inconsistencies were attacked; e.g. the main users were defined and the Advisory Bodies were listed. 52 Significant is the above mentioned combination of cultural and natural criteria in one single set. The table illustrates some other changes by reproducing definitions of types of properties as defined in the first Operational Guidelines from 1977, in the guidelines from 1994, and in the current guidelines from IUCN (2002): World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Committee. Draft Operational Guidelines. An Analysis of the Legal Issues. Responding to the 2nd Draft Operational Guidelines and issues raised during the Drafting Group of October Brief Summary of the issues presented by: IUCN - The World Conservation Union. With the assistance of the IUCN Programme on Protected Areas together with the IUCN Environmental Law Programme 14 May URL: 52 Compare UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2000a): World Heritage Committee. Twenty-fourth session. Cairns, Australia. 27 November - 2 December WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.10. Paris, 12 October International Expert Meeting on the Revision to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Cooperation with the Government of the United Kingdom and in Collaboration with English Heritage. Canterbury, United Kingdom April Final Report. URL: 54

59 a) Shifts in the criteria of the Operational Guidelines Operational Guidelines 1977 Operational Guidelines 1994 Operational Guidelines 2005 Cultural properties should (i) represent a unique artistic or aesthetic achievement, a masterpiece of the creative genius; or (ii) have exerted considerable influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on subsequent developments in architecture, monumental sculpture, garden and landscape design, related art, or human settlements; or (iii) be unique, extremely rare, or of great antiquity; or (iv) be among the most characteristic examples of a type of structure, the type representing an important cultural, social, artistic, scientific, technological or industrial development; or (v) be a characteristic example of a significant, traditional style of architecture, method of construction, or human settlement, that is fragile by nature or has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible socio-cultural or economic change; or (vi) be most importantly associated with ideas or beliefs, with events or with persons, of outstanding historical importance or significance. Cultural properties should (i) represent a unique artistic achievement, a masterpiece of the creative genius; or (ii) have exerted great influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, monumental arts or town planning and landscape design; or (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a civilization or cultural tradition which has disappeared; (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance (The Committee considers that this criterion should justify inclusion in the list only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria) Cultural and natural properties should (i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, townplanning or landscape design; (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria); For cultural heritage, a growing appreciation of culture as an essential key to development, peace and prosperity, the perception that all (respectful) cultures are equal and the abandonment of a preference of single (monumental) properties are reflected. A shift away from monumental heritage is visible in Criterion [C] (i), in which artistic or aesthetic achievement was deleted. The term achievement seemed also related to an underlying idea of a universal linear development, which was given up; developed properties as opposed to under-developed expressions are nowadays rejected. Criterion [C] (ii) indicates a similar shift to the recognition of less leading or dominant cultures by leaving out important influence. This is apparently against an interpretation of universal as influential. Criterion [C] (iii) shifts from a preference of ancient ruins to the appreciation of 55

60 living cultures. Criterion [C] (iv) articulates originally the idea of historical development; it adjusts to the idea of a non-linear course of time. Similarly, Criterion [C] (v) indicates a shift to the recognition of embracing symbols for culture(s); furthermore, emphasis shifts to settlements rather than architectural or constructional single properties. Criterion [C] (vi) is a special case and gave reason for many debates. It expresses the growing awareness of the difficult relation between man-made properties and their associated ideas or values. In 1977, this criterion was apparently seen as important as all the others. Due to a growing fear of becoming a list of places of memory like battlefields, 53 the use of the criterion was restricted, as in 1994 the criterion should be applied only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria. This again could be interpreted that properties nominated only with this criterion are less valuable than others, which is against the idea that all World Heritage properties have the same value. 54 Additionally, beliefs were more and more respected and valued as associated attributes. Thus, the use of this criterion became less restricted again, which also reflects a growing appreciation of associative connotations Compare Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO Publishing: World Culture Report 2000, p Compare: When the World Heritage criteria were established, it was understood that no criterion was of a higher order than another. However, according to the current wording, cultural criterion (vi) cannot be used by itself. This implied that the values it is assessing are not at the same level or threshold as the other outstanding universal values implied by the application of the other criteria ; UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (2001): Twenty-fifth session. Paris, UNESCO Headquarters June Report of the Rapporteur. WHC-2001/CONF.205/10. Paris, 17 August URL: The current wording in 2001 was of the version of the Operational Guidelines of 1999 explaining cultural criterion vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance (the Committee considers that this criterion should justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances and in conjunction with other criteria cultural or natural) ; my emphasis. In: UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1999): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. WHC-99/2. March URL: 55 Compare Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report

61 b) Shifts in the criteria of the Operational Guidelines Operational Guidelines 1977 Operational Guidelines 1994 Operational Guidelines 2005 Natural properties should Natural properties should (i) be outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth s evolutionary history. This category would include sites which represent the major eras of geological history such as the age of reptiles where the development of the planet s natural diversity can well be demonstrated and such as the ice age where early man and his environment underwent major changes; or (ii) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man s interaction with his natural environment. As distinct from the periods of the earth s development, this focuses upon ongoing processes in the development of communities of plants and animals, land forms and marine and fresh water bodies. This category would include for example (a) as geological processes, glaciation and volcanism, (b) as biological evolution, examples of biomes such as tropical rainforests, deserts and tundra, (c) as interaction between man and his natural environment, terraced agricultural landscapes; or (iii) contain unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man, natural features (for instance, rivers, mountains, waterfalls), spectacles presented by great concentrations of animals, sweeping vistas covered by natural vegetation and exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements; or (iv) be habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive. This category would include those ecosystems in which concentrations of plants and animals of universal interest and significance are found. (i) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; or (ii) be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development in terrestrial, fresh-water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; or (iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of natural beauty and aesthetic importance; or (iv) contain the most important and significant habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of conservation or science (vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance; (viii) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; (ix) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; (x) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation. Concerning natural heritage, changes in the criteria seem less profound. From the beginning on, features of nature which pleases humanity are emphasised, not any however defined scientific characteristics. The anthropocentric understanding of nature is most evident in the criterion of natural beauty (which as such has no effect within nature). A distinctive shift was done away from highlighting geological features Compare UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1992): Sixteenth session. Paris, 6-10 July CLT-92/CONF.003/7. Paris, 22 June URL:

62 For the reason of consistency, Criterion N(i)-Criterion becomes Criterion (viii), N(ii) becomes (ix), Criterion N(iii) becomes Criterion (vii). Shifts away from the idea of a historical development are visible as well. Practical examples such as the ice age are not deleted, but moved to a description of integrity for Criteria (viii)-(x); evidently because integrity is now a prerequisite for both cultural and natural heritage. The later guidelines seem to cover more properties, particularly from water habitats and sea-use areas. On the other hand, from 1994 on, two years after the adoption of the famous Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro / The Jakarta Mandate (COP, UN), areas of biological diversity are favoured. 57 This preference is highly anthropocentric, as there is no scientific higher significance of biological diverse areas than of e.g. initially equally included deserts and tundras (some of the oldest natural areas of the world!). Apparently, it mirrors an image of nature as a reservoir for human use, e.g. as a genetic storeroom for future medicines. It neglects the importance of less diverse regions; effects of the climate change show how much humans are e.g. dependent on biological poor regions like the Arctic and Antarctic. This biased measurement might be the reason why IUCN 58 noted that there are major gaps in the World Heritage coverage of the following biomes: Tropical Grassland/Savanna; Lake Systems; Tundra and Polar Systems; Temperate Grasslands; and Cold Winter Deserts 59. The fondness on biological diversity needs also to be seen in connection with a growing appreciation of cultural (and linguistic) diversity; a fashionable statement of correlation. 60 7e.pdf and UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1991): Fifteenth session. Paris, June. SC-91/CONF.001/9 24 April URL: 57 Compare the comments of Heyd (2002), p The IUCN formulation in its declaration to conserve diversity of nature includes all eco-regions. 59 UNESCO, World Heritage Committee (2004): Twenty-eighth session. Suzhou, China, 28 June - 7 July Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Evaluation of the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List ( ). WHC-04/28.COM/13 Paris, 25 May URL: Under-represented natural biomes such as grasslands and deserts were also noted by Sheppard, David (2000), Head Programme on Protected Areas: First Meeting of the Working Group on a Representative World Heritage List. Letter to H. E. Mr. O. Joseph YAI. Ambassadeur Délégué permanent. Délégation Permanente du Bénin auprès de l UNESCO. 28 February URL: 60 Compare: cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature, UNESCO (2001): Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity Adopted by the 31 st session of the UNESCO General Conference. Paris, 2 November URL: Compare also UNESCO / World Wide Fund for Nature 2003 / Terralingua (Ed.) (2003): Sharing a World of Difference. The Earth s linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Paris This equalization is under discussion, especially a loss of cultures; compare e.g.: cultural innovation is more rapid than homogenization, and so diversity wins out; or, to use an ecological metaphor, new cultures evolve faster than they become extinct, which is the opposite of ecosystems ; Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report The number of languages, however, is reducing at an ever faster pace. Compare altogether: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005c): International Symposium on Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: the Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes, Aïchi, Japan, 30 May - 3 June URL: 58

63 However, in general the operational guidelines widened the scope of World Heritage significantly and are open to future changes, as is their function. 61 c) Global Strategy: representativity versus outstanding The World Heritage Convention changed from a safeguarding project into a world-citizenship project, but one goal remained the same: From the first session of the World Heritage Committee on, a balance of the list has been seen to be extremely important 62. The list aims at a reflection of the world s cultural and natural diversity of outstanding universal value. This aim was apparently not reached, e.g. Europe, Christianity and architectural monuments are seen to be over-represented. As a result, in 1994, the Global Strategy 63 was established to finally reach a reasonably representative distribution of outstanding properties. The wish to register on the one hand outstanding and on the other hand representative, equally distributed properties reveals again the above mentioned paradox 64 : Any judgement implies a ranking and denies a logical equal distribution. In line with this, both ICOMOS and IUCN stressed the 61 Compare Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO publishing (2000): The World Heritage List should [ ] remain completely open, since its development will depend both on future archaeological and scientific discoveries and on developments in human thought and sensitivity more generally, p UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1977): Intergovernmental Committee. First Session URL: 63 The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies analyzed the representativity issue at large; their results shall not be repeated here. Main documents used are: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1994a): Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List. UNESCO Headquarters, June WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6. Paris, 13 October URL: and UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1994b). UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1995): Nineteenth session. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris. 2-8 July Global Strategy and thematic studies. URL: conf201-inf4e.pdf Sheppard, David (2000), Head Programme on Protected Areas: First Meeting of the Working Group on a Representative World Heritage List. Letter to H. E. Mr. O. Joseph YAI. Ambassadeur Délégué permanent. Délégation Permanente du Bénin auprès de l UNESCO. 28 February URL: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2003b): World Heritage Committee. Twenty-seventh session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters. 30 June 5 July WHC-03/27.COM/14. URL: ICOMOS (2004): The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps an Action Plan for the Future. An Analysis by ICOMOS. Introduction by Michael Petzet. February URL: Annexes UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005b): Global Strategy. URL: UNESCO, World Heritage Committee (2004): Twenty-eighth session. Suzhou, China, 28 June - 7 July Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Evaluation of the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List ( ). WHC-04/28.COM/13 Paris, 25 May URL: 64 Compare particularly chapter I.2: UNESCO as an intergovernmental body needs to promote equality of its members, but at the same time, it has to promote (ethical) standards to judge a culture or, in the case of the heritage conventions, to judge heritage properties. 59

64 position that properties of outstanding universal value are not evenly distributed throughout the globe 65. Hence, how far-reaching is a contradiction between an equalizing representativity and an outstanding, which is exceptional, value? This contradiction can only be explained by the over-all background of the World Heritage List, in particular by the (political) interdependency between UNESCO and its member states. It forces UNESCO to suppose a potential exclusivity of everyone. The World Heritage project is an instrument to do this systematically, by categorizing and standardizing extraordinary properties of the world. It intends processes of universalisation of the particular, and of particularisation of the universal 66. However paradoxical that is, a classification of the world comprises first of all not conceptual, but structural difficulties. Particularly ICOMOS and IUCN analyzed not only gaps and imbalances in the list, but also reasons and consequences. They found out that imbalances exist mainly due to structural and qualitative reasons, e.g. developing countries just do not have the same possibilities for nomination and identification processes. 67 Still, concerning concepts, it is highly difficult, if not impossible, to define comparable categories. As illustrated above, already the distinction between nature and culture cannot be upheld in reality. Taking this division nonetheless, it should not come as a surprise that more cultural than natural properties are listed; already the size of natural areas is generally larger than of cultural sites 68. In addition, ICOMOS stresses the differences between classifying 65 UNESCO, World Heritage Committee (2004). 66 Turtinen, p ICOMOS (2004): Filling the Gaps an Action Plan for the Future. URL: p. 6. Additionally, particularly IUCN emphasises that the credibility of the list depends highly on the capacities and abilities of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies; it might be more important to care for the maintenance of existing properties than to define gaps and imbalances; notably with view to an ever-growing list of World Heritage in Danger. On this red list, natural heritage is rather over-represented. IUCN also claims that the Global Strategy proposes more regional strategies than a synthesis of global and thematic priorities. Again, these problems are more structural than conceptual. Compare Sheppard (2000), and chapter I.7. about background criteria, p Compare: Magin, Chris and Chape, Stuart: A Contribution to the Global Strategy for World Heritage Natural Sites. Review of the World Heritage Network: Biogeography, Habitats and Biodiversity. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN The World Conservation Union URL: The 2003 United List of Protected Areas (Chape et al. 2003) recorded over 100,000 designated protected areas covering almost 19 million km2 or 3.67% of the Earth s estimated surface area of million km2. In terms of international status, the current 172 Natural and Mixed WH Sites represent the 'jewels in the crown' of the global protected area estate. Their importance can be illustrated by the fact that the 149 natural and 23 mixed sites comprise only approximately 0.17% of the number of protected areas in the world, but together cover 1.71 million km2 (GIS figures) equivalent to 9.12% of the total area protected, or 0.34% of the total global surface area Even though this high percentage is skewed by seven sites larger than 50,000 km2, it highlights the strategic values and significance of World Heritage at a global scale. Numbers to sizes of natural heritage are also given by: Wakashe, Themba (2004) (Chairperson World Heritage Committee): The World Heritage Convention and Protected Areas. Presentation at the International Donors 60

65 natural and cultural heritage, considering that unlike natural heritage, cultural heritage is fragmented and diverse and not predisposed to clear classification systems 69. Whether that applies to the complexity of nature or not, this wide-spread opinion might be one reason for a different approach towards representativity. Strikingly, IUCN even proposes a limitation to the number of natural sites, stating that there must be a finite number of existing and potential properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List [ ] IUCN considers that a number in the range of natural and mixed World Heritage properties should be sufficient 70. That is less than half of the 628 cultural sites inscribed in Consequently, a balance in absolute numbers is even not intended between cultural and natural heritage together with mixed sites. Akin, it should not surprise that more Christian churches are listed than pyramids or any other religious buildings for that matter etc. In spite of that, the small percentage of African properties compared to European properties is against UNESCO s idea of culture proceeding from a universal equality of people. 71 Hence, this disparity is indeed seen to ignore potential World Heritage properties of the second largest continent compared to the smallest; structural helps are a logical request. Carefully, the World Heritage Committee has never defined a number of World Heritage properties that would mark States Parties as less-represented 72. Accordingly, ICOMOS interprets the task to locate properties of outstanding universal value more or less evenly distributed throughout the globe in a rather pragmatic manner: The idea of balance in relation to the World Heritage List should not be seen to refer to a balance between countries, or types of properties, but rather to how well a particular type of heritage of outstanding universal value is represented on the List. There will probably always remain a certain imbalance between various regions and countries of the world, considering the incredible diversity of cultural heritage, the way it is distributed and how it is now represented around the world. [ ] The World Heritage List is a selected list of cultural and Conference in support of the World Heritage in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), UNESCO, Paris, September September URL: p. 18ff. 69 UNESCO, World Heritage Committee (2004): Twenty-eighth session. Suzhou, China, 28 June - 7 July Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Evaluation of the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List ( ). WHC-04/28.COM/13, p. 13. Paris, 25 May URL: 70 Ibid. 71 ICOMOS (2004): Filling the Gaps an Action Plan for the Future. URL: 72 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005a): Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: The concept of Outstanding Universal Value. In cooperation with the Municipality of Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, the Russian Federation. 6-9 April Background document. URL: 61

66 natural properties of outstanding universal value and not a never-ending list of properties from all regions representative of all themes and types 73. A certain kind of pragmatism is necessary, as with view to the present tentative lists of member states, almost all of the current gaps and imbalances will remain. 74 Altogether, representativity and outstanding universal value need to be used complementary, that is by nominating only some values of many 75, and by giving to the properties a (new) representative value for the world. 3. The concept of outstanding universal value a) A unique combination of values The criterion of outstanding universal value is the most decisive standard for a property to become nominated as World Heritage. Yet, it is a highly vague and open aspect; the very term value is one of the weightiest, most indispensable, and perhaps most mystified concepts in aesthetics and, beyond that, in formal thought 76. Value can refer to a fixed market-price or to the opposite, to an intrinsic, non-measurable meaning. There is no doubt that different values exist, also values of heritage 77 are researched on different levels. For World Heritage, value certainly refers to a supreme significance, and as such, it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge and to measure. Accordingly, the Advisory Bodies IUCN and ICOMOS interpreted outstanding universal value variously as the best of the best, the representative of the best or the best of the representative. 78 The term universal is taken to mean involving all the people in the world 79, because all people shall be able to identify with this mysterious value. Hence, this concept exemplifies that it is not possible to set empirical principles, but that World Heritage properties need to fulfil associative standards. Outstanding universal value needs to be seen as a combination of some selected values of a property, not as all of them. The crucial part is to divide between local and universal values, that is chiefly between values 73 Petzet, Michael, President of ICOMOS: Introduction. In: ICOMOS (2004): Filling the Gaps - an Action Plan for the Future. URL: 74 Ibid. 75 Compare chapter II Kelly, Michael (Ed.) (1998): Value, In: The same: Encyclopaedia, p Compare e.g. Klamer, Arjo and Throsby, David: Paying for the past: the economics of cultural heritage. In: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p UNESCO, World Heritage Centre in association with the Government of the Netherlands (1998): Report of the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting. 25 to 29 March 1998, Theatre Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands URL: p OALD 2000: Universal; compare also the discussion to universal in chapter III.2.a, p

67 which are inseparable from a certain world-view and those which are not, but can be given a new, embracing meaning. In other words, the ethical standard needs to be the acceptance of a different significance of values. That might sound easier than it is, because nominating parties might need to recognize that exactly those values with the highest significance for them are not relevant for the world. Moreover, the nominating parties need to protect all (vital) values of a property regardless of which are nominated. To start a more in-depth explanation, the application of outstanding universal value has unquestionably always been problematic. The Convention itself does not define the notion, neither did the first Committee of Experts 80. Only the first and the last of the Operational Guidelines indicate how to interpret this concept. Definition of outstanding universal value in the Operational Guidelines June / July 1977 February 2005 The definition of universal in the phrase outstanding universal value requires comment. Some properties may not be recognized by all people, everywhere, to be of great importance and significance. Opinions may vary from one culture or period to another. As far as cultural property is concerned, the term universal must be interpreted as referring to a property which is highly representative of the culture of which it forms part. From 1980 until drafts for 2005 OGs omitted Outstanding universal value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. The first Operational Guidelines of 1977 mention the possibility of indifference or rejection towards the heritage of others; in this way, it cannot have a universal (positive) meaning for everyone. 81 That indicates an interpretation of universal as related to a worldwide appreciation, which is at the same time denied to be realistic. In the following, the operational guidelines omitted any definition until the version of 2005, which interprets the notion as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity 82. This indicates an interpretation of universal as transforming 80 Titchen (1996): Outstanding universal value, p Compare Article 6 of the First Operational Guidelines from 1977 and 1978: The definition of universal in the phrase outstanding universal value requires comment. Some properties may not be recognized by all people, everywhere, to be of great importance and significance. Opinions may vary from one culture or period to another. As far as cultural property is concerned, the term universal must be interpreted as referring to a property which is highly representative of the culture of which it forms part. For the latest discussion so far see: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005a). 82 Operational Guidelines 2005, Article

68 values from their original meaning into a new, all-embracing world-citizenship meaning, an interpretation which in this thesis is taken to be essential. Moreover, this interpretation is in line with a separation of values, as is declared in all versions of the operational guidelines, they highlight only parts of that [cultural and natural] heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of outstanding universal value 83. This division is not only to be seen concerning all heritage in general, but also concerning single heritage properties. The latter division is especially promoted by IUCN 84 as an answer to practical questions. It declares that protection of World Heritage properties should not be narrowed down to specific values, because this harms the integrity of a property. IUCN is mainly concerned about indirect impacts which affect an over-all impression. It requests that stakeholders at place need to protect all values, even though only some are nominated. A cultural example for indirect impacts to a World Heritage Site is the Cologne Cathedral, Germany, which is inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger because planned high-rising buildings on the facing boarder of the river Rhine would affect the age-old impression of the Cologne skyline. 83 UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1977): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (1). First Session, UNESCO, Paris, 27-1 July CC-77/CONF.001/8Rev. Paris, 20 October URL: My emphasis. This explanation is kept until the current version of Compare IUCN (2002): World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Committee. Draft Operational Guidelines. An Analysis of the Legal Issues. Responding to the 2nd Draft Operational Guidelines and issues raised during the Drafting Group of October Brief Summary of the issues presented by: IUCN - The World Conservation Union. With the assistance of the IUCN Programme on Protected Areas together with the IUCN Environmental Law Programme 14 May 2002, p. 10. URL: IUCN considered whether management of a World Heritage property should be based on evaluation and protection of that property as a whole, or should be limited to ensuring the protection of certain specifically identified values (i.e. attributes or characteristics (=OUV->Paris)) of that property. At the heart of this question is the concern that a State Party, when concentrating only on protection of specified values ( attributes / characteristics ) may be more easily to justify major development within the boundaries of a listed World Heritage property, by claiming that these identified values ( attributes / characteristics ) themselves were not harmed. Protection if focused only on specific attributes or characteristics of the property, ignores the State Party s obligation as stated in the Convention to protect each World Heritage property situated in its territory to the utmost of its own resources. A distinction between different valuable values was made from the First Operational Guidelines on: Parts of that (World) heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of outstanding universal value and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them ; Article 1, Operational Guidelines The same opinion is expressed in the Third Draft Convention of 2002 to point ivp4 and in Footnote to IIc18; the expert from the United Kingdom states that while the Committee can only concern itself with outstanding universal value, the site manager needs to concern him/herself with the holistic management of the site. The State Party s provisions therefore need to deal with all aspects of the site s values. 64

69 Above that and returning to a conceptual level, it is hence instructive to speak from an extraordinary combination of the unique and the representative 85. A unique combination of values includes the existence of different values as well as the importance of an accumulation of certain values. Then, it is a crucial question which values are to be taken into consideration. This is certainly not with regard to minor qualities of a property, which do not need to be mentioned, but with regard to the context in which the notion is required. It is often neglected that the Convention expressively states that outstanding universal value needs to be seen from certain points of view. The listed various disciplines are: history, art, science, aesthetics, ethnology, anthropology, conservation and natural beauty. This is a relatively arbitrary, diverse collection, which can be explained by initial expectations for the World Heritage project 86. Even so, the fields have one point in common: in modern societies, they represent disciplines which are mostly seen to be separable from a certain world-view or, in other words, they are seen to be comparatively independent from subjective impressions 87. Accordingly, disciplines like religion, politics or economics are not listed. UNESCO distinguishes between its own ethical standards and non-includable other world-views. Consequently, the requested combination of values cannot cover (subjective) world-view values but only values which are compatible with UNESCO s ethical standpoints. Surely, one glance on the World Heritage List affirms that properties from other world-views are represented, first and foremost from religions, which provide a high percentage of all listed properties. This is not contradictory, because these values fall into UNESCO s scheme of cultural relativism and not into its scheme of an ethical universalism. To give examples, UNESCO can nominate a religious centre but it cannot nominate a religion, and it can nominate a sacred site, but not the sacred. That includes that UNESCO cannot support religious, political or economic etc. actions at place. By contrast, again, if such beliefs are vivid, the nominating parties have to protect these side values and safeguard the overall impression, even though these subjective values are not included in the combination of values called outstanding universal value. Moreover and as explained above, due to the characteristics of heritage, any state party needs to accept that World Heritage located in its boundaries is not mainly a sign of its prominence, 85 Titchen (1996): Outstanding universal value, p This reveals again the contradiction of extraordinary and typical. 86 Compare chapter II.1.b. 87 The point of view of natural beauty is a special case which is explained in the following chapter II.3.b. 65

70 but that certain values incarnated in it are relevant for the world 88. Nationalistic values need to be transformed into a promotion of global collective feelings. State parties need to accept the significance of heritage properties in a worldwide context and to renounce to highlight a subjective importance. This is due to UNESCO s appreciation of an equality of cultures. In summary, the associative principle of outstanding universal value needs to be the willingness of state parties to either transform or neglect values of chiefly local or subjective importance. They need to transform universally non-applicable values, which can be necessary for nationalistic pride in heritage. They need to neglect universally non-acceptable values, which can be necessary for other world-view dependent values like religious values. All of those values cannot be included in the required unique combination of values. In this interpretation, outstanding universal value can be seen as a lesson in modesty. Unfortunately, as the Convention is mostly interpreted as a certificate of quality or even as a kind of beauty contest 89, the notion is mostly interpreted exactly the other way round. However, outstanding universal value implies that people all over the world shall be able to identify with World Heritage. That is a major difference to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. Intangible cultural heritage remains an expression of a local identity. 90 b) Standards from the point of view of special disciplines? World Heritage needs to be of outstanding universal value from the point of view of at least one of the fields of history, science, art / aesthetics / natural beauty, ethnology / anthropology and conservation. These disciplines should help to take apart some values to a worldwide acceptable combination of values. Nevertheless, the question can be asked whether in each of these categories a universal standard can be established, or whether the properties can only be understood in their cultural context. Is it possible or desirable to set a standard in aesthetics or beauty? Certainly, any attempt to establish only empirical instead of associative ethical standards would be doomed to failure, which will be illustrated by aesthetics and beauty. They help to understand the paradox of World Heritage, which sways between subjective and objective measurements. Particularly to cultural heritage, it can be repeated that UNESCO fears to put too much importance to the traditional categories of classical art history, centred around the study of 88 Compare chapter I Compare Turtinen. 90 Compare chapter III., particularly III.2.b. 66

71 major monuments and leading civilizations 91. Ideas shifted away from these approaches to more complex, cultural dependent concepts. Now, UNESCO wishes to realize a more anthropological, global approach to the material manifestations of the world s various cultures. In fact, the history of art and architecture, archaeology, anthropology and ethnology are no longer concerned with studying isolated monuments, but rather with assessing complex, multidimensional cultural ensembles which are a spatial expression of social organization, lifestyles, beliefs, skills, and representations of the various cultures, past and present, throughout the world. A material vestige should not be observed in isolation, but in its context and through an understanding of the multiple relations it maintains reciprocally with its physical and non-physical environment 92. Again, the dynamics of culture, intangible associations and the contexts of properties are discovered and highlighted more and more. The concepts of aesthetics and beauty 93 help to understand paradoxes of World Heritage. In a modern, rather rational society, one could assume a rejection of these criteria as being too subjective and, with regard to nature, as too anthropocentric. Conversely, their significance is underlined. The World Heritage Committee states: Concerning the concept of natural beauty the experts reaffirmed the importance of this criterion, but also acknowledged the difficulty of assessing it. The concept of natural beauty is essentially subjective and a social construct. The natural beauty and aesthetics of an area may be closely associated with the cultural values [ ] application remains problematic. The experts considered therefore that natural criterion (iii) 94 should be used only in conjunction with other natural and / or cultural criteria apart from very exceptional circumstances. 95 The proposed change was not done; it would have diminished the credibility of the equality of all World Heritage properties. Also categories of aesthetic values were not established. The possibility of aesthetic judgement is a significant philosophical topic. It is surprisingly little discussed in relation to the Convention, as it has been a topic worldwide, in European philosophies from Plato on. He saw the truly beautiful as the divine beauty, as the absolute truth, from which the distinct beautiful is just a copy. Such a moral equation of good and beautiful seems to be a common phenomenon around the world; it might be a reason for the 91 Lévi-Strauss, Laurent (2000): Impact of recent developments in the notion of cultural heritage on the World Heritage Convention, p. 155; compare also Klamer, Arjo and Throsby, David: Paying for the past: the economics of cultural heritage, p Bouchenaki; all of them in: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p In Western regions, aesthetics has been largely separated from transcend meanings; one could speak from aesthetics as scientific discipline in which beauty as a quality and art as a result of aesthetic acting are discussed. But these interpretations are modern categories; before this rationalisation, spiritual and religious questions were more decisive than a conceptual structuralising. The history of these concepts cannot be given here; already because it is of course different in every region. 94 In the Operational Guidelines of 2005, that is criterion vii. 95 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1979): World Heritage Committee. Twentieth session. Merida, Mexico. 2-7 December WHC-96/CONF.201/ March Compare also Draft Operational Guidelines IIC15. 67

72 success of this quality. It combines a beautiful object and a higher, transcendental meaning. This traditional view is obviously not a rational understanding. It is close to explaining the world as a transcendental creation, and as such, it might be universally present. 96 The possibility of an aesthetic judgement was widely discussed during the European enlightenment. Most famously, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant revealed an inherent paradox of this attempt, which he called the antinomy of taste : Aesthetic judgment [ ] seems to be in conflict with itself. It cannot be at the same time aesthetic (an expression of sensory enjoyment) and also a judgment (claiming universal assent). [ ] aesthetic judgment is free from concepts, and beauty itself is not a concept. 97 Nevertheless, all rational humans judge about beauty or other aesthetic objects as if their delight is objectively valid, and any search for reasons has the universalizing character of rationality 98. In short, the contradiction between personal taste and the claim for universal agreement is inherent to beauty, as well as to the sublime, the ugly etc. This paradox is embedded in every philosophy taking aesthetic experience sincerely: criticism, the reasoned justification of aesthetic judgment, is an inevitable upshot of aesthetic experience 99 and the same seems often enough to be true for World Heritage nominations. Thus, the discipline of aesthetics or philosophies of beauty could help to understand the paradoxes of World Heritage. Also the World Heritage project cannot provide rational standards; it should (more consciously) promote idealistic, ethical principles. Hence, the concepts of history, science, art / aesthetics, ethnology, anthropology, conservation and natural beauty might give ground for sophisticated philosophical inquiry, but not for a definite limitation of outstanding universal value. The concepts do not straight-line exclude certain types of properties, even though e.g. economical properties are still an exception. Obviously, the fields give rather hints than rules. 96 Kelly, Michael (Ed.) (1998): Sublime, p ; Religion and Aesthetics, p , in: The same (Ed.) (1998): Encyclopaedia. 97 Encyclopaedia Britannica (2003): Aesthetics The nature and scope of. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 68

73 4. Main notions in the Operational Guidelines a) Authenticity: an evidence of meaning The notion of authenticity is the most discussed criterion of World Heritage. It needs to be fulfilled only by cultural heritage. From the beginning on, it was difficult to apply and often enough dependent on subjective estimation. 100 Difficulties arose apparently because its initial interpretation was highly related to a European context 101 and, generally, because it is closely related to truth. Most remarkable is the Nara Conference on Authenticity, which took place in 1994; it was hoped that the Nara Conference will result in the drafting of general philosophical guidelines and practical policy indications that will assist in its work 102. The results were integrated into the Operational Guidelines of 2005, emphasising on a certain cultural dependency. A global concept of authenticity might emphasise as well on symbols rather than on slogans, on multifaceted meanings rather than on simplifications. However, what is so special about authenticity, if in principle, no term has a fixed meaning? OALD 1974 OALD 1989 OALD 2000 Authenticity Genuiness; quality of being authentic: feel confident of the authenticity of a signature authentic adj. Genuine, known to be true: authentic news, an authentic signature quality of being authentic: The authenticity of the manuscript is beyond doubt. authentic adj. 1 known to be true or genuine: an authentic document, signature, painting 2 trustworthy, reliable: an authentic statement. / noun [U] the quality of being genuine or true: The authenticity of the letter is beyond doubt. A sentry checked the ID card's authenticity then activated the electronic turnstile. authentic adj. 1 known to be real and genuine and not a copy: I don't know if the painting is authentic. 2 true and accurate: an authentic account of life in the desert the authentic voice of young black Americans 3 made to be exactly the same as the original: an authentic model of the ancient town Take a trip on an authentic Spanish galleon to the famous Papagayo beach. The lexicological definition of authenticity has had a surprisingly modest change; in a European context, it has been closely related to being genuine and true. This relationship 100 Compare e.g. Stovel, Herb (1995): Notes on Authenticity, in: Larsen, Knut Einar and Marstein, Nils (Eds) (1994): Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Preparatory Workshop. Bergen, Norway. 31 January 2 February Workshop proceedings. Trondheim URL: (removed): the lack of explicit guidance within the Guidelines has inevitably led to personal interpretation of intent. Cleere, Henry (1995): The Evaluation of Authenticity in the Context of the World Heritage Convention, in: Larsen (1995), p , admitted: It cannot be gainsaid that ICOMOS evaluations in this respect [applying the criterion of authenticity] have in the past been empirical and subjective, p Compare Lévi-Strauss, in: UNESCO Publishing (2000): World Culture Report 2000, p Cleere (1995): Authenticity, in: Larsen (1995), p

74 might be reason for some difficulties. The underlying question what is truth is per se a philosophical (or religious) rather than a mechanical inquiry. The beginnings of the changing and broadening scope of defining authenticity 103 are to be seen in the Venice Charter of 1964, which prized authenticity of original design and material. The First Operational Guidelines of 1977 declared the importance of a test of authenticity on design, materials, workmanship and setting. 104 Authenticity was apparently meant to be a technical assurance related to scientifically measurable qualities like age and substance. It attempted to avoid the nomination of replicas, copies or of synthetic entertainment sites. Already the appreciation of originals reveals a modern world-view; the present pejorative meaning of copy is of relatively recent origin 105 which does not necessarily exist in traditional societies. Moreover, it contains a certain irony to claim authenticity for something as biased as heritage, which does not necessarily relate to a historical truth. If the story of a place needs not to be true in the sense of having historically happened, why should the material be true in the sense of being centuries old? 106 Altogether, this emphasis on calculable qualities is not shared in all regions of the world. The most famous example of a completely different approach towards reliability comes from Japan, in whose language it is impossible to find a word exactly corresponding to the 103 Kammeier, Hans-Detlef (2001): Authenticity and integrity: Making a difficult concept manageable for urban conservation in Asia. Presentation during the Conference / Workshop: Conserving the Past An Asian Perspective of Authenticity in the Consolidation, restoration and reconstruction of historic monuments and sites. Hoi An and My Son, Viet Nam, 25 February 3 March URL: visited on 15 November (Removed) 104 Operational Guidelines 1977, Article 9. Already in the Final Report of the first session of the Committee, first difficulties are stated: in Article 30: The interpretation given of authenticity was challenged by several members who did not consider that it necessarily entailed maintaining the original function of property which, to ensure its preservation, often had to be adapted to other functions. An interpretation of a progressive authenticity was proposed. UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1977): Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. First Session. UNESCO, Paris, 27 June - 1 July Final Report. CC-77/CONF.001/9. PARIS, 17 October URL: Lowenthal (2002): The Past, p He explains: During [Western] antiquity, copying was not distinguished from creative innovation; all works of art and architecture were viewed as copies taken from nature or from the human form. In late Roman and Hellenistic times, collectors valued works of art for their beauty, rarity, and antiquity, and identified as masterpieces works then reproduced by copyists. Throughout the Middle Ages, artists and craftsmen copied their own masters and other prototypes with no notion that originality was desirable, p. 302f. 106 One (World Heritage) example is given by Lowenthal (2003), Heritage Crusade: Israel continues to deploy Masada as a prime symbol of national identity, though literary and material evidence totally discredits the myth of the 1 st -century mass-suicide ( Rather than be taken as slaves, 976 zealots committed suicide; only one family survived to tell the tale ). Masada became an Israeli ritual Mecca [ ] Just as the Donation of Constantine lost little potency after being shown false, so Masada s fabulous history leaves it no less gripping than if it were true. Visitors come to Masada not for tangible evidence of the ancient legend but to experience a modern passion play of national rebirth, p Obviously, the site remains a worthy World Heritage site. With regard to authenticity it is worth asking why stones should be true, if the story is not objectively true. 70

75 word authenticity 107. The Japanese Ise Shrine is regularly re-built in an identical manner for centuries, thus not containing any original material, but still being genuine in the way it is performed. 108 In Arab states, authenticity as a materialistic concept exists as little as in Japan; the closest translation would be a polemic nationalistic term. 109 With regard to African states, it was stressed that in a number of living cultural traditions, what makes a relic authentic is less what is was (in form) than what it did 110 a statement which is equally true for any spiritually worshipped relic 111 ; however, this awareness might still be more present in African states. The Burra Charter of 1979 was a first instrument which widened the scope. It takes into consideration associative attributes like the sense of place, setting, social meaning. In addition, the Nara Document on Authenticity 112 highlights the cultural context, diversity, specificity, and declares that mechanistic formulae should be avoided 113 : All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed 107 Inaba, Nobuko (1995): What is the test of Authenticity for Intangible Properties? In: Larsen (1995), p This example is given by numerous authors, e.g. Kirshenblatt-Giblett, Barbara (2004): Le patrimoine immatériel in: Blackwell Publishing (2004), p ; English URL: she calls this expression a slow event. However, one should not over-estimate the validity of this example for Japan. Inaba (1995) makes clear that this practice is not typical for Japan in general, but a special practice of the Shinto religion, the act of reconstruction is a type of ceremonial custom, known as Shikinen-Zotai, which was limited only to Shinto shrines, and this custom was followed in certain shrines in certain periods of history. After Japan began to modernize in the mid-19 th century, the only shrine which has continued the tradition of Shikinen-Zotai in its pure form is the Ise Shrine, reconstructed on a regular twenty-year cycle, in: Larsen (1995), p Compare the thesis of Rudolff, Britta: Our Universal Sacred? Authenticity in conservation policies on Islamic religious sites in the context of global conservation strategies. Master Thesis for the programme World Heritage Studies at the Brandenburg University of Technology. Cottbus, February Unpublished Master Thesis. 110 Munjeri, Dawson (2000): Position Paper. The Notions of Integrity and Authenticity the emerging patterns in Africa. For: ICOMOS (2000): Meeting on the notions of Integrity and Authenticity in an African context. Regional meeting of 14 October 1995 in Harare, Great Zimbabwe May He explains: The hard facts scientific approach of Western Society needs to be tempered with the abstract and metaphysical notions of African traditions. For Africa sometimes, the spirit of the site takes precedence over the substance. The emphasis on the analytical rigours of categorisation, division and qualification must be matched by synthetic interpretive modes of integration and association which African traditions and cultures tend to favour. 111 Lowenthal (1995) indicates a parallel (former) worshipping in Western countries by the slogan From Faith to Fact ; Changing Criteria of Authenticity. In: Larsen (1995): Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention, pp ; particularly p. 127f. and the same: Heritage crusade, p. 119ff. 112 Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention (1994): The Nara Document on Authenticity. Drafted by the 45 participants at, held at Nara, Japan, from 1-6 November 1994, at the invitation of the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Government of Japan) and the Nara Prefecture. The Agency organized the Nara Conference in cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOMOS. Final version edited by the general rapporteurs of the Nara Conference, Mr. Raymond Lemaire and Mr. Herb Stovel. URL: Nara Document, Appendix 1.1. Compare Kammeier (2001); and Cleere (1995): Authenticity, in Larsen (1995): ICOMOS recognizes that it would be unrealistic to believe that this evaluation [of authenticity] could be reduced to a mechanistic point-scoring system based on what would inevitably be arbitrary values, p

76 criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong. 114 Thus, authenticity was defined away from an ethnocentric, technical standard to a more global, cultural dependency. Yet, the claim of a universal point of reference has not been given up: ICOMOS examined this issue [of authenticity] and concluded as it has done before: yes, there are universal constants in the field 115. What are these universal constants? Universal constants need to be seen in a combination of tangible evidence and intangible associations; the balance between them depends on the respective culture. In this way, the Nara Conference promoted adherence to the international charters and conventions developed for conservation of cultural heritage [ ]. Balancing their own requirements with those of other cultural communities is, for each community, highly desirable, provided achieving this balance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values 116. This follows five principles: respect, value, understanding, integrity, and public benefit. 117 Subsequently, the Operational Guidelines of 2005 explain the notion of authenticity as follows: Depending on the type of cultural heritage, and its cultural context, properties may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural value (as recognized in the nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including: form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors. 118 The long enumeration reflects the realization that authenticity is in practice never absolute, always relative 119 (as is any other term). It highlights a novel appreciation of the sense of a place and the aura of a location. However, this does not include mere intangible expressions; something tangible needs to be one trustworthy point of reference. Without clearing up all 114 Nara Conference (1994). 115 Stovel: Notes on Authenticity, URL (removed): One reason is certainly the dependency of an intergovernmental institution on universal principles, ibid: Indeed ICOMOS legitimacy as a global organisation rests on this assumption that there are some principles and practices of sufficient universal worth to respond well to the wide range of demands placed on them, which demand the fullest support. 116 Nara Conference (1994). URL: Kammeier (2001), URL (removed). 118 Operational Guidelines 2005 Art Lowenthal (1994), in Larsen: Authenticity, p

77 attributes 120, it can be said that a specific form is not as important any more as the content, as reliability and trustworthiness. 121 The notion of authenticity tries to ascertain meaning. This can be exemplified by an illustration from the Arab States, in which authenticity as substantial evidence seems to be rejected. 122 Nevertheless, the meaning of cultural conservation in Muslim societies 123 is dependent on a certain kind of authenticity as well, as a representative of the Aga Khan Trust for Culture indirectly interpreted. His division between slogans, signals, signs and symbols can be seen as a key to authenticity, understood as an assurance of meaning: Signs always refer to many possible meanings. Symbols used in [ ] semiological systems are richer than signs; symbols are persons, events, or physical objects currently used in social communication to convey high spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic values shared by the social group whose identity is precisely structured by all the values protected in the symbols. [ ] symbols and signs are never intangible, static tools referring to permanent and substantial meanings; they are subject to change, because the human mind is itself continuously exposed to new experiences. Symbols and signs can be deteriorated, weakened, or rigidified to become mere signals. A signal has only one interpretation, such as the green and red lights in a traffic light conveying only one meaning in that context Especially the authenticity of function was steadily promoted by ICOMOS, compare Stovel: Notes, URL. 121 It is also declared that authenticity can only be understood if one knows about its context. If the information sources are not seen as being sufficient, the World Heritage Committee can reject the nomination. Here might be a shift away from an evaluation of content rather to an evaluation of form, compare extracts from the Operational Guidelines 2005 Art. 80: The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity. Art. 81 Judgments about value attributed to cultural heritage, as well as the credibility of related information sources, may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is interesting that there is no adaptation of this new model in the guidelines for World Heritage in Danger: ascertained danger relates to serious deterioration of materials etc., but not to feelings etc. Compare Operational Guidelines 1999, Art. 82 and Operational Guidelines 2005, Art Nevertheless, the expression such as is open enough to include threats to the newly defined conditions. 122 Compare Rudolff (2003). 123 Arkoun, Mohammed (1990): The Meaning of Cultural Conservation in Muslim Societies. In: Abu H. Imamuddin and Karen R. Longeteig (Eds).: Architectural and Urban Conservation in the Islamic World. Geneva: The Aga Khan Trust for Culture URL: Ibid. In Islamic cultures, Arkoun criticizes a recent invasion of shallow slogans and signals, often copied or aggressive, without relations to the originally rich and multi-faceted Muslim universe. There are several reasons for this, the most important being the tremendous, unprecedented rate of demographic increase. Around 60% of the population of Muslim societies is less than 20 years old. This explosive demographic reality is the breeding ground for an artificial populism of a desperately young society which looses the contact to its spiritual roots: In this perspective, conservation cannot be only a national responsibility; that is why UNESCO initiated in 1972 a convention for the protection of world patrimony. But not only this Western rooted organisation, also the Aga Khan Award for Architecture founded in 1976 and more recently, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (1988) have the same universal goals, although they consider only Muslim cultural spaces to empower a Muslim modern humanism, p. 29. In Arab States, World Heritage is not very successful, even though five Arab States were within the first seven countries to ratify the convention. This might among other things indicate internal problems of self-identification in a crisis driven area, in which opposition to the West is used to export the conflict. Concerning the ratification, compare Connally, World Heritage Convention, 4: The first ten countries in order of ratification were: 1974: USA, Egypt (the Abu Simbel Country ), Iraq, Bulgaria, Sudan, Algeria, Syria, 73

78 Symbols and signs are a multi-faceted link between tangible properties and spiritual connotations 125. By contrast, signals and slogans are only one-dimensional indications, giving no access to profound reflections about meaning. Certainly, simple signals and slogans can be highly popular, particularly among people in an economic and identity crisis, but such simplifications might only jeopardize their own complex, multifaceted values. That difference needs to be seen in any conservation project: what is the message behind a proposal? Is it embedded into its historical, aesthetic or scientific context? Is it rather misleading, directed against someone else and neglecting or denying ( original ) profound meanings? Consequently, authentic properties should represent symbols and signs rather than signals and slogans ; connections to the past rather than a deliberate abuse of the present, a will of transboundary inclusion rather than of local segregation. In that way, nationalistic expressions as well as simulated synthetic sceneries can still be excluded from the World Heritage List the latter as long as they are more one-sided signals of entertainment than multi-faceted symbols of imagination. How to divide between symbols and slogans? This is the task of the application of a test of authenticity, which currently seems to rely mainly on formal criteria like a sufficient amount of credible information. 126 In sum, authenticity can be seen as the trustworthiness of a symbol, as an evidence of meaning. As such, it might be universally understandable. Nonetheless, authenticity has been seen to be too related to an ethnocentric understanding and not appropriate for e.g. Asian or African regions 127. In the new Convention, the notion is carefully avoided. 128 Australia, Zaire, Nigeria, Niger. 1975: Iran, Tunisia, Jordan, Yugoslavia, Ecuador, France, Ghana, Cyprus and Switzerland, p. 4f. The high percentage of Arab States is significant. 125 Ibid. 126 A test of authenticity was required in the Operational Guidelines until the current version, in which it is left out in favour of a lengthy description of the results of the Nara Conference. Compare Article 80 of the 2005 Operational Guidelines, herein footnote 121, page Especially a request for original substances does not make sense in regions in which main building materials are not mainly stone, but substances like timber which rotten easily. 128 Compare Yamato Declaration, Article 8: considering that intangible cultural heritage is constantly recreated, the term authenticity as applied to tangible cultural heritage is not relevant when identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004a): UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004a): World Heritage Committee. Seventh Extraordinary Session. Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda: Cooperation and coordination between UNESCO Conventions concerning heritage. The Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris, UNESCO Headquarters December WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/INF.9. Paris, 25 November URL: and UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004b): World Heritage Committee. Seventh Extraordinary Session. Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda: Co-operation and coordination between UNESCO Conventions concerning heritage. Paris, UNESCO Headquarters December WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/9. Paris, 25 November URL: and UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2004c): World Heritage Committee. Seventh Extraordinary Session. Paris, UNESCO Headquarters December Item 17 of the Agenda: Decisions. Paris, 6-11 December WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/17. Paris, 13 January URL: 74

79 b) Integrity: an impression of wholeness Compared to authenticity, the notion of integrity seems to be simple and straightforward. Even though also this notion can be interpreted from different angles, a common appreciation seems to exist, as is demonstrated in its widened application. Originally, it was necessary only for natural heritage, from the Operational Guidelines of 2005 on, it is requested for all properties 129. An impression of completeness seems to be an associative standard which is widely understood and accepted. Difficulties with this notion are more hidden, and they relate to an understanding of the nature-culture concept. Lexicological definitions and the World Heritage description are closely related; the condition of being whole or undivided 130 and the measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes 131 are harmonizing. OALD 1974 OALD 1989 OALD 2000 Integrity 1 Quality of being honest and upright in character: a man of integrity, commercial integrity. 2 state or condition of being complete: The old Roman walls may still be seen, but not in their integrity. Wasn t this Treaty supposed to guarantee our territorial integrity? 1 Quality of being honest and morally upright: He s a man of integrity; he won t break his promise. Personal, commercial, intellectual etc integrity. 2 condition of being whole or undivided: respect, preserve, threaten, etc. a nation s territorial integrity. 1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles: personal / professional / artistic integrity to behave with integrity a man of great integrity 2 (formal) the state of being whole and not divided: to respect the territorial integrity of the nation From the first Operational Guidelines 1977 on, integrity for natural sites has been illustrated by practical examples; illustrations by an ice age area, a tropical rain forest and a waterfall are kept until the version of Currently, examples of integrity for cultural heritage are under development 133. It might be these practical examples which facilitated the understanding; for authenticity, such illustrations were not given. Additionally, the statutes of 129 Operational Guidelines 2005, Article OALD (1989): Integrity. 131 Operational Guidelines 2005, Article Operational Guidelines 1977, Article 11 (i)-(iii); Operational Guidelines 2005, Article Operational Guidelines 2005, Footnote to Article

80 IUCN declare the importance of integrity 134 ; the resulting experiences of this decisive Advisory Body might also have contributed to the interpretation 135. Most of the difficulties seem to be technical problems: on which (scientific) level is integrity to be defined? The expert group recognized that the notion of integrity has not been fully examined to date and that its complexity needs to be investigated. The expert group recognized that, from the point of view of natural heritage, there are different notions of integrity, including structural identity (e.g. species composition of an ecosystem), functional integrity (e.g. glacial series with the glacier itself and its deposition patterns) and visual integrity (a notion which relates to both natural and cultural heritage). 136 Contrary to authenticity, these differentiations remain widely on a mechanical ground; they do not assume different levels of associations. However, the notion of integrity implies a classification of nature. This bordering is closely related to a nature-culture concept. Can nature be structured into zones, like e.g. a core zone and a buffer zone? Particularly African states seem to reject this idea: the notion [of integrity] was primarily concerned with designating a series of material zones where the greatest number of geological, climatic and biological characteristics would be preserved from all human endeavours perceived to be destructive of ecological balance. It finds its finest expressions in the notion of nature reserves and national parks ; in essence, in ecological apartheid. [ ] There are No Boundaries. [For traditional people] there is no distinction between nature and creator and no sharp separation in habitat between humanity and nature. 137 This reveals again different world-views. It can be solved only by using no notion as a dogma, but as a flexible tool: using the legalistic modes therefore problems will always exist. The solution lies in recognizing that indigenous communities are at heart ecosystem people integrally linked to the ecosystem they inhabit. They are part of the integrity equation 138. In general, the role of indigenous people is an increasingly important factor for UNESCO. Altogether, an analysis of IUCN shows that a strict separation between natural sites and people is actually not carried out. Natural World Heritage sites can indeed be inhabited by 134 IUCN (1948): Statutes and Regulations. Part II Objectives. Art. 2: The objectives of IUCN shall be to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. 135 This means as well that apparently, this concept finds more worldwide acceptance than concepts of the Athens or the Venice Charter. 136 UNESCO, Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1996): Twentieth session. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris June Information Document: Report of the Expert Meeting on Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites. Parc national de la Vanoise, France, 22 to 24 March URL: Munjeri: Position Paper, for: ICOMOS (2000) Ibid. 76

81 human beings 139. Certainly, the conditions in which inhabitants live are different; e.g. The Arctic Circle region of northern Sweden was inscribed as the home of the Saami, or Lapp people in Sweden 140 ; by contrast, the Karen, living in the Thungyai Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries, Thailand, were almost expelled. 141 But in general, people are not seen to destroy automatically the integrity of a site. A dogmatic interpretation is avoided. Of great threat to the integrity of natural sites are certainly environmental dangers. Direct threats are poaching, logging, arson, dam projects, oil exploitation, over-use by tourism etc. Perils from the outside are polluted rivers, air, rain, etc. invading the sites. Unfortunately, these impacts cannot be solved by conceptual changes. 139 Compare: Thorsell, Jim and Paine, Jim (1997) Of the total of 126 natural and mixed World Heritage sites, data on human residents are available on 120. Of these 120 sites the summary results are: - the majority of natural World Heritage sites (73), have no resident human population [ ] - 47 natural World Heritage sites have resident human populations varying in number from a low of 38 (Willandra Lakes) to a high of 50,000 (Lake Baikal). In: An IUCN/WCMC Perspective on Safeguarding the Integrity of World Heritage Properties. Canada URL: UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1996): World Heritage Committee. Twentieth session. Merida, Mexico. 2-7 December WHC-96/CONF.201/ March The Laponian Area, 774 Sweden was inscribed as a mixed site under the criteria C(iii)(v) and N(i)(ii)(iii). 141 UNESCO, Italienische Nationale Kommission (2003): Das Welterbe der UNESCO. Die Naturreservate. Vercelli 2003, p These variations are more due to different national politics than to politics of UNESCO. 77

82 III. The Convention for the Safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage of Safeguarding in a world of globalization a) Avoidance of paradoxes The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage is designed to bind the States Parties to take the necessary measures, including, for instance, identification, in order to ensure the safeguarding of the international cultural heritage and to strengthen solidarity and cooperation at regional and international levels in this field 1. These goals can be claimed for the World Heritage project as well; both conventions promote firstly awareness towards heritage and secondly mutual respect between the people. However, the differences are essential. They are not about a separation of a monument and its aura, but about a protection of properties and a promotion of customs. This difference was worked out from 1973 on, when the government of Bolivia invited the Director-General of UNESCO to add a protocol on the protection of folklore to the Universal Copyright Convention 2. The invitation was not successful, but it led to a raising awareness of the characteristics of tangible and intangible heritage. UNESCO s idea of types of intangible heritage covers a wide range, apparently even more intentionally than the World Heritage project. The enumeration of practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith provides much space for interpretation. 3 How the future operational guidelines or the application of the convention will limit this idea cannot be foreseen: the Convention provides the definition in its Article 2 in rather general terms, which 1 UNESCO (no date): Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. URL: 2 UNESCO, General Conference (2003): A precious and endangered heritage. Legal responses by the international community at UNESCO. From the 1989 Recommendation to the 2003 Convention. Information kit for purposes of promoting the Convention for the Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Adopted on 17 October 2003 by the UNESCO General Conference at its 32nd session. URL: 3 The following examples from preparatory discussions can fall into the defined scope. As social practices one could enumerate body art (tattooing, piercing, painting), culinary art, and practices relating to hunting, fishing and gathering ; under knowledge and practices about nature, one could nominate prophecies and oracles, magical, spiritual, prophetical, cosmological and religious beliefs and practices in relation to nature ; Sato, Kunio: ACCU s Programmes and Vision for ICH Safeguarding. In: ACCU (2004) (Ed.): Promotion of Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Final Report of the 2004 ACCU Regional Meeting in Asia and the Pacific. Osaka, Japan, 26 February 1 March 2004, p. 54. Compare Smeets, who comments this openness: Article 2 of the Convention gives a description rather than a definition of the intangible cultural heritage; it is rich in content, but not easy in its wording, Keynote Speech, in: ACCU (2004), p

83 might require a number of years to be clearly agreed in practical terms 4. Again, ethical standards should enrich the measurement. Contrary to the World Heritage Convention, the new Convention rejects a ranking of nominated expressions. All cultural expressions as defined in Article 2 are seen to have an equal value, whether listed or not. Any concept of outstanding universal value has consciously been left out 5 ; listed properties are not seen to be the jewels of heritage. This corresponds to a raising appreciation of culture(s) within UNESCO 6. It is based on the view that people turn to culture as a means of self-definition and mobilization and assert their local cultural values. For the poorest among them, their own values are often the only thing that they can assert. Traditional values, it is claimed, bring identity, continuity and meaning to their lives 7. The keywords of identity, continuity and meaning are essential for the new Convention; they underline an appreciation of cultural diversity. That means, the Intangible Heritage Convention is principally orientated towards rights of single communities in a modernizing and currently particularly globalising world, and not towards a global appreciation of extraordinary characteristics. Altogether, the new Convention responds to the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of , which interprets cultural diversity as the common heritage of humanity 9 and sees its defence as an ethical imperative 10. This Declaration can be seen as a fundament of the new Convention, which quotes it as a basic legal instrument 11 and emphasises to promote respect for cultural diversity. The diversity of cultures and accordingly of intangible heritage is seen to be highly threatened by devastating changes, even more than World Heritage properties. Whether this interpretation is generally true or not, 12 the new project focuses on these threatened examples of cultural diversity. Certainly, only those expressions are taken into consideration which are compatible with existing human rights instruments, 4 Sato, In: ACCU (2004), p It was still requested in preceding programmes, compare chapter III.1.b. 6 Compare chapter I.5. 7 Cuéllar, Javier Pérez de: Our Creative Diversity. Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development UNESCO publishing / Oxford & IBH Publishing Fourth Edition 1998, p UNESCO (2001): Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity Adopted by the 31 st session of the UNESCO General Conference. Paris, 2 November URL: He wrote that statement before the establishment of the new Convention; this shows how much the keywords have been in the focus of UNESCO already before. 9 Article 1, my emphasis. 10 Article Preamble; compare also chapter I.7, p. 34f. and chapter I.5 about UNESCO s descriptions of culture. 12 Against this interpretation: Globalization, at first glance, is assumed to lead to a homogenous, one-world culture that squashes diversity. [ ] creativity and intercultural contact create culture at a rapid rate, which increases as part of the sweep of globalization. [ ] Calls to valorize and defend cultural diversity at all scales seem to emanate from the very processes of globalization ; Mason and Torre (2000), p. 170f; compare also cultural and natural diversity footnote 60, page

84 mutual respect and sustainable development. This stresses an ethical imperative which has no equivalent in the World Heritage Convention. Moreover, the terms common or universal underline a different meaning of heritage in the Word Heritage Convention and the new Convention. For the old Convention, the term universal can mean done by or involving all the people in the world or in a particular group 13 ; and the marked interpretation is indeed relevant: all people in the world can involve themselves by identifying with the respective heritage. Also the meaning true or right at all times and in all places 14 can be considered for associative principles of World Heritage, covered by the unique combination of values within outstanding universal value. By contrast, intangible heritage is not relevant in itself for the whole world, and people all over the world may not identify with a local expression. Every practice covered by this Convention is part of the wealth of human answers to how to make sense of existence, but it remains embedded in its respective culture. This approach has been developed mainly because of legal uncertainties 15 concerning the rights of communities. It becomes evident in the following advices for a then still future Intangible Heritage Convention: it is advisable to make reference to intangible heritage as a universal heritage of humanity in the Preamble as a justification for protection but to avoid its use within the definition itself. [ ] There are [ ] practical arguments taking great care when characterizing intangible heritage as a universal heritage. There is the danger that this may be used to justify actions in relation to that heritage such as the exploitation of traditional knowledge without the authorization of its holders which are deleterious to it. 16 These warnings have been applied with even greater care by making reference in the Preamble to (only) a universal will and a common concern to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of humanity 17. Intangible heritage is not declared to be a universal or common heritage. Consequently, the new Convention avoided some of the difficulties and paradoxes of World Heritage and of other preceding programmes. It took into account or created novel concepts, which are analyzed in this third part. Paralleling the inherent difficulties of World Heritage (chapter II.1.a.), the following keywords have been or will be discussed: The change of any heritage interpretation in the course of time, which does not allow any fixed concept and requests associative ethical standards, is certainly valid for intangible 13 OALD 2000: Universal. My emphasis. 14 OALD 2000: Universal. 15 Compare Blake (2002), p Ibid, p. 12f. 17 Preamble Intangible Heritage Convention; my emphasis. 80

85 cultural heritage as well (compare changing concepts, chapter III.1.b). UNESCO s description is an open enumeration and takes future changes even more consciously into consideration than the World Heritage Convention; it recognizes the flexibility of concepts. Secondly, ethical standards are definitely requested. Other associative standards of single notions, namely identity and continuity, will be discussed. The internal paradox of World Heritage sites, which need to be of outstanding universal value and at the same time representative, is principally avoided. Intangible cultural heritage needs to be only representative. However difficult the concept of representativity with regard to intangible heritage is, it rejects any ranking. 18 Both of these points imply that a restricted standardization concerning mainly single states is smoothed down; a pyramidal hierarchy scheme within nations like for World Heritage is not applicable. An ethical standard is set as an international line above which all expressions are included. The following sketch illustrates this difference: intangible cultural heritage needs to fulfil more horizontal inter-national criteria (human rights, mutual respect, identity, continuity, etc.). 18 Compare Blake (2002), p. 12f. The list which shall result from the new Convention is consciously called Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity; IV Article Certainly, the feasibility of representativity is not clear yet, but a ranking is definitely rejected: in order to avoid the idea of what was called a beauty contest, to call one of the lists the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage [the other list is intangible heritage in need of urgent safeguarding]. It will be up to the Committee to determine the concept of representativity. Everything is open for debate, Smeets: Keynote Speech, in: ACCU (2004), p