Conservation of the intangible: a continuing challenge

Transcription

1 Conservation of the intangible: a continuing challenge Alison Wain University of Canberra Corresponding author: Alison.Wain@canberra.edu.au Abstract Western concepts of heritage conservation have traditionally centred on tangible heritage. This material focus has been challenged in recent decades by a new focus on intangible heritage, which has been recognised both as being a cultural production of value and significance in its own right, and as having a fundamental role in the identification and survival of tangible heritage. To respond effectively to these changes in conceptions of heritage, conservators are required to extend their understanding and practice to address the challenges of conserving intangible heritage, including eliciting stakeholder values and understanding and supporting the preservation of embodied knowledge through continued performance. Non-Western communities, and conservators working with non-western heritage, have been particularly active in developing protocols for dealing with intangible heritage. This paper argues that conservators working with heritage from all cultures need to equally recognise the importance of intangible heritage, and to develop protocols for conserving and managing it that are relevant to their areas of cultural expertise. Keywords: conservation, intangible, tangible, heritage, cultural values, significance Introduction The traditional Western view of heritage developed from an appreciation of, and desire to preserve, material cultural heritage, in particular antiquities and monumental architecture (Smith 2006, p. 18). As Susan Pearce notes the very term cultural heritage was derived from the legal concept of heritage, which was based on the inheritance of predominantly physical property (2000, p. 59). The idea of valuing and wishing to preserve such heritage led to the development of the Western discipline of conservation which, in line with the values of the movement that initiated it, was focused on the preservation of physical material. When the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC) was formed in 1950, for example, its aim was to, improve the state of knowledge and standards of practice and to provide a common meeting ground and publishing body for all who are interested in and professionally skilled in the conservation of museum objects (IIC, nd) [1]. The focus on objects physical, tangible items was explicit [2]. Increasingly though, heritage has come to be understood to consist not just or even primarily of physical material, but also of intangible elements. This has been recognised at an international level with the development of documents such as the Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention (1994) and the Hoi An Protocols for best Conservation Practice in Asia (2009), both of which complement the material focus of the earlier Athens and Venice Charters with a focus on the value of heritage skills, and the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (2013), which incorporates a particular sensitivity to the values of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. The most explicit documentation of the importance of intangible heritage, however, has been through the various iterations of UNESCO lists of intangible heritage [3]. A criticism of these lists has been that they decontextualize the elements of heritage that they identify, separating them from their cultural environment, placing them in a new relationship to other things on the list and changing their context of use (Hafstein 2009, p. 93). At a more grassroots level, however, tangible and intangible aspects of heritage are rarely so explicitly separated, and in fact it is the closeness of their relationship to one another that gives them meaning and relevance. The Canadian First Nation people interviewed by Miriam Clavir, 52 AICCM Bulletin Volume 35, 2014

2 for instance, viewed their tangible objects and their intangible lived traditions as two halves of a whole, each of which had less richness and authority, and more vulnerability to loss, without the other to support it (Clavir 2002, pp ). From this perspective intangible heritage comprises not just the colourful and exotic cultural performances, identified in the UNESCO lists (Smith & Akagawa 2009, p.4), but the meanings, associations, knowledge, skills and perceived significance and values that provide context and understanding for tangible heritage, (Smith 2006, p. 56). A common thread through all the UNESCO deliberations, and a concept that has been reaffirmed in the final Convention, is that intangible cultural heritage is a process rather than a product, a matter of constant recreation of cultural practices through performance (Aikawa-Faure 2009, p. 36). Article 2 of the Convention states that, 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 (UNESCO 2003). This issue of performance means that, unlike tangible heritage, intangible heritage usually cannot be separated from its context and sent away for treatment by a conservator. Conserving intangible heritage must constitute a process through which the people for whom the heritage is relevant actually perform or experience the performance of that heritage. As a consequence conservators cannot directly conserve intangible heritage. They can, however, support its preservation by providing, or assisting with, opportunities for it to be performed. Conserving intangible heritage If both tangible and intangible heritage are worthy of keeping then it follows that both these aspects of heritage need conservation. As conservation has traditionally focused on tangible rather than intangible heritage this is a relatively new area for conservators, and one that has not yet become a standard element in conservation practice. It is, for instance, standard conservation practice in a conservation report to document the physical materials and condition of an object, but it is not yet standard practice to document to whom the object is important, and why (Kemp 2009, p. 66; Appelbaum 2007, p. 209). The importance of sustaining the connections between intangible heritage and living people has been recognised in the most recent model adopted by UNESCO for the preservation of intangible heritage. This model seeks to: sustain a living tradition by supporting the conditions for cultural reproduction. This means according value to the carriers and transmitters of traditions, as well as to their habitus and habitat. Whereas like tangible heritage, intangible is culture, like natural heritage, it is alive. The task, then, is to sustain the whole system as a living entity and not just to collect intangible artefacts (Kirschenblatt-Gimblett 2004, p. 53). Often however, supporting the performance of intangible heritage means relaxing standards of physical care for any tangible heritage artefacts that are used in that performance. This runs contrary to the principles of the Western tradition of conservation ( Johnson in Kaminitz et al 2007, p. 80) which, as discussed above, prioritises the preservation of the physical fabric of objects. In the West the use of physical elements of heritage as evidence of the past is regarded as an important cultural good, providing physical confirmation of known facts, and the raw material for research to reveal forgotten, unexpected or unimagined information (Clavir 2002, p. 28, Caple 2009, pp ). To be able to be used in this way, though, the physical evidence must be preserved uncontaminated and unmodified, to ensure that the information needed to answer future questions is not inadvertently changed or destroyed. In this context, using heritage in the present, and accepting the changes this is likely to bring to the physical fabric (either through accidental damage or through the need to modify the object to increase safety, practicality and sometimes the quality of the experience), can seem to be merely an irresponsible degradation of historical evidence (Clavir 2002, p. xiii). The perception that change is in opposition to the preservation of tangible heritage, however, is flawed. There are many instances in the context of Western heritage where change to the physical fabric of heritage is accepted and even welcomed. This is particularly so in regard to built heritage and heritage landscapes, areas of heritage specialisation that may be able to provide theoretical approaches that can challenge and extend conservation norms in areas such as movable heritage (as noted by Richmond and Bracker, there is much to be gained from the cross-fertilisation of ideas between different areas of heritage and conservation practice (2009 p. xv)). Gardens, for instance, continually change in their physical details, both through the seasons and as key plantings mature, die and are replaced (Añon AICCM Bulletin Volume 35,

3 Feliu 1994, pp ). Cities retain their reputations as vibrant centres of cultural heritage as much through the new cultural forms created by their inhabitants in the present as through the preservation or recreation of earlier cultural forms (Zancheti, Lire & Piccolo 2009, p.167). Industrial sites, such as the Heinrichschutte blast furnace complex in the German Ruhr valley become naturally recolonised by animals and plants, breathing a new life and vitality into places that had long been known for their pollution and contamination as much as for their demonstration of power and human ingenuity (Wain 2012 p. 307) [4]. To prevent change in these environments would require the replacement of real plants with artificial ones, cultural innovation with social repression, and new life with herbicides and exterminators. Such actions would be manifestly unethical and unsustainable, and would result in the heritage being perceived as dead and artificial. Change also has a role, though a more controversial one, where elements of tangible heritage are used not for their evidence values, but for values of inspiration and enjoyment. When objects that are deemed to be of value as heritage are altered and combined with new ideas and components from the present, the changes are often regarded negatively as either damage or inappropriate restoration. Jane Lennon, for example commented that: the mid to late 1980s saw a strong commitment to fashionable or market driven conservation. Often this has been at the expense of truly protecting the historic fabric of cities One of its tell-tale signs is façadism [the preservation of the façades only of historic buildings] and another is to watch large numbers of warehouses along waterfronts being recycled into condominiums (Lennon 1990, pp ). Another issue was raised by Col Ogilvie, a conservation mechanic at the National Museum of Australia. Ogilvie was asked by the private owner of an FC Holden to improve the road performance of the car for modern use by fitting a faster engine and other non-original mechanical parts. The owner wished to preserve the heritage visual style of the car, but to ally it to a faster and more exciting driving experience than the original machine could provide. Ogilvie regarded this process as a destruction of the historical values of the car (Ogilvie 2009) [5]. In both these cases, the aim of the treatment desired by the owners was not to preserve historic evidence, but to use historic fabric to add visual flair to aspects of modern life. This is certainly not the way to use all heritage, but it must also be recognized that it is not feasible (or even desirable), to save every detail of the past as historic evidence. As an alternative the integration of elements of heritage into the present as decoration, points of interest or visual links to the past to temper the strangeness of new things in the present, can provide very positive benefits to society. Susan Parham, for instance, describes the incorporation of elements from the Floral Hall façade from Covent Garden in London into the revitalization of a completely different market, which she notes contributes a lively presence to a key street market (Parham 2008 pp. 539, 541). These different ways of seeing and using the past present challenges for conservators trained in the Western tradition, but they also present opportunities. Rather than viewing use and adaptation of heritage fabric through a negative lens that stresses damage to tangible heritage, use and physical change can be viewed through a positive lens that stresses care and recreation of intangible heritage. Conserving the intangible heritage of all cultures Conservation concerns and research directions Recognition of the important role of individual and community stakeholder views has been widely accepted in recent years in relation to the interpretation, conservation and management of non-western heritage. The Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material (AICCM) has been in the vanguard of this movement, as evinced by its response to a plea from member Penny Edmonds in 1999 to add clauses to its Code of Ethics and Practice that would specifically articulate the unique and primary status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our codes of ethics and practice (Edmonds 1999, p. 3). The Code of Ethics and Practice was duly amended to include the following clause: 5. Cultural issues. The AICCM member should be informed and respectful of the cultural and spiritual significance of cultural material and should, where possible, consult with all relevant stakeholders before making treatment or other decisions relating to such cultural material. The AICCM member should recognise the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as first peoples, and as key stakeholders in the conservation of their cultural heritage material. When undertaking conservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural property, the AICCM member should recognise that the objects and the information relevant to them are of equal importance, and that conservation practice must adapt to cultural requirements, particularly in respect of secret/sacred items (AICCM 2002). This clause explicitly gives conservators permission to put intangible cultural requirements stakeholder values and uses of heritage before the preservation 54 AICCM Bulletin Volume 35, 2014

4 of the physical fabric of heritage, and has encouraged conservators working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage to see the incorporation of stakeholder values and concerns, including requirements for access to and use of physical heritage, as a fundamental part of their practice, and one that has immense benefits for both the stakeholders and the heritage. The information on Museum Victoria s website regarding the conservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage makes this approach explicit: Conservators seek to achieve a balance between the use of the items and their preservation. These need not be in conflict Ultimately this is our conservation goal: to care for heritage collections in order to provide public and community access to them (Museum Victoria 2014) Similar changes in attitudes in the conservation and related heritage professions have occurred in Canada in regard to the heritage of Canadian Aboriginal peoples, as is attested by the holding of a symposium in 2007 devoted to discussion of the benefits of facilitating loans and other forms of contact and mutual work between museums and Aboriginal communities (Dignard et al 2007). The need to consider the intangible heritage of non-western stakeholders has inspired conservators working in these areas to develop new approaches, to investigate intellectual areas that might once have been considered the preserve of curators, and to make time in busy schedules for the discovery and inclusion of non- Western cultural requirements. There has not, however, been a commensurate development of attitudes and approaches to Western heritage, at least as far as such attitudes are expressed in the AICCM Code of Ethics and Practice. Here the techniques of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) can be used to examine how the AICCM Code of Ethics and Practice acts, albeit unintentionally, to restrict notions of the admissibility of intangible heritage to non-western cultural contexts. The utility of CDA to heritage studies has been demonstrated by Waterton, Smith, and Campbell who have used the technique to prompt a critical discussion [and] facilitate the development of a more equitable dialogue between a range of stakeholders (2006 p. 340). The explicit acknowledgement in the AICCM Code of Ethics and Practice of the importance of intangible elements in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage serves to highlight the fact that there appears to be an expectation that other heritage will be treated according to a different set of standards, standards that place much less importance on intangible elements of heritage. Examining the Code of Ethics and Practice in detail it can be seen that the first and second Principles of the Code of Ethics state that conservators must respect the unique character and significance and historic, aesthetic and cultural integrity of the cultural property they work on [6]. However Article 4 of the Code of Practice dilutes these sentiments with the statement that It is recognised that the significance of cultural material may have a bearing on conservation decisions [emphasis added] and the caveat that significance should only be allowed to influence conservation decisions if it does not involve breaching the provisions of the AICCM Code of Ethics or Code of Practice. [7] It is only in Article 5 of the Code of Practice and only in relation to the cultural property of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, that the intangible and tangible aspects of heritage are acknowledged to be of equal importance (see full text above). In addition, while Article 5 requires conservators to respect the cultural and spiritual significance of cultural material generally, and to consult with all relevant stakeholders before making treatment or other decisions, the stipulation that conservation practice must adapt to cultural requirements is specifically made in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. The implication of this discourse is that conservators working with heritage, communities and individuals from other cultures are not expected to allow cultural requirements to take precedence over conservation practice. Waterton, Smith and Campbell argue that heritage management practices are discursively moulded and constituted and that therefore the precise ways in which we create, discuss, talk about and assess heritage issues do matter (Waterton, Smith and Campbell 2006, pp. 340, 342). If this is so, then the presence of such discourses within the document that is published as the approved standard for conservation ethics and practice within Australia will inevitably promote a tradition of conservation practice that is divorced from, and assumes authority over, the needs and concerns of the people for whom the heritage has significance and value. This implication of this discourse may have been unintentional, but I argue that it is real and has a very real effect. Certainly Edmonds believed that words have a real effect when she argued for the inclusion of statements in the AICCM Code of Ethics and Practice that would encourage conservators to value more highly the cultural information and requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. There is no reason to suppose that words which discourage the evolution of practice in relation to the conservation of Western intangible heritage will have any less effect. In 1999 Edmonds cautioned that: overarching our profession are policies that may not articulate what we as cultural heritage professionals AICCM Bulletin Volume 35,

5 sincerely aspire to achieve we should consider carefully what it is we want our codes and policies to express, as they not only reflect our political present but will also shape our future (p. 4). These concerns have not gone away. In 2009, Alison Bracker and Alison Richmond observed that despite a growing awareness of the implicit socio-cultural responsibility of conservators to determine what heritage is, how it is cared for, how it is used, by whom and for whom, there was still a lack of rigorous selfanalysis within the profession and a need to confront the contradictions and fallacies embedded in some of conservation s key principles. Writing in 2013 Mary-Jo Lelyveld commented that all too often conservation is reduced to one-dimensional framing of conservator as applied scientist, conservator as craftsman, conservator as art medic or technician, often by the conservators themselves (p. 2). Debate since 1999 about the role and aspirations of the conservation profession has clearly been regular and thoughtful, precisely because it is recognised both in Australia and internationally that continued self-reflective exploration of the theoretical and ethical constructs underpinning conservation practice is critical to the ongoing development and vitality of the conservation profession. The shape of things to come How can the understanding of the importance of intangible heritage and stakeholder values be bought into the standard canon of conservation theory and practice in relation to all heritage? Firstly, conservators must talk to people with whose heritage they work. Talking to custodians and other stakeholders and discovering their concerns, their values and their views of the significance of the heritage must be seen as a standard part of good conservation practice, not as a luxury, or as something that is only done with non-western stakeholders. Talking may just need to be an informal process (Clavir 2007, p.31), or it may need a more structured approach, especially where there are stakeholders involved who have different values, and perhaps different levels of power to voice their points of view. The elicitation of social values from stakeholders is not a traditional part of a conservator s tool set, but this challenge has been faced by scholars and practitioners in both the heritage field and other disciplines, and there is an extensive literature available to conservators on ways of encouraging and facilitating dialogue (de la Torre and Mason 2002, p. 3) [8]. Secondly, conservators must respect the ideas of value and significance that they discover through talking to people, and acknowledge that these ideas are just as valid as the values expressed through traditional Western conservation and heritage management practice. It also must be recognized that stakeholders may want to use their heritage in ways that are completely different from the uses that conservators expect. When people take parts of old things such as the facades of buildings, and the bodies of cars and adapt them to give them new lives in the present (see for example Warren and Gibson 2011) they are not being wantonly destructive or thoughtless, but are expressing a desire to bring some of the best of their heritage into their day-to-day present. By taking the time to understand what stakeholders want to do with their heritage, and why, conservators will be better able to provide them with advice about different ways of achieving their aims, and the likely outcome of different options. Thirdly, conservators must document their findings regarding intangible heritage, and how this information has influenced their conservation decisions. One of the defining characteristics of conservation as a profession is that conservators document the materials and techniques they have used in their work, which allows treatments and approaches to be tracked and evaluated over long periods of time. The same approach needs to be taken to documenting the social reasons for conservation decisions. From a technical point of view there are usually many different ways in which an object (or indeed an aspect of intangible heritage) can be treated or managed. The reasons for choosing one of these approaches over another is, however, usually socially oriented it depends on what different people want to do with the heritage in question (Muñoz Viñas 2005, p. 170). Documenting understandings of who they are doing the work for, and why, will allow conservators to track and evaluate the social impacts of their decisions over time, just as they currently track and evaluate the consequences of their physical treatments. Conclusion The Western tradition of heritage conservation is highly focused on preserving the tangible elements of the past, but new developments in both heritage conservation and in the wider world of heritage theory have recognized the importance of intangible elements of heritage, especially in regard to non-western heritage. Intangible heritage is now understood to be important both in its own right and as a crucial element in the survival of tangible heritage. To sustain their commitment to the effective preservation of heritage, and to be able to do this in a way that maintains currency with new understandings of heritage, means that conservators must extend their practice to the preservation of both tangible and intangible heritage. This is a relatively new and challenging area for conservators, and is complicated by the fact that 56 AICCM Bulletin Volume 35, 2014

6 intangible heritage cannot be directly conserved by the conservator, but must be recreated or performed by the people for whom it is culturally important. Mostly this does not include the conservator, who can therefore only take indirect action to preserve the heritage by facilitating its recreation or performance. Another difficulty is caused by the fact that, where the performance of intangible heritage requires the use of tangible heritage, the potential arises for change to occur to the fabric of that tangible heritage. Such change has traditionally been negatively defined as damage by conservators, and they have striven hard to prevent it occurring. These attitudes have changed significantly in recent years in relation to the conservation of non-western heritage, in which context the valorization of intangible heritage, and the acceptance of change associated with appropriate cultural uses of tangible elements of heritage, have driven innovation in conservation thought and practice. Similar developments in relation to the conservation of Western heritage have been discouraged, though, creating a double standard in approaches to the care of Western and non-western heritage and the consideration of associated stakeholder values. It is important that the developments in conservation theory and practice that have been seen in relation to non-western heritage are brought into the conservation of all heritage, regardless of its origin. It is also important that research continues into the conservation of intangible heritage and conservators roles in understanding stakeholder ideas of significance and value, and that the results of this research are used to improve everyday conservation practice. This involves talking to stakeholders and helping them talk to each other; respecting the validity of other people s concepts of significance and values; and documenting the social reasons for treatment decisions so that this documentation can be used in the future to recognise and explore the subjective values that underlie conservation decisions. Endnotes [1] Originally called the International Institute for the Conservation of Museum Objects, it acquired its present title in [2] It is acknowledged that heritage is a complex and multifaceted concept. The sense in which the term is used in this article is captured by the following definition: Heritage is a broad concept and includes the natural as well as the cultural environment. It encompasses landscapes, historic places, sites and built environments, as well as biodiversity, collections, past and continuing cultural practices, knowledge and living experiences. It records and expresses the long processes of historic development, forming the essence of diverse national, regional, indigenous and local identities and is an integral part of modern life. It is a dynamic reference point and positive instrument for growth and change. The particular heritage and collective memory of each locality or community is irreplaceable and an important foundation for development, both now and into the future (ICOMOS 1999). [3] A review of the deliberations leading to the final form of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, and its attendant lists, is presented in Aikawa-Faure (2009, pp ). [4] Note that this is a different process from the intentional human greening of sites, which is often seen as a process of sanitising unpleasant aspects of heritage. [5] Col Ogilvie, a consultant conservation mechanic and engineer at the National Museum of Australia, was interviewed by the author in May [6] The full text of Principles 1 and 2 of the AICCM Code of Ethics for the Practice of Conservation of Cultural Material in Australia is: 1. All actions of AICCM Members must be governed by an informed respect for cultural property, its unique character and significance and the people or person who created it. 2. In the conservation of cultural material, all actions of AICCM Members must be governed by an unswerving respect for the physical, historic, aesthetic and cultural integrity of the object (AICCM 2002). [7] The full text of Article 4 of the AICCM Code Practice is: 4. Approach. It is recognised that the significance of cultural material may have a bearing on conservation decisions. Accordingly, without breaching the provisions of the AICCM Code of Ethics or Code of Practice, the AICCM Member shall ensure that cultural material in her/his care receives levels of conservation appropriate to its significance and available resources (AICCM 2002). [8] A brief list of references includes Appelbaum (2007), de la Torre (2002), Dignard et al (2007), McDonald, Bammer and Deane (2010), Russell and Winkworth (2009). Acknowledgements This work has developed from conversations with colleagues in conservation and other areas of heritage over a number of years. The author would particularly like to thank Tracy Ireland of the University of Canberra, and the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments and insights. Author From Alison Wain worked as objects conservator and conservation manager at Museum Victoria and the Australian War Memorial, with a strong focus on the preservation of large technology heritage. AICCM Bulletin Volume 35,

7 Drawing on this experience she completed a PhD looking at the ways in which people value and use large technology in both personal and public heritage contexts. While undertaking this work, she became aware of the critical role of private owners and operators in preserving the intangible aspects of technology heritage. Since 2014 Alison has been Course Convenor and senior lecturer in conservation for the Bachelor of Heritage, Museums and Conservation at the University of Canberra. References Aikawa-Faure, N 2009, From the proclamation of masterpieces to the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, in Intangible Heritage, Smith, L. and Akagawa, N (eds), Routledge, London, pp Anon Feliú, C 1994, Authenticité: jardin et paysage, in K Larson (ed), Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, pp Appelbaum, B 2007, Conservation Treatment Methodology, Elsevier, Oxford. Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material 2002, AICCM Code of Ethics and Code of Practice, viewed 20 July 2014 < code-ethics-and-code-practice>. Richmond, A & Bracker, A 2009, Introduction, in Bracker, A & Richmond, A (eds), Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, Butterworth Heinemann in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, Oxford, pp. xiv-xviii. Caple, C 2009, The Aims of Conservation, in Bracker, A & Richmond, A (eds), Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, Butterworth Heinemann in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, Oxford, pp Clavir, M 2002, Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations, UBC Press, Vancouver. Clavir, M 2007, Conservation, Protocols and Praxis, in C Dignard, K Helwig, J Mason, K Nanowin and T Stone (eds), Preserving Aboriginal Heritage: Technical and Traditional Approaches, Proceedings of a Conference Symposium 2007, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa, pp de la Torre, M & Mason, R 2002, Introduction, in M de la Torre (ed), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, viewed 11 July 2014 < resources/pdf_publications/values_cultural_heritage.html>. Dignard, C, Helwig, K, Mason, J, Nanowin, K and Stone, T (eds) 2007, Preserving Aboriginal Heritage: Technical and Traditional Approaches, Proceedings of a Conference Symposium 2007, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa. Edmonds, P 1999, New obligations: upheld or withdrawn?, AICCM National Newsletter, no. 73, pp Englehart, R & Rogers, P 2009, Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional Guidelines for Assuring and Preserving the Authenticity of Heritage Sites in the Context of the Cultures of Asia, UNESCO, viewed 13 November 2014, < images/0018/001826/182617e.pdf>. Hafstein, V Tr 2009, Intangible heritage as a list: from masterpieces to representation, in Intangible Heritage, Smith, L and Akagawa, N (eds), Routledge, London, pp International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 2012 A brief history of IIC, in IIC website, viewed 20 July 2014, < about/history >. ICOMOS 1999, Introduction, in International Cultural Tourism Charter, viewed 13 November 2014, < ICOMOS 2013, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, viewed 13 November 2014, < org/wp-content/uploads/the-burra-charter Adopted pdf>. Kaminitz, M, Mogel, B, Cranmer, B, Johnson, J, Cranmer, K and Hill, T 2007, Renewal of a Kwakwaka waka Hamsamł mask: community direction and collaboration for the treatment of cultural heritage at the National Museum of the American Indian a panel presentation, in C Dignard, K Helwig, J Mason, K Nanowin and T Stone (eds), Preserving Aboriginal Heritage: Technical and Traditional Approaches, Proceedings of a Conference Symposium 2007, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa, pp Kemp, J 2009, Practical Ethics v2.0, in A Richmond and A Bracker (eds), Conservation Principles, Truths and Uncomfortable Dilemmas, Butterworth Heinemann in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, pp Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B 2004, Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production, Museum International, vol. 56, pp K Larson (ed), Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. Lelyveld, M 2013, The accidental futurist: using Causal Layered Analysis to understand conservation across time, in Contexts for Conservation, 2013 National Conference, October, Adelaide, AICCM, viewed 13 November 2014, < Lennon, J 1990, AUSTRALIA ICOMOS, A Quarter of a Century, Achievements and Future Prospects: Submission to 9th General Assembly- Lausanne, 1990 in AUSTRALIA ICOMOS, A Quarter of a Century, Achievements and Future Prospects: Submission to 9th General Assembly - Lausanne, 58 AICCM Bulletin Volume 35, 2014

8 1990, viewed 20 July 2014 < publications/laussane-16.pdf>. McDonald, D, Bammer, G & Deane, P 2010, Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods, ANU E Press, viewed 11 July 2014, < Muñoz Viñas, S 2005, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Elsevier, Oxford. Museum Victoria 2014, The conservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage, Museum Victoria website, viewed 20 July 2014, < discoverycentre/infosheets/the-conservation-of-aboriginaland-torres-strait-islander-heritage/>. Ogilvie, C 2009, Col Ogilvie interviewed by Alison Wain [sound recording], ANU, Canberra, 27 May Pearce, S 2000, The Making of Cultural Heritage, in E Avrami, R Mason and M de la Torre (eds), Values and Heritage Conservation, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, viewed 13 November 2014 < getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_ publications/pdf/valuesrpt.pdf>. Parham, S 2008, The relationship between approaches to conservation and the idea of nostalgia: looking at foodcentred spaces within cities, in M Hardy (ed) The Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism, Conservation and Tradition in the 21st Century, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp Russell, R & Winkworth, K 2009, Significance 2.0, Collections Council of Australia, viewed 11 July 2014, au/resources-publications/industry-reports/significance-20. Smith, L 2006, Uses of heritage, Routledge, London. Smith, L & Akagawa, N 2009, Introduction, in Intangible Heritage, Smith, L. and Akagawa, N (eds), Routledge, London, pp UNESCO 2003, Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, viewed 07 September 2014, < index.php?lg=en&pg=00022>. Wain, L 2012, Size Matters: Seeing the Values in Large Technology Heritage, PhD Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, viewed 13 November 2014, < hdl.handle.net/1885/11772>. Warren, A & Gibson, C 2011, Blue-collar creativity: reframing custom-car culture in the imperilled industrial city, Environment and Planning A, vol. 43, pp Waterton, E, Smith, L & Campbell, G 2006, The utility of discourse analysis to heritage studies: the Burra Charter and social inclusion, International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp Zancheti, S, Lira, F & Piccolo, R 2009, Judging the authenticity of the city, in N Stanley-Price & J King (eds), Conserving the Authentic: Essays in Honour of Jukka Jokilehto, ICCROM Conservation Studies 10, ICCROM, Rome, viewed 13 November 2014, < ifrcdn/pdf/iccrom_ics10_jukkafestchrift_en.pdf>, pp AICCM Bulletin Volume 35,