A viewpoint on the reconstruction of destroyed UNESCO Cultural World Heritage Sites

Khalaf, Roha W.

doi:10.1080/13527258.2016.1269239

Cited by 44 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rebuilding a destroyed site is however not the only and may not even be the most important action one can take. Kalman (2017) and Khalaf (2017) have recently suggested that there can be a number of ways to use cultural heritage to mitigate trauma after disasters or conflicts. If we recognize that cultural heritage is not merely a set of material artefacts, we also need to consider the immaterial aspects of it, namely those of memories, identity, customs and associations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funder and facilitator: Swedish development aid aimed at cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995–2008

Stengård

Legnér

2019

International Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates the relationship between the Swedish development agency Sida and Cultural Heritage without Borders (CHwB), a facilitating organisation in the field of cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) following the Bosnia War. From 1995 to 2008 CHwB was the only NGO in BiH working to preserve cultural heritage, and was almost exclusively funded by Sida. From having been an organisation focusing on the restoration of historic monuments, CHwB transformed into becoming an NGO facilitating social and economic development. The paper suggests that CHwB gradually changed from having a very particular position of working with the preservation of an ethnically diverse cultural heritage with the aim of promoting reconciliation, to one where it needed to focus on reconstruction and its implications for economic development. By analysing a large number of key documents using Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis this change is interpreted in relation to changes taking place within the landscape of international aid and post-conflict recovery. ARTICLE HISTORY AimCultural heritage was frequently targeted in the Yugoslavian Wars of the 1990s. (Vos 2015) One reason was that historical sites and buildings such as mosques, churches and old residential houses represented ethnic and religious communities. (Bevan 2006; Coward 2009) Since then heritage sites have been restored or even reconstructed for a number of reasons. There is still today a lack of knowledge on the wider implications of architectural interventions in conflict areas, and with what purpose they have been carried out. (Charlesworth 2006; Viejo-Rose 2013) The reconstruction of cultural heritage is a particular branch of post-conflict reconstruction and has been a stage for international actors such as UNESCO, the EU and major aid funders to display and carry through their agendas. Often it has been thought that reconciliation can be reached by working physically with the conservation or even construction of cultural heritage, but today we know it is not so easy to turn former targets of violence into symbols of peaceFurthermore, recent research has argued that cultural heritage should not be understood firstly as a collection of material objects, but as a celebration of cultural memories and identities. (Kalman 2017) There is a need to further scrutinize the reasons, choices, and ethics behind international interventions in heritage reconstruction following armed conflicts, in order to better understand the dynamics of the landscape involving aid agencies, organisations carrying out the projects and the receiving communities. In this article, we examine the relationship between a funder, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and the receiving NGO, Cultural CONTACT Malin Stengård

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funder and facilitator: Swedish development aid aimed at cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995–2008

Stengård

Legnér

2019

International Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authenticity appears to be redundant. Continuity should replace authenticity in the Operational Guidelines for this reason, in addition to reasons voiced in previous studies, mentioned in the Introduction [15][16][17]. ICOMOS was actually willing to replace authenticity with another requirement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…It does not mean however, that no change can be accepted" [14] (p. 168). In a series of articles published in international peer-reviewed journals, an independent researcher proposes replacing authenticity with continuity in the Operational Guidelines not only to nominate reconstructed properties for inscription on the World Heritage List [15,16], but also to nominate all cultural, natural, and mixed properties in future, arguing that this replacement can bridge the culture/nature divide, facilitate the application of people-centered approaches to conservation, and enhance the role of communities [17]. Finally, in a book chapter about "How to be Authentic in the UNESCO World Heritage System", the author points out: "When one scrutinises what the World Heritage institutions really look for, it is in fact continuity over time, be it continuity of material, form, usage, or some other aspect mentioned in the Venice Charter or the Nara Document.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authenticity or Continuity in the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention? Scrutinizing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, 1978–2019

Khalaf¹

2020

Heritage

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…The property, therefore, must be compared to similar ones [1] (pp. [67][68][69][70][71], [3] (paragraph 132.3). Its present state of conservation and the factors (threats, pressures) affecting it must be specified as well [1] (pp.…”

Section: Current Nomination Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roadmap for the Nomination of Reconstructed Cultural Properties for Inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List

Khalaf¹

2018

Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guidance on reconstruction is being prepared to implement recent decisions of the World Heritage (WH) Committee. Special attention is given to reconstruction post-inscription within the framework of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of destroyed cultural WH properties. However, guidance must also cover reconstruction pre-inscription because destroyed properties on the Tentative Lists of States Parties may be reconstructed and nominated for inscription on the WH List in the future. This article shifts the attention towards the latter. It revisits the pillars of OUV and elucidates the relation between key concepts to develop a roadmap for new nominations in line with the WH Convention and the growing understanding of heritage as dynamic process in scholarly literature. It explains that States Parties must provide a statement of cultural significance (SCS) to meet the qualifying condition of continuity, and a heritage impact report (HIR) to meet the qualifying conditions of compatibility and distinction. Cultural criteria (i)–(vi) form a reminder list rather than a selection list in the roadmap. The SCS and HIR are, instead, the criteria on the basis of which reconstructed cultural properties may be inscribed. Moreover, authenticity and integrity are rendered redundant by the three qualifying conditions. As a result, this article makes a timely, original, academic and operational contribution to the ongoing preparation of guidance at the international level.

show abstract

A viewpoint on the reconstruction of destroyed UNESCO Cultural World Heritage Sites

Cited by 44 publications

References 11 publications

Funder and facilitator: Swedish development aid aimed at cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995–2008

Funder and facilitator: Swedish development aid aimed at cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995–2008

Authenticity or Continuity in the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention? Scrutinizing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, 1978–2019

Roadmap for the Nomination of Reconstructed Cultural Properties for Inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About