Cultural Heritage Reconstruction after Armed Conflict: Continuity, Change, and Sustainability

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

“…Replacing authenticity with continuity not only has the potential to bridge the culture/nature divide in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention as argued previously [17], it can also strengthen synergies between this Convention and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in which the notion of authenticity was deliberately ousted from the entire text whereas the notion of continuity was explicitly included in the definition of intangible cultural heritage [26] (Article 2). In response to this definition, one may argue that tangible cultural heritage can also provide communities with a sense of identity and (material) continuity, for example when the character and integrity of a property, such as a historic town, are maintained over time; moreover, it can also be re-created to meet the needs of communities, which is often the case after destructive events, such as armed conflict or war [27]. One may add that the safeguarding of heritage, be it tangible or intangible, cultural or natural, and its transmission to future generations are processes that involve continuity over time.…”

Heritage Reconstruction Planning, Sustainability Dimensions, and the Case of the Khaz’al Diwan in Kuwait

“…Put differently, the authenticity of the historical fabric should not be compromised by the set sustainability goals. As it has also been noted by Khalaf [13], one of the three pillars of OUV is 'the conditions of authenticity and integrity', which indicates that if the physical fabric is heavily damaged and reconstruction is required, the OUV status is considered jeopardized if not altogether lost.…”

“…Khalaf [13] rightfully argued after Smith [31] that heritage is 'a process in which cultural and social values are rewritten and redefined for the needs of the present.' Therefore, as Khalaf [13] argues, perhaps it is time to push into the background the importance accorded to the physical fabric of historic architecture and bring to the forefront the meanings and values associated with reconstruction.…”

“…The Nara+20 document of 2014 [11], which was issued with an aim to further consolidate and develop the achievements and concepts of the earlier Nara document, acknowledged 'authenticity' through a constructivist approach as a quality that is culturally divergent [12]. Despite the expanding meanings of 'authenticity' and the growing international acceptance for a more flexible approach in reconstruction planning [5], UNESCO WH Convention adopted, since its inception in 1972, the Venice Charter's materialist approach and dogmatic tone against the 'reconstruction' of architectural properties, which is still the fundamental principle justifying the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in WH Sites [13]. Albeit, this can be extremely problematic in post-war contexts.…”

“…Other authors argued that there is no sufficient information to determine what are appropriate or inappropriate methods in reconstruction planning in general [13], as the international guidelines barely address the practice-related issues and technicalities [17], and each situation requires a context-tailored approach [18,19]. According to Bold [5], debates and practice tend to polarize two alternatives, which include replicating the original appearances and materials in a historicist style for reasons of continuity and identity; or rebuilding in a contemporary style, signifying a new beginning.…”