Paradigm Shifts in Global Heritage Discourse

Abstract

This essay narrates the evolution of the UNESCO doctrine on cultural heritage, its Eurocentric underpinnings, the concerns of its doctrinal authority, and the course of its decolonization. Three principal themes in current heritage doctrine -universality, significance, and material originality of heritage -clearly represent the occidental thought that primarily frames contemporary conception of heritage. Based on literature review, the essay examines these themes showing (a) their European patrimony and the problems they pose in managing heritage of a diverse geo-cultural context; and (b) how debates within and beyond UNESCO challenged this persistent representation of heritage sites as original, static, and frozen in time and the resultant changes that redefined the discourse and attempted to address the geo-cultural imbalance in the World Heritage List. The essay argues that achieving geo-cultural balance in the World Heritage List does not necessarily promote further paradigm shifts in the heritage discourse. Yet, the List becomes a powerful catalyst to evoke the debate of decolonization globally and, most importantly, locally, by bringing the coloniality of heritage thinking, governance, and practice at the regional, national and local levels of the Global South into focus.

Towards an Integrative Understanding of ‘Authenticity’ of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis of World Heritage Site Designations in the Asian Context

“…Our reading of nomination documents indicates that it is highly likely that heritage experts who prepared the dossiers simply write down some descriptions on such intangible qualitative attributes without specific studies done to identify such attributes of sites or without locating any other oral or written evidence. In the case of ‘spirit and feeling’ of heritage sites, there are empirical studies that have developed methods to define such place attributes, their contribution to place’s heritage and ways of managing such attributes (Silva, 2015b; Wells, 2014). Adopting the theoretical and methodological approaches of these studies would be helpful in the preparation of nomination dossiers in the future.…”

“…Accordingly, the initial criteria used in the World Heritage designation during its first three decades to test for authenticity included the physical dimensions of the cultural property, that is, design, materiality, artisanship and setting, which had been understood as universally applicable (Labadi, 2010). As a result of the evolution of contemporary heritage conservation thought over the last five decades, since the ratification of The Venice Charter of 1964, a greater emphasis is now placed upon the holistic understanding of heritage sites that involves the integrated relationship between both the tangible and intangible attributes of cultural heritage (Silva, 2015a). The set of attributes now widely employed to define the conditions of authenticity of cultural and/or global significance of heritage sites reflect this gradual evolution.…”

“…The discussions of the restrictive nature of original authenticity criteria and what constitute cultural heritage were also framed within the non-Western cultural contexts and the geocultural imbalance of the World Heritage List in its first three decades since 1972 (Cleere, 1996; Stovel, 2008). It was argued that the original authenticity criteria were materialistic—focusing on design, artisanship, materiality and setting—and thus lack the recognition of non-materialistic, intangible and spiritual processes employed in various non-Western cultural contexts in the creation and protection of their cultural heritage (Silva, 2015a). The introduction of the expanded criteria for heritage authenticity first in 1994 and then more explicitly in the Operational Guidelines in 2005 was intended towards the rectification of the issue and with the expectation that nominations of WHS in non-Western contexts such as Asia would adopt the new criteria to successfully frame the holistic nature of cultural significance of their heritage sites and means of safeguarding that heritage.…”

Use of Façadism in Divided-Walled Nicosia, Cyprus

“…Authenticity in Cypriot heritage conservation primarily follows the doctrines of UNESCO, as well as selected ICOMOS Charters and Conventions. In addition to the fact that UNESCO's doctrines have been previously criticised for their "Eurocentric underpinnings" and for "not necessarily [bringing] the intended geo-cultural diversity and balance to the World Heritage List" (Silva, 2016), this paper also stresses the problematic nature of the current embargoes imposed by UNESCO on the TRNC, and the subsequent damage this brings on the accurate safeguarding of the authenticity of heritage on both sides of the Cypriot divide. However, the vital role of the specific organisation in setting a point of departure for heritage protection in Cyprus, and in this case Nicosia should be acknowledged, while the need for a contextspecific understanding of heritage management and authenticity is reinforced.…”

Exploring The Narrative of Heritage Through The Eyes of The Law

“…UNESCO had advocated a particular approach and a series of common and universal underlying values that have now formed part of "common, universal language" of today's heritage conservation (Harrison, 2013;Silva, 2015). In order to understand what entails in the protection and safeguarding of heritage and contextualising it within the remit in which heritage "belongs", an inquiry is necessary.…”