Repercussions of Singularity of Site Authorities in Making Heritage Conservation Decisions: Evidence from Iraq

Developing Border Tourism in Sota, Merauke through Tourism Festival

“…More importantly, it can protect the site from some loose strategies of the site's authorities that usually present "heritage as… conflicting uses and purposes" in the way its cultural potential is "marketed…in tourism contexts", which leaves heritage "largely unrecognised or underrepresented" (Park 2014: 3). Despite this having led to a globalisation of the legitimacy of local participation in formulating heritage conservation policies, more than one conservation process conducted upon Erbil Citadel has shown what contradicts this discourse (Jasim et al 2018). This, in turn, calls for an investigation into the reasons behind this contradiction, which is what the study aims to cover here.…”

“…An example of this comes from Babylon heritage site, which has been temporarily removed from the WHL (World Heritage List) immediately after such policies. It has become well-known that the contributions of the local professionals were left aside within that process, which if they had participated, might have brought about a significant change (Jasim et al 2018). In fact, some other local sites, where conservation processes are still ongoing, portend to similar outcomes, particularly stating that their future aims require efficient contributions of their local communities, whereas initial results of their policies indicate the opposite.…”

“…Consequently, it enables an intact reading of the overlapped relationship between the cultural and the urban context of the site, since the cultural context of Islamic built heritage is a verbatim interpretation of its sociocultural impacts (Abu-Lughod 1987, Rico 2017). Jasim et al (2018) may provide site-based evidence of this, stating that:…”

Can politically oriented interventions in built heritage contribute to its authenticity? Erbil Citadel’s Babylonian Gate as a case study

“…Although the soil breakdown, including its impacts on the foundations of the site, has been verified by more than one study (Jasim et al 2018;Jasim et al 2020), demolition of the original gate in this enigmatic way affirms lack of scientifically-based evidence about the legitimacy of the decision. For example, there were no real on-site investigations, which should presumably recognise some doable priorities, prospects and subsequent solutions, which may sanction the demolition.…”

“…In fact, built heritage authenticity has usually been driven by different subjective purposes enacted by heritage conservation policies (ICO-MOS 1994; Von Droste and Bertilsson 1994;Graham 2002), whereas justifications are often built on retaining heritage physical integrity to resuscitate its cultural significance, which, conversely, often leads to partial loss of this characteristic (Urry 1996;Graham et al 2000;Dicks 2000). To stop the continuous departure of the site's inhabitants, modern services should have better access to the site (Jasim et al 2018); therefore, the gate should have its architectural structure substantially renovated. However, the presented solution has resulted in a total substitution of the architectural assets of the original gate, which instead led to jeopardising the historical-cultural significance, thus authenticity of the context (Novacek et al 2008; UNESCO 2010), which should have been conserved as an outstanding value of the site (Waterton 2005; UNESCO 2010) (Fig.…”