HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

consistency and its dual dimensions in relation to art and history, with the view
of its transmission to the future (Brandi, 1963).

As Jokilehto point of view, Brandi (1963) emphasizes that a work of art

has potential unity, which forms its existing reality and defines it materially. As
stated by Jokilehto (1995): "Restoration of the work, in his view, should aim at
the re-establishment of this potential unity so far as possible without committing
an artistic or historical falsification, and without destroying significant phases of
its history. Restoration thus becomes the "critical process" required to identify
the heritage resource, its values and the consequent treatment, which is, in fact,
conditioned by the object and not the other way round.

2.6.6 - THE EVOLUTION OF AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA

The word "authenticity" appeared in the preamble to the Venice

Charter (1964), speaking about the meaning of the historic monuments of
times passed on to future generations "in full richness of their authenticity"
At that time, and according to Herb Stovel (1994b) the word was introduced
without definition.

Professor Raymond Lemaire, one of the authors of the Venice Charter,

conscious that most of those involved in writing the Charter had similar
backgrounds and a wide sensibility to conservation problems, suggested in
1994 a discussion about the concept of "authenticity" (Lemaire, 1994).

When, in the late 1970s, the World Heritage Committee included the
"test of authenticity" in its Operational Guidelines as an important measure of
the values established in looking at the cultural criteria, the word "authenticity"
conquered a statute of formal authority. But "authenticity" was used as a
replacement word for "integrity", initially suggested by ICOMOS' former
Secretary-General Ernest Allan Connally, on the basis of American
experience (US. Parks, 1991). Since that time, those nominations have

60
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

considered how best to apply the "test of authenticity" in the four areas of
design, material, workmanship, and setting in the sites they examine.

2.6.6.1- The early history about Authenticity criteria in Conservation

According to Stovel (1995b), Connally, with his experience in the

National Park Service, in USA, as Associate Director (for programs in
Archaeology and History Preservation), in the evaluation of historic properties
for determination of national significance, presented suitable evaluation
procedures for the global significance or universal value determination. This
resulted in a first informal experts' meeting in September 1976, in Morges

(Switzerland).

In the next year, in March 21-23, a second experts' meeting took place,
at ICOMOS Headquarters in Paris, in order to establish evaluation criteria and
define nomination and technical assistance procedures. In this meeting, the
approach used by the National Park Service to evaluate the integrity of a
property (concerned with location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, association) introduced by Connally, moved on from the choice of

significance criteria.

In the United States, this approach which has been used since October
1966 from the National Historic Preservation Act, seems to be born in
American practice of the early 1950's. In fact, in 1953 the National Parks
Service Administrative Manual noted in speaking of landmarks, that "an
essential consideration is that each one should have integrity - that is, there
should be no doubt as to whether it is the original site or structure, and in the
case of a structure, that it represents original material and workmanship".
"Integrity" was defined as a "composite quality connoting original
workmanship, original location and intangible elements of feeling and
association". The concept of "integrity" did not appear in previous versions of
these Guidelines. The National Park Service, Historian Barry Macintosh,
attributes their appearance to Ronald F. Lee, then National Park

Service Assistant director for Research and Interpretation.

61
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

The efforts of Connally to promote the addition of design and setting

to these original factors were recognized in the changes accompanying the
introduction of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The National
Parks Service usually defines integrity as "the ability of a property to convey

its significance".

In Paris meeting, on March 1977, this subject was recalled by Connally.

Lemaire, joined by others, suggested a preference for the word "authenticity",
since the use of the integrity concept might limit analysis to concern for original
form or design. Discussion also reduced the seven integrities to four
authenticities, all the while acknowledging that the defined aspects were to be
understood and treated "as a composite". The criteria, including authenticity,
which emanated from this meeting, were presented to the First Session of the
World Heritage Committee in June 1977. The criteria used today in evaluation of
World Heritage Sites was adopted from a committee, headed by Michel Parent,
and who was asked to fine-tune it (Connally, 1995).

Stefan Tschudi-Madsen (1985), Norwegian author of Restoration and

Anti-Restoration and a former president of the World Heritage Committee
stated that authenticity was "essential and must be respected in all works of
restoration, conservation and preservation in stone as well as in wood"
(Stovel, 1995a). But his approach divided the problems into five areas:
"material, structure, surface, architectural form and function". His analysis
extended the concept of material authenticity to include structure and
surface; he joined the idea of function, but workmanship and setting are

missing (Tschudi-Madsen, 1985).

Significant forces in the conservation world have made the reexamination

of the authenticity/integrity concept. The definition of cultural heritage is
widening as at the time of the Venice Charter, most of its authors undoubtedly
viewed their collective advice as destined to guide decisionmaking for
monuments. In the subsequent thirty-five years, the concept of

62
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

cultural heritage has widened to include the "representative" as well as the

"best", the "ordinary" as well as the "monumental". This broadening has focused
significant interest on a variety of heritage typologies (the industrial, the
vernacular, commercial architecture) and in varying forms of regional heritage
expression. A concern for the monumental had implicitly focused the attention of
conservators on essentially static questions - on the ways in which the elements
of the existing fabric could meaningfully express or carry valuable messages. A
concern for the vernacular, or for cultural landscapes, or for the spiritual, has
moved the focus toward the dynamic, away from questioning how best to
maintain the integrity of the process (traditional functional, technical, artisanal),
which gave form and substance to the fabric.

The growing desire to re-clarify universal principles about authenticity has

been stimulating debates centred around it. This desire is a fairly new one and
follows a period of about twenty years during which ICOMOS has encouraged
particularization of existing universal principles, by promoting efforts to
accompany the Venice Charter with thematic, national and regional adaptations.
Many of these adaptations such as the Florence Charter (for Historic Gardens),
the Washington Charter (for Historic Towns) and the Burra Charter (Australia)
have proved very successful; recently however their proliferation has become a
source of confusion for some, and the

desire to extract the essential from the wealth of overlapping texts - that is, the
desire to focus on the universal - has re-emerged for many as a highly desirable
objective. This goal has been reinforced due to the feeling within ICOMOS
members of their belonging to a common discipline of conservation and the
development of ICOMOS' Training Guidelines and the ensuing discussion of the
need for a Code of Ethics shows the efforts to define the nature of this common

discipline.

Following Japan's decision to sign the Convention, conservation

authorities within the country expressed to ICOMOS apprehensions concerning
global acceptance of Japanese approaches to conservation and
to authenticity. The Japanese feared that their practice of periodically
dismantling significant wooden structures would possibly be seen as

63
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

inauthentic if judged from within a Western framework. In fact, their fears were
legitimate; levels of understanding of Japanese heritage and its conservation

outside Japan are relatively low.

For this reason, there was needed to update authenticity - not a meeting
focused only on the concerns of Japan, but a meeting focused on a range of
issues apparent in professional practice, within which Japanese concerns and
those of their World Heritage partners could find a place. From this proposal
sprang the process which led to the Bergen planning meeting of January 1994,
the Italian ICOMOS meeting of September 1994 in Naples, and the Nara
Conference of November 1994.

What have these meetings achieved? Have they clarified the dilemmas
they set out to address?
During the Bergen Preparatory Workshop, many of the presentations,
made by professionals, were based on dictionary definitions of authenticity,
intended to focus on the implications of the key words used. In popular
discussions about cultural heritage, the word "authenticity" appears with a
wide variety of meanings, and this popular understanding of the basis of

conservation is an important testing ground for professionals.

The Bergen meeting (1994) suggested the replacement of the four

authenticities described in the Operational Guidelines (Feilden & Jokilehto,
1993) by a more flexible clustering of authenticity from considerations
reflecting both static and dynamic values (Stovel, 1995a).

In the Nara meeting (1994), the need to work in frameworks, which

include the diversity of the various forms of cultural, and heritage diversity
to which societies assign significance was confirmed. The intent was not to
exclude or give priority to some forms of expression, but simply to ensure
professional judgments remained open to different perceptions of values,
to different conceptions of "appropriate" treatment in relation to value, in
different cultural settings, in different heritage contexts. The setting down of
these ideas within the Nara Document reflects the efforts of its framers to

64
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

give them a universal force and weight. The document stands as an effort to
complement, in contemporary fashion, the considerations understood as
universal when the Venice Charter was formulated, and to move away from
the continuing adaptations of the universal to local conditions, which have
characterized the development of ICOMOS doctrine over the last twenty

years.

According to Stovel (1995a), the Nara meeting did not permit

participants detailed exploration of the practical implications of applying this
framework in their various contexts of interest. It suggests that the essential
next step demands ICOMOS Committees - both national and international,
acting alone and together - to continue to explore the ideas and expressions
launched in the discussions in Bergen and Nara. These continuing
complementary explorations are necessary to ensure that the efforts of those
involved in putting together the two meetings will achieve the desired impact,
and to ensure that the Nara Document will become an essential

reference in the conservation field.

During the last five years ICOMOS Committees promoted other

conferences, which considered that authenticity in conservation, can be
understood as a condition of the heritage resource, and can be defined in
the artistic, historical and cultural dimensions of this resource (Jokilehto,
1999).

2.6.6.2 - The Concept of Authenticity in CHP from the Venice Charter

(1964) of ICOMOS, the UNESCO's World Heritage Convention (1992)
until the year 2000.

Jokilehto (1999) stated that: " The Nara Document on Authenticity

(1994) declared that our ability to understand heritage values depends on the
degree to which the relevant information sources may be understood as
credible or truthful, and therefore authentic “.

Changing values have been attributed to Historic Places through

65
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

history. According to Larsen (1987), David Lowenthal (1987) summed up some

of the values as ". . . aesthetic quality, symbolic import, patriotic inspiration,
pedagogic utility, historical and archaeological understanding, tourist and other
revenues". All these values are related to the historic building's form and

substance.

According to the introduction of Venice Charter (1964) it is our duty to

hand historic buildings ("ancient monuments") on to future generations ". . . in
the full richness of their authenticity".

Particularly through articles 3 and 9 of the Venice Charter it becomes

evident that the authenticity relates to the aesthetic and historic values which
can be attributed to a historic building as one of the categories of Historic
Places, because the historic building ("Historic (Ancient) Monument") has a
dual property: as work of art and as historical evidence. The aim of
conservation is therefore to define the aesthetic and historic values of the
historic buildings and then select the best method to keep

them for posterity.

Both the Venice Charter and the World Heritage Convention asserts that
human values are universal: "People are becoming more and more conscious
of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common
heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations
is recognized " (Venice Charter, 1964)

Consequently, what is universally accepted to be necessary to

conserve is the historic building as authentic work of art and as authentic
historic evidence. However, Larsen (1997) stated that: " ... it is not the
original formal concept which is regarded as the authentic, but the building
as it has been handed down to us through history with all its modifications
and additions due to repair caused by decay of the structure and its
materials and by modifications for functional reasons. "

66
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

According to Article 11 of the Venice Charter: "The valid contributions of

all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of
style is not the aim of a restoration."

The "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention" emphasizes that the evaluation of the authenticity ". . . does not
limit consideration to original form and structure but includes all subsequent
modifications and additions over the course of time, which themselves

possesses artistic or historic value " Jokilehto (1985).

According to Larsen (1987) the question of "valid contributions" in Article

11 of the Venice Charter is disputable and can only be decided by an expert
intimately familiar with the architectural history and cultural values of the country
or region where the building is located. Japan has a welldeveloped professional
and administrative system to decide such problems for buildings, which are
designated according to the Japanese "Law for the Protection of Cultural

Properties".

The Venice Charter, Article 11, confirms that not all additions or changes
which have occurred to the building necessarily must be of equal value but the
removal of later additions in order to reveal an underlying state or layer is
justified only under ". .. exceptional circumstances". Unity of style - "stylistic
restoration" - is not a desirable goal. In other words, the building should be
conserved in its existing state.

This way of thinking was introduced by Alois Riegl (1928) in 1903. He

". . . distinguishes between the values of the past and the values of the
present which do not coincide but may even disagree with each other"
(Neuwirth, 1987).

Riegl's concept of "age value" (Alterswert) implies that

we ". . . have to assume that everything which history has changed is
irreversible and as such has become part of the monument"
(Neuwirth, 1987).

67
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

The aesthetic value of the historic building is according to this theory

intimately linked to its value as historical document. Further, the beauty of the
building is not only related to its form but also to the weatherworn look the
"patina" - of its materials. Only by retaining its old materials does the building
appeal to us emotionally as a historic building. Both the artistic and historic
value of the monument is related to its authenticity in substance. This implies
that in preservation work ". . . as much of the old material as is

economically possible must be re-used " (Feilden, 1982) and all historical
evidence must be recorded before work is begun.

Bernard Feilden (1982) has summed up the considerations which should be

given to interventions in Historic Places in order to maximize the Conservation of
existing material (Feilden, 1977) and " ... must be governed by unswerving
respect for the aesthetic, historical and physical integrity of cultural property". Any
proposed intervention should: "a) be reversible, if
technically possible; or
b) at least not prejudice a future intervention whenever this may become
necessary;
c) not hinder the possibility of later access to all evidence incorporated in the
object,
d) allow the maximum amount of existing material to be retained,
e) be harmonious in colour, tone, texture, form and scale, if additions are
necessary, but should be less noticeable than original material, while at the
same time being identifiable ... " (this is according to Article 12 of the Venice
Charter).

As long as the structural integrity of the Historic Place is secured, the

theorem "Do as little as possible" neatly sums up the overruling norm in
contemporary conservation philosophy.

As referred earlier the Nara conference was organized in order to

evaluate the criteria governing authenticity, in particular, four kinds of
authenticity prescribed in the Operational Guidelines according to the US
Parks (1991) criteria.

68
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

Accordingly, it was expected that this conference would reach a

conclusion, which met the recommendation of the 18th session of the World
Heritage Committee in December 1992. However, this conference did not
achieve the consensus about the criteria among the international experts.
Since this conference, many meetings occurred all over the World in order
to find consensus about authenticity criteria in common cultural areas.

Based on US Parks criteria an initial broad view to start fieldwork, the

author invited experts related to CHP, from National and International
Organizations related with conservation of Built Heritage to belong to the
"sounding board ". This interdisciplinary group is constituted by forty experts
and professionals to gather information from literature and case study
approach in order to define a new set of criteria. A frank and broad discussion
was developed through a form of Delphi Study in order to finetune a set of

authenticity criteria and their definition.

2.7 - THE UNEXPECTED RESULTS IN AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FOR

CHP.

It is a fact of life that conservation evaluations are implicitly made at

various levels. The author had referred to the broad range of interests
involved in the conservation process of Historic Places. In order to constrain
the size of the problem the research focus is in terms of building consensus
within the expert community of conservation. For example, in choosing to
invest in the conservation of a particular area, a City Council is implicitly
valuing that area above others. It is just as well, therefore, to define criteria
more explicitly in order to strengthen conservation initiatives, both from the
quality and financial points of view. A solid basis must be found, a philosophy
of conservation, which provides logical answers to the question of "why

conserve with authenticity"?

69
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

The evaluation criteria for authenticity in CHP can have different

objectives: one is the elaboration of an inventory or list with the purpose of
protecting and listing buildings; another is the establishment of the value in
use of buildings which enables their classification with a view to future use.
The approach to assessment must also differ in archaeological, architectural
and urban conservation. The archaeological approach is objective and is

concerned with the intrinsic value of buildings or townscape as pieces of

"historic evidence". It implies that our obligation is to preserve historic evidence
of all kinds in order that future generations are better equipped to do so, can
use it to interpret and expand our knowledge of history. The architectural and
urban approach is concerned with the preservation of their values as a visual
amenity, because buildings and sites reflect identity and inspiration for future
generations. It allows for change and encourages improvements, largely for our
own immediate benefit, with a view to

providing continuity that will be appreciated by future generations.

The process of recording value involves making judgments. This is

different from the simple recording of an element because it must be able to
capture the quality of relationships (for example, how a building or group of
buildings will relate to the environment and to its present and future usability).
There is a judgment of quality introduced, a subjective element, which must be
recognized and accounted for. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the basis
of the recording of relationships is clearly debated and defined. Because of this
the author took into consideration the USA Parks criteria applied in European
case studies in order to find other criteria. The

author used a similar process to evaluate the criteria in the proposed case
studies and two questions in particular should be asked: how are they being
evaluated and by whom is the valuation made?

The evaluation of our past is necessarily guided by our own criteria

and judgements. These are always influenced by current trends and will in

70
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

future either be approved or condemned by our successors. As Linstrum

(1991) argues "Each generation in any country rediscovers the past, and
the values it places on any historic heritage may be different from those of
previous generations" Consequently any action towards the CHP should
be preceded by an analysis of what exactly one wishes to preserve, why it
should be preserved and how is it going to be preserved. Such an
evaluation should examine the significance of the buildings as part of that

heritage.

As referred earlier in first chapter the review of literature from previous

conferences show the extreme difficulties in achieving consensus, because of
the different cultural regions of Europe and the three main levels of intervention
explained: The various approaches to assess archaeological, architectural and
urban conservation. The author based in his experience in Portugal, developed
this piece of research in a very polemical, controversial area known by its
complexity in political, social and economic terms defining the priorities for
selection and intervention. The most polemical but one of the most important is

authenticity criteria.

Based on the Management Guidelines for the World Cultural Heritage

Sites (Feilden, 1993) and the Nara conference (1994) the author took into
consideration the different points of view from the representants of UNESCO,
(Feilden, 1993), ICOMOS (Connally, 1995 and Stovel 1994a ), and ICCROM
(Jokilehto, 1999) about the authenticity criteria to assess CHP. The focus of
the research is to find a consensus in this field, where there is general
acceptance that the UNESCO criteria are not functioning adequately.

The research strategy adopted has attempted to consider all these

difficulties and questions. The multiview strategy based on case studies and the
use of the Delphi technique to antecipate future developments and in order to
fine tune the definitions of authenticity criteria between the five

71
 HOW AUTHENTICITY CRITERIA FIT IN CONSERVATION IN GENERAL

important groups of stakeholders involved in the assessment of

archaeological, architectural and urban conservation has ultimately created,
within the research, a very surprising and unexpected degree of consensus.

2.8 - SUMMARY

The author introduced in chapter two, the main aspects about the concept
of authenticity criteria, how it fits in conservation in general and in particular the
most important theories of conservation since the French

Revolution until today. Secondly, the International Charters and

Conventions on Architectural Heritage referred to the agreements of
conservation of historic areas and the concern about the concept of
authenticity.

The author referred to the very broad range of interests which make the
conservation process of Historic Places so difficult, although the research focus
is in terms of building consensus within the expert community
of conservation.

In relation to authenticity itself, the author explained the origin of

authenticity and authentic; the historical, cultural and social, creative and
artistic dimensions; and the evolution of authenticity criteria from recent
years until today.

Finally, the Concept of Authenticity is summed up in terms of how it fits

in Conservation of Historic Places in general from the Venice Charter (1964) of
ICOMOS, the UNESCO's World Heritage Convention (1992) until the year
2000, which this Chapter sets out to do. The strategy based in case studies
and the use of the Delphi Technique involving important groups of
stakeholders concerned with the assessment of archaeological, architectural
and urban conservation that follows in the next chapter was developed to
address the complexities of subject and the wide range of interests involved.

72