This essay is a research about two main questions that are, I believe, at the heart of the understanding of some problematic issues regarding cultural heritage.

One is an approach to better capture the position of the conservator, to discuss the implications of his job as a heritage professional. I will try to subordinate his role as a person who has technical skills and knowledge to operate on the restoration of tangible works of art, and I will rather focus on the decision process of choosing a particular object or site instead of others. I will explain the ethical values and criteria that he/she needs to undertake to achieve a better interpretation of the cultural property.

The second question is based upon authenticity and processes of authentication. Here I will concentrate on the several World Heritage Conventions, where international bodies gathered together to conceptualize and analyze meanings and understandings of conservation and, basically, to write down agreed documents and standard principles on paper.

The growing concern and the development of a conservation philosophy is a process that involves a different view and a different approach towards the maintaining of heritage property. It involves multi-disciplinary research on the significance of these properties, on its historic and documented values rather than on its aesthetic representation, that is indeed important, but it does not tell us much of its social aspect. It doesn’t produce a link of identity between the past and the present, in the sense that it doesn’t imply an involvement of the communities and their cultural contexts and relationship.

Therefore, I will highlight that to understand conservation, is not only to recognize heritage needs of preservation for future generations to be able to see and interpret what we see today but is to embrace cultural diversity within pluralistic values and framework. The safeguarding of these values cannot be preserved without the ethical recognition of the conservator. Its job, and thus, its responsibility, is not to destroy the cultural significance, and therefore, not to interrupt the understanding of tangible and intangible heritage traditions.

At the end of the essay, I will use as example two particular situations in India. I chose India because I believe is a place where cultural diversity and multi aspects of principles and values are part of the everyday life. Because clearly demonstrate contrasts and difficulties between conservation policies and people needs. Also, because it enables us to better understand and realize that international laws and statutes are not applicable, and so, not easily viable as universal conditions for every country.

Conservation or preservation

The idea that to capture the essence of the present is only possible with a better understanding of the past, is shared by a long list of great masters of thoughts. But the different approach that we may have with the past is of great importance. The legacy of linking past and present for a better future gradually evolved “after the outburst of the Industrial Revolution and the development of a historical conscience that brought an end to the traditional link with the past, which may be said to have lasted, in various forms, from the origin of civilization to the end of the 18th century” (Phillipot 1972, p.367). Historical conscience started when there was a need to return to the past, and the culminating point of this revivalism was reached during Romantic idealism and the Victorian spirit. Respect and inspiration from the past is evident in people such as Ruskin and Morris. The idea that a work of art cannot be restored because it cannot be duplicated or replicated comes from the belief in the uniqueness of the object.

“The greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold. Its glory is in his Age, and in that deep sense of voicefulness.” (Ruskin 1849)

“The genuine voice of the past is exactly what must be safeguarded by preservation/conservation” (Phillipot 1972, p.368). If the originality of the object is in danger, then the whole sense of the object is in danger. Its historical value will be inauthentic, its identification with the author, totally fake.

But we have to admit, ideals evolve and time changes. The process of understanding an object is in our culture more rooted in the historical value of an historical document. The work of art is often considered more for the historical information that carries within itself than for its aesthetic attributes. The masterpieces are embedded with different cultural values than the artistic ones, and therefore the continuity between the object itself and its representation through time is different.

Every possible retouch that is done on the object is to give particular sense of recognition to the cultural continuity of the past. Even the term cultural has evolved. Cultural heritage is not anymore primarily concentrated on the material artefact, on the work of art as a subjective perception and interest; but is widening and spreading its concerns towards intangible expressions as symbolic representations of the local communities. The process of identification between these communities or groups of people and the artistic values they produce guarantees its historical significance.

I believe that the role of the conservator is not only to “achieve equilibrium between historical and technical knowledge” (Kirby Talley 1996, p.38), but to endure that significance, to understand the multiple interpretations of cultural property.

But what exactly is cultural property? The term came from “the need for a designation that would include almost all kinds of material objects associated with cultural traditions” (Daifuku 1968, p.19). Unesco has defined it as “property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each state as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science” (Unesco 1970, article 1).

The common classification between movable and immovable cultural property is merely relative and arbitrary. But, what I consider relevant, is that “among all cultures, however, individuals consider some object or artefact as being valuable” (Daifuku 1968, p.19), and that these values are various, and are mainly classified as scientific, historic, social, aesthetic by the Burra Charter in 1999, although somewhere else the symbolic, the informational and the economic values are also mentioned (Costin 1993, p.27).

The general acceptance that cultural property needs protection and safeguarding is because it is threatened by multiple factors, both by unintentional damage and destruction of human or natural activities. (Costin 1993). Therefore, the increasing number of experts in conservation and restoration is not surprising.

The Burra Charter written in 1999 was mainly prepared for the specific Australian situation, approaching land rights and aboriginal political issues. But clearly define words as conservation, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, maintenance and adaptation as closely related one to the other. Whether conservation is “looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance” (Burra Charter 1999, article 1.4), or is aimed to “safeguard the material integrity and to guarantee respect for its cultural, historical, aesthetic or artistic significance” (Encore website 2005, p.2); is relevant that the need to conserve is not coming from the need to stop a natural decay and deterioration (something that it can be based upon agreements or disagreements and subjective critical judgments), or from the need to have an object closely similar to its original state for a “return to completeness (…), where it can be argued that the Venus de Milo is acceptable without arms and the Mona Lisa with a great hole would be tenable” (Keck 1972, p.26). But it rather comes from the need to have multiple interpretations and to understand cultural significance as multifaceted, and indeed to have a more holistic view and approach to the different value-based societies of the world.

“Places of cultural significance enrich people’s life, often providing a deep and inspirational sense of connection to community and landscape, to the past and to lived experiences.” (Burra Charter 1999)

If the basic role of the conservator is to preserve and to maintain cultural property, his responsibilities will depend not only on his technical skills and abilities, but also on a code of conduct. The moral implications of this conduct cannot be ascribed to normal common sense simply because common sense is not universal. Therefore, to prevent destruction and mismanagement, international organizations “come up with some guidelines which could enable the international community to develop a policy on the conservation and restoration of cultural property worldwide – a sort of World Heritage Convention to which nations, particularly those not aware of the destruction of their past through sheer ignorance, must adhere.” (Mbunwe-Samba 2001, p.39) Professional advice will be useful to follow basic understandings and main functions, like the UKIC Code of Ethics and Rules of Practice stated in 1995, or the Professional Guidelines: The Profession and the Code of Ethics, prepared by the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers Organizations in 1993, where emphasis is made upon the responsibilities of conservation and restoration treatments.

But are these codes of morality necessary? Do they appeal to all cultures, or do they respond more to a universal reason? Perhaps a strong criticism can be made. They might be built up upon a contradiction: “The legal and ethical codes of the West appeal to universal reason, suggesting modes of moral conduct which apply to all human being, and yet they simultaneously divide people on grounds of nationality or ethnicity.” (Layton and Thomas 2001, p.1) The strong need of a code of conduct that poor countries require to respect and to prevent them from destroying their own heritage (Mbunwe-Samba 2001) can clash against different cultural values. Therefore, the necessity of participation and consultation between nations and international organizations is required, and the complexity of interpretations should be discussed together with the preparation of multi-disciplinary planning projects.

In this process of mutual recognition and reconstruction the role of the conservator is fundamental. The decisions of intervention together with the preventive plans must be made in accordance with the ethical codes, and protected principles will guarantee the quality and authenticity of the interpretations.

The Process of Authentication

Is the conservator responsible for maintaining the original condition of the object? If we think about tangible heritage, his position will be rather ambiguous. The growing demand for and interest of reproducing materials to safeguarding them for the future, to stop deterioration for a better interpretation of the genuine artefact; it goes hand to hand with the different values that we give to the object itself. We need to be blind not to understand that the work of restoration done to the Cappella Sistina in 1994 is absolutely a failure. The exaggeration of colors, the shininess of the images gives an evident sense of fake. How much work of the real author is still left? Very little if we think about original techniques and definitions. But what is to be addressed here, again, is not the painting itself, but its significance. If thousand of tourists every day are visiting the Michelangelo work in the Vatican Museums, is because of its symbolic meaning, of its power of representing us the traditions of the past.

The increasing demand for this process of recognition needed an international appeal. The World Heritage Committee held in Santa Fe in 1992 focused on “criteria governing the cultural heritage and the criteria governing the authenticity and integrity.” (WHC 1992, recommendation 19/ McBryde 1997, p.95) But is the Nara Conference on Authenticity held in Japan in 1994 that really started to “discuss the application of the ‘test of authenticity’ in evaluating nominations for World Heritage listing.” (McBryde 1997, p.95) It’s the Nara Document that started, within the spirit of the Charter of Venice of 1964, to evaluate a relationship between authenticity and values, to observe that “conservation of cultural heritage in all its forms and periods is rooted in the values attributed to the heritage” (Nara Document 1997, article 9), and that values differ from culture to culture. Therefore, in denying an international standardization of evaluation of criteria, the responsibility of the conservation for cultural heritage it belongs, “in the first place, to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it” (Article 8).

The formal recognition of cultural diversity is a further step to “confront the tyranny of dichotomies” (Galla 1994, p.2), to criticize binary oppositions and to start a process of deconstruction that is more able to evaluate and recognize emergent heritage values, and finally, to reconsider authenticity upon “the interrelationship of intangible and tangible”. (Galla 1994, p.2)

I’m trying to focus this essay on explaining the frameworks in which the conservator must address in order to achieve its responsibilities. A pluralistic understanding of the multi cultural aspects involving heritage, will suit its role in preserving and maintaining a “process of evolution and continuation of the community cultural contexts.” (Galla, 1994, p.1)

The demand, almost fashionable, to authenticate everything concerning cultural property, derives in grand part from the challenging process in which international organizations are trying to maximize the values surrounding the cultural property, the context in which heritage is or was created. The importance of Museums as collectors and keepers of this heritage also increase their need of conservators/restorers to evaluate eventual forgeries. In other words, if the purpose is to conserve the property in its “original concept and original beauty with complete historical accuracy” (Ashley-Smith 1994, p.19), then the social and cultural provenience of the object, and therefore its community grounded origin, is reconsidered in being of great value.

“Frameworks for dealing with authenticity should ensure the legitimization of diversity.” (Galla 1994, p.2)

Authenticity is a process created to justify the understanding of the past for future generations but is perhaps more a process of increasing interest to reallocate the position of the conservator to a higher level compared to the Victorian age, where “restoration was synonymous with alteration and was a term that had acquire a derogatory flavor.” (Keck 1996, p.27)

International comities and conferences since The Venice Charter for Conservation and restoration of Monuments and sites in 1964, increased in large number, such as The ICOM Code of Ethics for Conservators/Restorers in 1984, The ECCO Professional Guidelines in 1993 and the ICOMOS Guidelines for education and training in the conservation of monuments and sites in 1993. Not to mention UNESCO Cultural Heritage Definition in 1996 and others where the stress given to the role of the conservators was almost systematic.

But, perhaps, the Nara Conference is the first together with the Burra Charter, to develop the meaning of cultural diversity from non-Western point of view. They were concerned for indigenous societies and for heritage resources promoting multi valuable relevance in post-colonial countries.

They were looking for a reinterpretation of cultural significance underlining equal opportunities and applying for heritage needs and services not in accordance with European principles.

I’m going now to show how in India conservation issues and processes of authenticity are challenging Western approach, and how in being a poor continent they have to rely on their needs and problems.

Heritage Regulations in India

The Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India was prepared by members of INTACH (Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage) in New Delhi in November 2004 according to the national heritage conservation experience, and it was regulated with the contributions of the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), the SDA (State Departments of Archaeology) and other non-governmental agencies.

The principles and guidelines stated in this document are defined acknowledging the previous mentioned international conferences, and following that line of thought, they agree in remarking the rights of the indigenous communities and the process of authenticity and integrity as important contributions to respect cultural diversity.

It comes clear from the Indian Charter that the national heritage is unprotected and not legally protected, and that the majority of sites and buildings are “subject to demolition or unsympathetic interventions” (Article 1.2). The Indian concept of ‘jeernodharanam’, or regeneration of what decays, is in “symbiotic relationship binding the tangible and intangible heritage of India as one of the traditional philosophies underpinning conservation practice” (CCUAHSI 2004, Introduction). The whole concept behind this believes is in risk of danger. There is a lack of recognition for the so-called ‘living’ heritage of India (many “unprotected sites are still in use, and the manner in which they continue to be use represents the ‘living’ heritage”) (Article 1); and thus, a need for conservation is a priority issue.

The strong sense for conservation is in India as old as time itself. Western world is not really aware of this, but ancient treatises such as the ‘Mayamatha’ explained how since the third century BC preservation and repair of Buddhist Stupas was exclusively done by expert craftsmen to maintain the symbolic and religious values of these monastic monuments. (Wijesurija 2001, p. 256).

When the first British archaeologists (Marshall, Curzon) came to India at the end of 1800’s with the intention of recovering the state of many sites as a priority of the Empire, they made many errors damaging and removing original pieces. The destruction of heritage was, “along with making the restoration of monuments an essential aspect of imperial beneficence” (Lahiri 2001, p.269), an opportunity to loot antiquities to enrich English museums. This period was described as a “century of British vandalism and crime” (Lahiri 2001, p.268).

But how is the situation now in India? I will show briefly two examples.

One is regarding the proposal made by UNESCO to consider the city of Varanasi for the World Heritage List (Singh 2004). The city is an “exceptional testimony to living traditions, in religious faith, rituals and myriad festivals, traditional and ancient forms of worship and belief that are still practiced in the varied expressions of asceticism, spiritual and meditative exercises, education, music, dance, handicrafts and art forms, passing from one to other generations.” (Singh 2004) The popularity of this place is an obvious target of tourism, increasing population and modernization. The process of economic development is regardless of ancient architecture and historic houses. The building of luxury hotels is threatening the local urban and cultural environment, and “the negative impact of such tourism on the local culture and economy multiplies when such hospitality structures are inside densely populated heritage zones of the city.” (Singh 2004)

The cultural diversity in Varanasi is like a symbolic representation of the multi-ethnic and multi-value-based society of India, is like a mini India. The outside influence is affecting and changing the socio-cultural and economic tradition, rendering the situation complicated, the “assessment of their authenticity more difficult and any conservation policy more problematical.” (Singh 2004)

I believe that this ‘cultural capital of India’ is an example of how tangible and intangible heritage co-exist together and how the need of a reinterpretation of its socio-cultural aspect is to be review in order to apply to the Western ideals of globalization and diversity. But moreover, Varanasi shows how conservators should value with different criteria the international guidelines and principles and should understand that new legal and administrative measures to protect heritage at risk are needed.

The second example I’d like to show is about a complex of various buildings in the South of India, around the Chennai area, at Dakshinachitra.

These buildings are not yet recognized as national heritage, but the importance that they have for the local and regional history is undeniable. For instance, the Arumuga Navalar’s Press is considered the earliest Tamil printing press and the Chettinad and ‘agraharam’ houses are places built around temples at the end of the last century and occupied by priests and Brahamin families. Their architectural Tanjarur style is contradistinguished by wooden pillars and therefore is reputed to be perishable material. Without proper legal protection, these buildings were “bought from different owners, removed from their ‘authentic’ landscape and reassembled with major modifications (to suit tourist trade) along the leisure corridor of Chennai for public display.” (Srivathsan 1999)

The houses were demolished and reconstructed using modern technology and their whole “assemblage is improper and inauthentic.” (Srivathsan 1999)

In these cases, heritage protection and conservation is damaged, cultural significance altered, and the processes of authenticity are in critical position.

Again, lack of national legal administration and criteria of decisions to value the importance of a monument or of a site reveal gaps of understanding and interpretation. Again, the principles drew by INTACH and the articles prepared on the Nara Conference, need to give more importance on the decisions of the communities as the main responsible to safeguard the maintaining of cultural heritage. Written official documents must be applicable in practice.

Conclusion

I think is very important to highlight that very recently members of Indian INTACH and Australian members of AusHeritage are gathering together to discuss conservation methodologies and legislations in cultural post-colonial national heritage. I believe this workshop is a further step to better interpret and recognize cultural diversity, and the collaboration established by the two countries is witness by the intervention of the AIC (The Australian-India Council) to support and share common ideals. Therefore, I believe a connection between the Burra Charter and the INTACH Charter exists.

They both agree in believing that “authenticity should be community –grounded and balanced with a fundamental commitment to the integrity of cultural heritage practices of excellence and reconciliation of different communities.” (Galla 1994)

The role of the conservator is fundamental for the maintaining of cultural significance and for the interpretation of cultural diversity related to heritage framework. His/her responsibilities must be in accordance to the values that support the historical meaning of cultural property, and therefore represent their symbolic and authentic importance.

Bibliography

·       Ashley-Smith J. – The Ethics of Conservation, in Care of Collections, ed. By Knell S., Routledge 1994.

·       Costin C.L. – Legal and Policy Issues in the Protection of Cultural Heritage in South Asia and the Pacific, in Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: Conservation and Policy, ed. By MacLean and Getty Conservation Institute, 1993.

·       Daifuku H. – The Significance of Cultural Property, in The Conservation of Cultural Property, ed. By UNESCO 1968.

·       Galla A. – Authenticity: Rethinking Heritage Diversity in a Pluralistic Framework, in Nara Conference of Authenticity, ed. By UNESCO 1994-1995.

·       Holtorf C. – Is the Past a Non-Renewable Resource?, in Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, ed. by Layton R., Stone P. ans Thomas J., Routlidge 2001.

·       Johnson M. – Renovating Hue (Vietnam): Authenticating Destruction, Reconstructing Authenticity, in Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, ed. by Layton R., Stone P. ans Thomas J., Routlidge 2001.

·       Keck C. – The Role of the Conservator, in Preservation and Conservation, ed. by Preservation Press 1972.

·       Kirby-Talley M. – The Eye’s Caress: Looking, Appreciation, and Connoisseurship, in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. by Stanley Price N., Kirby Talley Jr. M. and Melucco Vaccaro A., Getty Conservation Institute 1996.