In 1994, Savannah's city plan (1733-1856) was the only U.S.
nomination by the Federal Interagency Panel to the World Heritage List.
The nomination, conforming to U.S. regulations, includes the streets and
52 acres of tree- shaded squares, parks and internationally acclaimed
public monuments. The 2.2 square mile area in nomination is a National
Historic Landmark District, and the urban center of this former British
Colony.
The creation of the Savannah City Plan is a unique artistic achievement
in the history of town planning and is a masterpiece of creative genius.
It is an outstanding example of a town plan structure which illustrates
18th-century British Colonial expansion. It has widespread influence on
urban planning as a man-made spatial organization that gives a
humanly-scaled discipline to the three-dimensional development of a city.
The nomination process began in 1989, when Catherine Louise Wilson-
Martin, a student at the University of Georgia, completed her masters
thesis entitled UNESCO World Heritage List: An Assessment of the City
of Savannah. Savannah was subsequently placed on the Indicative List
of Potential U.S. World Heritage Cultural Nominations. In 1992 the City of
Savannah decided to complete the nomination process, having received
encouragement from such noted planners as Edmund Bacon and John Reps.
After two additional years of research, the proposal was forwarded to the
Federal Interagency Panel of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
For European countries settling North America, the creation of planned
towns was an essential component of the colonization process. Savannah,
the last of the major British colonial capital cities in North America,
was given a more complex and integrated layout than any of the towns that
preceded it. This perhaps was a reflection of the humanitarian and social
ideals held by its founder General James Edward Oglethorpe, as well as a
response to specific economic, climatic and administrative needs. Unlike
many utopian colonial settlements, Savannah survived as a remarkable
achievement in British colonial town planning, the creative genius of
which has been commented on since the city's establishment. The plan has
continued to evolve as the sophisticated urban center of a contemporary
city and plays an animated role in the city's cultural life. The verdant
squares, together with the monuments by sculptors of such renown as Daniel
Chester French, exhibit significant material evidence of their evolution
creating a cultural landscape which publicly commemorates the history of
the city.
Begun in 1733, the original concept was maintained and the town was
extended by the creation of eighteen new squares and wards between 1790
and 1856. As population increased, new wards were created on the adjacent
common land, always following a distinctive pattern which integrated the
squares into the town's arterial system.
The Savannah Plan synthesizes elements from a number of essays in town
planning of the 16th to 18th century to create a wholly original solution.
The basic unit is the ward with a square in the center. Uninterrupted
through streets separate ward from ward. The square is surrounded by a
hierarchical arrangement of individual house lots called tythings, and
larger trust lots for public buildings. The 60 foot width of the
individual tything lots allows division into subsidiary elements of 30,
20, 15 and sometimes 24 feet, establishing an underlying rhythm which
governs the physical expression of the plan in the third dimension. The
structure of the plan is the character-defining feature which has
determined the shape and maintained the integrity of the humanly scaled
built environment for which the city is so remarkable.
Savannah's urban plan remains virtually as it was when its public
officials laid out the last of the common land. The plan's ingenious
flexibility has accommodated the automobile while preserving a pedestrian
pace. It is a clear example of city growth by public design, and
illustrates that in intimate and intensely human small scale unit can be
the basis for large scale regional organization.
Another notable feature of the plan is a profusion of trees. One 19th
century visitor described its appearance as "an agglomeration of
rural hamlets and small towns." Like the plan and the architecture,
Savannah's urban forest is diligently protected by a Tree Ordinance and
the Park and Tree Commission.
Nomination of the Plan to the World Heritage List has touched off an
interesting debate. Is the nomination of the plan, its public spaces,
streets, squares and public monuments within the spirit of the World
Heritage Convention? Members of the Savannah Committee discussed the
possibility of including the buildings in the nomination with members of
the Federal Interagency Panel but were told that 100% written concurrence
by property owners is required under U.S. regulations. Thus, under
existing regulations, no city in the United States can be listed.
The nomination outlines the adequate legal protection of approximately
1100 buildings of historical and architectural value within the nominated
area which have been restored and put to appropriate contemporary use. All
the cultural resources, both public and private, within this area are
protected from adverse development by an historic district ordinance which
permits no demolition, alterations or new construction without first
receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District
Board of Review. In addition to conforming to the Federal consent
provisions for listing on the National Register, it was necessary to hold
a public referendum in order to obtain from the State of Georgia the
enabling legislation to establish the historic district. Historic District
zoning for Savannah was approved by an affirmative three to one vote,
demonstrating strong local support by private property owners.
Oglethorpe's sympathy with all sorts and conditions of men, reflected in
the colony's motto, "Not for ourselves but for others," made the
Savannah colony a very open society -- the plan was and is today
accessible to all. The artistic qualities embodied in the plan have
influenced the quality of life in the city for more than 250 years. The
power of Savannah's public grid, its system of parcelization and the
richness of vegetation on its streets and squares, both encourages and
tolerates significant architectural diversity.
Savannah believes that its nomination, which does conform to this
country's regulations, is a strong one and is in the spirit of the World
Heritage Convention, given the Federal and local protection measures in
place and the positive support by private property owners demonstrated by
public referendum and the consistent level of integrity and authenticity
of the site.
Beth Reiter, Savannah Preservation Officer
Prior to review by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, the
ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator conducts research, prepares summaries
and drafts evaluations of the cultural property nominations to the World
Heritage List. The ICOMOS Bureau reviews the cultural nominations and
drafts final evaluations and recommendations to be forwarded to the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. The following is an extract from
a letter sent by ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator, Dr. Henry Cleere, to
the Mayor of the City of Savannah:
"Your appeal for inscription of the City of Savannah on the
World Heritage List is an eloquent one. Our problem as professional
advisors to the World Heritage Committee is that there are clearly
drafted Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention with which we must conform in preparing our
evaluations and recommendations. It is not, I am afraid, within the
province of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to extend the
interpretation of the Convention: only the World Heritage Committee,
composed of representatives of twenty-one States Parties to the
Convention, may do this.
In the case of Savannah the exceptional nomination of the City Plan
lies outside the current interpretation of the Convention, and so ICOMOS
was unable to recommend inscription on the World Heritage List. The
final decision rests with the Committee: our work is done, in that we
have carried out the evaluation required. It remains to be seen whether
the Committee feels that this is a case that justifies an extension of
the present interpretation. I might add that ICOMOS is conscious of the
importance of Savannah in terms of town planning in North America and
also of the pride taken in preserving the City's exceptional
townscape."
The World Heritage Convention sprang from the altruistic ideal
that the international community could rise above political and
ideological differences to recognize and protect universal cultural
heritage on the basis that the human race is one species united by similar
needs through time and space. The mandate of the Convention, entered into
freely by each ratifying nation is simple: identify, nominate and protect
sites that embody universally significant historic trends that must not be
forgotten.
The people who over time have inhabited what is now our country's
territory have left us a valuable legacy of places that are within that
category. Those who were here before the Europeans built places of
extraordinary beauty and awesome majesty that portray humanity's ability
to adapt to variable environments, and the perpetual need to explain our
place in the cosmos -- the World Heritage Sites of Mesa Verde, Chaco and
Cahokia immediately come to mind. The advent of new cultures to North
America in the sixteenth century brought different traditions that
continued to transform and adapt to the natural environment for humanity's
material and spiritual survival. The Jeffersonian compounds, Independence
Hall and the San Juan Historic Site are obvious examples that celebrate
this spirit.
But when scanning the list of U.S. World Heritage Sites, the question
inevitably arises whether this venerable group of places, taken as a
whole, can by themselves tell the complete story of the United States. To
me, the answer is a resonant NO. The historic impact of the United States
on world culture is much larger than our World Heritage Sites attest.
In architecture, Chicago's Loop contains a masterpiece ensemble of
innovation and expression that is fundamental to understanding the urban
environment today, whether one lives in Casablanca, Rio or Hong Kong. The
compelling skyline of New York is probably among the top five universally
recognized architectural icons in the world. Washington, DC, perhaps the
greatest center of concentrated political power in the history of the
world, expresses through the intentional monumentality of its architecture
and its plan, the power of our government's decisions to impact the life
of even those unaware of its existence.
The technical and industrial behemoth of the Unites States also shaped
the world irreversibly and continues to do so. Our space facilities in
Texas, Maryland and Florida which allowed man to reach the Moon; our great
metallurgical centers of Pennsylvania and Alabama; the manufacturing
plants of Michigan, which motorized the world; and even the Georgia sites
related to Coca-Cola, are among the places that are crucial to
understanding our country's role in changing the way in which people live
today.
With the massive global distribution of our movies, television and
recordings, the popular culture of the United States has been
universalized -- and at times distorted -- in ways unprecedented in the
history of the planet. Blue jeans are the universal attire of all the
young and those who want to remain so. Rock and Roll is an inevitable
sound; Mickey Mouse tee shirts are accepted in Kiev, Mexico and Mogadishu
as normal everyday wear. In fact, the denizens of Disney are not only
globally known, but a visit to them in Florida or California is among the
most common recreational goals of humanity. Controversial as these
contributions may be, the technical centers and studios where these
products of cultural dissemination were conceived and generated have
universal cultural significance of the broadest order.
And like these, there are numerous other themes of our national
trajectory whose sites could be identified as amply meeting World Heritage
criteria even in the briefest of analyses.
Unfortunately, as with all international conventions, the World
Heritage is limited because it must be implemented through States Parties,
i.e., the signatory national governments, who in turn, must manage their
obligations under the Convention according to their own laws and popular
socio-political sentiments and economic pressure. Within our national
framework, the power of our federal government has been severely curtailed
in nominating many of the sites that express our significant contributions
to civilization.
Rather than being dismayed by these limitations and the regrettable
failure of the Savannah City Plan nomination, we must recognize them as a
great challenge. I am optimistic about the success of our preservation and
cultural communities joining forces to ensure the conservation of those
resources that help us (and our friends and foes) to understand the
sources and development of our nation's drive, idiosyncrasy and our
concept of the world and its order. If managed correctly, preservation can
be a peace- keeping instrument that promotes tolerance through mutual
understanding. Our national structures, laws, institutions and outlook
must be under permanent scrutiny so that they will constantly evolve to
allow the preservation of our memory.
Gustavo F. Araoz, AIA
It is anticipated that the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee will refer the Savannah City Plan nomination back to the U.S.
for revision and resubmission to include the actual physical structures of
the city. If this is the case, is there any recourse for Savannah? If the
plan (and its embodiment in the public historic areas of streets, squares
and monuments) is judged not to qualify for World Heritage listing under
present criteria, what are the options for Savannah and any other historic
city or district in the United States?
ICOMOS is one of two nongovernmental organizations named in the World
Heritage Convention to serve in an advisory capacity in the implementation
of the Convention and the World Heritage List. In the U.S., the National
Park Service has official responsibility for coordination of U.S.
participation in the Convention and in U.S. nomination of properties of
"outstanding universal value" for inclusion in the List. The
Park Service's role is set forth in NPS Guidelines developed in 1982 in
response to the 1980 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act
(PL 96- 515). Section 401 of the amendments notes that:
The Secretary of the Interior shall periodically nominate properties
he determines are of international significance to the World Heritage
Committee on behalf of the United States. No property may be so
nominated unless it has previously been determined to be of national
significance. Each such nomination shall include evidence of such legal
protections as may be necessary to ensure preservation of the property
and its environment (including restrictive covenants, easements or other
forms of protection). Before making any such nomination, the Secretary
shall notify the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United
States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate.
c. no non-Federal property may be nominated by the Secretary of the
Interior for inclusion on the World Heritage List unless the owner of
the property concurs in writing to such nomination.
In the early years of the Convention's implementation, many States Parties
nominated historic cities and districts which were found to merit
inclusion in the list. To cite a few examples, among these were: Historic
Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil); Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments,
Cartagena (Colombia); Islamic Cairo (Egypt); Mont Saint Michel and its Bay
(France); Historic Centers of Venice, Florence and Rome (Italy); Medina of
Fez (Morocco) and the Historic Centers of Cracow and Warsaw (Poland).
Recent additions to the List include the historic centers of Bath (UK) and
Quebec (Canada). World Heritage listing has become a matter of
considerable national and local prestige and pride. One of the benefits of
World Heritage designation is, in fact, the increase in tourism to listed
sites, an economic benefit of considerable appeal to some local and
national governments.
However, because of very restrictive federal legislation, only the U.S.
is not represented in the List by historic centers, districts or towns
that might well merit consideration.
A question that might be asked is whether the U.S. has limited itself
unreasonably (especially compared to other States Parties) as a result of
the legislation. Another question that might be raised is that relating to
National Historic Landmark status and whether the NHL List is in fact
sufficiently comprehensive for those properties which might not fall into
a particular Landmark theme category.
It is important to note that any State Party nominating a
property must cite the legal protection afforded to the property under its
existing legislation but no other State Party requires either government
ownership or 100% private property owner consent to a nomination.
When it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, can the
claims of historic preservation still be defended as legitimate in a world
of shrinking budgets and growing demands by a steadily growing population,
a world of cyberspace and virtual reality? How does one reply today to
John Ruskin's famous exclamation, "there are but two strong
conquerors of the forgetfulness of men, Poetry and Architecture; and the
latter in some sort includes the former, and is mightier in its
reality...?" Would one not be tempted to answer that now databases
and CD-ROMs are the best guarantee against oblivion, and that eventually
experiences in virtual reality will take the place of genuine
architectural experiences, thus eliminating the need to preserve the
actual works?
But information cannot replace experience, and such an answer overlooks
the difference between actual object and simulacrum, and, in particular,
fails to recognize the special character of architectural (and landscape)
experience due to the facticity of what is experienced. Facticity, the
state of being a palpable fact, in this case refers to all factors --
including the shadow of the passing cloud and the echoing footstep -- that
during the experience engage the "senses as perceptual systems"
(James J. Gibson). Such factors in the richness of their continuously
changing interaction are hard to capture by the mechanics of digitization.
Moreover, they are there for the reaction of any human being, including
those who could not hope to ever afford the expensive equipment needed for
the experience of virtual reality.
While what has just been said presents a strong case for the continued
validity of architecture and the landscape as valuable sources of
enrichment for the human experience, an equally convincing case for the
preservation of historic architecture, landscapes and artifacts still
needs to be made. Why should something ancient be considered so valuable
that national laws and international conventions have been made to assure
its survival by protecting it?
Ever since Alois Riegl at the beginning of our century gave his answers
to this question, every new generation has found its own formulations, but
there has been continuous agreement on one point: the tangible cultural
heritage of a country in powerful ways helps to sustain the intangible
cultural heritage of memories and traditions which in turn are essential
for the survival of a cultural identity. Unfortunately, it is the
recognition of this linkage that is behind the recent tragic destruction
of so many historic buildings in the former Yugoslavia, destructions which
make a mockery of the UNESCO 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
Considering this, it becomes clear why the preservation of tangible
cultural heritage has a rightful claim to the allocation of sufficient
resources. But it also becomes clear that only authentic objects can
justify such a claim. The concept of authenticity in historic preservation
recently has been much discussed and the Nara
Document on Authenticity (November 1994) has significantly
broadened its interpretation, but without changing basically what the term
denotes: an authentic object is one that is genuine, "really
proceeding from its reputed source," true in substance. When we speak
of the aura that comes across from authentic remnants of the past as
something unique and precious, this is not a romantic reference to
something semimystical, but a reference to the evocative power of historic
truth.
There are degrees of intensity and significance to such evocations, and
value judgements can be made about them. they must be made because
resources for conservation are limited, and they must be made by an
informed public guided by expert advice. This is where ICOMOS has to
fulfill its most important functions, in both helping to inform the public
and providing expert advice. Just as in the international arena, prior to
decisions by the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS experts vet the
applications from different countries for inclusion in the World Heritage
List, so ICOMOS advisors on the national level can be invaluable in
helping to steer the right course between too little and too much --
between shortsighted parsimony and overzealous enthusiasm.
Eduard F. Sekler, US/ICOMOS Fellow
Jefferson's
Monticello and the Academical Village at the University of Virginia
constitute one of the two non-federally owned U.S. sites listed in the
World Heritage List. To find out the implications of being a World
Heritage Site, US/ICOMOS spoke with Dr. James Murray Howard, AIA,
Curator and Architect for the Academical Village at the University of
Virginia. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
US/ICOMOS: How did the initiative first come about to
nominate the Jeffersonian Opus to the World Heritage List?
JM Howard: The idea probably started in the early 80's when many
began to realize that the Academical Village was much more than a very
nice piece of real estate. Before then, there had been an aesthetic
appreciation, but no curatorial concern and little awareness of its deep
cultural and historical significance. Around that time, it somehow became
clearer that Jefferson's work marked a new cultural starting point for his
time and that, more than previously suspected, the Academical Village was
an icon and a benchmark for his whole philosophy.
USI: What was the procedure for preparing the nomination?
JMH: The National Park Service took the initiative to write the
nomination by hiring Antoinette Lee, an eminent historian, who worked very
closely with the staff at both Monticello and the University of Virginia
to obtain the necessary background data. It was a very smooth process that
involved informal reviews by UVA and Monticello as the nomination was
taking form. Since the process was tracked closely by all involved, there
was never an unpleasant moment.
USI: U.S. Law requires owner consent for inclusion in the
World Heritage List, and because it is an international convention, the
federal government is liable in international courts for maintaining and
preserving all nominated properties. What were the government's demands in
terms of a commitment from the Commonwealth, the University of Virginia
and Monticello to preserve the site?
JMH: In the case of the University, the United States Government
required a pledge that the Commonwealth would conserve the property in
perpetuity. The text of the pledge, which was drafted by the government,
is actually very vague and non-threatening, which removed all potential
that might have existed for friction.
USI: Are there any requirements for reporting or monitoring?
JMH: No, which is a little surprising. At the Santa Fe World
Heritage Meeting that I attended a few years ago, there was lots of talk
about monitoring requirements for all sites, but nothing seems to have
come of it. In a way, it's too bad, because with no monitoring to enforce
the preservation commitment, the Convention becomes somewhat toothless.
USI: Perhaps the well-known fact that the Academical Village
is so well cared for removes the need to monitor this site, especially in
view of the growing list of endangered sites. Has the University taken any
steps to publicize the World Heritage rank of the site?
JMH: Our listing in the World Heritage List is the single fact
that is mentioned the most often in all our lectures and writings about
the Academical Village. It is also featured prominently in all our
descriptive brochures and public information literature. We at the
University view it as a tremendous honor, even though the local
Charlottesville population does not seem to be particularly impressed by
the World Heritage status if we are to judge from an increase in their
visitation. But then, I suppose that this is true of most people living in
close proximity to a great monumental site. We do not have any plaque
advertising the fact on the site, perhaps if we did...
USI: Why no plaque?
JMH: The Academical Village has been the site of so many
important events and is so imbued with significance to so many different
groups that if we accepted a plaque from each, all the building surfaces
would be covered. For that reason we have established a
"no-plaque" policy.
USI: In general, what have been the advantages and the
disadvantages of being a World Heritage property?
JMH: I can't think of any negative effects. As for the positive
ones, just mentioning World Heritage immediately captures people's
attention.
USI: Has it helped catch the attention of donors and state
officials in helping fund the preservation needs of the site?
JMH: Well, at first, there was an undefined general attitude,
especially from those in the public sector, that since the site was so
important, fundraising would become a breeze and donations would pour in
from private sources, something that, of course, rarely happens. We did
get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts that was almost
coincidental with the listing, but I am not sure that the two were
connected. The Commonwealth has been very good in providing some
maintenance funds for the Academical Village, but we do encounter the
usual difficulties when a special conservation project must be funded.
USI: Has the University ever sought assistance from the World
Heritage Fund in Paris?
JMH: Oh, no. It has never even occurred to us. I suppose that
out of respect for the needs of so many World Heritage sites with much
greater needs, we have never considered tapping this source. Perhaps in
the future.
USI: Any final thoughts about the World Heritage List?
JMH: I guess the best way to summarize our experience is that it
has been a happy one. I would like to see the World Heritage List expanded
with more of the great cultural sites and cities that we have in the
United States.
In Phuket Thailand at its 18th session, the World Heritage
Committee inscribed 21 new cultural and 8 new natural sites. The limits of
three already-inscribed cultural sites were extended and one previously
listed natural site was recognized for its cultural values. The World
Heritage List now includes 440 sites in 100 States Parties. Cultural sites
inscribed in 1994 are:
Croatia. The Old City of Dubrovnik, on the list since
1979, has been extended by a narrow urban strip that follows the town
ramparts from east to west, including the 11th-century Lovrijenac Fortress
and the Lazarets, a 17th-century quarantine center, as well as the nearby
island of Lobrum with its 11th-century Benedictine Abbey.
Czech Republic. The Pilgrimage Church of St John of Nepomuk
at Zelena Hora was constructed in the early 18th century in a
star-shaped design, is the most original work of the architect Jan Blazej
Santini, whose highly original style falls between the neo-Gothic and
Baroque.
Denmark. Jelling Mounds, Runic Stones and Church. The
Mounds and one of the runic stones are striking examples of pagan Nordic
culture, while the other runic stone and church illustrate the
Christianization of the Danish people in the mid-10th century.
Finland. Petäjävesi Old Church, in central Finland,
built from logs between 1763-1764, is Lutheran country church, typical of
an architectural tradition unique to Scandinavia, and combines the layout
of a Renaissance central church with older forms deriving from Gothic
groined ceilings.
Georgia. The City-Museum Reserve of Mtshheta includes the
historical churches of Mtskheta, former capital of Georgia, striking
examples of the religious architecture of the Middle Ages in the Caucasus.
Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery, dating from the late 10th
century and the 12th century respectively, represent the blossoming of
medieval architecture in Georgia.
Germany. The Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of
Quedlinburg. Quedlinburg, in Sachsen-Anhalt, was the capital of the
East Franconian German Empire at the time of the Saxonian-Ottonian ruling
dynasty and a prosperous trading town since the Middle Ages. The number
and quality of its well-preserved timber-framed buildings make it an
exceptional example of a medieval European town.
Völklingen
Ironworks, which cover six hectares, above the city of Völklingen
in Saarland, are the only integrated ironworks, built and equipped in the
19th and 20th centuries in Western Europe and North America, that went out
of production in the recent past and have remained intact.
Italy. Vicenza, City of Palladio, founded in the 2nd
century B.C., boasts urban planning by Andrea Palladio. It has at least 26
buildings or parts of buildings designed or reconstructed by Palladio.
Lithuania. The Old City of Vilnius, political center of
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the 13th to the end of the 18th century,
had a profound influence on the cultural and architectural development of
much of Eastern Europe and has preserved an impressive complex of historic
Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Classic buildings.
Luxembourg. The City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and
Fortifications, founded in 963, played an important role in European
history for several centuries. It has preserved the remains of its
impressive fortifications and ancient quarters in a striking natural
environment.
Russian Federation. The Church of the Ascension at
Kolomenskoye built in 1532 to celebrate the birth of the prince that
was to become Tsar Ivan IV "the Terrible," is one of the
earliest examples of traditional wooden tent-roofed churches on a stone
and brick structure. It had a great influence on the development of
Russian ecclesiastical architecture.
Spain. The Historic Center of Cordoba, which surrounds
the Mosque of Cordoba, included on the World Heritage List since 1984, is
a complex of extraordinary value and a living expression of the different
cultures that have lived near the banks of the Guadalquivir River.
The Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin in Granada. The Albayzin
quarter, added to the two previously inscribed parts of Granada, is a rich
repository of Moorish architecture.
Sweden. The Rock Carvings in Tanum represent a unique
artistic achievement due to their rich and varied motifs (humans, animals,
weapons, boats and other objects) as well as their cultural and
chronological unity, illustrating the life and beliefs of the people of
Bronze Age Europe. The Skogskyrkogärden cemetery in Stockholm,
built between 1917-1920 by the architects Asplund and Lewerentz in former
gravel quarries overgrown with pine trees, combines vegetation and
architectural features with irregularities of the landscape in perfect
harmony with its function.
Turkey. The City of Safranbolu knew great prosperity as a
caravan station from the 13th century until the early 20th century. The
historic center has kept its homogeneous character and its public, civil
and religious architecture is representative of the ancient Ottoman
Empire.
Australia. The Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park was first inscribed in 1987 as a natural site.
It is now recognized as an outstanding illustration of successful human
adaptation over 5,000 years in a hostile arid environment. Its dramatic
monoliths form an integral part of the traditional belief system of one of
the oldest human societies.
China. The Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples in
Chengde. The Mountain Resort, the Qing dynasty's summer palace, was
built between 1703-1792, a vast complex of palaces and administrative and
ceremonial buildings. Temples of varying architectural styles and Imperial
gardens blend into a landscape of lakes, pasture land and forest, a rare
historic vestige of the final development of feudal society in China.
The Potala Palace at Lhasa, an administrative, religious and
political complex, is built on Red Mountain in the center of the Lhasa
Valley. The Potala, winter palace of the Dalai Lama since the 7th century,
symbolizes Tibetan Buddhism. The beauty and originality of its
architecture, its ornate decoration and its harmonious integration in a
striking landscape add to its historic and religious interest.
The Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in
Qufu is the home of the great philosopher, politician and educator of
the 6th-5th century B.C. The temple, built in his honor in 478 B.C.,
destroyed and reconstructed over the centuries, today comprises more than
100 buildings. The cemetery contains Confucius' tomb and the remains of
more than 100,000 of his descendants. The small house of the Kong family
has become a gigantic aristocratic residence, of which more than 152
buildings remain. The complex of monuments at Qufu has maintained its
historic character due to the devotion of successive Chinese emperors over
more than 2,000 years.
The Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains consists of
palaces and temples forming the nucleus of secular and religious buildings
exemplifying the architectural and artistic achievements of the Yuan, Ming
and Qing dynasties. Built as an organized complex during the Ming dynasty
(14th-17th century), it contains Taoist buildings from as early as the 7th
century and represents the highest standards of Chinese art and
architecture over a period of nearly one thousand years.
Japan. The Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto. The
capital of Japan from 794 to 1857, Kyoto has remained the cultural center
of the country for more than a thousand years. Spread out over the cities
of Kyoto, Uji and Osu, the 17 sites included in this property trace the
development of Japanese wooden architecture and the art of Japanese
gardens which has influenced garden architecture throughout the world.
Mexico. The Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes
of Popocatepetl consists of 14 monasteries representative of the
architectural model of the first missionaries -- Franciscans, Dominicans
and Augustinians -- who Christianized the indigenous populations at the
beginning of the 16th century.
Peru. The Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas of Jumana,
located in the arid coastal plain, cover about 450 km2. These lines, drawn
between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D., are among the most impenetrable enigmas of
archaeology by virtue of their number, nature and size, as well as their
continuity. The geoglyphs, depicting living creatures, plants, imaginary
figures and geometric figures, are believed to have had ritual functions
connected to astronomy.
Natural sites inscribed in the list include: Canada/USA. The Tatshenshini-Alsek
Provincial Wilderness Park; Australia. The Australian Fossil
Mammal Sites and the Central
Eastern Rainforest Reserves; Spain. Donana National Park;
Venezuela. Canaima National Park; Uganda. Rwenzori
Mountains National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National Park; Oman.
The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary; Viet Nam. Ha Long Bay; Colombia.
Los Katios National Park.
As the international preservation field has matured from years
of ICOMOS and World Heritage learning experiences, monitoring site
conditions has assumed an increasingly prominent role. It is understood
that the preservationist's ultimate task of ensuring the conservation of
the material cultural heritage hinges not only on treatment but also on
the documentation and monitoring process.
The tasks involved in monitoring are variable, depending on the needs
of the site, and the specific objectives of the effort, but the underlying
foundation for the entire monitoring process is documentation.
Documentation and monitoring are often treated as the same activity or as
being inextricably interwoven, when in fact they are complimentary but
separate. Driven by different goals, each one requires different skills
and results in a different product.
Documentation is subjective, in that it is undertaken from a particular
point of view, but it is most importantly a descriptive, non- interpretive
process that gathers and records observable facts in order to establish a
base-line against which to assess change. On the other hand, monitoring is
an analytical and critical process of comparative evaluation of conditions
existing at a point in time with the base-line data accumulated in the
documentation process, with the objective of determining physical
evolution in the historic fabric.
Documentation can help define the significance and integrity that
contribute to official recognition of a site's importance. At its best and
most useful, documentation is more than that: it is an ongoing process
that periodically records the physical status of the site in accordance
with consistent methodology.
Site stewards are handicapped without this type of documentation when
diagnosing existing site conditions, and may be led to the wrong
conclusions and diagnosis, leading to overly aggressive or inappropriate
treatments. For example, if a surface condition appears suddenly and
worsens daily, one approach may be correct; if the condition has been
completely stable for 20 years, that approach may be disastrous. Only good
documentation can support this analysis. A well-planned photographic
archive spanning fifty years is an unbeatable monitoring tool for clearly
identifying types of deterioration and their progression over time. Linked
to other methodical recording (regularized intervals, fixed observation
posts, testing procedures, etc.) of climate, treatments or visitation, the
documentation archive provides the firmest base for sound monitoring
interpretation of condition and diagnoses.
Monitoring guidelines are beginning to be formulated and tested for
World Heritage sites by various regional consortia around the world. A
prototype was developed by the UNDP (Southern Cone), and a model mission
was designed and commissioned by ICOMOS Sri Lanka. While the process of
monitoring varies depending on the objectives or the type of information
sought, the process of base-line documentation in this context more easily
lends itself to standardization. Because of its perceived similarity to
"auditing," monitoring by outside experts can be perceived as
threatening to the owners, who may view monitoring suspiciously -- as
foreign intervention with a potential for making local administrators
appear negligent or incompetent.
Documentation work, however, has not yet been the subject of good,
economical and straightforward guidelines within the World Heritage
context. While each site or site type may require specific adjustments to
the "perfect site archive," the best process of periodic
observation and documentation is often most effective and user-friendly
when it is low-tech and relies on relatively inexpensive recording
methods, such as black-and- white photography, simple measurements and
standardized field forms.
Developing such a set of guidelines is the point of a collaboration
between the Getty Conservation Institute and the World Heritage Centre.
They are starting by examining the range of needs on site, identifying a
set of interested test sites, creating a set of recording strategies, and
discussing with Earthwatch the possibility of their support for a set of
low-cost, well-organized recording projects. The intended results are
well-described, economical, responsive, tested options for recommendation
to the World Heritage site managers interested in creating useful
documentation archives to support site management and conservation.
Margaret G.H. Mac Lean
Director of Documentation, Getty Conservation Institute
Taos Pueblo: The Town of Taos is requesting federal
funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to construct an
8600' by 100' runway with medium intensity runway lights, an associated
parallel taxiway, a new terminal apron and a new access road for the Taos
airport. FAA has sent out a draft Area of Potential Effects as part of
their efforts to include all interested parties in partial response to the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. The existing
airport is located north of the Town of Taos and west of Taos Pueblo.
Pueblo lands will be indirectly affected by the audible and visual
intrusions of air traffic although overflight patterns have been designed
to avoid the areas of population. Identification of archaeological
properties has been completed and an ethnographic study will be undertaken
in the future. No final decisions have been made. Beyond the specifics of
the airport expansion, the point of debate centers around the potential
(or threat) for accelerated local growth and development due to easier
access through the expanded airport.
San Juan National Historic Site. The urban site of San Juan
includes the Spanish city walls, the fortresses of San Jerónimo and el
Morro, plus the Fortaleza or Palace of Santa Catalina, which has
traditionally been used as the Governor's Residence.
Site ownership is mixed, with parts under the stewardship of the
National Park Service, while others are owned by the Puerto Rican
Government or the Municipality of San Juan.
The City Walls, which originally surrounded the entire Colonial core
are largely extant. Constructed of massive rubble masonry and originally
clad in stucco, the protective coat was shed years ago, reaching our time
covered by a romantic patina of dark lichens and mosses on natural stone
with the ochre and white patches of the early stucco.
In the past decade, the National Park Service has determined that water
penetration is threatening the walls. To preserve them, NPS has proposed
to re-stucco the walls in their entirety. Reaction to the proposal has
been varied, and there is widespread concern that the visual character of
walls and the city itself will be seriously altered by returning them to a
past lost so long ago that it is no longer remembered. The NPS claims that
the work is permitted under an existing Memorandum of Agreement. The
Puerto Rico SHPO has gone on record opposing the preventive stuccoing of
all the wall, claiming that the visual transformation will be too drastic,
and that the intensity of treatment is not justified. Instead, the SHPO
proposes retention of the rich patina, and a continuation of conservation
treatments on localized problem areas.
A second problem facing the integrity of the site are developments
being proposed for La Puntilla, a flat peninsula to the south of the city
just outside the walls. The U.S. Coast Guard is planning a 4-story
structure that the SHPO claims will block the historic view of the walls
from the harbor. Recently the SHPO terminated consultation with the Coast
Guard based on the Guard's apparent unwillingness to propose changes other
than cosmetic ones. The matter has now been referred to the Advisory
Council.
Accentuating the problems in the area of la Puntilla are conceptual
plans being considered by the Municipality of San Juan to build a five-
story commercial and parking structure in areas adjacent to the Coast
Guard land. Under intense development pressure, the area of la Puntilla is
quickly becoming the focus of difficult decisions whose outcome could have
an impact on this World Heritage site. One former SHPO regards the threats
serious enough to consider recommending the Site for inclusion in the
World Heritage Endangered List.
(Based on an interview with Milagros Flores, San Juan Historic Site,
and Milagros Ortiz, Architect at the Puerto Rico SHPO).
Cahokia Mounds. Unlike San Juan, Cahokia faces little
development pressure, but is periodically threatened by the high water of
the nearby Mississippi River. Located in the American Bottoms area, much
of Cahokia is in a flood plain that is dependent on the levies of the
eastern shore of the river. While the Mounds themselves have survived
centuries of floods and rains, the Museum was seriously endangered by
rising water in 1993 and again this year. The most immediate conservation
challenge at Cahokia now is a slump on Monk's Mound, whose 16 acre base
makes it the largest earthen structure north of the Valley of Mexico. A
State of Illinois-funded engineering study to address the problem is
currently under way.
With 2,200 acres, Cahokia Mounds depends on a staff of 4 site
technicians to implement its site management program. Under intense
visitation and an aggressive outreach program, from September 30-October
1, Cahokia will host "Heritage America," an annual celebration
of Native American crafts and traditions attended by 35,000 people every
year. Last year, visitors from more than 90 different countries indicated
that they came to Cahokia attracted by its World Heritage status. To
accommodate them, Cahokia has developed a multi-lingual approach to the
site's information and interpretation program by printing its tour guide
booklets in twelve languages and providing tour tapes in French, German
and Spanish. Proud of its listing, the Site displays its plaque at the
entrance to the Museum, and the United Nations flag is flown daily along
with those of the U.S. and the State of Illinois.
Gaining access to the site's hidden knowledge remains a central
challenge to Cahokia. Only 1% of the site has been excavated. This past
summer, 3 field schools were held on the grounds. Rather than continuing
to expand its visitation and interpretation areas, most excavations are
back-filled to assure proper conservation of the archaeological resources.
(Based on an interview with Paul Nixon, Assistant Site Manager).
"PARIS -- UNESCO's World Heritage Committee had given the
go-ahead for Indonesia to stage a controversial light show close to an
ancient Buddhist Temple at Borobudur, in central Java, project officials
said.
The seven-person committee chaired by Mr. Gerard Bolla, a deputy
director-general of the world cultural organization and an expert on the
9th-century temple, agreed finally to the Son et Lumière project after
a study lasting several months.
However the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
demanded guarantees that the spectacle would not harm the monument or
its close environs in any way.
It authorized two sessions of 45 minutes each per day in front of
audiences initially of no more than 500 people -- although the number
could later be raised to 2,000 -- for a total of 200 days per year
during the dry season, the officials said.
It also demanded that the text written for the spectacle avoid any
terms that could cause offense to Buddhists.
An earlier version of the project presented in January gave rise to
strong objections by the Heritage Committee. -- AFP
Despite certain inaccuracies and ambiguities in the account sent over
the wires by Agence France Presse, the news was quite shocking to those
involved in cultural tourism and to those familiar with Southeast Asia.
Facts to note: UNESCO convened a Special Experts meeting, January
23-28, 1995, at Borobudur. Among other subjects for discussion, the
Committee disapproved the Sound and Light show proposal. On June 29, 1995,
UNESCO agreed to the plan saying that certain changes in the proposal had
dealt with the Special Experts concerns. The approval is separate from
World Heritage Committee approval.
Note also, a Sound and Light show was installed on Malacca Hill,
Malaysia. Across a main street a large grandstand was erected at the base
of the hill. There are 1100 lights used in the show. It is now impossible
to take a photograph of the Gate, the Chapel ruins or the hillside without
having the green metallic boxes in the pictures. Looking down from the
top, the view is cluttered by an array of colored light bulbs. Lights now
clutter the ceiling of the Museum entrance.
After the specific questions have been answered, we still have to ask
ourselves some other questions. Here we are forced to deal with a
sincerely developed application by the Government of Indonesia to mount a
Sound and Light show that will feature and use the Buddhist temple of
Borobudur, and Cambodia wants to mount one at Angkor Wat.
Someone has to say no. If UNESCO can't say no, the World Heritage
Committee has to say no. They would say a quick no to a show in front of
Notre Dame, or in front of a mosque in Jakarta, or one that used Nara as a
backdrop.
How did the proposal at Borobudur get this far? These are great
monuments and continuing religious sites for residents and pilgrims. I
don't blame the backers of the proposal for a minute; I blame all of us
for not articulating the edges of our indignation. Have the processes we
have built up to identify and to protect the finest cultural and natural
sites in the world failed?
How did we all drift so far away from anticipating the pressures and
expectations of the World Heritage listing?
For two years, UNESCO had an intense presence in Phnom Penh and Siem
Reap. How could so much effort bring us to a row of benches along the moat
before Angkor Wat? We have defined boundaries and required site management
plans but there is more, and it is the "more" that we have
difficulty defining. There are judgments to be made, matters of taste to
be applied. We are talking about values, matters of worth, decisions that
reflect manners and appropriateness.
If we are talking about protecting the world's cultural heritage for
the benefit of mankind, we assume that there are universal values that
exist across diverse peoples and regions. By implication we assume that
while respecting local attitudes and practices, there are universal
expectations of respect, honor and appreciation for these great sites of
the world's heritage.
Many countries look at their World Heritage sites as tourism marketing
features -- as sources of hard currency. They propose a Sound and Light
show and we argue back that the local standards used to justify the
project do not justify warping or ignoring international standards which
have been built up out or research, error and experience. We have a
problem.
A personal opinion -- the best possible tourism and educational
experience at Borobudur would be to experience the site at dawn. This was
not a night place or a light place, it was a temple of worship. Borobudur
was designed as a show. It hardly needs another. The first three levels
are carved story-boards that function as both memory cards and educational
lessons. As one continues to circle the monument and climbs the stairs,
the architecture compels the visitor to experience humility and awe rising
to spiritual confidence.
Two thousand people at Borobudur, seated in the dark watching colored
lights and listening to a recorded announcer, might just as well be at
home with their TV. Better they be in their beds, to rise early and have a
truly universal experience watching the dawn outline the shrine.
Robertson E. Collins, Chairman
ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism
The following section relating to Sound and Light shows was excerpted
from Tourism at World Heritage Cultural Sites: The Site Manager's
Handbook, published by US/ICOMOS, 1993, for the 10th General
Assembly of ICOMOS in Sri Lanka:
At many World Heritage Sites, son et lumière is used as a
motivational and educational technique. This system serves as an
important source of additional visitor-generated income. It can also be
the source of many problems.
Commercial producers of shows, or of lighting equipment, tend to
over-sell the potential revenues and under-sell the problems. The first
question is who will attend the show, day-in, day-out year- round, year
after year. The shows are expensive to install and to operate and can
seldom survive on local traffic or as mere weekend attractions. Most of
them are used at the height of the tourist season. Tour operators should
be consulted as to whether they will include the show in their packages;
it is useless and expensive to proceed with a sound and light show if
tour operators are not interested.
A feasibility study is the most important step. Beware of figures
presented by suppliers or producers. The investment costs can be
determined easily, but be sure there is careful financial analysis of
anticipated revenues. Seek private advice from tour operators. Write to
your preservation counterparts in other countries who have experience
with similar installations to get the benefit of their experience and
knowledge.
If you decide to proceed, be sure to reserve contractual rights to
approve the final script. The approved script must accurately portray
the history of the site in a dignified fashion. Avoid overly theatrical
scripts.
The system's overall installation and design must be sensitive to the
historic fabric of the site. It should be designed to impose only the
most minimal intervention in the physical historic fabric. Any physical
interventions should be done so that they are reversible. The color of
all materials used in the installation should be compatible with the
historic/natural colors at the site.
Son et lumière requires the installation of a highly
sophisticated system of electronics. All installation plans must be
submitted to, and approved in advance, by the site administrator. The
installation contract must provide for direct day-to-day supervision of
the contractor's workers as they proceed with the actual installation.
The placement and concealment of wiring systems and the enclosure of
lighting and sound systems require thorough consideration. It must be
remembered that such systems will require sustained, ongoing maintenance
and should be accessible for servicing. Every installation decision
should be based on how it will effect the day- time visitor's
opportunity to photograph the site and to enjoy an uncluttered
experience.
Many son et lumière installations, especially at large sites,
require the movement of masses of people through the site in a darkened
environment. Adequate safety lighting is essential. Permanent low-level
lighting, directed at primary walkways may have to be supplemented by
hand-held directional lighting used by site guards during the
performances.
Many such public presentations are a combination of sequential mass
movements through the site, followed by a final presentation that is
made to a seated audience at a fixed location. The placement and design
of this fixed seating arrangement can have a major impact on the
physical characteristics of the cultural site. Seats may be portable
chairs, benches or fixed bleachers. It is especially important when
using fixed bleachers to be sure that they are sensitively positioned
within the historic context of the site so as not to be visually
disruptive. Any fixed seating should be designed so that it can be
easily removed once the son et lumière program is discontinued.
Too often the public and the media associate the notion of
the architectural heritage with history and the past. But what about the
distinguished architecture, landscapes and other resources of this
century; and at what point do we decide that these properties of more
recent vintage merit concern and protection? The problem is more acute in
countries whose man-made cultural heritage dates back centuries where age
and rarity are prime considerations in terms of earning public support and
recognition. The vast number of standing properties from this century
makes it even more difficult to choose those worthy of preservation
especially because of the relative dearth of objective historical analysis
of works dating from this century. The question of integrity arises as
well in view of the built-in obsolescence and ephemeral qualities that
characterizes some architecture from the recent past.
In recent years a number of international meetings have examined
problems associated with the recognition of 20th-century works as cultural
heritage. ICOMOS held an expert meeting on the subject in Paris in 1985.
The intergovernmental Council of Europe has held seminars in Vienna and
Barcelona; the latter, in 1989, examined Twentieth Century
Architectural Heritage: Strategies for Conservation and Promotion.
Recommendations resulting from the meeting called on member governments to
develop strategies for identifying, protecting, conserving, restoring and
promoting the 20th century's heritage.
Also in 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and
Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement
(DOCOMOMO) was formed in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation
and conservation information, protect threatened Modern Movement
buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement and create a register
of significant buildings of the period. Thirty DOCOMOMO working parties
have been established; the U.S. group will be affiliated with the
University of Southern California's School of Architecture and housed in
the Frank Lloyd Wright Freeman House.
Closer to home, in 1994 Art Deco of France and Canada met in Ottawa and
in March 1995 a number of U.S. organizations sponsored the Chicago
conference on Preserving the Recent Past. The Chicago conference
examined resource management strategies and challenges facing architects
and architectural conservators.
In June 1995 ICOMOS in conjunction with UNESCO's World Heritage Centre
and ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Conservation of Cultural Property) sponsored a meeting in Helsinki,
Finland. Thirteen countries were represented by the 25 participants who
examined national efforts on the 20th-century heritage within an
international context, explored methods for analyzing the significance of
properties of this period and considered techniques for identifying
properties for possible future inclusion in the World Heritage List.
During discussions a number of questions emerged including whether
criteria different from those used in evaluating traditional heritage are
indicated, especially since the concept of heritage is moving from
architecture, monuments and masterworks to broader and more modern
concerns including new types of cultural resources ranging from urban and
rural districts to transportation corridors or systems, modern landscapes
and even vernacular architecture.
Discussions addressed questions concerning the inscription of 20th
century properties on the World Heritage List. Even though properties 25
years old can be considered for listing, only four of the 440 properties
now included in the List date from this century. They are Auschwitz
(Poland), Niemeyer and Costa's Brasilia (Brazil), Gaudi's Parc and Palace
Guell and Casa Mila (Spain) and Skogskyrkogarden (Sweden). The U.S. has
nominated two 20th-century properties: the Wright Brothers National
Monument was withdrawn in 1981 because it was no longer materially
associated with the first flight; Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin and
Taliesin West were withdrawn for further study in 1991.
Under World Heritage Convention procedures, States Parties to the
Convention are called on to submit tentative lists of properties that they
are considering for possible future nomination, but few 20th-century
properties are included in these lists. The U.S.
tentative list includes the General Electric Research Laboratory
(Schenectady, NY), Goddard Rocket Launching Site (Massachusetts), Lowell
Observatory (AZ), Pupin Physics Laboratory (NY City), Trinity Site (NM)
and Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple (Oak Park, IL) and Robie House
(Chicago).
Participants in the ICOMOS Helsinki meeting agreed that more 20th-
century properties deserve inclusion in the World Heritage List but were
unable to reach agreement as to whether current World Heritage guidelines
require changes to accommodate such nominations. It was agreed that the 25
year rule of thumb for nominations allowed the necessary time for
sufficient historical perspective for evaluation.
To aid ICOMOS and UNESCO's World Heritage Centre in some of their
evaluation efforts, DOCOMOMO will develop a working document (including
proposed guidelines and new criteria, if necessary) for Modern Movement
properties that might be proposed for inclusion in the List. This document
will be examined at DOCOMOMO's 1996 conference before it is submitted to
ICOMOS for consideration.
Questions relating to the recognition and protection of the 20th
century's heritage are not easily answered but it is encouraging to
observe the growing recognition of the need to ensure that the
architectural heritage of this century is preserved for future
generations.
(This article is adapted from one written by Thomas Jester, National
Park Service architectural historian and participant in the ICOMOS
Helsinki Seminar on the 20th Century Heritage.)
Under the leadership of Barbara Timken, US/ICOMOS has been
developing a World Heritage Teaching Unit for middle school-level called Wonders
of the World: Places on the World Heritage List. Meant to promote
responsible awareness of the built and natural environments at a young
age, the unit has been tested and positively evaluated in the Maryland and
Virginia school systems, and is now ready to undergo one more round of
testing. In the next stage, the unit will be further refined by teachers
and will be implemented by schools in close proximity to World Heritage
sites. The San Juan Historic Site in Puerto Rico will translate the unit
into Spanish, making it available for use throughout the Spanish-speaking
world.
Some 60 students from 30 countries around the world met from
June 25-28, 1995, in the World Heritage city of Bergen, Norway, in
order to attend the World
Heritage Youth Forum organized under the auspices of UNESCO and in
cooperation with the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO.
The Forum was the first international youth gathering to be held on the
subject of World Heritage education and included young people, accompanied
by their teachers, from all over the world. The Forum was an integral part
of the UNESCO Interregional Project on "Young People's Participation
in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion" which aims to develop
new and innovative educational approaches to reinforce World Heritage
education in the curricula and to exchange experiences gained in different
countries. The interregional project was launched within the framework of
the UNESCO Associated Schools Project and was an intersectorial activity
(conducted by the World Heritage Centre and the Education Sector). Because
the U.S. is not a member of UNESCO, it did not participate in the project.
The objectives of the Forum were to enable students to: 1) share their
views concerning their participation in the above mentioned Interregional
Project and make proposals to enhance World Heritage education; 2) meet
their peers from other parts of the world and learn more about other
heritage sites, cultures and ways of life, and to forge bonds of
friendship and solidarity between schools in different countries; 3)
develop their creative and artistic skills in favor of World Heritage
education; 4) debate the importance of World Heritage and effective ways
and means to protect/promote it with the Mayors of World Heritage Cities,
also meeting in Bergen.
The Forum also sought to enable accompanying teachers to: 1) learn more
from the students about their views, attitudes and needs concerning World
Heritage education; 2) learn from each other about new and innovative
educational approaches and materials developed in support of World
Heritage education; and 3) make proposals for the continuation of the
UNESCO World Heritage Interregional Project and the production of an
educational multi- media kit.
At the invitation of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO,
US/ICOMOS sponsored the participation of one U.S. student and one teacher.
Ben Anderson, a 15 year-old student at Good Counsel High School in
Wheaton, Maryland, was in the class of Lance Dempsey, a teacher at Earle
B. Wood Middle School in Rockville, Maryland, when she tested the
US/ICOMOS World Heritage Teaching Unit. Ben and Ms. Dempsey had the
opportunity to share the Teaching Unit with other Forum participants, who
identified it as the most advanced and comprehensive curriculum on this
subject in the world.
The success of the Forum is conveyed by the words of Ben Anderson.
"My experience at the Forum changed my view on a lot of things. I did
not realize how important World Heritage was to all different countries
around the world. All the student delegates were genuinely and
passionately committed to helping preserve heritage. I also learned that
as an individual I can help in furthering the World Heritage cause.
Finally, I realized that although people may be separated by language and
distance, if we all want to commit to something and take the initiate to
do it, we will prevail."
Ms. Dempsey said that "We need to raise awareness of the World
Heritage sites in general, but especially those that are in danger. We
need to spread the grass roots approach and incorporate World Heritage as
part of the formal curriculum in all countries.... We need strategies for
national, regional and international levels. Teacher training, reference
materials and resource materials must be provided.... The conference
installed in me the fact that we need to make World Heritage a way of
life."
As part of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the bombing of
Hiroshima, many Japanese visited Washington to witness the Smithsonian
Institution's opening of the controversial exhibit of the Enola Gay. On
July 12th, Shinichi Kojima, a journalist with the Sankei Shimbun,
requested an interview with Elliott Carroll and Gustavo Araoz to explore
the possible reaction of US/ICOMOS to a nomination of the Dome at
Hiroshima to the World Heritage List.
Charred remnants of an exhibit hall, the Dome survived the devastation
of the first atomic explosion used during warfare by being located
directly beneath the point of detonation.
While no formal indication has been given of Japan's wish to nominate
the structure to the World's Heritage List, the concept is not new and in
some ways parallels another World Heritage site -- Auschwitz -- as a
memorial to the horror of human violence and warfare.
In response to the direct question by Mr. Kojima whether US/ICOMOS
would oppose the nomination, it was made clear that the opinion of our
national committee in no way affects the decisions of the World Heritage
Committee concerning nominations. US/ICOMOS expressed confidence that such
a nomination, if forthcoming, would reflect the usual meticulous
scholarship and documentation evident in earlier Japanese nominations. The
nomination will be evaluated by the World Heritage Committee, according to
the Operational Guidelines, as an actual, physical cultural property, not
on the basis of a symbol or idea inherent in the site. It is hoped that
the nomination will assign significance of the site in the context of the
long historic evolution of human warfare rather than the specific military
conflict of which it was part. While accepting the enormous symbolic value
of the Hiroshima Dome, US/ICOMOS reiterated its hopes that the World
Heritage Convention always be used to emphasize international harmony
rather than underlining differences that have yet to be resolved and
wounds that are not completely healed.
The Japanese showed considerable curiosity about the National Register
status of the Trinity Site and its inclusion in the United States
indicative list of potential World Heritage nominations. It was at this
site that the US atomic bomb was tested prior to its military use in World
War II. At this time, nothing is being done to nominate this site to the
World Heritage List.
ICOMOS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC, JUNE 1-3, 1995
As Chairman Ann Webster Smith reported
in the previous Newsletter, Esteban Prieto, Vice President of ICOMOS
and Chairman of the Dominican Committee of ICOMOS, invited and provided
funding for the Chairman of all 21 of the Western Hemisphere National
Committees to attend a regional meeting, May 29-June 1, immediately
preceding the ICOMOS Executive Committee meeting, June 1-3, in Santo
Domingo, the colonial portion of which is a World Heritage site. The
regional national committee chairs were also invited to attend the
Executive Committee meeting.
ICOMOS has urged all four ICOMOS regions to hold similar regional
meetings and Asia has already done so, in Sri Lanka in June 1995, to be
followed by Europe at Cesky Krumlov, Czech Republic, and by Africa at
Harare, Zimbabwe, both in October 1995. Additional regional meetings are
being planned by US/ICOMOS, on authenticity in San Antonio, Texas, in
March 1996 and by Lebanon ICOMOS on risk preparedness in Beirut in April
1996. The Costa Rican national committee is also planning a regional
assembly in April 1996. As previously reported, all ICOMOS national
committee chairs, which comprise the Advisory Committee, will meet
immediately following the ICOMOS Bureau and Executive Committee meetings
on September 10-11 respectively, in Cracow, Poland. These meetings will
end with a ceremony celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of
ICOMOS in the World Heritage site where it occurred. ICOMOS Poland will
conduct a symposium on September 14-16 on Heritage Responsibilities and
Market Rules, Their Role in Managing Historic Cities.
ICOMOS President Roland Silva reported that plans are progressing well
for the publication of twenty books describing historic preservation
principles and practice in as many countries, in time for the 11th General
Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996. The national committees who
have accepted the task of preparing manuscripts are: Africa: Egypt, Zion;
Americas: Bolivia, Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica;
Asia/Oceania: Australia, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Israel,
Japan; Europe: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Russia.
DOCUMENTATION CENTRE:
With the financial assistance of UNESCO, ICOMOS maintains at its Paris
Headquarters the UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre, staffed with a
full-time documentalist, interns and volunteers. It was initially
established to provide a repository of documents relating to cultural
heritage, and it has been an active participant in preparing the UNESCO
bibliographic database "ICOMMOS," published by UNESCO and in an
online form by the Canadian Heritage Information Network. The
Documentation Centre also provides the archive for the nomination dossiers
for all cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. Two
recent studies have called for these dossiers to be cataloged in a group
of relational databases that would allow researchers and conservators
easier access to the information contained in these dossiers. Funding has
been provided by UNESCO for this purpose in the current year.
Discussions are currently ongoing concerning the role of the
Documentation Centre in information exchange. Various reports have
suggested that the Documentation Centre should be made available to a new
Internet World Wide Web server, augmenting and in cooperation with the
existing servers operated by ICOMOS
Canada (see below). In particular, the ICOMOS Scientific Journal, new
programs initiated on disaster preparedness, the Blue Shield Program, the
catalog of the Documentation Centre, and selections from World Heritage
files are candidates for electronic distribution via this Internet server.
ICOMOS's Internet involvement was begun by the Canadian National
Committee (ICOMOS Canada). ICOMOS Canada initiated a local bulletin board
system in 1992 to link members across Canada in a common network of
information exchange. With the donation of space on a Canadian government
computer, ICOMOS Canada opened a gopher
in January 1994, followed shortly thereafter by a World
Wide Web server. Installation and operation of the servers has been
entirely by volunteers with the network or conservation experience. The
content of both servers reflects the international interest of the
committee. All material has been either electronically scanned or
submitted on disk, although the operators recognized from the start that
eventually a distributed information system would be desirable, with
individual national and scientific committees making files available on
their own host computers. The gopher and web servers contain most of the
ICOMOS charters and other organizational documents, and reports and
newsletters from a selection of national and international scientific
committees. Texts of relevant international treaties, and international
agreements and resolutions of other organizations such as the Council
of Europe and the OSCE
have been included. In the absence of a UNESCO Internet server, UNESCO
resolutions and World Heritage materials were also included in the ICOMOS
Canada servers. Notably, the web server includes an experimental hypertext
version of the World Heritage Convention marked up with links to relevant
sections of the Operational Guidelines. [Postscript -- now on the World
Heritage Centre's server at http://www.unesco.org:80/whc/world_he.html.]
US/ICOMOS shares space and maintenance responsibilities in the ICOMOS
Canada servers. In addition, through its Committee on Telecommunications,
Information and Technology, it has developed several electronic mailing
lists: usicomos@world.std.com for communications issues. The
Communications Committee is actively encouraging other US/ICOMOS
committees to develop similar mailing lists.
HEADQUARTERS IN VERSAILLES:
The external restoration of the Maréchalerie of the Palace of Versailles,
a portion of which has been reserved as future offices of ICOMOS, has been
completed by the French government at a cost of 7.1 million French francs
($1,420,000). the interior rehabilitation is estimated to cost
approximately 5 million FF ($1,000,000) which has not been made available
by the French government; hence, ICOMOS continues to negotiate for new
space with the City of Paris which has generously provided the existing
offices in the Hotel Saint Aignan for many years. The City now wishes to
add this space to an existing museum next door.
PROFESSIONAL HANDBOOK OF ICOMOS:
Actually, a "Who's Who" or directory of ICOMOS members planned
for publication in time for the 1996 Sofia General Assembly, the Handbook
is suffering from a lack of members' response to the questionnaire
published in both the international and US/ICOMOS newsletters (US/ICOMOS
Newsletter December 1994 and May/June 1995).
MONITORING:
Post-listing missions to World Heritage sites to monitor the state of
conservation and protection being provided, had been relatively rare until
the last few years when ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee determined
that visits at regular intervals were a top priority. As a result, the
Committee has provided 212,000FF ($424,000) in 1995 for this purpose. A
pilot monitoring mission was conducted at three World Heritage sites in
Sri Lanka this years with observers from the Getty Conservation Institute.
A 100-page report will be published as a general guide to future missions.
A total of 16 monitoring missions are scheduled for this year.
A report was received on the completion of a 5 year-long ICOMOS
monitoring and advisory mission in Kizhi Pogost, Russia, which resulted in
agreement on conservation solutions for this 1990 World Heritage site.
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL:
In 1993, the first two issues of the new journal, on historic landscapes
and historic towns, were published through the generosity of ICOMOS Spain
and distributed to the national committees in 1994 for all members. In
1994, two more issues were published with the assistance of ICOMOS Hungary
and will be distributed in the number ordered by each national committee.
The first is a compendium of members' professional articles, the second a
30th Anniversary publication of the Venice Charter in 28 languages. The
first issue of 1995, Thirty Years of ICOMOS, will be ready for the
birthday ceremonies in Cracow in September 1995.
ICOMOS BUDGET:
The 1995 ICOMOS budget proposes 4,624,258FF ($925,000) in expenditures
while expecting 4,085,460FF ($817,000) in receipts for a deficit of
538,798FF ($108,000), with similar losses in three of the last five years.
This intolerable situation requires emergency action, if ICOMOS is to
avoid bankruptcy within the year.
Our potential revenues come from two categories, government and
nongovernment. It appears that the current political climate in most
countries, rich and poor, make increases in government subventions, or
even level funding, increasingly unlikely or impossible, though this
source must be vigorously pursued in every nation, using government
support of IUCN as a model.
Nongovernmental sources include member fees from individual,
institutional and sustaining members. The latter two categories offer
potential, in that the Executive Committee has set those fees at 1,050FF
($210) and 150,000FF and ($30,000) respectively for five years. Individual
member fees, having been recently raised by 30% with the usual effect of
members losses, would be unwisely increased again. It is vital therefore
that two problems with member fees be resolved. These are immediate
payment of past and present unpaid fees and the early amendment of those
national committee statutes that permit two categories of members, international
and national, which contravenes ICOMOS statutes, creates
second-class members and gives the impression of international
participation without sharing in the costs.
For those national committees who find it impossible to pay their past
due fees, the Executive Committee agreed that the Treasurer General is
authorized to grant exemptions where justified. In those cases, it is
reasonable to expect those national committees to provide services-in-kind
to ICOMOS, following the example of the Hungarian national committee which
has edited, printed and mailed professional documents. Other such
services-in- kind could include translation, printing and mailing the
ICOMOS News.
Elliott Carroll, FAIA, ICOMOS Vice President
The ICOMOS International Committee on Underwater Archaeology
has distributed for comment a draft
Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural
Heritage. The Committee plans to complete the review process in time
to present the charter for adoption at the 11th General Assembly in Sofia,
Bulgaria, in October 1996. Copies of the draft charter can be obtained
from US/ICOMOS.
US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SESSION AT THE NATIONAL TRUST ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
US/ICOMOS will conduct an educational session on international
preservation issues at the 49th National Preservation Conference in Fort
Worth, Texas, on Friday, October 13, from 1:30-3:00pm. The session will
focus on the World Heritage Convention and specifically on World Heritage
cities. Guest speakers will be Dr. Henry Cleere, ICOMOS World
Heritage Coordinator, and Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service. This World Heritage issue of
the Newsletter can be considered a background reader for the presentations
and discussions.
The same day, from 7:15-8:30am, US/ICOMOS will host its traditional
International Preservation Breakfast. Places are limited, so members are
urged to register soon. Members who wish to make a brief 5-minute
presentation or an announcement should contact US/ICOMOS.
INTER-AMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON AUTHENTICITY PROGRESS REPORT
The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) of Marina del Rey, California, and
the San Antonio Conservation Society have joined US/ICOMOS as cosponsors
of next year's Inter-American Symposium on Authenticity in the
Preservation and Management of Cultural Resources. The topic will be
addressed from many angles, including World Heritage listing. Since the
announcement last May, the Symposium has received broad endorsement,
including the support of the office of International Affairs of the
National Park Service and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. In preparation
for the hemispheric dialogue, the Southern Cone countries (Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) will hold a regional assembly in Rio
de Janeiro in late November. The Mexican Committee will address the topic
at its annual Symposium from October 10-15, 1995, in Taxco, Guerrero, the
Mexican town most recently nominated to the World Heritage List.
NOTE: For logistical reasons, the dates for the Symposium in San
Antonio, Texas, have been moved forward two days to April 26-30,
1996.
NOMINATIONS SOUGHT FOR US/ICOMOS TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
The Trusteeship Committee of the US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees is currently
soliciting nominations of members to fill positions available as Trustees
and Officers. The Committee is composed of Robert Wilburn, Chairman; Adele
Chatfield Taylor, Spencer Leineweber, Elliott Carroll, Chester Liebs and
Samuel Stokes. The Committee urges US/ICOMOS members to participate in the
nomination process by forwarding suggestions of qualified persons to Mr.
Wilburn at Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, P.O. Box 1776, Wiliamsburg,
VA 22222-1776, before November 15, 1995.
There are no officers up for election; there are six positions
available on the Board. Board members whose terms expire at the end of the
year are John T. Joyce, James P. Kiernan, Norman L. Koonce, R. Randolph
Langenback, Constance W. Ramirez and Michael R. Taylor. Current Board
members are eligible for reelection unless they have already completed the
maximum three consecutive terms and are not nominated for a position as
officer.
In considering their nominations, US/ICOMOS members may wish to review
the following list of major qualifications of Trustees and Officers:
- Demonstrated interest in US/ICOMOS and the preservation of the
interna- tional cultural heritage.
- Experience in managing or influencing the management of a
commercial, educational, professional or other enterprise -- nonprofit
or otherwise -- with responsibility for conducting business affairs or
programs and managing assets, both tangible and intangible.
- Working knowledge of the financial structures and the means by which
nonprofit organizations customarily conduct their business affairs.
- Ability to creditably represent US/ICOMOS in public forums dealing
with US/ICOMOS matters.
- Close relationships with other public and private institutions in
this and related fields.
- Significant national and international professional connections.
"The Successful Volunteer Organization," has this to say
regarding how to achieve the most effective Board:
"Many people recommend a board made up of one-third affluent
people, one-third volunteers and one-third professionals -- the three
Ws: wealth, work and wisdom. Ideally, a board member should be someone
who:
- Is committed to the mission of the organization;
- Raises money for the organization; that is, this person asks
others for money and gives according to his or her means;
- Is recognized by the people in the organization for his or her
honesty, enthusiasm, courage and common sense;
- Attends meetings regularly;
- Is willing to work hard;
- Knows about the issues, the problems and the solutions;
- Commits himself or herself for a complete term of office;
- Recruits new members and helps each one find a place in the group;
- Believes in democracy and majority rule. Enthusiastically supports
the group's decisions, even when he or she is on the losing side;
- Wants to serve on the Board.
US/ICOMOS also tries to maintain geographic and gender diversity among
its Trustees.
NOMINATIONS FOR FELLOWSHIP
US/ICOMOS is also seeking nominations of members for US/ICOMOS Fellow. The
criteria and guidelines are as follows:
The United States Committee of the International Council on Monuments and
Sites shall honor, for achievement in international preservation, American
scholars, professionals and civic volunteers, who have made notable
long-term contributions to the enhancement of the quality of life. Those
honored shall be known as Fellows and must have worked to advance
international preservation standards and programs. Outstanding
accomplishments shall be recognized in one or more areas of activity,
including but not limited to architecture, architectural history,
conservation, history landscape architecture and urban planning. Nominees
shall be members of US/ICOMOS. The sponsor of a nomination shall submit a
digest of the nominee's career and achievements. It must contain a
biographical sketch and summarize and editorialize the nominee's
accomplishments in the international preservation activity in which the
nominee has excelled. The sponsor shall list five individuals as
references, to whom the jury will write for supporting letters. Sponsors
must not solicit supporting letters.
Nominations are due to the Trusteeship Committee no later than December
1, 1995.
Members attending these and other international programs should please
inform US/ICOMOS of their participation.
- September 15-16, 1995. US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees meeting.
|
