In this Newsletter
** Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity
** The Declaration of San Antonio
** US/ICOMOS Sponsors GIS/GPS training Course
** World Monuments Watch: List of 100 Most Endangered Sites
** 1996 AMEX awards for the Caribbean
** ICOMOS Bulgaria to host 11th General Assembly
** Jordan Project Progress Report
** Peru's Heritage Under Siege
** Milestones
** Calendar

INTERAMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON AUTHENTICITY UNITES ICOMOS IN THE AMERICAS

Over the decades, we have honed our skills in a variety of professional and technical areas, such as historical research, conservation science, archaeology and interpretation techniques; we have developed doctrinal texts through ICOMOS and national site management policies. But the greatest challenge we continue to face is philosophical.

Following opening remarks by US/ICOMOS Chairman Ann Webster Smith, Graziano Gasparini of Venezuela initiated the discussions with a keynote address on the uniqueness and authenticity of the cultural heritage of the Americas. Ms. Cameron presented Theme 1, Introduction to the Topic of Authenticity and to the nature of the cultural heritage of the Americas. Theme 2 was defined by Carlos Flores Marini in his presentation on Definitions of Authenticity as regards fabric, context, usage, value in the Americas; Theme 3, Proof of Authenticity in Dynamic vs. Static Sites was introduced by Elias Mujica of Peru. Blaine Cliver of US/ICOMOS presented Theme 4, Implications of the American interpretation of authenticity on the management of cultural resources. Representatives of the different ICOMOS committees presented case histories illustrating each theme, and each plenary theme session was followed by discussion groups organized in three areas: cultural landscapes, architecture and urbanism and archaeological resources. At the closing plenary session, after the report of the Rapporteur, the final words from cosponsors and invited guests, US/ICOMOS Executive Director Gustavo F. Araoz summarized the work of the symposium and its importance to the ICOMOS committees in the Americas. Esteban Prieto, ICOMOS Vice President from the Americas, concluded with an invitation to reconvene at the ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia.

 

US/ICOMOS MISSION STATEMENT US/ICOMOS fosters heritage conservation and historic preservation at the national and international levels through education and training, international exchange of people and information, technical assistance, documentation, advocacy and other activities consistent with the goals of ICOMOS and through collaboration with other organizations. US/ICOMOS membership includes professionals, practitioners, supporters and organizations committed to the protection, preservation and conservation of the world's cultural heritage. US/ICOMOS is the U.S. National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the international nongovernmental organization dedicated to the preservation and conservation of the world's heritage. US/ICOMOS NEWSLETTER The US/ICOMOS Newsletter is published by US/ICOMOS six times per year as a benefit of membership. Members are urged to submit brief articles with illustrations and editorial items for inclusion in the Newsletter. Materials will be edited by US/ICOMOS as appropriate. There are no submission deadlines; items will be used as space and time permit. Contributors are solely responsible for the facts and opinions stated herein, and publication in this Newsletter does not constitute an official endorsement by US/ICOMOS. Please send submissions and any inquiries to the Editor, US/ICOMOS Newsletter, 1600 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006.

The partners of US/ICOMOS -- The Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society -- provided invaluable intellectual and logistical support for the organization of the symposium. The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) further supported the meeting by sponsoring an important level of staff participation; notably, Dr. Margaret G. H. Mac Lean, Director of the Documentation Program, served as Chair of the Scientific Committee of the symposium, composed of Randolph Langenbach, Nora Mitchell, Carol Shull and Michael Taylor. In addition to their direct financial support, the GCI produced the symposium program and will also publish the proceedings of the symposium, including the major presentations and the text of the recommendations.

The San Antonio Conservation Society, through Sally Buchanan, President, and Bruce MacDougal, Executive Director, offered logistical support, assistance with fundraising and hosted the spectacular final evening fiesta at one of their properties on San Antonio's famous River Walk.

The support of other organizations was witnessed by their delegates. Susan Benson, Coordinator of Multinational Projects at the Regional Program for Cultural Development, represented the Organization of American States. Hernan Crespo Toral, Deputy Director for Culture, represented the Director General of UNESCO.

The list of contributors is long and varied: The Samuel H. Kress Foundation; The Lampadia Foundation/Fundacion Andes Chile/Fundacao Viate Brasil; The Organization of American States; The Texas Historical Commission/Los Caminos del Rio Project; The National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, the Office of International Affairs and Preservation Assistance Division of the National Park Service; Parks Canada; UNESCO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean; The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; the U.S. Department of State through the National Academy of Sciences; Continental Airlines; The Catto Foundation; Fort Sam Houston; HEB Food Stores of San Antonio; and an anonymous donor.

The organizers are grateful for the assistance of The Chief of Protocol, City of San Antonio; CRM Bulletin of the National Park Service; The American Institute of Architects -- San Antonio Chapter; The Society for American Archaeology; The San Antonio Missions National Historic Site. Particular thanks are due to James P. Kiernan and Susan Mead, and to Rachel Sandals, US/ICOMOS Symposium Coordinator.

We, the presidents, delegates and members of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas, met in San Antonio, Texas, United States of America, from the 27th to the 30th of March, 1996, at the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage to discuss the meaning of authenticity in preservation in the Americas. We did so in response to the call issued by the Secretary General of ICOMOS for regional participation in the international debate on the subject.

A. BACKGROUND
For the past twelve months, members of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas have studied, read and discussed the documents produced in 1994 by the meetings of specialists on authenticity in Bergen, Norway, and Nara, Japan, as well as other pertinent documents. In preparation for the assembly in San Antonio, each National Committee prepared and submitted a National Position Paper that summarized the results of its own national or regional findings.

B. CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Having discussed the nature, definition, proofs, and management of authenticity in relation to the architectural, urban, archaeological and cultural landscape heritage of the Americas in an assembly that was open to members of all the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas and to preservation organizations from the regions, we issue the following summary of our findings and recommendations:

 

1. AUTHENTICITY AND IDENTITY
   The authenticity of our cultural heritage is directly related to our cultural identity. The cultures and the heritage of the Americas are distinct from those of other continents because of their unique development and influences. Our languages, our societal structures, our economic means, and our spiritual beliefs vary within our continent, and yet, there are strong common threads that unify the Americas. Among these is our autochthonous heritage, which has not been entirely destroyed in spite of the violence of the Conquest Era and a persistent process of acculturation; the heritage from the European colonizers and the African slavery that together have helped build our nations; and finally, the more recent contribution of European and Asian immigrants who came searching for a dream of freedom and helped to consolidate it. All these groups have contributed to the rich and syncretic pluriculturalism that makes up our dynamic continental identity.

   Because cultural identity is at the core of community and national life, it is the foundation of our cultural heritage and its conservation. Within the cultural diversity of the Americas, groups with separate identities co-exist in the same space and time and at times across space and time, sharing cultural manifestations, but often assigning different values to them. No nation in the Americas has a single national identity; our diversity makes up the sum of our national identities.

   The authenticity of our cultural resources lies in the identification, evaluation and interpretation of their true values as perceived by our ancestors in the past and by ourselves now as an evolving and diverse community. As such, the Americas must recognize the values of the majorities and the minorities without imposing a hierarchical predominance of any one culture and its values over those of others.

   The comprehensive cultural value of our heritage can be understood only through an objective study of history, the material elements inherent in the tangible heritage, and a deep understanding of the intangible traditions associated with the tangible patrimony.

   When taking into account the value of heritage sites as related to cultural identity, the Americas face the global problem of cultural homogenization, which tends to dilute and erase local values in favor of those that are being advanced universally, often as stereotyped illusions with commercial ends. This weakens the role of heritage sites. While we accept the importance of traditional values as an instrument in ethnic and national identity, we reject their use to promote exacerbated nationalism and other conflicting attitudes that would lead our continent away from mutual respect and a permanent peace.

    

2. AUTHENTICITY AND HISTORY
   An understanding of the history and significance of a site over time are crucial elements in the identification of its authenticity. The understanding of the authenticity of a heritage site depends on a comprehensive assessment of the significance of the site by those who are associated with it or who claim it as part of their history. For this reason, it is important to understand the origins and evolution of the site as well as the values associated with it. Variations in the meaning and values of a site may at times be in conflict, and while that conflict needs to be mediated, it may, in fact, enrich the value of the heritage site by being the point of convergence of the values of various groups. The history of a site should not be manipulated to enhance the dominant values of certain groups over those of others.

    

3. AUTHENTICITY AND MATERIALS
   The material fabric of a cultural site can be a principal component of its authenticity. As emphasized in Article 9 of the Venice Charter, the presence of ancient and original elements is part of the basic nature of a heritage site. The Charter also indicates that the material elements of our tangible cultural heritage are bearers of important information about our past and our identity. Those messages include information about a site's original creation as well as the layered messages that resulted from the interaction between the resource and new and diverse cultural circumstances. For these reasons, those materials and their setting need to be identified, evaluated and protected. In the case of cultural landscapes, the importance of material fabric must be weighed along with the immaterial distinctive character and components of the site.

   Over time, heritage sites have come to possess a testimonial value -- which may be aesthetic, historic or otherwise -- that is readily evident to most of society. In addition to the testimonial value, there are less evident documentary values that require an understanding of the historic fabric in order to identify their meaning and their message. Since the documentary value responds to evolving questions posed by the community over time, it is important that the material evidence, defined in terms of design, materials, manufacture, location, and context be preserved in order to retain its ability to continue to manifest and convey those concealed values to present and future generations.

   The degree to which documented missing elements are replaced as part of restoration treatments varies within the Americas in accordance to the cultural characteristics of each country. Some national policies indicate that what is lost can only be part of our memory and not of our heritage. Elsewhere, policies encourage the replacement of fully documented elements in facsimile form in order to re-establish the site's full significance. Nevertheless, we emphasize that only the historic fabric is authentic, and interpretations achieved through restoration are not; they can only authentically represent the meaning of a site as understood in a given moment. Furthermore, we universally reject the reliance on conjecture or hypotheses for restoration.

   Apart from the above, there are important sectors of our patrimony that are built of perishable materials that require periodic replacement in accordance with traditional crafts to ensure continued use. Similarly, there are heritage sites built of durable materials but that are subject to damage caused by periodic natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. In these cases, we also assert the validity of using traditional techniques for their repair, especially when those techniques are still in use in the region, or when more sophisticated approaches would be economically prohibitive.

   We recognize that in certain types of heritage sites, such as cultural landscapes, the conservation of overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms and spiritual value, may be more important than the conservation of the physical features of the site, and as such, may take precedence. Therefore, authenticity is a concept much larger that material integrity and the two concepts must not be assumed to be equivalent or consubstantial.

    

4. AUTHENTICITY AND SOCIAL VALUE
   Beyond the material evidence, heritage sites can carry a deep spiritual message that sustains communal life, linking it to the ancestral past. This spiritual meaning is manifested through customs and traditions such as settlement patterns, land use practices, and religious beliefs. The role of these intangibles is an inherent part of the cultural heritage, and as such, their link to the meaning of the tangible elements of the sites must be carefully identified, evaluated, protected and interpreted.

   The goal of preserving memory and its cultural manifestations must be approached by aiming to enrich human spirituality, beyond the material aspect. Historic research and surveys of the physical fabric are not enough to identify the full significance of a heritage site, since only the concerned communities that have a stake in the site can contribute to the understanding and expression of the deeper values of the site as an anchor to their cultural identity.

   In cultural landscapes, including urban areas, the process of identifying and protecting social value is complex because so many separate interest groups may be involved. In some cases, this situation is further complicated because the traditional indigenous groups that once protected and developed the sites are now adopting new and at times conflicting values that spring from the market economy, and from their desire for more social and economic integration in the national life. We recognize that sustainable development may be a necessity for those who inhabit cultural landscapes, and that a process for mediation must be developed to address the dynamic nature of these sites so that all values may be properly taken into account. We also recognize that in some cases, there may be a hierarchy of values that is related to the stake of some groups in a site.

    

5. AUTHENTICITY IN DYNAMIC AND STATIC SITES
   The heritage of the Americas includes dynamic cultural sites that continue to be actively used by society, as well as static sites such as archaeological sites no longer used by the descendants of their builders. These two types of sites have differing natures; and their conservation needs, the determination of their authenticity, and their interpretation vary according to their character.

   Dynamic cultural sites, such as historic cities and landscapes, may be considered to be the product of many authors over a long period of time whose process of creation often continues today. This constant adaptation to human need can actively contribute to maintaining the continuum among the past, present and future life of our communities. Through them our traditions are maintained as they evolve to respond to the needs of society. This evolution is normal and forms an intrinsic part of our heritage. Some physical changes associated with maintaining the traditional patterns of communal use of the heritage site do not necessarily diminish it's significance and may actually enhance it. Therefore, such material changes may be acceptable as part of on-going evolution.

   Static cultural sites include those valued as the concluded work of a single author or group of authors and whose original or early message has not been transformed. They are appreciated for their aesthetic value, or for their significance in commemorating persons and events important in the history of the community, the nation, or the world. In these sites, which are often recognized as monumental structures, the physical fabric requires the highest level of conservation in order to limit alterations to their character.

   Another type of site that may be static is the archaeological site whose active communal and social purpose have faded or even ceased. For a variety of reasons, the descendants of the original creators and traditional inhabitants have lost their direct link to the physical fabric of the site, thereby also weakening their ability to perceive and interpret the site's meaning and value. Because the pre-European cultures of the Americas lacked writing, the most direct link to that past lies in the material evidence of the archaeological sites, with the added complication that the information that they offer is incomplete and at times random. The authenticity of archaeological sites is non-renewable. It resides in its material elements and their context, that is, the relationship of the structures and objects among themselves and with the physical surroundings. Authenticity can be destroyed when the context of the site is not properly documented, when layers are eliminated to reach deeper ones, when total excavation is undertaken and when the findings are not rigorously and broadly disseminated. For these reasons, witnesses of the original stratigraphy must be maintained so that future generations may analyze them with more sophisticated techniques than those in existence today.

   Only through study, publication and research of the physical evidence can these sites and their objects once again manifest their values and re-establish their links to our present cultural identity. However, the interpretation of the sites can authentically reflect only fluctuating interests and values, and in itself, interpretation is not inherently authentic, only honest and objective. For these reasons, the intactness of the physical evidence in its entirety demands the most thorough documentation, protection and conservation so that objectivity of interpretation may respond to new information derived from that fabric.

   Regardless of the type of site, contemporary treatments must rescue the character of all cultural resources without transforming their essence and balance. New elements must be harmonious with the character of the whole.

    

6. AUTHENTICITY AND STEWARDSHIP
   The heritage of the Americas is characterized by very heterogeneous patterns of ownership and stewardship. While many sites are properly protected by their stewards, at times some sites are under the jurisdiction of local authorities that lack the ability to determine properly the comprehensive value of the sites or the appropriate treatments for their conservation. Other times, the original inhabitants who created and cared for a cultural site have been replaced by new populations that have little or no cultural affinity for the site and place little or no value in it, leading to its abandonment and decay. This situation urgently demands that the proper national and local authorities and the present owners, stewards and inhabitants be made fully aware of the value that other majority and minority sectors of the population may have for the site. Both the communities and the constituted authorities must be provided the means for the correct knowledge and evaluation of the heritage, its protection and conservation, and the promotion of its artistic and spiritual enjoyment, as well as its educational use.

    

7. AUTHENTICITY AND ECONOMICS
   The authenticity of heritage sites lies intrinsically in their physical fabric, and extrinsically on the values assigned to them by those communities who have a stake in them. Tourists constitute one of those groups that values the site and has an interest in its meaning and conservation.

   Since cultural tourism is often a substantial source of revenue for local and national economies, its development is acceptable, as originally formulated in the Norms of Quito. Nevertheless, the limited values that tourists may place on a site and the economic concerns for tourism revenue cannot be allowed to be the overriding criterion in a site's conservation and interpretation. This is especially true when the authenticity of fabric and its context, and of the site's broader values and message are altered, diminished, or threatened.

   In the Americas, the authenticity of many archaeological sites has been compromised through reconstructions. In spite of their educational value, reconstructions aimed to promote tourism reduce the authenticity of such sites by involving new hands, new materials and new criteria, and by altering the appearance of the site.

   Furthermore, within the framework of economic development, the problem of permanently poor populations remains a critical factor in the urban cores of many historic cities of the Americas. Bringing about an awareness of the cultural value of the urban heritage on the part of these poor sectors cannot be achieved without a comprehensive approach to solve their marked material and social marginality.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS
Given all of the above considerations, we the Presidents of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas hereby offer for discussion at the General Assembly in Sofia the following general recommendations as well as the specific discussion group recommendations that emerged from the extensive discussions held in San Antonio by the participants in the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage. Furthermore, we recognize and commend the Nara Document as a valuable instrument for discussion, but find it incomplete and, therefore, endorse the appended commentaries on the Nara Document based on the needs we have identified relating to the heritage of the Americas:

 

1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
   1. That our appreciation be conveyed to the members of US/ICOMOS, to the Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society for organizing and sponsoring the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity, and that the authorities of the City of San Antonio, Texas, be recognized for their hospitality during our meeting and for their accomplishments in preserving the heritage of this beautiful historic city.

       

   2. That a process be established that will help to define and protect authenticity in the material legacies of our diverse cultural heritage, and that will lead to the recognition of a broad range of significant resources through the comprehensive and specific evaluation of cultural value, the administrative context, and the history of the site. The Burra Charter and its operational guidelines may serve as a model for this process. Such a process should include management mechanisms that will ensure the involvement of all concerned groups. Individual experts representative of a broad range of disciplines and interests, all relevant groups in the process and other interested or affected parties must be included in the management process of determination of significance and treatments in a heritage site.

       

   3. That further consideration be given to the proofs of authenticity so that indicators may be identified for such a determination in a way that all significant values in the site may be set forth. The following are some examples of indicators:

       

      1. Reflection of the true value. That is, whether the resource remains in the condition of its creation and reflects all its significant history.
      2. Integrity. That is, whether the site is fragmented; how much is missing, and what are the recent additions.
      3. Context. That is, whether the context and/or the environment correspond to the original or other periods of significance; and whether they enhance or diminish the significance.
      4. Identity. That is, whether the local population identify themselves with the site, and whose identity the site reflects.
      5. Use and function. That is, the traditional patterns of use that have characterized the site.

       

   4. That given the comprehensive nature of the cultural heritage, the existing principles contained in all pertinent charters and declarations be consolidated as part of the development of a comprehensive approach and guideline to the practice of heritage conservation. These should include the Venice Charter, the 1965 UNESCO Archaeological Guidelines, the Burra Charter, the Declaration of Oaxaca, the Florence Charter, the Washington Charter, the Nara Document, the Charter of Brasilia, this Declaration of San Antonio, etc.

    

2. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM GROUP

    

   1. That proper recognition be given to the values inherent in the cultural diversity of our historic urban centers.

       

   2. That programs be established to develop a greater awareness among the many cultural groups of their multiplicity of values.

       

   3. That through additional awareness and educational programs, governmental authorities and stewardship groups be made aware of the role of social and cultural values in protecting the authenticity of buildings and sites.

       

   4. That flexible and open processes for consultation and mediation be instituted at the local level in order to identify communal values and other aspects of cultural significance in historic urban districts.

       

   5. Since historic urban districts and towns are a type of cultural landscape, that many of the recommendations issued by the Cultural Landscapes Group also be applied to this sector of the heritage.

    

3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES GROUP

    

   1. That more attention be paid to authenticity in archaeological sites on the part of ICOMOS. Perhaps because of the membership composition of ICOMOS, there has not been enough concern for this heritage sector in the Americas.

       

   2. That more analysis be dedicated to the relationship authenticity might have to such activities as stabilization, consolidation, construction of protective shelters, etc.

       

   3. That descriptive and accurate documentation be an absolute requirement in all archaeological work. As sites are excavated, they are depleted of information, like books whose pages disappear. Interpretation is not controllable, but the record is. The archaeological record must be truthful and reliable -- in other words, authentic, objective and rigorous.

       

   4. That all interventions and excavations in archaeological sites always be accompanied by implementation of a conservation and permanent protection plan.

       

   5. That the authenticity of archaeological evidence be given proper protection when sites are threatened by urban encroachment or by civil works, such as road construction.

       

   6. That authenticity be protected prior to artificial flooding and the construction of dams through the exhaustive documentation of the area, with appropriate rescue techniques for the archaeological evidence, and followed by the publication of the results.

       

   7. That if excavated sites are not properly attended to and managed, conservation measures -- such as site re-burial -- must be considered to ensure that some level of authenticity is maintained through the ages.

       

   8. That a large part of the authenticity of an archaeological site resides in the undisturbed buried archaeological remains of the fill, and as such, should be minimally excavated by archaeologists, only to the extent necessary to determine the significance of the site.

       

   9. That some archaeological sites are still held to be sacred by the descendants of the creators of the site, and as such, should be minimally disturbed, or not disturbed at all, by archaeologists or development.

    

4. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES GROUP

    

   1. That processes of negotiation be established to mediate among the different interests and values of the many groups who own or live in cultural landscapes.

       

   2. Since cultural landscapes are complex and dynamic, that the process of determining and protecting authenticity be sufficiently flexible to incorporate this dynamic quality.

       

   3. That the concept of sustainable development and its relationship to the management of cultural landscapes be defined in order to include economic, social, spiritual and cultural concerns.

       

   4. That the conservation of cultural landscapes seek a balance between the significant natural and cultural resources.

       

   5. That the needs and values of the local communities be taken into consideration when the future of cultural landscapes is being determined.

       

   6. That further work be done on appropriate legislation and governmental planning methodologies to protect the values associated with cultural landscapes.

       

   7. Since in conserving the authenticity of cultural landscapes the overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms, land use and spiritual value of the site may take precedence over material and design aspects, that a clear relationship between values and the proof of authenticity be established.

       

   8. That expert multi-disciplinary assessments become a requirement for the determination of authenticity in cultural landscapes, and that such expert groups include social scientists who can accurately articulate the values of the local communities.

       

   9. That the authenticity of cultural landscapes be protected prior to major changes in land use and to the construction of large public and private projects, by requiring responsible authorities and financing organizations to undertake environmental impact studies that will lead to the mitigation of negative impacts upon the landscape and the traditional values associated with these sites.

    

    

5. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE NARA DOCUMENT
   That the attached commentaries on the Nara Document be considered in all international documents and guidelines as a reflection of the definition, proof and protection of the authenticity of the Cultural Heritage of the Americas.

 

ATTACHMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF SAN ANTONIO

Resulting from discussions among the participants in the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage, organized by US/ICOMOS, The Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society: San Antonio, Texas, March 27-30, 1996.

First and foremost, the Symposium participants extend their congratulations to the drafting committee of the Nara Document for this important and timely contribution to the field of cultural heritage protection. We also recognize that this Document was discussed and approved by the participants in the Nara Document and that, as such, it is not subject to change. However, because it has been made available to the global conservation community for study and discussion, it is important that its relevance to the cultural heritage of the Americas be analyzed. It is in that spirit that these comments are offered:

INTRODUCTION

The Preface to the Nara Document states,

"The experts considered that an expanded dialogue in different regions of the world and among specialist groups concerned with the diversity of cultural heritage was essential to further refine the concept and application of authenticity as it relates to cultural heritage. Such on-going dialogue will be encouraged by ICOMOS, ICCROM, and the World Heritage Centre, and will be brought to the Committee's attention as appropriate."

 

It was acknowledged by all present that the Nara Document represents considerable diplomatic and substantive work on the part of the individuals involved in its development. The participants in the San Antonio symposium concur with the Nara group that the subject is central to preservation work around the world, and its closer definition and more thorough understanding is of profound and timely importance to the professional community. It was also believed that while the Nara Document is focused on the needs for implementing the World Heritage Convention, by its very nature, the Document will find a broader application. Therefore, some of our comments may address its broader sense. While the Nara Document will certainly find a place in the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention and to the applications of other guidelines, it was felt by the group in San Antonio that several substantive issues that surfaced could usefully be brought forward to ICOMOS in the forum of the ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996 and to the World Heritage Committee.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCUMENT
In general, the group believes that the Nara Document is a good articulate discussion of complex issues, in spite of the difficulty in closely tracking the English and French versions. In several articles [Articles 6, 12, and 13], the English text appears weak in comparison to the French, and the meaning of the two texts does not correspond exactly, making it difficult to determine which meaning reflects the real intention of the authors. The comments on this point were made with the understanding that the document had been produced under challenging time pressures and that some language revisions are still under way.

More specifically, six of the articles were seen to present opportunities for further discussion within the context of the concerns of the ICOMOS National Committees of the Americas and the nature of our cultural heritage.

ARTICLE 1
The participants at the InterAmerican Symposium believes that in the Americas the concept of participation by the local community and stakeholders needs to be stronger than the text implies in order that they be involved in all processes from the beginning. By identifying the stages for such involvement, the Nara Document excludes the local community, for instance, from the identification process.

ARTICLE 4
The San Antonio group believes that in the Americas, and perhaps elsewhere, the use of the words "nationalism" and "minorities" are inappropriate, for they do not cover the rather common case in this hemisphere where a minority within a nation may be more influential and impose its cultural values over larger, even majority groups, all within a shared national identity.

Also, the concept was advanced that this article omits one important mechanism in the search for cultural identity in the Americas, which is the re-assignation of lost or new values for weakened cultural traditions and heritage, especially those associated with the native American patrimony.

ARTICLE 5
There was discussion in San Antonio as to whether this Article incorporates a very important characteristic of the Americas, which is the close coexistence of vastly differing cultural groups, including, in extreme cases, the close proximity of post-industrial, highly technical societies with nomadic tribes who live in close interaction with the natural environment. It was thought that this coexistence needs to be acknowledged and respected throughout the conservation process.

ARTICLE 8.
Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it. However, in addition to these responsibilities, adherence to the international charters and conventions developed for conservation of cultural heritage also obliges consideration of the principles and responsibilities flowing from them. Balancing its own requirements with those of other cultural communities is, for each community, highly desirable, provided achieving this balance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values.

The first sentence in this article,

It is important to underline a fundamental principle of UNESCO, to the effect that the cultural heritage of each is the cultural heritage of all.

While the second sentence would appear to address that point, the current wording of the first sentence weakens its strength:

Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place to the cultural community that has generated it and subsequently, to that which cares for it.

The San Antonio group believes that where the community that created the heritage is still its steward or holds a stake in its survival, it should be responsible for its care. Where the heritage has passed into the common holding of a nation where it stands, the nation must take responsibility. Here again, the problem may lie in the translation.

The last sentence in Article 8,

Balancing their own requirements with those of other cultural communities is for each community highly desirable, provided achieving this balance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values.

is also problematic in its current wording, because the identification of "fundamental cultural values" is not possible or desirable in this context.

ARTICLE 10
It was thought that this text does not fully reflect the concerns of the Americas because it does not directly state that in the understanding of authenticity it is crucial to acknowledge the dynamic nature of cultural values, and that to gain such understanding static and inflexible criteria must be avoided.

ARTICLE 11
The participants believe that this Article lacks needed clarity and emphasis that could have been provided by a reiteration in its last sentence of the definition of what the cultural context constitutes:

a) that which created it; b) that to which it currently belongs; and c) the broader cultural context to the extent possible.

US/ICOMOS SPONSORS GIS/GPS TRAINING COURSE WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The demonstration workshop, held June 3-6, 1996, at the University of Virginia Conference Center in Charlottesville, was facilitated through generous support from the Office of International Affairs of the National Park Service (NPS). John Knoerl and his staff at the NPS GIS facility created and conducted the course, that was intended to introduce GIS and GPS as technological tools for cultural heritage site documentation, monitoring and management, with special reference to World Heritage sites.

As GIS becomes widely used and map-based information systems proliferate, it is important to integrate cultural heritage sites into these systems. Recording geographic coordinates through the use of GPS, enables integration of sites and structures into maps and information systems used for such purposes as regional planning and development, conservation, disaster mitigation and relief, and military campaign planning. Within a cultural heritage site, GIS aids in defining and documenting specific features and in establishing their spatial relationships.

In discussing the utility of GPS for recording geographic coordinates, John Knoerl identified three levels of specificity: a single point to delineate a site on a large-scale map; multiple points to determine the site's boundary; and a comprehensive network of points to locate and define the various natural and built components within a site. The course work at Monticello, using the GIS ArcView software created by ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.) and Pfinder software, with GPS equipment from Trimble Navigation, facilitated recording at the third level of detailed site analysis.

The course was enhanced by the lectures of Dr. Fred Limp from the University of Arkansas, an internationally renowned expert on GIS and GPS, and Richard Friedman, who reported on GIS analysis and use of remote sensing data on the World Heritage site, Chaco National Historical Park. Friedman and colleagues in New Mexico are working with data collected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) during a joint project with the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) in 1994.

Participants considered the course valuable and successful. They included: Juan Carlos Flores Cornejo (ICOMOS Mexico); Regina Durighello (ICOMOS Secretariat); Richard Pieper (US/ICOMOS); Katherine Rodway (World Monuments Fund); Matthew Nowakowski (NPS); Gaetano Palumbo (GCI); Richard Friedman (GIS Center Director, McKinley County, NM); Jerome Francou (visiting architectural fellow from Lyon, France); John Ward (ICOMOS Canada); Herman Van Hooff (World Heritage Centre, UNESCO); and Arlene Fleming (US/ICOMOS), who served as coordinator.

Video Software Associates filmed parts of the course, including commentary by instructors and participants on the utility of GIS and GPS for cultural heritage documentation, monitoring and management.

Arlene K. Fleming

WORLD MONUMENTS WATCH:
LIST OF 100 MOST ENDANGERED SITES -- 1996

Ninety percent of the American Express contribution will be distributed as conservation grants to the sites on the annual List of 100 Most Endangered Sites. Broad international distribution of the forms resulted in 253 nominations received in the first year, from all regions of the world. These were abstracted, and text and graphics were put into a computerized retrieval system accessible on the Internet.

The 100 sites on the list are not necessarily the most important places that were nominated (many, but not all are World Heritage sites). Rather, they are sites which offer the best opportunities to obtain significant results through prompt action. Threats to sites on the list run the gamut from recent conflicts, pollution and urban expansion to natural disasters. Others are threatened by disuse.

US/ICOMOS Executive Director Gustavo F. Araoz was one of eight experts on the selection panel; Ann Webster Smith, US/ICOMOS Chairman was one of five outside specialist readers.

For further information, including a list of 1996 grants or to receive a 1997 nomination form, contact: World Monuments Fund, 949 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10028, tel: 212-517-9367, fax: 212-517-9494.

1996 AMERICAN EXPRESS PRESERVATION AWARDS PROGRAM FOR THE CARIBBEAN

Nominations will be accepted from all Caribbean countries, commonwealths and territories which have membership in the CTO and/or the presence of the American Express Company. Nominations may be submitted by property owners, architects, developers, community groups, governments or nonprofit stewardship organizations. Projects may include activities such as the restoration or rehabilitation of architectural or engineering structures, urban districts or rural complexes; historic gardens or landscapes; documentation projects; or innovative management plans, tourism development plans or incentive programs.

The new extended deadline for receipt of nominations is July 26, 1996. For nomination forms or for further information, contact US/ICOMOS Program Director Ellen Delage, tel: 202-842-1862 or fax: 202-842-1861.

ICOMOS BULGARIA TO HOST 11TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT SOFIA, OCTOBER 5-9, 1996

During the October sessions, representatives of almost 100 ICOMOS National Committees will meet to review activities during the last three years and to plan for the next triennium, which will culminate with the 12th General Assembly in Mexico City in 1999. Since the 8th General Assembly in Washington in 1987, it has been the practice of ICOMOS to hold General Assemblies alternately in Europe and elsewhere in the world (Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990; Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1993; and this year in Bulgaria).

An important feature of the General Assembly will be the International Symposium on Heritage and Social Change, a topic which the Bulgarian Committee and ICOMOS hope will draw attention to the new requirements, challenges and interests which conservation faces during a time of unprecedented social evolution. Symposium organizers believe that the topic is a universal one and that in areas where social and geopolitical changes occur, it is important to preserve continuity, context and authenticity, to identify the new challenges facing those who seek to protect the heritage and to consider appropriate new policies, legislation, management structures, methods and partners, which should be involved in new measures for protection and conservation. The Symposium will address three sub-topics: Ethics and Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and Methodologies and Techniques. ICOMOS members were asked to propose papers for inclusion in the Symposium record and certain members have been asked to make presentations of their papers during the Symposium itself. In choosing presenters, the Bulgarian symposium organizers and the Rapporteur General, Sherban Cantacuzino (UK), were particularly interested in achieving a balance in terms of geographic regions, political systems and economic approaches.

US/ICOMOS expects to have 20 representatives taking part in the General Assembly and Symposium. U.S. participants will also have an opportunity to meet with international specialized committees which will be holding their own meetings preceding the General Assembly.

Since its first settlement during the 5th century B.C., Sofia has been an example of the remarkable continuity of the region. The city has been a Thracian capital, a Roman city, a Byzantine center, a medieval city, and important component of the Ottoman Empire and , since the 19th century, a modern capital. In the heart of the Balkans, the first Bulgarian state was established during the 7th century A.D., and the area has served as a crossroads for Eastern and Western cultures and civilizations since that time.

Bulgaria was one of the first nations to establish an ICOMOS National Committee and one of the first members of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome. Bulgaria was one of the first States Party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention and Bulgarian sites were among the first properties to be included in the World Heritage List.

ICOMOS ANNOUNCES CANDIDATES FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

President: Roland Silva (Sri Lanka)
Secretary General: Jean-Louis Luxen (Belgium)
Treasurer General: Jan Jessurun (Netherlands)

* Mamadou Berthe (Senegal)
Dawson Munjeri (Zimbabwe)
Krzysztof Pawlowski (Poland)
Joseph Phares (Lebabon)
* Esteban Prieto (Dominican Republic)
* Andras Roman (Hungary)
* Christiane Schmuckle-Mollard (France)
* Ann Webster Smith (USA)

* Carmen Anon Feliu (Spain)
* Maria Arias Incolla (Argentina)
* Dinu Bumbaru (Canada)
* Sjerodam Birle (Australia)
* Sherban Cantacuzino (UK)
* Natalia Dushkina (Russia)
Daniel Drocourt (France)
* Margareta Ehrstrom (Finland)
* Todor Krestev (Bulgaria)
* Saleh Lamei (Egypt)
Francisco Lopez (Mexico)
* Yukio Nishimura (Japan)
Isabel Rigol (Cuba)
* Giora Solar (Israel)
Joseph Stulc (Czech Republic)
* Werner von Trutzschler (Germany)

 

GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE Under the ICOMOS Statutes, each National Committee has 18 votes at the General Assembly. US/ICOMOS must submit its list of members who will be voting or carrying proxies before September 1. IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO ATTEND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN SOFIA AND WOULD LIKE TO VOTE IN THE ELECTIONS which will be held there, please call the US/ICOMOS Secretariat before September 1 to make your plans known and to be included in the list as a voting member (tel: 202-842-1866 or fax: 202- 842-1861).

US/ICOMOS MEMBERS TO PRESENT PAPERS AT ICOMOS 11TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN SOFIA

The topics of the U.S. papers are: Mr. Craigo, Affordable Housing in Historic Buildings: a Nexus of Societal Needs and Conservation Ethics; Mr. Dennis, Local Self-determination for Cultural Monuments: A U.S. Model with Considerable Flexibility; and Mr. Murtagh, Preservation in Oceania: Pacific Culture at Risk.

Other papers proposed by US/ICOMOS members Benjamin Briggs, Gunny Harboe and Gersil Kay will be included in the Symposium publication which will be distributed at the General Assembly.

JORDAN PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

The first task assigned to US/ICOMOS under this three year contract consists of the elaboration of site management plans for three principal cultural tourism sites. The US/ICOMOS members picked by the Selection Panel to form the team that will accomplish this task are Paul Perrot of Sarasota, Florida; Douglas Comer of Laurel, Maryland; and Lawrence Belli, of Key Largo, Florida.

The US/ICOMOS team began its work in May with a three week trip to Jordan in company of the entire Chemonics team. There they studied the existing conditions at the primary project sites of Petra, Madaba and the Amman Citadel. The team also conferred with numerous Jordanian and US AID authorities and at the conclusion of their mission, made a preliminary presentation of their conceptual approach to site management and the development of a visitors site carrying capacity study for Petra.

This first task is expected to last until fall of this year, when the final plans will be presented to AID and Jordan's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities.

PERU'S HERITAGE UNDER SIEGE

After years of socio-political turmoil, the institutional support for the conservation of cultural heritage has been severely weakened, and as a result, the widespread looting of archaeological and architectural sites has reached enormous proportions, into the billions of dollars every year. Heritage artifacts from Peru have achieved record market prices in the United States and European countries, where collectors avidly consume the artifacts regardless of their illicit provenance. Adding to the problem of looting is the current national policy to drastically increase international tourism at archaeological sites and historic cities, precisely at a time when the protective mechanisms of these resources are at an all-time low.

In Peru, as in much of the world, there is a strong movement towards reduction in government spending and privatization of previously publicly- held services, making it unlikely that there will be an increased effectiveness on the part of governmental institutions in protecting and preserving Peru's cultural sites. According to the estimates of the Instituto Nacional de Arqueologia, archaeological information meaningful to scholars has been irretrievably lost in over 60% of all archaeological sites in Peru.

Aware of this grave and complex situation, the United States has established an emergency bilateral agreement with Peru to restrict the importation of illicitly exported artifacts from the site of Sipán into the U.S. The agency in charge of implementing these agreements, the United States Information Agency (USIA), is currently involved in establishing a permanent agreement with several nations, including Peru, that will protect a broader range of archaeological and ethnographic artifacts. The first such agreement was established last year between the United States and El Salvador under the Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, the U.S. instrument to meet its obligations under the UNESCO Convention for the Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property. Other emergency agreements are in place between the United States and Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali.

The aim of all the agreements under the Convention is to protect the integrity of the archaeological record in situ and the heritage of living traditional cultures. Because of these reasons, US/ICOMOS feels that the global ICOMOS network has an important role to play in assisting with the implementation of these crucial protective mechanisms.

During the 1970s and 80s, there were significant international initiatives to establish Peru as a principal regional center for heritage conservation. The Organization of American States, UNESCO and the United Nations Development Program, as well as Government of Spain, developed numerous training and conservation initiatives that gave Peru many competent professionals who are eager to get on with the conservation of their significant national treasures, which include the well-known World Heritage Sites of Machu Picchu, Chan Chan, Chavín and Nazca and the World Heritage Cities of Cuzco and Lima.

 

The ICOMOS SECRETARIAT has moved to new headquarters as of July 8, 1996. Telephone and fax numbers are as follows: ICOMOS Secretariat 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 Paris FRANCE Tel (from the U.S.) 011-33-1-45.67.67.70 Fax " 011-33-1-45.66.06.22 Metro: Bir-Hakeim

NEWS OF THE NATIONAL SPECIALIZED COMMITTEES

Considering the importance of inventorying and documenting cultural sites and structures, and the increasing number of tools and methods available, US/ICOMOS will establish a committee devoted to this subject. Inventorying is listed on the roster of ICOMOS international scientific committees, but has not been an active enterprise. Our Canadian colleagues, particularly Robin Letellier, are working in this area, and we plan to collaborate with them as well as with other ICOMOS national and scientific specialized committees.

We hope to elicit interest in the United States and to formulate an agenda for the committee. For this purpose, we will distribute a questionnaire to US/ICOMOS members who have expressed an interest, and should like to hear from all who wish to participate.

If you are interested, please write, fax or call Arlene K. Fleming, Treasurer, US/ICOMOS, 9122 Maria Avenue, Great Falls, VA 22066, tel: 703- 759-3701, fax: 703-759-6671; e-mail: akfleming@crosslink.net

U.S. MAY LIMIT ITS PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

The Senators appear to be concerned about the impact of World Heritage nomination status on property owners of sites adjacent to the listed sites. In reality, ratification of the treaty and inscription on the List is highly symbolic, and allows no punitive action on the part of any international or multinational entity on a non-complying state party. In 1995, Yellowstone was placed in the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger by the World Heritage Committee at the suggestion of a group of U.S. citizens and organizations who were concerned about the destructive impact of development activities on the periphery of the site. Among those expressing concern were former President Jimmy Carter and actor Harrison Ford.

If approved, the results of this prohibition would make it more difficult for the United States to participate actively in the World Heritage Convention, an international treaty that was originally proposed by the United States. At present, it is the Secretary of Interior who has the power to initiate and implement nominations to the World Heritage List on the basis of a carefully drafted Indicative List that includes a few dozen U.S. National Historic Landmark sites that appear to possess universal value. Unlike other ratifying nations, the United States requires that all properties and sites nominated to the World Heritage List have 100% owner approval to do so, thus making it practically impossible for any U.S. city to reach World Heritage status.

BLUE SHIELD UPDATE

CALLS FOR PAPERS & PRESENTATIONS

This three-day conference and trade show will provide an international forum to examine the technical and preservation issues concerning the repair, restoration and replacement of windows. Eleven years ago, more than 600 conference registrants and 40 major exhibitors attended the first Historic Windows Conference and Exposition in Boston. The 1997 conference will provide a focus for design professionals and building owners who must make informed decisions -- based on today's technology -- for window repair and replacement. In-depth workshops will offer opportunities for exploration of critical technical, design, manufacturing and preservation issues.

The conference program will include both plenary and concurrent sessions. Prospective speakers and authors are encouraged to submit abstracts on a long list of topics. The intended audience for the conference includes architects and engineers, building owners and managers, conservators, contractors, developers, facility managers, historic site and museum managers, preservation officials and manufacturers and suppliers.

Abstracts are due by July 29, 1996. For detailed information on the submission of abstracts and manuscripts, contact: Program Director, Window Conference for Historic Buildings, P.O. Box 77160, Washington, DC 20013- 7160, tel: 202-343-9578.

Under its mandate by the Direction du Patrimoine to reflect on the technical aspects of heritage conservation, the French Section of ICOMOS will hold an international conference on the theme Concrete and Heritage. The aim of the conference is to draw up a situation report on technical knowledge and on the conservation problems posed by concrete and the built heritage.

The conference will focus on the main stages of the history of making concrete and the techniques for its implementation from the 19th century to the contemporary period, and the history of the use of concrete in the restoration of historic structures. The conference will also examine the evolution in the composition of the material and its pathology. Case studies will present technical, architectural and ethical problems related to the conservation and restoration of concrete structures.

Papers submitted to the conference will be published in advance of the conference in a special bulletin of the French Section of ICOMOS, and which will serve as the background reader for the participants.

The title, author, outline of the paper and an abstract must be submitted no later than July 31, 1996. Accepted papers may include black & white (only) graphics and illustrations, and must be received at the French Section no later than September 1, 1996. Contact: French Section of ICOMOS, 62 rue Saint-Antoine, 75004 Paris, France, tel: (011-33-1) 42.78.56.42.

The first Announcement and Call for Papers has been issued for the CIBA International Symposium 1997 on the theme Photogrammetry in Architecture, Archaeology and Urban Conservation, to be held October 1-3, 1997, in Göteborg, Sweden. CIPA (International Committee on Architectural Photogrammetry) is a joint organization between the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS). The symposium will be organized by the Institute of Conservation, Göteborg University, and the Swedish Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

Increasing threats to the built heritage have made the need to document the environment greater than ever, for research, as a basis for preservation and restoration, and for dissemination of information. Photographic as well as digital images, and photogrammetric technology are gaining importance as means of surveying and mapping, in the areas of urban conservation, preservation planning, architectural conservation, archaeology and museum applications. The symposium theme was chosen to bridge the gap between technology and the humanities: to show the possibilities of modern technology and to illustrate the needs of those involved in research and conservation activities. The symposium will be accompanied by an exhibition of instruments and computer systems as well as examples of results from all over the world. Pre- and post-symposium activities, including tutorials, excursions and study visits, are planned for September 29-30 and October 4.

ABTRACTS are invited from those who are interested in giving a: 1) symposium paper, 2) demonstration, 3) poster presentation or 4) workshop. Closing date for abstracts: March 1, 1997; for camera-ready manuscripts: June 1, 1997.

 

You are invited to the Closing Program of THE 1996 US/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SUMMER INTERN PROGRAM On Wednesday August 28, the 1996 US/ICOMOS International Summer Intern Program will conclude with a day of presentations by this year's interns. The program will be open to the public and the press, and, of course to all US/ICOMOS members. This will be an ideal opportunity to learn more about the program and to see first-hand the impact of the internship experience on young preservationists from around the country and the world. This year, interns represent the ICOMOS national committees of Australia, P.R. China, Croatia, Denmark, Ghana, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Turkey, United Kingdom and USA. If you wish to learn more about the schedule and topics of the presentations and of the invited speakers, send a fax requesting additional information on the 1996 International Summer Intern Closing Program to US/ICOMOS at 202-842-1861.

MILESTONES

CALENDAR

*   September 26-29, 1996. Building Ideas, the Annual Conference of The Association for Preservation Technology International, Hotel Fort Garry, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Training courses: September 29-October 1. Conference subjects include: On the Threshold, Sacred Spaces, Districts and Settlements, Digital Heritage, Sticks and Stones, Mending the Modern. Contact: APT96, P.O. Box 27054, 360 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 4T3, tel: 204-983-4718, fax: 204- 983-5365, e-mail: susan_algie@pch.gc.ca