House Challenges Preservation

Report from Chairman Ann Webster Smith

Minutes of the Annual Meeting

Report from Australia

World Heritage Report

1996 Annual Report

Calendar, News, Call for Papers

Membership

H.R. 901, a bill that could severely limit U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention, was introduced in Congress on February 27th.

"The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act," sponsored by Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) is a new and stronger version of H.R. 3752, which failed to pass last year.

US/ICOMOS members who attended the Annual Meeting expressed serious reservations about the bill. Chairman Ann Webster Smith concluded their discussion by saying, "All preservation organizations need to be alerted and brought into action."

If passed, H.R. 901 would require an act of Congress to nominate U.S. public lands to the World Heritage List. It would also expand the reporting requirements on government-owned sites that are already listed. Additionally, H.R. 901 would create a 10-mile reverse buffer zone around any proposed World Heritage site, by requiring the Department of the Interior to produce an economic impact statement showing that the designation would have no negative effect on economic activity in the 10 mile area around the perimeter of the site.

In the case of the Statue of Liberty, a World Heritage site that was listed in 1984, the Department of the Interior would have had to prove to Congress that listing the statue would have no economic impact on any area of New York City, a virtually impossible task. In the case of Yellowstone Park, another World Heritage site, it would have allowed development right up to the borders of the park, creating the possibility for a ring of skyscrapers, tourist hotels or drilling sites at the perimeter of the park.

Young's 1996 bill received a majority of votes in the House (246-178), but failed to pass because it was brought up in a parliamentary situation that required a two-thirds vote for passage. In addition, last year's weaker version was under veto threat by the Clinton administration.

In 1972 under President Nixon the United States proposed to the world and to UNESCO the founding of a World Heritage Convention to identify and list the most valuable sites and monuments of the world -- sites so exceptional that the countries of the world would want to join together to protect them.

For many years since that time, the Convention has been praised for the international cooperation promoted by nations coming together to identify their shared concerns. This praise and funding support has continued in the U.S. through many administrations, even as the country withdrew from UNESCO under President Reagan.

Young's concern appears to be that U.S. sovereignty is infringed by World Heritage listing, as it gives an international organization a degree of control over U.S. land.

In fact, the Convention imposes no restrictions or international control on listed sites. Instead, the country that nominates a property to the list must provide proof of its own intentions to protect the site. Any restrictions that may apply to a site are therefore national, not international restrictions. (See Article vi of the Convention, reprinted on p.13).

Speaking at the Annual Meeting, Chairman Ann Webster Smith said,

"World Heritage listing is an honor that is coveted by most of the countries of the world."

Young's bill would transfer power to nominate U.S. sites from the Executive to the Legislative branch, arguing that Congress is the only branch of the government constitutionally permitted to manage U.S. public lands.

Representative Young fears loss of sovereignty not just for its political symbolism, but also for its economic impact. He believes that international designation will require concessions that harm U.S. economic interests.

Introducing his bill, Representative Young said:

"International Land Reserves . . . affect the use and market value of non-Federal lands adjacent to or intermixed with Federal lands . . . . The rights of non-Federal land-owners need to be protected. . . ."

Yellowstone Park

To a large degree, H.R. 901 is related to the public misunderstanding of the World Heritage Committee's 1995 decision to place Yellowstone National Park on the list of World Heritage in Danger. The publicity that resulted from the listing led to an increase in international attention to the activities of the New World Mine Company and curtailed interests in the company in the vicinity of the park.

The Mine, which was less than three miles from the northeast boundary of Yellowstone Park, was allegedly polluting the Yellowstone watershed, and the NPS had objected to it. When the Department of the Interior asked international heritage experts in to assess the potential damage to the site, some local people mistakenly believed that the international visitors had come to this country uninvited to assert their rights over our land.

Preservationist Rebuttal

Preservationists agree that there are two things that need to be said about Young's argument. The first is that World Heritage is wholly unrelated to sovereignty and has no added legal effect on a site. In fact, the convention specifically asserts that nations signatory to the treaty are guaranteed the total control of sites within their borders. (See Article vi of the Convention, below).

The second is that designation is not threatening to the economy of the area around a World Heritage site. In fact, it is often beneficial.

It is this economic argument, that Executive Director Gustavo Araoz finds most pernicious:

"This attack seems to have a larger goal -- to begin the dismantling of the preservation and conservation structure that the U.S. has built over the past 50 years," he said.

"This would enshrine in law the principle that historic preservation proposals should be measured largely by their economic impact, a principle that insinuates that preservation is economically detrimental."

At the Annual Meeting, Hugh Miller, Chair of the Committee on Cultural Tourism took on the same issue:

"This bill is part of the takings argument," he said, "and we as preservationists need to address that attack directly. What is often not said about preservation and government is that they also give."

In purely economic terms, the gifts of government to the people in a Federal Land Reserve area like Yellowstone Park are many. Often these gifts are taken for granted, as the government has always been there. For example, ranchers in the vicinity of federal lands graze their cattle on government land, lure visitors to their $300/day dude ranches, and lead hunting and fishing trips through the pristine wilderness, wilderness that they assume would still be there and every bit as well maintained without the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.

Summing up the position of preservationists who are carefully reading the new bill, Executive Director Araoz said,

"This bill fails to recognize that it takes a great deal more than an Act of Congress to nominate a site to the World Heritage List. There is a great deal of professional and technical assessment required to correctly identify, evaluate and nominate sites to the list."

Article vi of the World Heritage Convention:

Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the states on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in articles i and ii is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the states parties to this convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate.

REPORT FROM CHAIRMAN ANN WEBSTER SMITH

Chairman Ann Webster Smith began the 1997 Annual Meeting with a report on the international ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria.

At Sofia, "The Wiser Use of Heritage" was adopted as the new theme for ICOMOS programs, she said, recommending Sherban Cantacuzino's report on the symposium. Excerpts from the report -- Symposium "The Heritage and Social Changes" -- were published in the January 1997 issue of ICOMOS News.

Smith noted that 23 US/ICOMOS members attended the General Assembly in Sofia, taking part in the many discussions and debates held there. Four US/ICOMOS members -- Stephen Dennis, Steed Craigo, Gunny Harboe, and William J. Murtagh -- also delivered papers. Executive Director Gustavo Araoz was named to head the elections committee.

In the elections, Roland Silva of Sri Lanka and Jean-Louis Luxen of Belgium were elected President and Secretary General, respectively. Jan Jessurun of the Netherlands was elected Treasurer General, and five vice-presidents were named. These included Smith, Mamadou Berthe of Senegal, Joseph Phares of Lebanon, Esteban Prieto of the Dominican Republic, and Christiane Schmuckle-Mollard of France. The total attendance at the General Assembly included 600 participants from 90 countries.

The 12th ICOMOS General Assembly will be held in Mexico, and will include separate reunions for each of the international committees. The committees will meet in four locations: some in Mexico City, others in Guanajuato, Morelia, and Guadalajara. The assembly will be held October 11-17, 1999.

Smith attended the March meeting of the ICOMOS Bureau in Paris in her new capacity as vice-president charged with the coordination of international specialized committees. This year was the first time that members of the Executive Committee were included in evaluating World Heritage nominations. The efforts of World Heritage Coordinator Henry Cleere and his assistant Regina Durighello were particularly impressive, she said, especially their ability to coordinate and involve the many international experts into the evaluation process.

Smith reports that international ICOMOS, like US/ICOMOS and other national committees, is becoming more entrepreneurial and actively seeking more sponsorships and partnerships.

Thank You To Members and Friends!

Concluding her report, Smith thanked the many people who have contributed to US/ICOMOS during the last year. She began with those who helped with the very successful strategic planning retreat at Colonial Williamsburg this March: Vice-Chairman Robert Wilburn, and his Colonial Williamsburg colleagues; Retreat Chairman, Sally Boasberg; and Retreat Facilitator Pat Williams, Vice President of the American Association of Museums.

Smith said board members who attended the retreat had targeted the next 18 months as a time frame for strategic planning objectives.

"The strategically planned, new US/ICOMOS will have a place where each member can participate," she said. "We will be looking to each of you to tell us how your talents are best suited to the needs and hopes of US/ICOMOS."

Smith thanked the Board and the membership for the "money, talent, concern, interest, enthusiasm and challenge that [they] have contributed to the organization in the last year." For special thanks, she singled out staff members -- Gustavo Araoz and Ellen Delage; volunteers -- Svetlana Popovic, Lara Koczak, Moya King and the US/ICOMOS Executive Committee.

"To them and all of you," she said, "appreciation and grateful thanks!"

MINUTES OF THE 1996 ANNUAL MEETING

The 1996 US/ICOMOS Annual Meeting was held on Saturday, April 12, 1997 at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Chairman Ann Webster Smith opened the meeting, recalling the accomplishments of the past year. She was followed by Secretary Roy Graham with the Minutes of the 1995 Meeting in San Antonio. Arlene Fleming presented the Treasurer's Report, and Gustavo Araoz followed with the Annual Report. All reports were adopted without modification.

Chairman of the Nominating Committee James Kiernan finished the official business of the meeting with the report of the committee.

At The Annual Meeting, five new members were elected to the Board of Trustees. They were:

William Cecil, Jr., C.E.O., Biltmore Estates, Asheville, N.C.

Blaine Cliver, NPS, Chief, HABS/HAER

Pamela Hawkes, Vice-President, Ann Beha Associates, Boston.

Frank Matero, Chair, Department of Historic Preservation, The University of Pennsylvania

Stephen Kelley, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Chicago

Troy Thompson, Halstead, Thompson, and Kennedy Architecture, Indianapolis.

Trustees elected for additional terms were:

Spencer Leineweber, Spencer Mason, Architects, Hawaii

Richard Pieper, Jan Hird Pokorny, Architects and Planners, N.Y.C.

Peter Stott, World Heritage Centre, Paris.

Kiernan thanked trustees retiring from the Board: Sally Boasberg, Adele Chatfield-Taylor, Henry Hoffstot, Esq., Norman L. Koonce and Margaret G.H. Mac Lean.

The late Robert Garvey, former Chairman of US/ICOMOS and former Vice President of international ICOMOS, was formally honored at the Saturday meeting. John Fowler, immediate past Chairman, began the memories by reading an homage to him. Other members joined in afterwards, recalling his work to establish US/ICOMOS and his pivotal role in the passage of both the 1966 and 1980 Preservation Acts.

"None of us would be here today," Fowler, said, "if it weren't for the work of Robert Garvey." Garvey was fondly remembered as the "quintessential Marlboro man", the American preservationist who trotted the globe in cowboy boots and hat. Garvey died in December 1996.

US/ICOMOS Secretary Roy Graham reported on the Trustees' Strategic Planning Retreat, which was held at Williamsburg, Virginia, in March 1997. The retreat completed the internal review of management and organization that US/ICOMOS began in 1995.

Chairman Smith defined new strategic initiatives for US/ICOMOS in the next 18 months. These plans call for a focus on long-term financial stability and committee development. "We will be creating a more focussed and active board," Smith said, "one that will be very involved in both our fundraising and committee work."

Kate Stevenson, Associate Director of the National Park Service; Blaine Cliver, Chief of HABS/HAER; and Jim Charleton, International Cooperation Specialist at theNational Park Service presented a report on U.S. participation in the World Heritage Committee Meeting at Merida, Mexico, in December 1996. Their comments inspired a lively discussion of issues surrounding World Heritage sites (see articles, p.1 and p.12).

Herb Stovel, President of ICOMOS Canada, spoke about issues that Canadians have found essential to the life of their committee. These included a tighter focus on mission, professional exchange and authenticity.

"We needed to embrace again the idea that we exist to do what we can do to change the world," he said, "not to focus on ourselves and what we can do for one another."

ICOMOS Canada has also tried to tie its national committee work to the international community by naming the head of each scientific committee to the corresponding international committee. "We have tried to ensure that our results are clearly linked to the larger ICOMOS agenda," Stovel said. For example, they have found that task forces with specific time frames and objectives are more effective than committees.

Program Director Ellen Delage and Trustee Constance Ramirez reported on the progress of the 1997 International Summer Intern Program, which is now in its 14th year. The program celebrated a new level of success at the meeting -- the election of a former intern to the US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees. The new trustee is Troy Thompson of Halstead, Thompson and Kennedy Architecture, Indianapolis. Thompson was a US/ICOMOS intern in Vilnius, Lithuania during the summer of 1992.

In the afternoon, William Chapman, Director of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Hawaii, spoke about Hawaii's summer field school program in the Cambodian city of Phnom Penh.

In keeping with the new focus on specialized committee work, an afternoon panel discussed ways to integrate international perspective into the work of the national committees. The session was moderated by Hugh Miller, Chair of the Cultural Tourism Committee.

AUSTRALIAN REPORT: THE MUSEUM OF SYDNEY -- ON THE SITE OF FIRST GOVERNMENT HOUSE

The video screen springs to life -- the immobile image of a young man begins to move, then to speak. Dressed in a black shirt and pants, the fellow is hip but professional, an artist, perhaps, or an architect.

"When are you going to get it through your thick skull that history is contested ground?" he asks. Then he squints his eyes. "This is contested ground."

The ground he refers to is the site of First Government House, the 1788 building built by Arthur Phillip, first Governor of the colonial settlement of New South Wales. It is indeed contested ground. In fact, it is the most controversial archaeological site in Australia.

Community Protest

The controversy began in 1983, when the foundations of Australia's first permanent building were found in downtown Sydney days before the construction of a 44-storey building was scheduled to begin. The discovery caused an uproar, as the public demanded more time for excavation and more information about the finds. Headlines read, "Excavation cloaked in secrecy," and "What price history?" The site had been leased to a Hong Kong developer by the government. Protesters rallied around the site, carrying signs that read, "Aussie History not Hong Kong $" and "Wake Up Heritage Council."

John Mulvaney, Emeritus Professor of Prehistory at The Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, spoke and wrote at length about the site's potential to illustrate major trends in the early colony, including early gubernatorial policy on race relations and the exploration of lands.

Another Emeritus Professor who was a keen supporter of the site was Isabel McBryde, former chair of the ANU Dept of Prehistory. McBryde is currently a visiting fellow at both the ANU History Department and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in Canberra. She is also the author of "Guests of the Governor", a book about the Aboriginal people who resided at Government House during its early years.

In her view, the museum was a natural place to begin to discuss the history of Australian cross-cultural interaction. Other early activists were focussed on other issues -- on the story of Australia's first convict settlers, or on the house itself, which was greatly cherished and frequently painted in its day. Many saw a broad social purpose in the fight.

"I fought for the site because I believed that Australians needed and wanted a museum that de-mystified the early colonial history of their country," said Meredith Walker, a prominent Australian heritage planner and ICOMOS member.

By the end of that year, the New South Wales government agreed. The site would be saved, and an interpretive museum built there. Many thought the controversy was over. The disagreement continues 13 years later, two years after the Museum of Sydney on the site of First Government House (The MOS) opened. The community that fought for the site is still fighting, describing the site as a "tragic loss", and a "hijacked site."

More Controversy

The problem: curators appointed to develop an interpretive museum on the site rejected a focus on the site and the early colonial history of Australia.

"That would have been a dud museum," said Peter Watts, Director of the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.

"We said we didn't think the site needed a museum, only a small interpretive site," he said. "We were told we had to create one."

"Just how far can you go hanging a museum around the neck of a

building that doesn't exist?" asked Peter Emmett, Senior Curator of the museum.

The curators turned to market research to solve their problem. They polled several tourist spots in downtown Sydney, finding that the public wanted a new and challenging museum. They took the whole history of Sydney as their focus, and built a museum designed to "[expand] the history of the past through the present." The museum emphasizes aesthetics and high technology, rejecting labelling, clarity, and teaching.

The remains of First Government House were saved as part of an Au $ 85 million agreement that transferred the air rights over the site to the back of the block. A small, three-storey museum was integrated into the design of an office tower (the 2nd tallest building in Sydney), and Au $ 27 million were allocated for museum development.

Under a granite plaza at the front of the museum, the foundations of First Government House have been preserved in-situ. The 1843 house plan is outlined over them in white, and a section of the pavement has been lifted up to allow visitors to view the historic footings. Tables from the museum cafe spill out onto the plaza.

First Government House was the home and office of the first nine governors of the colony, and the major seat of political power in the South Pacific from 1788-1845. It also has many historic associations: it was the place where Governor Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty fame was captured hiding under his bed; the place where the first newspaper (The Sydney Gazette) was printed in the colony; and the site of Australia's first bank. It also has significance for the Aboriginal community. It was the house where Arabanoo and other Aboriginal men were forced to live and eat with the governor. It was also the place where Pemulwoy, the Aboriginal patriot, met Governor Philip to negotiate the British presence on Aboriginal land. Political decisions, both good and bad were made there, and its supporters insist that these need to be remembered and interpreted if Australia is to come to terms with its colonial past.

In its first configuration, Government House was meant to be a wholly English model, a simple Georgian two-storey. But within a few months after their arrival, James Bloodworth and the other convict builders began adapting English building tradition to fit the Australian climate. They were unable to find lime for mortar, and laid their bricks with pipe clay, recording it in their journals. The clay remains in the foundations today.

Over time, Government House diverged further from its English plan, as verandas and covered walkways were needed around the complex. Later, in the early 19th century, plans to renovate the building in the new English high-style were also adapted. The original renovation plan was thwarted by mother England herself when she refused to finance such Australian pretensions. Governor Macquarie (1810-21) scrapped his plans, but managed to make a statement about the importance of the colony with a clever Australian addition that gave the complex an asymmetrical, Italianate appearance. His architect was Francis Greenway, a convict who was pardoned by the governor for his architectural skill. Greenway designed many buildings for the city, some of which still stand in downtown Sydney -- Hyde Park Barracks, the former convict jail that is now a museum; the old Rum Hospital building, which was built with profits from the rum trade; and Saint James church.

First Government house was demolished in 1845. At that time, an Australian by the name of John Hood wrote about the powerful symbolism of the house, the "picturesque, irregular old mansion" that was being razed.

"The building is linked with all the earlier associations of the colony," he wrote, "which some may possibly say it would be better to forget, but not so I; on the contrary I would value it, were it merely as being the scene of the wars of its earlier years, of its usurpations, of governor Bligh's siege in his own castle in 1808."(Hood 1843)

Nineteenth century Australians mistakenly believed that destroying the house would free them from the painful memories of the past. They built their new government house on a new site in the up-to-date Victorian style. Over one hundred years, the old site was left untouched, the location of a government office tin shed. Later, it was used as a parking lot. A historic marker noted the location of the early building.

When the foundations of the old house reappeared in 1983, they emerged as ghosts from the past, still imbued with the symbolic power and the painful memories of the colonial era. Perhaps it is to be expected that a government team assigned to interpret the site would want to shrink from the task.

The MOS has much in common with museums that were built in other parts of the world about 15 years ago: it rejects timelines, labelling, historical context, historical canons, silence and an ordered path through the museum. Multiple voices compete for the visitor's attention. The walls are covered with quotations.

The museum is far from scattered visually, however. Housed in a gorgeously slick, stainless-steel shell, it is full of displays that could be called mixed media art -- windows created with archaeological relics or early goods traded in Sydney.

MOS planners wanted to challenge the simple, boring tale of Australian history, and to open history up to unconventional sources. Inspired by a trip they took to the Expo at Seville, Spain, they planned a museum centered on provocative theatre and cutting-edge technology. In Curator Emmett's words, the museum is designed to "suggest the plurality of directions across place and time by the dialogue of many criss-crossing voices, past and present." The museum was also designed to be beautiful to look at, in keeping with its high-style architecture. Emmett says they worked hard to "[get] the design and the interpretive elements as one."

A massive, 33-screen video stretches through the three storeys of the museum's central staircase. On it, the precolonial bush setting has been recreated from thousands of still photos, and filled with the appropriate animal sounds.

On either side of the staircase, there are more videos, which are set off by electronic triggers. On some, people weep, scream, argue and joke without ever stopping to identify themselves or to place themselves in time. Caricatures and composite personalities engage in absurd and meaningless arguments, most of which cannot be heard over the noise from the central stair. Historical fiction is presented alongside dramatic readings of primary sources, and statements from nameless cultural theorists.

The daily life of the Aborigines is reenacted on another video. Aboriginal men run along the beach. Voices speak the local Eora language. A few artifacts from the colonial period are displayed there, labelled in the Eora language.

This Aboriginal exhibit has been hugely popular, especially with foreign visitors. For many visitors, MOS Aboriginal curator David Prosser has said, "it [has been] their first introduction to Aboriginal culture".

A few artifacts from the excavation are presented under glass on the floor of the museum foyer. Near them a reconstructed fragment of the house facade hangs on the wall. This, too, is a popular exhibit.

Some visitors love it because they assume the fragment was unearthed during the dig. Others believe it was reassembled from bricks found at the site. In fact, it was built of bricks from another site, though opinions differ as to whether original bricks were incorporated in it.

Through the museum, gorgeous halogen-lit, stainless steel cabinets display artifacts. Their drawers slide open to reveal a game: three objects (one of which is always a written document or a map) are found in each drawer. The objects have some connection between them. Visitors linger over them, trying to figure out what it is. An example: in one drawer, a document reporting shark attacks, a few shark teeth and a blood red spandex bathing suit. The drawers slide closed by themselves.

Professor Mulvaney has a major problem with these archaeological exhibits. He says, "The reconstruction of the front of government house uses bricks from the site in conjunction with others gotten from other places. They aren't separated out or labelled. This is in violation of the Venice and Burra charters."

He continues. "In the "Sites" window, artifacts are taken from sites all over town, from anywhere at anytime in the 19th- century. They are not documented or distinguished. This verges on the criminal. The earliest evidence of European occupation has been dispersed."

Mulvaney's response is exactly the response that the MOS curators expected.

"Criticism of the museum is a mark of its success," Peter Emmett has said. Watts agrees. He says, "We intentionally set out to get people to respond."

In Mulvaney's view, "All these things relate to the view that there is no value in evidence," he said. "At the MOS, there is no list of governors, no chronology, no discussion of the history of the house and how the governors changed it. This is the equivalent of discussing American history, but refusing to name or list the presidents. The museum is a fossil of the post-modern approach to museology, and should be labelled as such."

Professor McBryde says, "I was disappointed that the museum's focus was taken away from the archaeological site, as we lost a perfect opportunity to discuss issues with Aboriginal historians. There are quite a number of perspectives on the history of cultural contact," she said, "perspectives which could have been developed into exciting displays."

In addition to ignoring the contributions that historians could have made to the museum's interpretation, the curators also ignored archaeologists.

The site was a critical turning point for public archaeology, as it was only the second time that a major urban site had been excavated in Australia. With its interpretation, archaeologists had hoped to introduce the public to their method of looking at history, of questioning the evidence and showing how ideas about the past are constructed. This perspective was not included in the museum, nor any history of the dig or the fight to save the site.

Architect Anne Bickford was the Excavation director of First Government House site from 1983-1990, directing an investigation that was done under extreme time pressure and tremendous uncertainty as to the future of the site. It was also done in fits and starts, as the government gradually allowed more time and money for excavation. Initially, the investigation was limited to the exact locations of the pylons planned to support the building tower. She was very involved not only with the site, but also with the fight to save it.

Bickford says, "There is a fallacy of multivocality at the museum, as the views of archaeologists are not included in its interpretation. There is nothing there about the site. Nothing. People need to know about the process -- how the dig was done. They need to know about the remains that still exist there."

Bickford says, "Material from the dig is available for research but there is no guidance at the museum, no data base. There is no money to write about First Government house. There is no curator of archaeology. They aren't interested."

In a telephone interview Watts explained:

"Archaeologists have difficulty with display and extracting meaning," he said. "Their expertise diminishes after the less sexy part of archaeology -- the dig -- is finished."

Watts says creating displays is an extremely difficult task that few people are able to do succesfully. "Historians put books on the wall," he said, "which is extremely boring. The job of a curator is to put materials together in an interesting way that conveys meaning."

Archaeologists violently disagree with Watts' views, according to Professor McBryde:

"Most archaeologists see the interpretation of finds as the culmination of an excavation, and display as a part of the process of disseminating the results. It is almost an ethical obligation."

After the completion of the dig, MOS directors did not fund the final report on the project. This has jeopardized future research on the site. Archaeologists say this decision relegated them to the role of technicians, valued only for their ability to dig artifacts out of the ground.

At the beginning of the MOS Sites Symposium in April of 1995, Watts explained that decision, saying, "The archaeology profession is very good at demanding that collections in museums be made available for research. To my knowledge, the collections that this Trust owns. . . have never been consulted by an archaeologist."

Emmett has explained the goals of the museum many times.

"The museum's focus is not on objects. The focus is on the ideas that the colony was grappling with -- the nature of government, nationalism, land ownership, which relate to today's themes -- republicanism, Native Title, the connection to Britain and the awareness of Asia." Watts has said,

"I don't really think of it as a museum, it is more a cultural center."

In a sense, everyone is right. Mulvaney is correct that the museum ignores the site. McBryde is correct that it ignores early colonial history. Emmett is correct that it does not and should not focus on material culture or put forth the "imperial plan". Therein lays the problem : the museum is best defined by what it does not do.

The focus of the Museum of Sydney is the criticism of traditional history museums and the ways that Australian history has been told. Unfortunately, this presupposes an understanding of the basic facts of Australian history, and this is not available at the museum. MOS curators wanted to avoid didacticism and the presentation of a history told only from the position of power. But rather than negotiating this tricky issue, they chose to step back, to "throw up a bunch of material," and let each visitor go it alone. The unfortunate result is that this fabulously hip and beautiful museum denies the visitor the opportunity to decipher any version of history. The MOS remains at the level of criticism, caricature and ridicule, rather than moving on to do something new or better. For those who get it, the MOS is a marvelous in-joke, for others, it is gorgeously innovative and entertaining. For most visitors, however, there is no message whatsoever.

Soon after the opening of the MOS, Leigh Raymond, a reviewer for the Sydney Star Observer wrote a column that disparaged the museum in a way that has proved prophetic. At that time, he wrote that the decision to abandon an overarching story had undercut the MOS exhibits, leaving them unconnected, related to one another by their design and proximity only.

"In the context of the museum," she said, " history . . . has been subsumed by design, the cool chic smart design of the big end of town. She ended her column with advice for the consumer.

"It's a great place for a cocktail party for the corporate world, it's a great place to go and have coffee. . . . But history? A sense of people's history and life? Forget it."

Two years later, Raymond's analysis of the museum as a great place for corporate partners seems to be verified by financial data collected by the museum staff.

According to Watts, his in-house review of the museum will show that the museum's cafe, venue hire (renting out the museum for parties) and bookstore income has far exceeded expectations. The International visitor attendance has also exceeded expectations -- about 75 percent of the museum's visitors are non-Australian. What has fallen short of forecasts is the number of Australian visitors to the museum. That is only about 20 percent.

This data challenges the view that the MOS is a cultural center, or a museum that speaks to Australia's big issues. It seems an appropriate time for the different factions to begin talking to one another again.

Currently, the MOS is analyzing the data and planning to make some changes. Watts elaborated.

"The product has problems. The principal problem is that the museum has deliberately set out to allow the visitors to respond, and offers little didactic and factual material. Our labels are quotes," he said, "and we have found that people are having trouble decoding them."

Watts is not considering major change. "The museum works exceptionally well for some people," he said, "so we will keep the basic design. For more traditional markets, though, they need a hook, and we will provide it. We're thinking about an introduction to Sydney in the theatrette. We're also thinking about some foreign language signs for our international visitors."

The MOS is also planning to address the noise factor. Watts said, "another problem is that the acoustics are difficult. The second floor videos are too close to the stair. It's an awkward viewing environment. We need to make it more comfortable."

These changes will doubtless make the museum's videos easier to hear and to understand, but will not help to reconnect with the Australian community.

There is hope in one idea, however. Watts is planning to expanding the very popular Aboriginal section. With this project, MOS curators have an opportunity to re-focus the museum on the site and to introduce history and archaeology in a clear and straightforward fashion.

Professor McBryde has said, "Museums are a dynamic entity. We can expect new exhibits and new styles. The museum will doubtless respond to the criticisms that have been made."

Patricia Bovers Ball is the editor of the US/ICOMOS Newsletter.

US/ICOMOS ANNUAL REPORT, 1996

INTRODUCTION

1996 was a hectic and exhilarating year for US/ICOMOS, and one where the fruits of change began to appear. The activities listed below were successful in spite of diminishing financial support from the traditional funding sources of US/ICOMOS. As we enter another year of change, US/ICOMOS continues its commitment to greater involvement of the United States preservation community in global heritage concerns.

INTER-AMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON AUTHENTICITY IN THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Under the co-sponsorship of US/ICOMOS, the Getty Conservation Institute and the San Antonio Conservation Society, the Symposium was held in March in San Antonio, Texas. Nearly 200 preservation professionals, representing every country in the Americas with an ICOMOS National Committee, attended the Symposium, which featured five major international speakers and ten case studies to stimulate discussion. The recommendations from the three discussion groups were summarized in the Declaration of San Antonio, which was published in the US/ICOMOS Newsletter (No.3, 1996). The proceedings for the Conference will soon be published by the Getty Conservation Institute.