ICOMOS HONDURAS

AUTHENTICITY: WHY AND FOR WHOM?

Gloria Lara Hasemann

Introduction

In the debate over the timeliness of propositions in the Venice Charter, we all recognize that the concept of authenticity is fundamental to conservation. However, authenticity is not properly defined in that charter nor in any of the subsequent declarations or guidelines, including the Declaration of Nara. What we have, instead, is a description of the requirements that a monument, architectural complex, site, landscape, object, etc. must fulfill in order to be considered "authentic." Perhaps it would be useful at this time to debate the significance of this term so that we may all speak the same language.

Authenticity, says the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, means having the "quality of being authentic"; authentic, in turn, is that which "is recognized as being evident and true for the characters, requirements or circumstances present" (1956:146). Certainly this definition of authenticity is implicit in the UNESCO guidelines of 1972 since the characters and requirements of authenticity refer to "design, materials, workmanship." Likewise, the circumstances that come together in the determination of what is authentic are represented by the "setting" without limiting

"consideration to original form and structure, but includes all subsequent modifications over the course of time" (WHC.95/W5.1:16).

The concept of authenticity, however, gains full meaning only when united with the concept of integrity. Although these two concepts seem to be the same, and even though they do overlap in some senses, they constitute in our opinion two different dimensions of perception. When seen this way, a cultural property can fill one criteria of authenticity, but at the same time lack integrity because it has been removed from its context or because that context has been destroyed. In other words, authenticity has to do with the intrinsic quality of the property ("the design, materials, workmanship") as well as its integrity, that is its place in time and space, but especially its meaning (for instance, as part of an architectural complex or historic landscape). In other words, the first concept, intrinsic quality, emphasizes the technology of production while the second, integrity, emphasizes its raison d'être.

If, when we say "the conservation of historic patrimony in all its forms and periods has its justification in the value that is given to that patrimony, (Nara Declaration: Values and Authenticity) it is understood that we are talking about the value ascribed to this patrimony through the canons of culture that produced it in the past or that have embraced it in the present, then this cultural property is meaningful. That is, unawareness of a property's cultural context may obstruct understanding of the full significance clustered in that property. Our appreciation of the property's validity is then limited to our own ethnocentric perceptions (biases) of what deserves to be preserved on the rounds of its own authenticity.

Linked to this debate are the concepts of cultural significance and social value, which I refer to in the Spanish version of the Burra Charter (I.2) and its corresponding guideline (2.5)(1995). The way these concepts are stated in the Burra Charter is much more substantial than their treatment in earlier documents. Here cultural significance and social value are presented from an anthropological perspective that goes beyond the material aspects of the cultural property...it penetrates the depths of human feeling and thought, those to which the property belongs with all its tangible and intangible essences, but without losing sight of the universal values that may accrue to the property.

The Nara Declaration has deepened the opening in the Burra Charter by expressing the concern felt by many of us who are not restorers, but who work for the conservation of a11 cultural heritage in our respective countries. In the Nara Declaration we see the recognition that cultural diversity has also led to the creation of a diverse cultural patrimony. This recognition suggests that each human group makes differing interpretations of its own landscape based on differing motives and that the importance of a cultural property should be determined from the point of view of the cultural values that created and maintain it. Here, as would be expected, information plays a decisive role and underscores the relevance that investigation should at all times have in the establishment of conservation policy (cf. Guidelines for the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy). The conceptualization of the so-called "historical fabric" is extremely instrumental in this regard (Ibid.).

Authenticity in National Conservation Policies

So much headway has been made through the Nara Declaration that it may seem pointless to analyze in retrospect the economically generated conservation policies that emerged in past decades. These policies resulted, in all likelihood, from a valid concern with the general improvement of the quality of life. In this sense, some proclamations of the Quito Norms (1967) continue to influence conservation policy and may even gain renewed support through movements and legislation proposed for Central America that have recently originated in the respective Ministries of Culture and Public Education (Convención Centroamericana para la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural). Let's review these one at a time.

The notion that monuments are destined to fulfill a social function (Quito Norms, II.4) is in itself positive and may be the precursor of the concept of social value developed in the Burra Charter. Nor should we overlook the "promotion of the revalorization of the monumental patrimony as a function of public interest and for the economic benefit of the nation" (III.2). But it goes further. The text continues: "Valorization should be understood to mean what is carried out with a transcendent purpose, which in the case of Iberoamerica means contribution to the economic development of the region" (VI.2). This notion is subsequently reasserted: "Proper cultural values are not denatured or compromised when they are linked to tourism interests. Far from it, the greatest conquest of these monuments and the growing affluence of their foreign admirers is the contribution they make to the affirmation within the (public) consciousness of their importance and national significance..." (VII.1). I am not aware of the circumstances that gave rise to the Quito Norms, and its contents have certainly been transcended by the UNESCO recommendation of 1972, when member States were compelled to "adopt a general policy oriented towards attributing a collective function to the cultural and natural patrimony" (Chapter 2, Article 5) without specifying that this function be in any way economic. However, the spectra of a conservation policy subordinated to the generation of income continues to ambush the conscientious management of cultural patrimony.

The Cultural Tourism Charter has clarified misunderstandings surrounding the undiscriminating benefits that were attributed to tourism. It is worth repeating that--without underestimating the economic benefits--the social value that an individual, an affinity group or a nation perceives in a cultural property is not based on the economic benefit it may have. The social value lies in the property's cultural significance, whether it arises from traditions transmitted from one generation to the next, from its historic or esthetic representativeness or simply from the fact that it still constitutes an integral part of daily life.

Cultural significance cannot always be understood by outsiders, even when it can be recognized. This is because the perception of cultural significance can be fundamentally different from one person to another: In other words, the response that a cultural property awakens in an observer does not automatically mean it will be understood in a different cultural sphere than the one it derives from. From this we can conclude that social value is born, nourished, reinterpreted o perishes in the hands of its creators, historic inheritors or native consumers. It follows that a conservation policy dedicated to the preservation of authenticity cannot be based on considerations of "foreign interests" to ensure its financial sustainability or profitability.

Like many others I feel that the motivation for conservation policy should not be the commercial benefit that a cultural property may bring through tourism, nor should conservation policy be motivated by the interest it may awaken in a foreign audience. Rather, that motivation should be the social benefit that a property brings directly to the descendants of its creators or to declared heirs, for its historical significance or for the esthetic values that contribute to the strengthening of the identity of a community, region or country. On the other hand, economic benefits should not be ignored...but economic benefits cannot become the primary reason for the valorization of a monument.

Tourism can help a cultural property to become self-sustaining and as a result even bring relative prosperity to some sectors of a locality or society. However, as we all know, the impact of mass visits on a cultural property can also provoke structural damage to the property itself and environmental degradation to the landscape in general if regulatory measures are not taken. More to my point, the spirituality, the social message, the ethnic sentiment, and even the beauty that the property lends to its raison d'être can be clouded or even distorted in the process. That is, the integrity of the property may be threatened and its authenticity ultimately reduced.

Conservation Policy in Honduras

In 1984, and based on measures approved by UNESCO, the Law for the Protection of Cultural Patrimony (Legislative Decree 81-84) was passed in Honduras, establishing the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History as its executor. Since that time a conservation policy has been put into effect that adheres to the premise that the State maintains "permanent, inalienable and unchangeable rights" over all cultural property. Consequently, when these goods are found in the hands of private citizens, these citizens are considered temporary repositories and protectors of those properties.

While it is true that Legislative Decree 81-84 has not completely stopped looting and illegal exportation of cultural goods in the 16 years since it was passed, it has neutralized the incentives of looting and exportation to such a degree that Honduras has had the opportunity to promote and carry out investigation (anthropology and history in general, and especially in archaeology), proper restoration of important monuments (Copan, a World Heritage Site, is the best example) and the salvage of sites threatened by works of infrastructure (as was the case in the flood zone of the El Cajón Hydroelectric Plant).

This pause has also given conservation policy the necessary credibility to advocate the conservation of historical centers and develop a broad campaign to promote public awareness--especially among school-age children--through museums and the publication of the results of IHAH field and archival research. But above all, Decree 81-84 has given the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History (IHAH) the legal clout necessary to restrain the activities of private citizens, both national or foreign, from commercializing the cultural patrimony, which today not only aims at goods from pre-Columbian sites, churches and colonial archives, but also focuses intensely on the exploitation of submerged cultural patrimony.

In 1992-1993 a serious effort was orchestrated to change those articles of Decree 81-84 that block the commercialization of cultural legacy. At that time, members of ICOMOS de Honduras advised the IHAH campaign to publicly unmask the promoters of this initiative.

One of the often cited pretexts for commercializing this patrimony continues to plague Honduras today. That is, since Honduras is such a poor country, it would be a welcome boon to convert these undersea "treasure troves" into currency, while private concessionnaires would ultimately auction off the cultural patrimony for profit in foreign market places. Some even fantasize that this strategy would allow Honduras to cancel its foreign debt.

Documented experiences with the exploitation of submerged cultural properties, however, show that little or no benefit comes to the host country. On the contrary, this usually leads to the large-scale destruction of contexts and even those goods to be "rescued"...and an immeasurable loss to those who are dispossessed of tangible testimonies to their own history, testimonies that are offered to the highest bidder and subsequently disappear forever into private collections.

Now, three years later, the attempt described above to change Decree 81-84 seems like child's play compared to the menace that is now threatening Honduran cultural patrimony. Today this threat goes beyond changes in the law...it proposes to annul Decree 81-84 and substitute a new law and regulation (see Anteproyecto de Ley para la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación, 1995). Both documents have been presented for discussion to the Ministry of Culture and the Arts. The transparent purpose of this proposed law is to legalize...and regulate the commercialization of the cultural patrimony. According to the terms of this law, the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History would become the appraiser or "authenticator" of cultural properties, and these evaluations would fix national market prices. I say national market because the ideologues of this law have proposed (nonenforceable) prohibitions against the looting of archaeological sites and exportation of cultural properties. This is either crass ignorance or a thinly disguised underplay of how the international antiquities black market operates. The rest of us know through experience that once a legal motive exists for the domestic commercialization of cultural patrimony, archaeological sites, churches, archives, etc. will be looted and destroyed through a complex network of intermediaries. This network will begin with the very real and necessary participation of local residents in the most economically depressed zones of Honduras who will earn their daily bread while providing valuable and irreplaceable Honduran cultural legacies for the exhibition halls of the most powerful antiquity auction houses in all countries of the western world.

Has any of you ever worked in an archaeological site with police protection? Professional looters wait a stone's throw away for the excavation to be abandoned and then continue the work guided by the archaeologist's trenches. Has any of you been faced in your own field camp by armed men who demand that you deliver all excavated materials? Has any of you had your life threatened for opposing the looting and destruction of an archaeological site or for informing the public of the circumstances? This is the situation that reigned at the beginning of the 1980s in Honduras. My colleagues and I lived and worked through those dark ages, and there is we shall return if the cultural patrimony becomes commerciable.

In Honduras archaeological sites abound by the thousands and the majority are found in remote areas with little or no communication or other public service. The IHAH field camps would once again become vulnerable targets, and looters would need only follow the archaeologists' lead to the excavated properties, which would later be traded to authorized dealers and openly commercialized. What irony! The certificates of authenticity for these properties, of course, would then be extended by the IHAH.

It may be useful to mention the mechanisms now being used to reverse the trend in the conservation policies in Honduras. For some years now regional initiatives (in Central America) have surfaced from time to time to promote a so-called TYPE LAW ( Ley Tipo) (1995). This Type Law would be ratified by all Central American countries with the aim of stimulating an exchange of information and resources and to unite forces against the depredation of the cultural patrimony. It is precisely in this Type Law where the destructive germ of commercialization (Arts. 24 and 35) of cultural patrimony appears, the same cultural patrimony that it is supposed to protect.

The IHAH, as executor of Decree 81-84, has prepared an objective opposition to the proposed law, which, although it has been delivered to the corresponding State offices, has not yet been made public. ICOMOS de Honduras, not wishing to precipitate the affair, is now awaiting the results of negociations that are still being held behind closed doors. Nevertheless, if and when the affair comes to a head, ICOMOS de Honduras not only wishes to take an official position, but also considers that it has an obligation to do so. Only in this way will we the members of ICOMOS de Honduras be able to declare the ethical principles that we have assumed as conservators to preserve the cultural significance and social value of our heritage.

Authenticity: Why and for Whom?

In this essay I have emphasized one aspect of authenticity in the general conservation policy in a country where this policy is sanctioned by law. A great deal remains to be said about authenticity and native populations, authenticity and cultural tourism, authenticity and investigation, authenticity and museographic interpretations and, finally, authenticity and professional ethics in conservation. The debate is still open.

I will conclude on a more hopeful note. One of the most promising paths for reflection about and application of authenticity centers on cultural landscapes. The definition of these settings allows an integrated treatment of a whole phenomenon that confers authenticity on a site. Within the cultural landscape the environment is organically incorporated into the historical trail that has left its imprint of human activity. Thus, the property or properties and their context constitute a whole, avoiding the artificial restrictions that frequently belittle the cultural significance and social value of the legacy.

In this area, too, Honduras is taking its first steps with an innovative project that involves an ancient cultural landscape, but which also has a dynamic modern use, the Lake Yojoa Ecotourism Project. The conceptualization of this project is taken from the cultural significance and social value inherent in the prehistoric occupation of the region and its relationship to the modern residents.

Archaeological and ethnohistoric investigations as well as botanical, zoological, geological, and paleoecological inventories will provide the unifying threads for the authentic interpretation of the past for locals and foreign visitors alike, and the fundamental goal of the project is the maintenance of the integrity of this cultural landscape. Local authorities, small and large landholders, and administrators of tourism services have all had the opportunity to voice their apprehensions and aspirations and offer their ideas. In other words, the Lake Yojoa Ecotourism Project is an initiative with the people and for the people. We will hear much more of this project in the coming years.

Notes

The Quito Norms, for example, mentions "social function" [II.4] and defines it with a strong emphasis on economic benefits.

References

ANTEPROYECTO DE LEY TIPO sobre Protección del Patrimonio Cultural. Promovido por la Convencion Centroamericana para la Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural. Documento de trabajo. Guatemala. 1995.

CARTA DE BURRA. Carta para la Conservacion de Lugares de Valor Cultural. Guías de la Carta de Burra: Valor Cultural, Política de Conservación y Procedimientos para emprender Estudios e Informes. ICOMOS Australia. Burra, Burra. 19 de agosto de 1979 (incluye revisiones hechas en 1981 y 1988).

CARTA DE VENECIA. Carta Internacional sobre la Conservacion y Restauracion de los Monumentos y los Sitios Historico-Artisticos. 1964.

COMENTARIOS a la documentacion presentada a la Gerencia DEL INSTITUTO HONDUREÑO DE ANTROPOLOGIA E HISTORIA por el Fiscal Especial de Etnias y patrimonio Cultural: Hacia una Nueva Ley de Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nacion (Justificacion). Anteproyecto de Ley de Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nacion. Anteproyecto de Reglamento. Tegucigalpa. January 1996.

CONVENCION SOBRE LA PROTECCION del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural. Aprobada por la Conferencia General en su Decimoseptima Reunion. UNESCO. Paris, 16 de noviembre de 1972.

CONVENCION CENTROAMERICANA para la Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural. Aprobada por los Ministros de Educacion Publica y Cultura de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panama. Ciudad de Guatemala, 26 de agosto de 1995

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Heritage Committee. UNESCO. Eighteenth Session. Phuket, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994.

DECLARACION DE CRACOVIA. Consejo Internacional de Monumentos y Sitios (ICOMOS). 30 Aniversario de ICOMOS. Cracovia, 13 de septiembre de 1995. 4

DECLARACIOH DE NARA,. ICOMOS/ICCROM. 1-5 de noviembre de 1994. (Version espanola de ICOMOS USA.)

DECRETO 81-84. Ley de Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nacion. La Gaceta. Tegucigalpa.

Hasemann, George. Research and Reality: Archaeological Parks in Honduras. Ponencia presentada en el simposio, Archaeological Remains and In Situ Preservation de ICAMM (Comite Internacional para el Manejo del Patrimonio Arqueologico), Montreal. Octubre de 1994.

Jonhnston, Chris. ;Que es el Valor Social? Comision del Patrimonio Australiano 1995. Documento fotocopiado (Cortesia de ICOMOS USA.).

MINISTERIO PUBLICO DE HONDURAS

Hacia una Nueva Ley de Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nacion (Justificacion). Anteproyecto de Ley de Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nacion. Anteproyecto de Reglamento. (Documentos de trabajo presentados por iniciativa de la Fiscalia Especial de Etnias y Patrimonio Cultural del Ministerio Publico al Ministerio de Cultura y las Artes.) Tegucigalpa. Diciembre de 1995. Hasemann, George

NORMAS DE QUITO. Organizacion de Estados Americanos. 1967.

Pawlowski, K. Problematique proposée a inclure dans la Charte (Declaration) des Droits et des Devoirs a L'egard du Patrimoine. Version presentada a ICOMOS Paris el 1 de marzo de 1995 para la reunion preparatoria de la Conferencia del 30 Aniversario de ICOMOS y 50 Aniversario de la UNESCO.

RESOLUCIONES del Primer Seminario Interamericano sobre Experiencias en la Conservacion y Restauracion del Patrimonio Monumental de los Periodos Colonial y Republicano. Santo Domingo, 2-8 de diciembre de 1974.

WORLD HERITAGE LIST. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and natural Heritage. UNESCO. WHC.95/W5.1.