VALUES, AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY FOR GOOD MANAGEMENT

François LeBlanc, Architect

Head, Field Projects, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, California. USA

Paper presented at a workshop organized by the World Heritage Directorate of INAH (Mexico National Institute for Anthropology and History), August 24-26, 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

What is Heritage?

Because the word “heritage” is associated to so many things nowadays, and because the concept of “heritage” is at the core of everything that we do in conservation, the paper offers a personal definition. In simple terms, heritage is “whatever you want to preserve for the next generations”. From that simple definition, the concept can be illustrated by three axis: on one axis, heritage can be anything natural, built, living or intangible; on another axis, it ranges from you as an individual to communities, countries and the whole world. In that context, UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention covers the natural and built heritage at world level while its Intangible Heritage Convention covers that aspect of heritage. Only the “living” heritage now needs to be protected by an international tool to cover the whole range at the “world” level. On a third axis, it can be said that all these concepts of nature, culture, family, state etc. are understood differently according to the cultural value system one examines them from. The concept of “family” or “nature” varies considerably if you are a North American or an African, or if you are from an Asian or aboriginal culture.

Values for Good Management

Since 1987, the Getty Conservation Institute has been involved with values-based site management planning through research efforts, professional training courses, symposia, and field projects.  As an extension of this commitment, and associated with a related research and publication effort on values and heritage conservation, the Institute has led an effort to produce a series of case studies that demonstrate how values-driven site management has been interpreted, employed, and evaluated by four key organizations.  In this project, the GCI has collaborated with the Australian Heritage Commission, English Heritage, Parks Canada, and the U.S. National Park Service.

The case studies in this series focus on values and their protection by examining these agencies’ roles in management.  By looking at one site and the management context in which it exists, they provide detailed descriptions and analyses of the processes that connect theoretical management guidelines with management planning and its practical application. The analysis of the management of values in each site has been structured around the following questions: 

·         How are the values associated with the site understood and articulated?

·         How are these values taken into account in the site’s management policies and strategies?

·         How do management decisions and actions on site affect the values? 

Of the four sites studied as part of this project – Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site in Canada, Port Arthur Historic Site in Australia, Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site in the United Kingdom, and Chaco Culture National Historical Park in the U. S. – The latter was presented to illustrate how values play an important role in management.

Commemorative Integrity Statement

Finally, the Canadian methodology for the preparation of Commemorative Integrity Statements at National Historic Sites is presented as one way of understanding the concept of “integrity” in a practical context that can help to manage World Heritage sites.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VALUES, AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY FOR GOOD MANAGEMENT

Francois LeBlanc, Architect

Head, Field Projects, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA

1. WHAT IS HERITAGE?

Natural heritage, intangible heritage, cultural heritage, built heritage, world heritage, local heritage, musical heritage, heritage days, heritage food, heritage cars, heritage anything … The word “heritage” has been associated to so many things and activities during the past decades that it is legitimate for anyone to ask the question: What is heritage? Is everything heritage, or is heritage something so special that only very few and special things can be considered as heritage?

Over the years, I have had to explain what heritage is to students, to fishermen, to loggers and to professionals in many different fields. To do this, I have developed a modest explanation that may help to simplify the understanding of this concept. It is my personal way of explaining this concept, but since heritage is at the core of all the work that we do in conservation, I invite everyone to develop their own way of explaining what it is.

Put in simple terms, I explain that heritage is “whatever each one of us individually or collectively wishes to preserve and pass on to the next generations”. If we want to preserve something, then it is our heritage.

This of course varies considerably, depending on the person or the group of persons expressing their interest and the type of resource that they want to preserve. To explain the whole range covered by heritage, I use the following three-dimensional diagram.

On one axis, heritage begins with natural heritage and grows all the way to intangible heritage.

From The Natural To The Intangible

Natural:

This comprises nature in its broadest sense. Natural heritage may consist of sites which should be preserved for their beauty or their uniqueness; endangered animal species or species representative of an area; geological formations which explain the evolution of an area or the earth, a lake, a pond or even a single flower.

Built:

Think of “built” in its broadest sense. Built heritage may then consist of buildings or structures of architectural, engineering or historical significance; industrial objects and machines; transportation vehicles (cars, boats, airplanes), archaeological sites and objects, books or archival materials.

People:

Living persons may be considered as heritage because they possess special skills or talents such as craftsmen, musicians, actors or artists. They can also be people having an exceptional memory of a community. Refer to the article on Japanese legislation in ICOMOS Canada Bulletin Vol.1 No.2. It gives a good overview of what living heritage can be.

Intangible:

Traditions, songs, sayings, ways of life, practices, representations, and expressions, as well as the associated knowledge and the necessary skills, that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.

On another axis, heritage begins with you as an individual and grows all the way to the world.

From You to the World

You:

Each individual possesses a personal heritage which he or she cherishes: family pictures, special books, music records, personal objects, souvenirs, plants, animals, special persons in the family, traditions etc. This is a personal heritage that individuals need to recognize, appreciate, and conserve. At this level, it is usually left to individuals or families to recognize and pass on this heritage from one generation to the next.

Family:

Families, especially large ones usually have a common heritage that they pass on from generation to generation: jewels, family house or land, furniture, precious objects, pictures, portraits, clothes etc.

Community:

Each community possesses a collective heritage which it wants to preserve: buildings, parks, traditions, archives, farms, landscapes, collections of objects gathered by citizens, skilled people, persons with a long memory of the community etc. This constitutes a local community's heritage. At this level it is usually the community's responsibility to raise the level of awareness of its citizens for this local heritage.

Region, province, country:

In the same way, each region, province, and country possess a common natural, built, human and non-physical heritage, which collectively it has to learn to recognize, appreciate, preserve and share. Again, at each level, it is up to the region, province and country to define what it considers as its heritage and to care for it.

World:

As human beings living on this planet, there are things, persons and traditions which we consider to be our common heritage. One only has to mention places such as the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt, the Acropolis of Athens or Mount Everest to realize that these places do not belong to Egypt, Greece or Nepal. They are part of humanity's heritage and these countries are simply the current custodians of these incredible treasures. This is why the World Heritage Convention was created: to help the whole of humanity define what it wants to preserve and pass on to the next generations.

In this diagram, it becomes clear that UNESCO covers a large part of the cultural heritage at the world level, from the natural to the intangible but does not yet cover living heritage. That will probably be the next challenge in cultural terms.

From Our Values to Other Peoples Values

Values:

Since the notion of heritage rests on extremely varied value systems, from the values of one individual to those of a community, to those of the whole world, at a specific time, and that these value systems are constantly in evolution, it is normal that the notion of heritage is also constantly in evolution. It is easy to understand that Japanese looking at a site or object from a personal or community point of view would not necessarily apply the same values to this site or object than say aboriginal persons living in Canada or Bedouins living in the desert of Algeria.

The diagram may help to explain that for some individuals or groups, heritage is more in the community and people areas (aboriginals for instance), while for others it is essentially in the province and built area. It may also help to understand that at each level, it is, in my opinion, that level's responsibility to identify and care for its heritage and that it should not expect or rely on other levels to do its job.

It also helps to explain that everything is not heritage, but that there is probably much more heritage out there than most people think. And if a person, a province, a country or the whole world cares enough about something to want to pass it on to the next generations, then anyone saying to us that there is too much heritage and not enough money to care for it and therefore we should limit the concept of heritage to a few really special things, does not understand what the conservation community stands for.

2. VALUES FOR GOOD MANAGEMENT

In 1998 the Getty Conservation Institute commenced a project examining the role of values in site management, with examples describing and analyzing the processes that connect theoretical management guidelines with management planning and its practical application.

The case studies result from a unique and intense collaboration amongst professionals from the Australian Heritage Commission, Parks Canada, English Heritage, the U.S. National Park Service and the Getty Conservation Institute.  They examined Chaco Culture National Historical Park in the United States, Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site in Canada, Port Arthur Historic Site in Australia, and Hadrian's Wall World Heritage Site in England. The cases can be found at http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/reports.html. 

The project showed how in each case heritage management is, at its most basic, the process of articulating and then reconciling different values. Each heritage place was managed in accordance with conservation legislation and management plans yet the very process of planning highlighted competing values and interests that needed to be resolved in the plan. The project has important lessons for how heritage is actually managed, how practitioners are moving from site 'dictators' to community 'facilitators,' how tourism and presentation of site values can be reconciled with the obligation to protect cultural values.

The analysis of the management of values in each site has been structured around the following questions:

The studies do not attempt to measure the success of a given management model against some arbitrary standard. Rather, they illustrate and explain how four different groups have dealt d other policies.

Chaco Culture National Historical Park

New Mexico, U.S.

The case of Chaco Culture National Historical Park illustrates the important role played by values in the management of a World Heritage Site. This site is situated in the sparsely populated, northwestern part of the state of New Mexico. Between 700 A.D. and 1300 A.D. it was the center of what is known as the Anasazi culture. The core area of Chaco Canyon appears to have served as an administrative, economic, and ceremonial nexus of a culture that dominated the region today known as the Four Corners. The phases of occupation in Chaco Canyon left behind complex masonry structures known as “Greathouses” containing hundreds of rooms and dozens of kivas that were much larger in scale than anything previously in the region and whose appearance is unique in the Americas.  Other features of the Chaco phenomenon include road alignments (some segments are more than 64 kilometers long) with cut stairways and masonry ramps that lead to more than 150 outlying great houses and settlements. 

 

Artist drawing of a Greathouse

After 25 years of excavation at the site, concerns over its protection played a vital role in passage of the American Antiquities Act in 1906 and it was proclaimed a National Monument the following year. When the National Park Service was created in 1916, the site came under its management authority. The site’s status was changed in 1980 to National Historical Park, and it was inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1987. The archaeological remains there have always been the primary reason for the site’s protection. However, it has also long been held to be a sacred site by local Native American groups, and has more recently been recognized as a significant place by New Age religious practitioners. The differing ways in which the site is valued present a variety of challenges to the National Park Service in its management. Site managers have since then finalized a new Resource Management Plan.

 

Pueblo Bonito archaeological remains at Chaco Culture National Historical Park, NM, USA

 The four case studies have helped the participants to draw certain conclusions:

• Managers responsible for historic sites are different from managers of other types of facilities because not only do they have to manage assets (buildings, roads, water supply, vehicles, ruins etc.) and people (those who work there and those who visit) but they also have to manage values
• Values are at the base of any planning scheme
• Values are the reflection of stakeholders concerns
• Values change over time and need to be reassessed regularly
• Managers must bring out, understand and manage the values associated with the site

The challenge to heritage site managers is to manage and mitigate the impact of values, not prioritize them. Trying to impose a set of values over another tends to create conflict and confrontation.  Which one of the following values is more important? The education values, the aesthetic values? The historical values? The societal values? The economic values? Etc. They exist, and heritage managers should try to understand them and find ways to mitigate their impact on the cultural resource.

What is “site significance”?

The overall importance of a site, determined through an analysis of all of the values attributed to it

What are “values”?

The positive characteristics attributed to heritage places and objects by legislation, governing authorities, and other stakeholders

These characteristics are what make a site significant, and they are often the reason why society and authorities are interested in a specific cultural site or object. In general, groups within society expect benefits from the value they attribute to the resource.

3. INTEGRITY AND NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES IN CANADA

In Canada, those responsible for the care of national historic sites have developed and applied a methodology that recognizes what is important at a national historic site (values), identifies the physical attributes that symbolize or illustrate these values (physical resources) and describes the site’s health (integrity). It is called “Commemorative Integrity Statement”.

In this methodology, Commemoration refers to that which is nationally significant, to the reasons for its national significance, and to the form(s) by which that significance will be recognized.

Commemorative Intent refers specifically to the reasons for a site’s national significance, as determined by the Ministerially-approved recommendations of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

Commemorative integrity describes the health or wholeness of a national historic site. A national historic site possesses commemorative integrity when the resources that symbolize or represent its importance are not impaired or under threat, when the reasons for the site’s national historic significance are effectively communicated to the public, and when the site’s heritage values are respected by all whose decisions or actions affect the site.

Commemorative integrity is not a rhetorical or abstract concept. It expresses the fundamental program result for national historic sites, and it is intended to help managers plan, manage and report on the state of national historic sites, and to identify remedial action where necessary. It is a practical tool to guide management.

At a Canadian national historic site, what should be interpreted (the “message”) is determined by the Minister. This is always a site-specific statement. The managers must be able to identify what constitutes a state of commemorative integrity, otherwise they will not be able to evaluate whether it has been achieved. This implies the need for indicators and benchmarks.

Commemorative integrity should be measurable, that is to say managers should be able to identify the gap (if any) between what has been attained and what should be attained. It is not a statement of what would be “nice to have”; rather it is a statement that focuses on essentials. It is a statement of what managers have to do to carry out the Minister’s commemorative intentions and to make the content and quality of their stewardship apparent.

Commemorative integrity should force managers to develop a baseline statement of physical condition for a site, so that resource condition ratings can be measured against this benchmark. For example, if it is determined that commemorative integrity is best achieved by consolidating surviving site features as ruins, condition will be based on the state of the ruins, not on plans for restoration or reconstruction.

What it is ...

Commemorative integrity is used to describe the health or wholeness of a national historic site in Canada. A national historic site possesses commemorative integrity when the resources that symbolize or represent its importance are not impaired or under threat, when the reasons for the site’s national historic significance are effectively communicated to the public, and when the site’s heritage values are respected by all whose decisions or actions affect the site.

And why they do it ...

To focus their management on what is most important;

To ensure that there is a focus on the whole (the site), not just the parts (individual resources);

For national historic sites, it is one of the key business Plan accountabilities, along with service to the clients and wise and efficient use of public funds;

It is the basis for reporting to Canadians on the state of national historic sites.

Historic sites managers have to report annually on the “integrity” of the site they are responsible for.

Examples of indicators:

Resources – Impaired or Under Threat

• Are cultural resources managed in accordance with the cultural resource management principles and practice?
• Are the cultural resources of national significance accorded the highest value?
• Are the cultural resources valued in their context?
• Have the natural resources of the site been treated in accordance with the cultural resources management principles?
• Are there uses or threats that reduce the potential for long-term conservation and future understanding and appreciation of the cultural resources?

Messages – Effectively Communicated

• Is the historic value or meaning of the site’s cultural resources communicated?
• Is primary importance given to the messages of national significance?
• Does the public understand the reasons for the site’s national significance?
• Is the past presented in a manner that accurately reflects the range and complexity of the human history commemorated at or represented at the site?
• Does the site encourage research and study in Canadian history?

Heritage Values – Respect

• Is the site managed as a place of national significance to the whole nation, or is it managed primarily as an attraction?
• Do management decisions and practices adequately address the whole (the site) as well as the parts?
• Have resources been inventoried and evaluated?
• Are records and inventories relating to cultural resources (including basic data, records of decisions and actions taken, heritage recording, etc.) up to date?

Additional information on the Canadian Commemorative Integrity Statements can be found on the Parks Canada web site at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/guide/commemorative_1_0_e.asp