World Heritage Site

Although I did not need the credits anymore towards my Bachelor Degree in Cultural Sciences, I was tempted by a new course from the Dutch Open University about ‘Cultural Heritage’. It comes with a book called The Heritage Universe: 11 chapters on topics such as canonization, conservation and 'tainted' heritage.'

The Scientific Approach 

It would not be a proper scientific book without a theoretic model of course. In this case that of Austrian art historian Alois Riegl, who publicized his ideas around 1903-1905. He focussed on the experience of the individual, on the relationship we have with monuments and objects from the past. This in contrast to those scientists aiming for an ideal, universal standard. He distinguished 6 values that are attributed to objects/sites, such as age value, historical value, esthetic value and utility. So when we value ruins from Antiquity for example, we value them in a state that we can notice they are truly old (incomplete, overgrown, ruined). For him the 20th century was all about this 'age' criterion. The authors conclude that in the 21st century, conflict and nostalgia will be the main criteria for selecting heritage properties. 'Conflict' as in: not only the good or pretty things have to be saved (for example parts of the Berlin Wall). And nostalgia as 'longing for an idealized past'. The example used is the reconstructed Historic Centre of Warsaw, which was reverted to a 18th century Polish city instead of the much more German looking 1930s version it was just before destruction during WWII.

Chapter on World Heritage

One full chapter is allocated to UNESCO World Heritage. I couldn’t wait to read the authors’ opinion and see how much I already knew - in fact I started reading at this Chapter no. 6! There's so much to explain of course, and only 25 pages to do so and cover the basics. I did come across a few errors, some of which are pretty essential:

• “Repeated” deferral/referral of Sydney Opera House because it was “too new”. It was never officially deferred/referred (let alone repeatedly), the nomination was withdrawn by Australia after a negative ICOMOS evaluation. Also it was not “too new” per se: the critics found a "lack of exemplary character or ... role as model".
• Only 1 nomination per country is allowed each year, even including extensions or boundary changes. Not true of course: Denmark has no less than 3 hopefuls for 2015 for example! The official rule is: a maximum of 2, of which 1 must be a natural site or a cultural landscape. See Article 61 in the current Operational Guidelines.
• The combination of 4 natural and 6 cultural criteria into 10 general criteria in 2003 is attributed to the advance of “mixed heritage sites or cultural landscapes”. No distinction is made in the text between mixed WHS and cultural landscapes, while in fact they’re two very different groups. Cultural landscapes are man-made sites, mixed WHS also have a purely natural component with its own OUV.
• And the most funny glitch: the delisted Arab Oryx Sanctuary is described as a bird conservation area where a bird species has died out. It’s obvious the authors and their editors are not comfortable with the subject of natural heritage: the oryx is an antelope.

  Arab oryxes: No, they definitely are not birds

  Only secondary sources have been used by the authors in compiling this chapter, so they unfortunately missed out on the finer details of the WH Universe.

Conclusion

In general the book is an easy read, maybe even a bit too superficial for a university level course. The various chapters provide an introduction into what we categorize now as ‘heritage’ or have done so in the past. It explains the transformation from a western oriented, material heritage approach to the more immaterial focus of the east. The more recent emancipation of the Islamic World and the BRICS countries, which we have seen at the WHC in the past years, is still overlooked.

Marlite Halbertsma & Marieke Kuipers, Het Erfgoeduniversum (Uitgeverij Coutinho 2014)