Rethink Heritage

There are several documents, born from congresses and gatherings of international experts, which function as guidelines established to unify and structure potential criteria for the conservation, restoration or management of a given cultural asset.

Many of these were edited under the name of the cities where the stakeholders in the field of conservation and restoration met. These meetings cemented the aim of reaching a consensus for the recommendations established for the intervention or management of heritage answering to methodological and operational issues. All these documents have one thing in common: they emphasize the different values linked to heritage in its most varied facets, both tangible and intangible. Depending on the case, these protocols defend their cultural, artistic, historical, aesthetic, functional, economic and educational values in terms of authenticity, antiquity and sustainability, which can be linked to the concept of “cultural assets”.

These documents are not regulatory but set possible precedents which are later incorporated into the legislative texts of many countries. It is interesting to note how in all these documents the concept of heritage is progressively expanded, with the debate becoming more specific and touching upon many concrete aspects of a given sphere of heritage.

Examples notable for their repercussion, international nature and crucial issues examined can be found among these documents. Many of these highlight indications and guidelines to be proposed or set out possible limitations, sanctions and negative actions to be avoided. Since the late 19th century over 70 documents of international importance have been drawn up, as summarized and detailed below.

The beginnings: The ROME CHARTER-IV Congress of Italian Engineers and Architects (1883)

This document, a truly decisive text for a gathering of experts in the field, views the conservation of monuments as documents. Camillo Boito, a brilliant conservation architect, played a major role in this charter with his stance and axiom of “consolidating before repairing and repairing before restoring”. These actions could only be carried out following a prior comprehensive detailed study in order to ascertain the condition of the building. In cases where circumstances and diagnosis required interventions, the guidelines implemented translated into recognition and visibility of actions, respecting all the constructive phases of a building.

The discussion: the ATHENS CHARTER for the Restoration of Historic Monuments (1931)

This Charter promotes the conservation of world artistic and archaeological heritage, highlighting the role of countries as defenders of civilization. For the first time it was proposed that all countries should agree to collaborate more extensively and specifically to guarantee the conservation of artistic and historic monuments. This Charter analyses the legislation passed in individual countries for the protection of monuments, insisting that public authorities be granted decision-making powers as regards conservation, particularly combining public and private law. This Charter also had repercussions at a national level, where principles were set out according to specific contexts, as in the case of Italy, with the 1932 CARTA DEL RESTAURO ROMA for the Restoration of monuments.

An “evergreen”: the VENICE CHARTER for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (1964)

The 16 articles which make up this Charter (1964) are possibly the most cited and mentioned internationally since its publication. This document was originally born as an updated version of the Athens Charter, following the concern and impotence of conservators after the war. Several roundtables, with notable contributions from Roberto Pane, Piero Gazzola and Raymond Lemaire, stressed the exceptional nature of the concept of restoration. This could resort to the assistance of more contemporary means, respecting additions and once again rejecting the unity of style. Another interesting contribution is the expansion of the concept of heritage to a more inclusive urban and environmental scale, both closely linked.

Burra Charter (1979, 1999, 2004, 2013)

The Burra Charter is a document published by the Australian ICOMOS which defines the basic principles and procedures to be followed in the conservation of Australian heritage places. The Charter was first endorsed in 1979 as an Australian adaptation of the Venice Charter, but with the introduction of a new analytical conservation model of heritage assessment that recognised forms of cultural heritage beyond tangible and physical forms. The Charter was the first national heritage document to replace the Venice Charter as the basis of national heritage practice. The Charter has been revised on four occasions since 1979, and has been internationally influential in providing standard guidelines for heritage conservation practice. The 2004 publication The Illustrated Burra Charter elaborates and explains the principles of the 1999 version in an easy to understand form. In 2013 the Charter was again revised and updated.

The conservation of artistic heritage

The CARTA DEL RESTAURO DE ROMA (1972) builds upon the extremely complex concept of heritage, a legacy of the 1964 Venice Charter. Four annexes focus on the safeguarding and restoration of antiquities, the procedures to be followed in architectural restoration, the execution of painting and sculpture restorations, and finally, the guardianship of historic centres. The document further highlights the ravages of destruction caused by war which led to restorations and reconstructions without the necessary caution or precautions due to an understandable yet questionable sentimentality towards damaged or destroyed monuments.

The protection of cultural assets in armed conflict

The two world wars marked a before and an after in the field of architectural conservation. As a result of the mass destruction of cultural heritage in the Second World War an initial international treaty for the protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict was passed by 133 countries. This became known as the HAGUE CONVENTION (1954). This document formalised a protocol which aimed to prevent the export of cultural assets from occupied territories and demanded the return of these assets to the country from which they were plundered. One of the most important contributions of the convention was the establishment of prior measures in times of peace as well as a series of guidelines in the event of conflict. The destruction of cultural assets as a result of the conflicts of the 1980s and early 1990s highlighted the need for improvement, as defined more recently in other documents. Among these it is worth noting the RADENCI DECLARATION (1998) for the protection of cultural heritage in emergencies and exceptional situations, the SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION (1999) which summarises and updates the 1950s guidelines and the SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT (2000).

The principles for archaeological excavations

The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in its ninth edition in New Delhi (1956), established a series of guidelines of interest for the protection of heritage with a wide range of measures to be implemented in all regimes of archaeological excavations, placing special insistence on the repression of clandestine actions and illegal export or trade of objects obtained from archaeological excavations. This document aims to protect vulnerable settings with limited legislation. These guidelines were followed in later years with more specific documents for the discipline of archaeology, including the NORMS OF QUITO (1977) for the preservation and utilisation of monuments and sites of archaeological, historical and artistic interest; the LAUSSANNE CHARTER (1990) and VALLETTA TREATY (1992), both aiming to guarantee the correct management of archaeological heritage; and the UNIDROIT CONVENTION (1995), which specifically targeted stolen or illegally exported cultural objects.

The international approach: the protection of cultural and natural heritage

The UNESCO CONVENTION (1972) was the first to insist on the concept of conservation integrated as a 360º mechanism allowing the coordination of legislative, administrative, financial, and educational measures to promote public interest in heritage and safeguard it on an international scale. This document reflected the search for a degree of homogeneity among the specific conditions of countries, particularly in Europe. In the second half of the 20th century the EU was one of a series of bodies and institutions promoting several mechanisms and policies focusing on the normalization of policies of member states. Some results to be highlighted in the framework of these actions are RECOMMENDATION 880 CE (1979) on the conservation of European Architectural Heritage; the BERLIN CONFERENCE (1982) on European cities; the GRANADA CONVENTION (1985) for the protection of European architectural heritage; the DOCUMENT OF COPENHAGEN (1987) and that of PAVIA (1997), both relating to the European profile of the conservator-restorer. In the second half of the 20th century, issues such as threats, abandonment and above all the pollution or destruction of European landscape enclaves prompted a wide range of actions for the conservation of the landscape, since it had been recognized that cultural landscape was a determining factor in the development of different societies over time. In this regard, one of the most important contributions was the drafting of the EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION (2000), updated in the FLORENCE DECLARATION (2014) on landscape and human values.

Tourism and the safeguarding of historic centres

The second half of the 20th century saw the appearance of issues such as the management of tourism, linked to important world locations which were starting to see the strain of mass tourism arising from the economic booms and development. From the 1970s these issues were addressed in various documents including the BRUSSELS AND MEXICO (1976) CHARTERS, which respectively focused on the defence of tourism and cultural heritage. From the 1980s particular insistence was placed on the potentially disastrous actions affecting historic centres. Most notably, the NOTO CHARTER (1986) specified the prospects for the conservation and recovery of historic centres; the TOLEDO CHARTER (1986) focused on the conservation of historic cities, while the WASHINGTON CHARTER (1987), expanded the protection to wider urban areas, eventually decentred or more scattered, as did the VERACRUZ CHARTER (1992) which set out action policy in historic centres in Latin America. The aim of all these documents is to limit and control the damage due to the aggressively out-of-control growth of urban centres, insisting on the concept of controlled urban planning, as highlighted in the recent VALLETTA CHARTER (2011).

Cultural diversity and heritage diversity: values and authenticity

The globalization of the late 20th century led to documents being devised which defended cultural diversity, promoting respect for cultural and social values, establishing a protocol to guarantee diversity for human development, and promoting the legitimacy of the different authentic cultural values of each culture and country. In keeping with this, the NARA CHARTER (1994) was one of the first documents which insisted on the importance of intangible values, tackling issues which were successively expounded on in other documents. For example, the BURRA CHARTER (1999) provided a guide for the conservation of locations of cultural significance; the CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE of PARIS (2003) or the FARO CONVENTION (2005) focused on the value of cultural heritage for society.

Specificity and uniqueness of heritage

The late 20th century and early 21st century saw the progressive creation of specific documents promoting an increasingly defined and detailed profile of the subject/object to “be protected” in order to guarantee its correct management. The principles and proposals focus solely on a specific case insisting on its values, highlighting its unique and special nature within the family of possible cultural assets. This is the case for example of the ICOMOS UNDERWATER CHARTER (1996) for the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage; the PRINCIPLES FOR TIMBER STRUCTURES; the CHARTER ON THE BUILT VERNACULAR HERITAGE (1999); the CHARTER ON THE STUDY AND CONSERVATION OF RETABLOS (2000); and the NIZHNY TAGIL CHARTER (2003) on Industrial Heritage. Other documents drawn up, focusing on very specific and defined facets of heritage included the PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION/RESTORATION OF WALL PAINTINGS (2003), the PRINCIPLES FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES (2005), and the MADRID DOCUMENT FOR 20th-CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE (2010).

The interpretation of heritage, its values and technology

The charters have progressively become more participatory, promoting aspects such as education, training, interpretation and dissemination (specific programmes, exchange programmes…), in order to promote collective awareness which may assess and contribute to the conservation of a given heritage complex. The 21st century has opened the door to new professions, linked either to new technologies or heritage management, and requiring a series of guidelines, including ethical codes. Notable examples of these include the ENAME CHARTER (2005) for the interpretation of cultural heritage sites and the XI’AN DECLARATION (2005) on the conservation of the setting of heritage structures, sites and areas. In addition, around this time the ICOM MUSEUMS CODE OF ETHICS (2006) took shape and the HAVANA MEETING (2007) on science and technology for cultural heritage was held. In addition, regarding interpretation problems it is worth highlighting the LONDON CHARTER (2008) on computer-based visualization of cultural heritage, the CHARTER ON CULTURAL ROUTES (2008), and the CHARTER ON THE INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES (2008).

Risks, threats and resilience of Cultural Heritage

Since the first decade of the 21st century there has been a notable worsening of aspects such as climate change, social diversity and the widespread imbalances which affect cultural heritage more or less directly. Therefore, in order to contribute to the prevention, planning and prioritization in the face of natural, social, and anthropic risks preventive documents and actions are now being drawn up, including the LIMA DECLARATION (2010) for disaster risk management of cultural heritage, the DELHI DECLARATION (2017) on the relationship between democracy and heritage, and the BUENOS AIRES DECLARATION (2018) regarding human rights in connection with heritage enclaves.