Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history
Identifieur interne : 000384 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000383; suivant : 000385Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history
Auteurs : Randolph StarnSource :
- History of the Human Sciences [ 0952-6951 ] ; 2002-02.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Ancient monuments, Authenticity, Boito, Cambridge university press, Camillo boito, Common heritage, Common responsibility, Crystal palace, Cultural diversity, Cultural heritage, Cultural identity, Cultural properties, Cultural property, Dehio, Exclusive criterion, Full richness, George gilbert scott, Getty conservation institute, Guideline, Historic buildings, Historic monuments, Historic preservation, Historical existence, Historical monuments, Historical value, Human sciences, Human values, Italian school, John ruskin, Jokilehto, Konservieren nicht restaurieren, Lowenthal, Mechanical reproduction, Modern cult, Nara conference, Nara document, Other measures, Patrimoine historique, Preservation movement, Preservation theory, Riegl, Starn, Unprincipled analysis, Venice charter, Western europe, World heritage convention, World heritage list.
Abstract
Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/0952695102015001070
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECFLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Starn, Randolph" sort="Starn, Randolph" uniqKey="Starn R" first="Randolph" last="Starn">Randolph Starn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECF</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/0952695102015001070</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/fulltext.pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000384</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000384</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Starn, Randolph" sort="Starn, Randolph" uniqKey="Starn R" first="Randolph" last="Starn">Randolph Starn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">History of the Human Sciences</title><idno type="ISSN">0952-6951</idno><idno type="eISSN">1461-720X</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-02">2002-02</date><biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="16">16</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0952-6951</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0952-6951</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Ancient monuments</term><term>Authenticity</term><term>Boito</term><term>Cambridge university press</term><term>Camillo boito</term><term>Common heritage</term><term>Common responsibility</term><term>Crystal palace</term><term>Cultural diversity</term><term>Cultural heritage</term><term>Cultural identity</term><term>Cultural properties</term><term>Cultural property</term><term>Dehio</term><term>Exclusive criterion</term><term>Full richness</term><term>George gilbert scott</term><term>Getty conservation institute</term><term>Guideline</term><term>Historic buildings</term><term>Historic monuments</term><term>Historic preservation</term><term>Historical existence</term><term>Historical monuments</term><term>Historical value</term><term>Human sciences</term><term>Human values</term><term>Italian school</term><term>John ruskin</term><term>Jokilehto</term><term>Konservieren nicht restaurieren</term><term>Lowenthal</term><term>Mechanical reproduction</term><term>Modern cult</term><term>Nara conference</term><term>Nara document</term><term>Other measures</term><term>Patrimoine historique</term><term>Preservation movement</term><term>Preservation theory</term><term>Riegl</term><term>Starn</term><term>Unprincipled analysis</term><term>Venice charter</term><term>Western europe</term><term>World heritage convention</term><term>World heritage list</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>starn</json:string><json:string>lowenthal</json:string><json:string>riegl</json:string><json:string>venice charter</json:string><json:string>historic preservation</json:string><json:string>jokilehto</json:string><json:string>boito</json:string><json:string>guideline</json:string><json:string>dehio</json:string><json:string>ancient monuments</json:string><json:string>human sciences</json:string><json:string>cultural heritage</json:string><json:string>authenticity</json:string><json:string>getty conservation institute</json:string><json:string>nara document</json:string><json:string>common responsibility</json:string><json:string>world heritage convention</json:string><json:string>historical value</json:string><json:string>full richness</json:string><json:string>nara conference</json:string><json:string>modern cult</json:string><json:string>historic monuments</json:string><json:string>camillo boito</json:string><json:string>preservation movement</json:string><json:string>western europe</json:string><json:string>patrimoine historique</json:string><json:string>george gilbert scott</json:string><json:string>historic buildings</json:string><json:string>historical monuments</json:string><json:string>world heritage list</json:string><json:string>historical existence</json:string><json:string>preservation theory</json:string><json:string>other measures</json:string><json:string>common heritage</json:string><json:string>italian school</json:string><json:string>human values</json:string><json:string>john ruskin</json:string><json:string>cultural property</json:string><json:string>cultural diversity</json:string><json:string>cultural properties</json:string><json:string>cultural identity</json:string><json:string>unprincipled analysis</json:string><json:string>mechanical reproduction</json:string><json:string>exclusive criterion</json:string><json:string>crystal palace</json:string><json:string>konservieren nicht restaurieren</json:string><json:string>cambridge university press</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Randolph Starn</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA,</json:string><json:string>E-mail: rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>authenticity</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>conservation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>cultural heritage</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>historic preservation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>the Venice Charter</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_0952695102015001070</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.212</score><pdfWordCount>6457</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>39392</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>16</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>443.944 x 662.144 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>101</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>674</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>History of the Human Sciences</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0952-6951</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1461-720X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>HHS</json:string></publisherId><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>1</first><last>16</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - history of social sciences</json:string><json:string>1 - arts and humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - history & philosophy of science</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - historical studies</json:string><json:string>3 - history of social sciences</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - History and Philosophy of Science</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - History</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences de l'education</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/0952695102015001070</json:string></doi><id>D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECF</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/fulltext.pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/bundle.zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/fulltext.tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://scientific-publisher.data.istex.fr">SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>sage</p></licence></availability><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B"></p><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Randolph</forename><surname>Starn</surname></persName><email>rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</email><affiliation>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA,</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECF</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/0952695102015001070</idno><idno type="article-id">10.1177_0952695102015001070</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">History of the Human Sciences</title><idno type="pISSN">0952-6951</idno><idno type="eISSN">1461-720X</idno><idno type="publisher-id">HHS</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">sphhs</idno><imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-02"></date><biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="16">16</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>authenticity</term></item><item><term>conservation</term></item><item><term>cultural heritage</term></item><item><term>historic preservation</term></item><item><term>the Venice Charter</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-02">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/fulltext.txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">sphhs</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">HHS</journal-id><journal-title>History of the Human Sciences</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0952-6951</issn><publisher>
<publisher-name>SAGE Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Sage UK: London, England</publisher-loc>
</publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0952695102015001070</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_0952695102015001070</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</article-title></title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Starn</surname><given-names>Randolph</given-names></name><aff>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA, <email xlink:type="simple">rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</email></aff></contrib></contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>02</month><year>2002</year></pub-date><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>16</lpage><abstract><p>Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>authenticity</kwd>
<kwd>conservation</kwd>
<kwd>cultural heritage</kwd>
<kwd>historic preservation</kwd>
<kwd>the Venice Charter</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value>1 Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history SAGE Publications, Inc.200210.1177/0952695102015001070 RandolphStarn Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA, rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past. authenticity conservation cultural heritage historic preservation the Venice Charter ABSTRACT People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity. (Preamble, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monu- ments and Sites Approved by the Second International Congress of 2 Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 25–31 May 1964) According to Plutarch's Life of Theseus, the ship of the legendary founder of the Athenian state returning victorious over the Cretan minotaur `was pre- served by the Athenians . . . for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place'. Plutarch notes that this prompted a long-standing debate: `the ship became a standing example among philosophers for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.'1 Arguments like this still go on over preserving things from the past. Pre- serve the design and the techniques for executing it and an original can argu- ably remain `the same'. Preserve the historical material and the wear and tear of time will distinguish the original from its copy and indeed from its own original state. Stretched between alternatives such as these, the case for his- toric preservation seems bound to go around in circles or turn downright incoherent. Critics like it that way. So do the movers and shakers with reasons – power, pro t, presumption – for wanting to trump the claims of the past on the present. Even sympathetic advocates have lamented the con icts and con- tradictions. In this article I want to argue not only that the tensions already present in the West's rst preservation quarrel have persisted but also that they have actually been enabling for the most cogent formulations of preservation theory and practice.2 I began by quoting the Venice Charter of 1964 because it has become the canonical text of a modern `heritage boom' or, as malcontents would have it, `glut', and because it is a hard test for my argument. Citing the charter, UNESCO's 1972 World Heritage Convention declared that monuments and sites to be included in the World Heritage List were required to pass the `test of authenticity'. In November 1994 a conference of international experts meeting in Nara, Japan, adopted a 13-point Document on Authenticity – by that time a total of 138 countries had rati ed the World Heritage Convention and 444 monuments and sites had already quali ed for the World Heritage List. Two years later the Interamerican af liates of the International Com- mission on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) drafted its own regional Declar- ation on Authenticity at a symposium in San Antonio, Texas. Authenticity was again an agenda item for the 11th General Assembly of ICOMOS at So a, Bulgaria, in October 1996. As a distinguished authority observed in a work- shop preliminary to the Nara Conference, `authenticity is the key word of the great majority of documents enunciating either a theory or criteria of choice with respect to safeguarding cultural heritage (patrimoine) . . . it is no exag- geration to say that this concept lies at the base of all modern doctrine on the conservation and restoration of historical monuments' (Lemaire, 1994: 83).3 3 It is also no exaggeration to say that the concept of authenticity is fuzzy and an easy target for criticism. The international declarations were prompted by the lack of precise de nition in a sea of vague language about `the unity of human values' and `common responsibility' to see that `ancient monu- ments' were handed down `in the full richness of their authenticity'. Critics have canonical countertexts – for example, Walter Benjamin's pronounce- ments on the unselfconsciously full, the irreducibly unique presence that characterizes an `aura' of authenticity in art and belies any attempt to pre- serve it, let alone to reproduce its effect.4 More devastating is the well- deserved ridicule over what geographer and historian David Lowenthal, a persistent gad y of preservationists, chronicles as `false authenticity and inauthentic truth' in everything from art and architecture to musical perform- ances, ethnic cookery, airport souvenirs, identity politics, clothing labels, and a mail-order offer for The Lowenthal Album, `a leather textured library edition . . . registered in the owner's name, serially numbered, and accom- panied with a Certi cate of Authenticity' (Lowenthal, 1989: III, 846).5 Depending on the critical lexicon, the idea of restoring or even conserving an `authentic cultural heritage' could be attacked as a sign of `false conscious- ness', `cultural imperialism', or `bad faith', a marketing ploy or a meta ction, a postmodern mix of fact and ction or simply muddled thinking. What Lowenthal calls a `mania' for authenticity is fair game. `In place of ignorance or philistinism,' Lowenthal writes, `we are now so besotted by the past that anything goes so long as it is “authentic.” In what purports to be history . . . “authenticity” means delity to feeling that swamps facts in anachronistic invention; a search for roots so engagé as to include very little of the actual past' (Lowenthal, 1985: 231).6 Turning to the actual past of `the test of authenticity', however, we nd that its history is neither a triumphal progress nor a tale of blinkered innocence or devious ideology. Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, the historical pedigree of the preservation movement is modern, centered in western Europe, and a byproduct of the far more powerful forces of political and economic revolution and war. People with the feel of continuity and tradition do not need to preserve the past as such. This is a modern preoccupation, and despite some earlier glimmerings, the discourse and institutional forms of a recognizable preservation movement took shape in France, England and Germany only in the early 19th century.7 Considerations of authenticity came relatively late and quite unevenly in the wake of salvage or restoration. This has been plotted as a progressive change in the course of the 19th century from aggressive restoration, `improving' buildings to look historically con- sistent, to the motto `Conservation, not Restoration'. In fact, the line between conservationists and restorationists was often breached in the same architect or project, and practically everyone granted that restoration of some kind would happen when repairs could be made, original structures were 4 dangerous, or patrons had preferences. The architects of high 19th-century restoration – notoriously, Sir George Gilbert Scott in England and Viollet- Le-Duc in France – could sound like conservation purists, while John Ruskin, who preached the gospel of non-intervention, or Anti-Scrape, saluted the reconstruction of the early Christian church of S. Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome and condoned the `substitution of new stones for decayed ones . . . propping, with wood or metal . . . binding or cementing into their places the sculptures which are ready to detach themselves'.8 The term `authenticity' seldom appears in the literature, and when it does, it refers to medieval churches. Even in the case of medieval churches authenticity was not so much an end itself as a practical concern when, to quote a leading Victorian architectural magazine, `doing just a little seems out of the ques- tion, when something more than repair (and still much less than rebuilding) is a necessity'.9 In short, the principle of `conserving' historic buildings, sites and monu- ments did not win out in any simple way over the ideal of `restoring' them, and `authenticity' was not an exclusive criterion or even a keyword in the rise of the preservation movement. The most important development by around 1900 came, I suggest, in the work of a generation of theorist-practitioners re ecting on con icting values and complications. Alois Riegl's `The Modern Cult of Monuments' (1982[1903]) draws on his studies in philosophy, history and law, his career as an art-historian and museum curator, and his experi- ence as a conservation administrator in Vienna. In this great essay Riegl dis- tinguishes among different kinds of value judgments applicable both to `intentional' and `unintentional' monuments; say, the great man's cenotaph and the house in which he lived and died.10 `Historical value' is time-speci c and documentary; the indices of `age-value' include signs of temporal dura- tion, from patina and outright damage to incompleteness and everyday wear and tear. Both `historical value' and `age-value' defer explicitly to time in one way or another, and this deference laced with anxiety over change is the chief characteristic of `the modern monument cult'. Kunstwollen, as Riegl famously puts it, the motivating desire for artistic form, is also time-bound in the sense that it is conditioned by any given period's conceptions and con- ditions of art-making. Therefore, `art-value' is not timeless; every age, includ- ing the modern age, appreciates monuments from the past – or not – in light of its own aesthetic preferences and treats them accordingly. `Use-value', nally, entails upkeep and adaptation to the functional requirements of the present; `newness-value' is something else again, a function of the complete- ness and sheen of the newly made artifact. For Riegl, then, the slogan `Conservation, not Restoration' was a gross oversimpli cation at best. According to an in uential manifesto of this position, restoration had licensed arbitrary taste, misunderstanding, ignor- ance and `any sort of whim', but conservation `fundamentally knows no such 5 distinctions. Its ultimate ground is respect for historical existence as such. We conserve a monument not because we consider it beautiful, but because it is a part of our national existence. . . . [H]ere is found an unchanging index of value' (Dehio, 1988[1905]: 92). The dizzying leaps of this old historicism would allow history to be transcendent, nationalism to universalize, change to afford stability. Even supposing that history transcends itself, restoration, intent on overcoming time, not conservation, acknowledging its effect, would be the appropriate strategy by Riegl's calculus of values. Furthermore, `historical existence as such', whatever that means, is no mandate for conser- vation. Supposing ruins to represent the highest age-value, it could be argued that monuments should not be conserved, let alone restored. The documen- tary value of a monument could just as well justify making facsimiles as con- serving disintegrating originals. Dismantling and reassembling an original in a museum might be the best way to safeguard its integrity and intelligibility; once properly surveyed and published for the historical record, it could be altered or even destroyed without its historical value being lost. In any case, age-value, arising in inverse proportion to the headlong production of the new, does not depend on historical knowledge or artistic worth. The look of age would do.11l Riegl wrote the monument-cult essay as the introduction for a draft conservation code for the Austro-Hungarian empire. It appeared in print in the same year as an English survey of `the recent ood of legislative or other measures' across Europe providing for `care of ancient monuments' (Baldwin Brown, 1905: 32).12 Corresponding to the rise of social legislation and the bureaucratization of social policy in the last two decades of the 19th century, these initiatives amounted to a kind of charity relief or, on the continent, social security for the built environment. The great restoration projects and heated debates of earlier decades receded. The professional conservation literature mostly ignored the apocalyptic prophets of the n-de-siècle. Eventually, it would even absorb the First World War as a temporary setback. One of its striking features, after all, was the professionalization of adminis- tration and practice in which con icting exigencies could be somehow accommodated. Let the `hunters after contradictions' say what they would, declared the Italian professor, architect, publicist and policy-maker, Camillo Boito, in one of his in uential dialogues on `practical questions' in architec- ture and the arts (Boito, 1893).13 In this dialogue the watchword `Conservation, not Preservation' prompts two speakers to take sides, only to acknowledge in the end that `the distinc- tion between the two that seems at rst so evident and easily realized in prac- tice, gets embroiled in the reality of things'. The journalists and academics `all ponti cate and send the poor architects and the poor members of the [super- vising] commissions who have to do the real work off to the scaffolds in words' (1893: 8). The aesthetes, exulting in their Piranesi–Ruskin sublime, 6 would be happy to see Venice die a beautiful death, `when the silt borne by the rivers will have buried the lagoons, and fever has driven away the last ragged inhabitants, and the houses have crumbled, and on the spreading over- grown spaces wispy trees cast stunted shadows, and the remains of venera- ble edi ces will rise nonetheless at the setting of the sun' (ibid.: 9). The engineers who would rush to the rescue had their own delusions. They suffered from the megalomania of technique. Their interventions were all too often destructive in their own right and much quicker to do damage than the vagaries of time and the elements. There are no easy solutions. As Boito's spokesman says, `I will have to differentiate, focus, shine my torch, use numbers, graphs, and parentheses, and it will be unspeakably boring' (1893: 15). Ancient monuments and ruins call for archeologically exact excavation and documentation – the slightest trace may contribute precious knowledge – but this does not exclude, though it must precede, restoration on a limited scale. Archeological sites need to be stabilized and reinforced; fragmentary remains can be reassembled like pieces in a puzzle, so long as the added support does not pretend to imitate the original. As for existing historic buildings, unless they are consolidated and repaired, they end up in ruins sooner or later. `Pictorial' restoration aims at keeping appearances intact, but modern technology may be employed for internal structural support. Boito's spokesman says that this approach may well suit the historical layering and picturesque look of medieval architec- ture. Buildings since the Renaissance are, he thinks, more likely to be better documented and readily intelligible to modern observers, so that radical restoration and, where absolutely necessary, even reproduction using the original materials and techniques are justi able options. The criteria are different for sculpture and painting – Boito writes about them elsewhere – but discretion and guidelines are always essential. In other words, every instance is at once particular and subject to rules and method- ical routines. The dialogue moves in this spirit from the taxonomy of approaches to a more exible set of propositions Boito drafted for an Italian congress of architects and engineers in 1883.14 The text of the resolution adopted by the congress begins with a descending order of preferences: con- solidating a building is to be preferred over repairing it; repair is better than restoration. The resolution speci es that any modern intervention should be detectable and labeled as such; that renovations or additions from the historical past should be treated as integral parts of the structure (with the proviso that decidedly inferior or obstructive accretions were candidates for removal); that any fragments or elements removed should be carefully docu- mented and, where possible, preserved on the site. Boito's interlocutor hesitates still: `This resolution seems to me like a labyrinth of dry bushes. You turn and turn again inside it without nding the way out' (1893: 30). The objection prompts a backward glance at the 7 historical alternatives, the `architectural paleontology' of the French or English `Anti-Scrape'. One is academic and formalistic, the other willfully dismissive of preservation altogether; both are arbitrary and abstract in the face of real-world conditions. Boito calls instead for a kind of `sperimental- ismo' that respects speci cs, case by case, while working within principles and procedures established by consultation among knowledgeable experts. This was the view eventually endorsed on an international level in 1931 at Athens by the rst International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments.15 The `Italian School' of Boito's disciples, in particular Gustavo Giovan- none, played a major role in drafting the Athens Charter. The Athens `Carta del Restauro', as it was widely known, steers clear of endorsing doctrines of restoration or of conservation. It is an exercise in damage control, not only for historic monuments, but also for moderation against divisive polemics. While seeking to internationalize professional standards and practice, it acknowledges that their implementation would have to be national and probably, like most of the delegates at Athens, European. It stresses the importance of `knowledgeable criticism to prevent mistakes causing loss of character and historical value' but also endorses the judicious use of modern techniques and materials. While it focuses primarily on historic monuments themselves, it also takes their physical and cultural environment into account (Carta del Restauro, Resolutions 2, 5, 7).16 Authenticity was not mentioned. Clearly, then, the Venice Charter's declaration on authenticity did not rest on a long-standing tradition or even short-term precedents in the Athens Resolutions, the most far-reaching semi-of cial statement on historic preservation before the 1960s.17 It had, if anything, the peculiar ring of a newly minted `universal value'. There is of course nothing especially surprising about this. Preservation is about making contingency a lasting proposition. It traf cs in universals in part because the opposition does so with intonations of Progress and Development. The rhetoric of international assemblies is meant to sound authoritative, especially when its credentials are questionable. Moreover, the formula of the Venice Charter proclaiming a `common responsibility' to respect `ancient monuments . . . in the full rich- ness of their authenticity' was propelled by the exigencies of its time. The cataclysm of the Second World War and conservation by sandbags, salvage and good luck were less than a generation past. Drastic measures and heroic remedies had driven a second phase of reconstruction, which alternately re- created, denied, or commemorated devastated buildings and monuments. In Europe large parts of cities were built anew (Rotterdam, Cologne, etc.), others meticulously reconstructed (Warsaw), still other sites `conserved' as ruins for memorials and admonitions (Berlin's Reichstag, Coventry Cath- edral, the village of Oradour, etc.).18 By 1964, with the post-war Economic 8 Miracle in full swing, the Venice Charter was already hedging against runaway development and the degradation of the environment. Seen in this context, the Venice principle of authenticity does not look so much like a glittering generality, a summons to mummify the environment, or a detour from the future. If the 20th century's traumas of destruction have only a shadowy, indirect presence there, this is partly because they were trau- matic and because the responses were bound to be problematic, not least of all in passing authenticity resolutions amid so much loss. The Venice confer- ees' injunction to preserve `the richness of authenticity' reads accordingly as a muted lamentation, a bid for another chance, and a challenge to take responsibility for continuity in the face of rapid change. Both its generaliz- ing and its silences are strategic: blunt retrospectives are not much use when it is too late for them and they risk reprisals for the future. Anti-preservation arguments thrive on real money and power and spurious allegations of being overrun by a preservation juggernaut. The latest round of authenticity debates began in the early 1990s. These were partly wages of a kind of success. An ostensibly restricting criterion had stretched from `monuments' to `sites', `districts' and `landscapes', from high to vernacular culture, from the West to much of the rest of the world. Critics charged Heritage In ation while in ating and con ating in turn a gallery of real and imagined nostalgia enthusiasts, conservative ideologues, elitist aes- thetes, cultural marketeers and meddling bureaucrats. A workshop antici- pating the Nara Document on Authenticity heard the deconstruction and near-denunciation of an authenticity `mania' or `cult'. David Lowenthal's preliminary paper offered his diagnosis as if of a raging epidemic: the techno- logical obliteration of distinctions between simulations and originals; the commodi cation of culture with an ever-expanding market for `authentic' resources; the spread of a mass tourism that `endangers the fabric and vitiates the aura of precious legacies' and is `readily satis ed by any make-believe experience'; the subversion of lines between fact and ction, so that `a world shown up as so readily malleable makes us hunger for rm truths, even if only of the thread of a tapestry or the sound of a phoneme' (Lowenthal, n.d: 59).19 The Venice Charter was roundly criticized at Nara. That `heritage (le patri- moine historique) is not a cultural universal', Françoise Choay insisted, is `the heart of the question'.20 The notion of a `patrimony' is at once an anachron- istic holdover from the Old Regime and, translated into the language of `cultural property', a capitalist conversion of culture into property. It is both parochially Eurocentric and imperialistic. The `multi-cultural' variations on this critique ran from the observation that some cultures have no terms for authenticity to the citation of different usages of those that did, so that, for example, place might be literally grounds for authenticity in Aborginal Aus- tralia or traditional building practice a clinching factor as in the rebuilding every 60 years of the wooden temple of Ise in Japan. The Venice Charter was 9 accused of pegging universal standards of authenticity to stone construction and a Western fetishism of the `monument' and the material trace.21 The criterion of authenticity thus became an Open Sesame – and a Pandora's Box. The Venice Charter was censured as inauthentic. The watch- words that rallied the project of historic preservation in the rst place were deconstructed. Even true believers admitted that the extension of preser- vation principles to complex sites and natural environments might have gone too far, and a once-proud internationalism was put on the defensive against claims for cultural diversity. Rehearsing multi-cultural mantras in an inter- national forum, Article 11 in the Nara Document on Authenticity comes close to dissolving `the test of authenticity' altogether: All judgments about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgments of value and authenticity on xed criteria. On the con- trary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong.22 There is no good reason to suppose that dissension over authenticity and preservation will be resolved or simply fade away any time soon. For that the issues are too ancient, as in the arguments of the Greek philosophers over the ship of Theseus, and too teasingly contemporary. This is not to say that any- thing goes in a rudderless relativism. There is, to begin with, a history to get right, if not necessarily straight. As I hope to have shown, there is no straight historical line leading to a strictly constructed doctrine of authenticity. Before the Venice Charter, authenticity was not the crucial term it has since become; since 1964, it has been, like Holy Writ, authoritative and inconclusive. We should look askance on claims for the traditional truth of one de nition or another, especially when this line of argument from history turns out to be unhistorical. This goes for zealous defenders as well as for the critics who hold them hostage to the rigid de nitions of their weaker moments.23 I also hope to have shown that strong strains of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled analysis are part and parcel of the discourse of historic preservation. The gulf between critics and historians and the professionals who actually plan and work on preservation projects is blinkering on all sides. Riegl's essay on monuments, falling between specializations, was neglected until relatively recent times; Boito and `the Italian School' are not widely known beyond histories of the preservation movement. The Nara Declar- ation does not so much declare doctrine as open it to ongoing re ection and quali cation.24 It builds explicitly on the Venice Charter `in response to the expanding scope of cultural heritage concerns and interests in our contemporary world' (Article 3). But while Venice emphasized `the unity of 10 human values', at Nara the principle of authenticity becomes a safeguard for unity as cultural diversity: In a world that is increasingly subject to the forces of globalization and homogenization, and in a world in which the search for cultural identity is sometimes pursued through aggressive nationalism and the suppres- sion of minorities, the essential contribution made by the consideration of authenticity in conservation practice is to clarify and illuminate the collective memory of humanity. (Article 4) The call of the Venice Charter to `common responsibility' for `a common heritage' returns at Nara, but this time with the codicil that this `demands respect for other cultures and all aspects of their belief systems' (Article 6). Authenticity remains `the essential qualifying factor' (Article 10), but not reductively so, `within xed criteria' (Article 11). Therefore, `knowledge and understanding . . . in relation to the original and subsequent characteristics . . . and their meaning, is a requisite basis for assessing all aspects of authen- ticity'; the sources for `authenticity judgments . . . may include form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feelings, and other internal and external factors' (Article 13). Instead of a grand nale on authenticity as a value, these last lines antici- pate continuing discussion and analysis of what valuing and preserving authenticity entail. The 1996 San Antonio symposium on authenticity, for example, pressed the diversity argument on the grounds that, especially in the Americas, `separate identities may coexist in the same space and time and at times across space and time, sharing cultural manifestations, but often assign- ing different values to them'.25 Operational guidelines have been updated all along since the `test of authenticity' in `design, materials, workmanship, or setting' was authorized in the 1972 World Heritage Convention. If the more recent results look like a balancing act, it is because they admittedly are. As one commentary on the Nara Document puts it, `to maintain and clarify heritage values requires de nition of indicators for each cluster of the value- de ning attributes that [to establish the authenticity of any particular monu- ment or site] must be present to a signi cant degree and in a balanced way'.26 No one will read these texts for their eloquence. There is always some question about whether anyone reads documents like these at all. They have no binding legal status. Their actual in uence is hard to determine but cer- tainly slight in comparison with overwhelming pressures for economic development, political advantage, personal grati cation, and a whole host of usual suspects. Nevertheless, it would be a serious mistake to write them off. They are the kinds of document, not nger-wagging High Criticism, that nd their way into the briefcases of preservation professionals and policy-makers. My point is that the newer documents on authenticity represent a strain of 11 measured and responsive professionalism that has gone on since the 19th century through the thick and thin of showier campaigns for or against his- toric preservation. In the more recent guidelines (1993) for cultural heritage, for example, the criterion of `material authenticity' includes not only original but also subsequently altered or added materials. The guidelines for `authen- ticity in design' take into account `unity and coherence' of conception, while also warning against `artistic and historic deception' and insisting that any intervention proceed from the actual condition of the building or site `so that the valid contributions and additions of all periods of its “historic time line” are acknowledged'. Then again, the guidelines allow authenticity in design and workmanship to outweigh other criteria where, as in the case of the peri- odic renewal of the temple of Ise, `living cultural traditions . . . have been maintained in their authenticity as part of society'.27 Overall, this way of proceeding is studied and open to study, pragmatic and cautionary but committed to the institution of authenticity. No doubt there are more heroic postures. There are certainly more destructive ones in the dismissive or all-or-nothing rhetoric of the `heritage wars'. In any case, the combination of pragmatism and principle is in keeping with an authentic tradition in the history of historic preservation. NOTES I want to acknowledge here the generosity of Cristina Iamandi and Margaret G. H. MacLean in sharing their expertise with me at the Getty Conservation Institute; also to thank Pegatha Taylor, Paula Fass, John Gillis and Orin Starn for help in thinking about the issues addressed in this article. 1 Plutarch, n.d.: 36. For the debate and its modern sequel, see Smart (1972) and Scaltsas (1980). 2 A Note on Usage. `Conservation' has become international lingua franca for `maintenance', `repair' and even `rehabilitation' or `restoration' (to which it was historically opposed). I use `historic preservation' here as the preferred English and especially American covering term and also because it refers more restrictively than `conservation' to historic architecture and monuments, and sites — my major concern in what follows. This Babel of terms with different implications already points to an elusive career for the notion of authenticity in conservation-restoration-preservation discourse. My evidence is almost exclusively limited to western Europe, with the excuse that the precedents and pace of preservation theory and practice have been set there until recently. 3 A list and the texts of heritage documents can be conveniently accessed at http://www.international.icomos.org 4 Most famously in the second section of `The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction' (Benjamin, 1988: 220—1). 12 5 The quotation is from Lowenthal's essay `Art and Authenticity' (Lowenthal, 1989: 846). 6 Cf. more recently, Lowenthal (1996). The most powerful counter to `heritagebashing' is Samuel (1994) with its arguments and sensitivity for a productive, anti-elitist `heritage consciousness'. Cf. Samuel (1998) and the essay review by Taithe (1999). 7 The best surveys are Denslagen (1994) and Jokilehto (1999). Cf., for the USA, the brief but incisive summary by Wallace (1986). A useful anthology of texts is to be found in Price, Talley and Vaccaro (1996). Special thanks to Wim Denslagen for sharing his work with me and to Dr Jokilehto for a warm reception at the Rome headquarters of ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) and for making available to me the text of the DPhil dissertation (University of York) on which his book is based. 8 Cf. George Gilbert Scott (1850: 26) on what he calls conservatism, without which a building `appears to lose all its truthfulness, and to become as little authentic . . . as if it had been rebuilt on a new design'; and J. B. Lassus and E. E. Viollet-Le-Duc (1843: 4): `we think that each addition, no matter what its date, should be preserved, consolidated, and restored . . . with a pious discretion and total disregard for personal opinion.' The Ruskin quote is from his public lecture, `The Opening of the Crystal Palace Considered in Some of its Relations to the Prospects of Art, 1854' (Ruskin, 1903—12). 9 `Queries as to “Restoration” ', The Builder 31(30 September 1873): 741; Denslagen (1994) fully documents compromises over seemingly irreconcilable positions in the raging restoration debates of the 19th century. 10 Der moderne Denkmalkunst, sein Wesen, sein Entstehen was introduced and belatedly translated into English as `The Modern Cult of Monuments' by Kurt Forster (Riegl, 1982). 11 Riegl makes his case specifically against Dehio in `Neue Strömungen in der Denkmalpflege' (1988[1905]) in Konservieren nicht Restaurieren (Dehio and Riegl, 1988: 104—18). 12 In this survey Baldwin Brown (1905) cites, for example, in Britain, the National Monuments Protection Act (1888) and the establishment of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (1909); for France, legislation expanding the prorogatives of the Commission des Monuments Historiques in 1887 and subsequent revisions; for Italy, the conservation law of 1902—4, etc. 13 I cite this edition in the following paragraph. On Boito's conservation ideas and activities, see Jokilehto (1999: 201—3). 14 Cf. Bocchi (1974). 15 The text is at http://www/ocomos.org/docs/athens_charter.htm 16 See Jokilehto (1999: 284—5). 17 Despite subsequent official genealogies of a long-standing `rigoroso rispetto per l'autenticità storica del monumento': Gazzola and Pane, 1971: 15. 18 See in general Jokilehto (1999: 285—8); and for a searching study of the changing motives and circumstances for the last option in a particular case, Farmer (1999). 19 Stovel (n.d: 101—11) includes a survey of general concerns over the definition and application of authenticity criteria reflected in the Bergen conference: (1) limited objectivity; (2) claims for universality; (3) consequences of the extension and 13democratization of the concept of `heritage'; (4) absence of agreed-upon terminology. 20 `Sept propositions sur le concept de l'authenticité et son usage dans les pratiques du patrimoine historique', typescript circulated for the Nara Conference, p. 8; for a more extended (and more accessible) critique see Choay (1992). 21 The typescript minutes of Session 4 of the Nara Conference which I read at the Getty Conservation Institute convey a sense of heated engagement over alternative views: so, for example, Françoise Choay (France) `repeated her opposition to the use of authenticity as a means of evaluation of cultural properties'; Herb Stovel (Canada) noted that `[s]ome cultures had no word for “authenticity” '; Michael Petzet (Germany) argued that `authenticity in design was of greater importance than authenticity of material', but in any case `a monument must be authentic or it was not a monument'; Saleh Lamei (Egypt) `explained that the concept of authenticity was a very sensitive one in Arab countries, as a result of the interpretation put on the text of the Holy Koran by fundamentalists'; Yukio Nishimura (Japan) `felt that the concept of authenticity had to be expanded . . . [in] the case of traditional settlements, for example, materials would need to be replaced regularly, but the authenticity of the place survived'; András Roman (Hungary) said that `[I]n his opinion authenticity was a value: without it a monument became a replica or a reconstruction; [but] since the [sic] heritage was recognized as an expression of cultural identity, it followed that authenticity would be different for every culture'; Carmen Añon (Spain) `offered a definition of authenticity in respect of gardens that she had proposed to the President of IFLA [International Federation of Landscape Architects]: “the value of the relationship that peoples of different countries have entertained with nature, depending on period, culture, tradition, and religion” '. 22 The new departure of this concession in an international context was emphasized by Ryne (1995). Cf. Final Report, Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies in Africa, Accra, 27 October—6 November 1975 (UNESCO, 1975): `Considering that culture is the very essence of a nation's destiny [it is recommended] to African Member States that they (a) rediscover and draw on the authentic sources of their cultures hidden beneath historical falsification, denigration, and alienation of all kinds . . . (f) derive the utmost advantage from this authentic cultural heritage by disseminating it and adapting it to the contemporary needs of their peoples'. Sullivan cites examples demonstrating that `some of the values [the Venice Charter and other documents of ICOMOS] espouse are alien to the cultures of many of the countries that have signed on to them' (1993: 15) and the European great monuments approach `can be ludicrously inappropriate when applied to tropical environments' (ibid.: 24). 23 Jeudy (1990) is full of examples; David Lowenthal's aside at the Bergen preliminaries for Nara (Larsen and Marstein, 1994: 47) that authenticity means `unselfconscious actuality' recycles some of the historical and conceptual innocence he criticizes in the heritage movement. 24 I cite from the Nara Document on Authenticity, online at http://www. international.icomos.org/docs/nara.htm 25 Article 1 of the San Antonio Declaration on Authenticity [http://www. icomos.ogn/docs/san_antonio.html]. This article goes on to declare that the 14`authenticity of our cultural resources lies in the identification, evaluation and interpretation of their true values as perceived by our ancestors in the past and by ourselves now as an evolving and diverse community' as understood `through an objective study of history, the material elements inherent in the tangible heritage, and a deep understanding of the intangible traditions associated with the tangible patrimony'. 26 From a gloss on the Nara Document by Jokilehto and Stovel (1995: 8). 27 Feilden and Jokilehto, n.d.: 26, 29, 32. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baldwin Brown, G. (1905) The Care of Ancient Monuments: An Account of Legislative and Other Measures Adopted in European Countries for Protecting Ancient Monuments . London: Cambridge University Press . Benjamin, W. (1988) `The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction' , in Illuminations, ed. H. Arendt, trans. H. Zohn. New York: Schocken Books. Bocchi, G. (1974) `Camillo Boito e le prime proposte normative del restauro', Restauro 15: 30-48. Boito, C. (1893) Questioni Pratiche di Belle Arti, Restauri, Concorsi, Legislazione, Professione, Insegnamento. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli. Choay, F. (1992) L'allégorie du patrimoine. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Dehio, G. (1988[1905]) `Denkmalschutz und Denkmalpflege im neunzehnten Jahrhundert', reprinted in Dehio and Riegl, 1988. Dehio, G. and Riegl, A. (1988) Konservieren nicht Restaurieren: Streitschriften zur Denkmalpflege um 1900, ed. M. Wohlleben and G. Morsch. Braunschweig: Vieweg. Denslagen, W. (1994) Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press. Farmer, S. (1999) Martyred Village: Commemorating the 1944 Massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Feilden, B.M. and Jokilehto, J. (n.d.) Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, in Larsen and Marstein, 1994: Appendix. Gazzola, P. and Pane, R. (1971) `Proposte per una carta internazionale del restauro' , in Il monumento per l'uomo: Atti del II Congresso Internazionale del Restauro, Venezia, 25-31 maggio 1964. Padua: Antenore. Gilbert Scott, G. (1850) A Plea for the Faithful Restoration of our Churches . London: John Henry Parker. Jeudy, H.-P., ed. (1990) Patrimoine en folie. Paris: Collection de Ethnologie, No. 5. Jokilehto, J. (1999) A History of Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Jokilehto, J. and Stovel, H. (1995) `Viewpoint: the Debate on Authenticity', ICCROM Newsletter 21 (July 1995 ). Larsen, K. E. and Marstein, N., eds (1994) Preparatory Workshop, Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Bergen, Norway, 31 January-2 February. Bergen: Tapir Forlag, n.p. 15 Lassus, J.B. and Viollet-Le-Duc, E.E. (1843) Projet de restauration de Notre-Dame de Paris. Paris: Imprimerie de Mme Lacombe. Lemaire, R. (1994) `Authenticité et patrimoine monumental', in Larsen and Marstein, 1994. Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past Is a Foreign Country. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, D. (1989) `Art and Authenticity', in I. Lavin (ed.) World Art. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lowenthal, D. (1996) Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York: Penguin Press. Lowenthal, D. (n.d.) `Criteria of Authenticity', in Larsen and Marstein , 1994. Plutarch (n.d.) Life of Theseus. Price, N. S., Talley, M. Kirby and Vacarro, A. M., eds (1996) Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. Riegl, A. (1982[1903]) `The Modern Cult of Monuments', trans. K. W. Forster, Oppositions (Fall 1982 ): 20-51. Riegl, A. (1988[1905]) `Neue Strömungen in der Denkmalpflege' , in Dehio and Riegl, 1988: pp. 104-18. Ruskin, J. (1903-12[1854]) `The Opening of the Crystal Palace Considered in Some of its Relations to the Prospects of Art, 1854' , in E. T. Cook and A. Wedderburn (eds) The Works of John Ruskin, Vol. 12. London: George Allen, p. 37. Ryne, C.S. (1995) `The Diversity of Cultural Values in Charters and Guidelines for the Conservation of the World's Cultural Heritage and Charters' , paper delivered at the Getty Conservation Institute, Marina Del Rey, California, 9 February 1995. Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture, Vol. 1. London: Verso. Samuel, R. (1998) Island Stories: Unravelling Britain, Vol. 2. London: Verso. Scaltsas, T. (1980) `The Ship of Theseus', Analysis 40: 152-7. Smart, B. (1972) `How to Reidentify the Ship of Theseus', Analysis 32: 145-8. Stovel, H. (n.d.) `Notes on Authenticity', in Larsen and Marstein , 1994: pp. 101-11. Sullivan, S. (1993) `Conservation Policy Delivery', in Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: Conservation and Policy. Proceedings of a symposium, held in Honolulu, 8-13 September, ed. M. G. H. MacLean. Marina Del Rey, CA: Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 15-26. Taithe, B. (1999) `Monuments aux morts? Reading Nora's Realms of Memory and Samuel's Theatres of Memory', History of the Human Sciences 12(2): 123-39. Wallace, M. (1986) `Reflections on the History of Historic Preservation' , in S. P. Benson, S. Brier and R. Rozenzweig (eds) Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE RANDOLPH STARN is Professor of History and Italian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley and from 1996 to 2000 was director of the Townsend 16 Center for the Humanities, also at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in early modern European history, Renaissance Italy and Renais- sance culture. Recent publications include Ambrogio Lorenzetti: The Palazzo Pubblico, Siena (1994) and Varieties of Cultural History (forthcoming). He is currently working on the theories and practices of `authenticating' historical documents, literary texts and works of art, and on the history of the human- ities disciplines.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes>
<p><list list-type="order">
<list-item><p>I want to acknowledge here the generosity of Cristina Iamandi and Margaret G. H. MacLean in sharing their expertise with me at the Getty Conservation Institute; also to thank Pegatha Taylor, Paula Fass, John Gillis and Orin Starn for help in thinking about the issues addressed in this article.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>1 Plutarch, n.d.: 36. For the debate and its modern sequel, see Smart (1972) and Scaltsas (1980).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>2 <italic>A Note on Usage</italic>. `Conservation' has become international lingua franca for `maintenance', `repair' and even `rehabilitation' or `restoration' (to which it was historically opposed). I use `historic preservation' here as the preferred English and especially American covering term and also because it refers more restrictively than `conservation' to historic architecture and monuments, and sites — my major concern in what follows. This Babel of terms with different implications already points to an elusive career for the notion of authenticity in conservation-restoration-preservation discourse. My evidence is almost exclusively limited to western Europe, with the excuse that the precedents and pace of preservation theory and practice have been set there until recently.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>3 A list and the texts of heritage documents can be conveniently accessed at http://www.international.icomos.org</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>4 Most famously in the second section of `The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction' (Benjamin, 1988: 220—1).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>5 The quotation is from Lowenthal's essay `Art and Authenticity' (Lowenthal, 1989: 846).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>6 Cf. more recently, Lowenthal (1996). The most powerful counter to `heritagebashing' is Samuel (1994) with its arguments and sensitivity for a productive, anti-elitist `heritage consciousness'. Cf. Samuel (1998) and the essay review by Taithe (1999).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>7 The best surveys are Denslagen (1994) and Jokilehto (1999). Cf., for the USA, the brief but incisive summary by Wallace (1986). A useful anthology of texts is to be found in Price, Talley and Vaccaro (1996). Special thanks to Wim Denslagen for sharing his work with me and to Dr Jokilehto for a warm reception at the Rome headquarters of ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) and for making available to me the text of the DPhil dissertation (University of York) on which his book is based.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>8 Cf. George Gilbert Scott (1850: 26) on what he calls <italic>conservatism</italic>, without which a building `appears to lose all its truthfulness, and to become as little authentic . . . as if it had been rebuilt on a new design'; and J. B. Lassus and E. E. Viollet-Le-Duc (1843: 4): `we think that each addition, no matter what its date, should be preserved, consolidated, and restored . . . with a pious discretion and total disregard for personal opinion.' The Ruskin quote is from his public lecture, `The Opening of the Crystal Palace Considered in Some of its Relations to the Prospects of Art, 1854' (Ruskin, 1903—12).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>9 `Queries as to “Restoration” ', <italic>The Builder</italic> 31(30 September 1873): 741; Denslagen (1994) fully documents compromises over seemingly irreconcilable positions in the raging restoration debates of the 19th century.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>10 <italic>Der moderne Denkmalkunst, sein Wesen, sein Entstehen</italic> was introduced and belatedly translated into English as `The Modern Cult of Monuments' by Kurt Forster (Riegl, 1982).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>11 Riegl makes his case specifically against Dehio in `Neue Strömungen in der Denkmalpflege' (1988[1905]) in <italic>Konservieren nicht Restaurieren</italic> (Dehio and Riegl, 1988: 104—18).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>12 In this survey Baldwin Brown (1905) cites, for example, in Britain, the National Monuments Protection Act (1888) and the establishment of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (1909); for France, legislation expanding the prorogatives of the Commission des Monuments Historiques in 1887 and subsequent revisions; for Italy, the conservation law of 1902—4, etc.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>13 I cite this edition in the following paragraph. On Boito's conservation ideas and activities, see Jokilehto (1999: 201—3).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>14 Cf. Bocchi (1974).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>15 The text is at http://www/ocomos.org/docs/athens_charter.htm</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>16 See Jokilehto (1999: 284—5).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>17 Despite subsequent official genealogies of a long-standing `rigoroso rispetto per l'autenticità storica del monumento': Gazzola and Pane, 1971: 15.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>18 See in general Jokilehto (1999: 285—8); and for a searching study of the changing motives and circumstances for the last option in a particular case, Farmer (1999).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>19 Stovel (n.d: 101—11) includes a survey of general concerns over the definition and application of authenticity criteria reflected in the Bergen conference: (1) limited objectivity; (2) claims for universality; (3) consequences of the extension and democratization of the concept of `heritage'; (4) absence of agreed-upon terminology.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>20 `Sept propositions sur le concept de l'authenticité et son usage dans les pratiques du patrimoine historique', typescript circulated for the Nara Conference, p. 8; for a more extended (and more accessible) critique see Choay (1992).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>21 The typescript minutes of Session 4 of the Nara Conference which I read at the Getty Conservation Institute convey a sense of heated engagement over alternative views: so, for example, Françoise Choay (France) `repeated her opposition to the use of authenticity as a means of evaluation of cultural properties'; Herb Stovel (Canada) noted that `[s]ome cultures had no word for “authenticity” '; Michael Petzet (Germany) argued that `authenticity in design was of greater importance than authenticity of material', but in any case `a monument must be authentic or it was not a monument'; Saleh Lamei (Egypt) `explained that the concept of authenticity was a very sensitive one in Arab countries, as a result of the interpretation put on the text of the Holy Koran by fundamentalists'; Yukio Nishimura (Japan) `felt that the concept of authenticity had to be expanded . . . [in] the case of traditional settlements, for example, materials would need to be replaced regularly, but the authenticity of the place survived'; András Roman (Hungary) said that `[I]n his opinion authenticity was a value: without it a monument became a replica or a reconstruction; [but] since the [<italic>sic</italic>] heritage was recognized as an expression of cultural identity, it followed that authenticity would be different for every culture'; Carmen Añon (Spain) `offered a definition of authenticity in respect of gardens that she had proposed to the President of IFLA [International Federation of Landscape Architects]: “the value of the relationship that peoples of different countries have entertained with nature, depending on period, culture, tradition, and religion” '.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>22 The new departure of this concession in an international context was emphasized by Ryne (1995). Cf. <italic>Final Report, Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies in Africa</italic>, Accra, 27 October—6 November 1975 (UNESCO, 1975): `Considering that culture is the very essence of a nation's destiny [it is recommended] to African Member States that they (a) rediscover and draw on the authentic sources of their cultures hidden beneath historical falsification, denigration, and alienation of all kinds . . . (f) derive the utmost advantage from this authentic cultural heritage by disseminating it and adapting it to the contemporary needs of their peoples'. Sullivan cites examples demonstrating that `some of the values [the Venice Charter and other documents of ICOMOS] espouse are alien to the cultures of many of the countries that have signed on to them' (1993: 15) and the European great monuments approach `can be ludicrously inappropriate when applied to tropical environments' (<italic>ibid</italic>.: 24).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>23 Jeudy (1990) is full of examples; David Lowenthal's aside at the Bergen preliminaries for Nara (Larsen and Marstein, 1994: 47) that authenticity means `unselfconscious actuality' recycles some of the historical and conceptual innocence he criticizes in the heritage movement.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>24 I cite from the Nara Document on Authenticity, online at http://www. international.icomos.org/docs/nara.htm</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>25 Article 1 of the San Antonio Declaration on Authenticity [http://www. icomos.ogn/docs/san_antonio.html]. This article goes on to declare that the `authenticity of our cultural resources lies in the identification, evaluation and interpretation of their true values as perceived by our ancestors in the past and by ourselves now as an evolving and diverse community' as understood `through an objective study of history, the material elements inherent in the tangible heritage, and a deep understanding of the intangible traditions associated with the tangible patrimony'.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>26 From a gloss on the Nara Document by Jokilehto and Stovel (1995: 8).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>27 Feilden and Jokilehto, n.d.: 26, 29, 32.</p></list-item>
</list></p>
</notes><ref-list>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Baldwin Brown, G.</surname></name> (<year>1905</year>) <source>The Care of Ancient Monuments: An Account of Legislative and Other Measures Adopted in European Countries for Protecting Ancient Monuments</source> . <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name> .</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Benjamin, W.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>) <source>`The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction'</source> , in <source>Illuminations</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>H. Arendt</surname></name>, trans. H. Zohn. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Schocken Books</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bocchi, G.</surname></name> (<year>1974</year>) <article-title>`Camillo Boito e le prime proposte normative del restauro'</article-title>, <source>Restauro</source>
<volume>15</volume>: <fpage>30</fpage>-<lpage>48</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boito, C.</surname></name> (<year>1893</year>) <source>Questioni Pratiche di Belle Arti, Restauri, Concorsi, Legislazione, Professione, Insegnamento</source>. <publisher-loc>Milan</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Ulrico Hoepli</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Choay, F.</surname></name> (<year>1992</year>) <source>L'allégorie du patrimoine</source>. <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Editions du Seuil</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dehio, G.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>[<year>1905</year>]) <source>`Denkmalschutz und Denkmalpflege im neunzehnten Jahrhundert'</source>, reprinted in <publisher-loc>Dehio</publisher-loc> and <publisher-loc>Riegl</publisher-loc>, <year>1988</year>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dehio, G.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Riegl, A.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>) <source>Konservieren nicht Restaurieren: Streitschriften zur Denkmalpflege um 1900</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Wohlleben</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>G. Morsch.</surname></name>
<publisher-loc>Braunschweig</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Vieweg</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Denslagen, W.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>) <source>Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity</source>. <publisher-loc>Amsterdam</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Architectura & Natura Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Farmer, S.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>) <source>Martyred Village: Commemorating the 1944 Massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane</source>. <publisher-loc>Berkeley</publisher-loc> and <publisher-loc>Los Angeles</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Feilden, B.M.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Jokilehto, J.</surname></name> (n.d.) <source>Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, in Larsen and Marstein, 1994: Appendix</source>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gazzola, P.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Pane, R.</surname></name> (<year>1971</year>) <source>`Proposte per una carta internazionale del restauro'</source> , in <source>Il monumento per l'uomo: Atti del II Congresso Internazionale del Restauro, Venezia, 25-31 maggio 1964</source>. <publisher-loc>Padua</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Antenore</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilbert Scott, G.</surname></name> (<year>1850</year>) <source>A Plea for the Faithful Restoration of our Churches</source> . <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>John Henry Parker</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jeudy, H.-P.</surname></name>, ed. (<year>1990</year>) <source>Patrimoine en folie</source>. <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Collection de Ethnologie</publisher-name>, No. <fpage>5</fpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jokilehto, J.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>) <source>A History of Architectural Conservation</source>. <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Butterworth Heinemann</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jokilehto, J.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Stovel, H.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>) <article-title>`Viewpoint: the Debate on Authenticity'</article-title>, <source>ICCROM Newsletter</source>
<volume>21</volume> (July <year>1995</year> ).</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple">Larsen, K. E. and Marstein, N., eds (<conf-date>1994</conf-date>) <conf-name>Preparatory Workshop, Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention</conf-name>. <conf-loc>Bergen</conf-loc>, Norway, 31 January-2 February. <conf-loc>Bergen: Tapir Forlag</conf-loc>, n.p.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lassus, J.B.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Viollet-Le-Duc, E.E.</surname></name> (<year>1843</year>) <source>Projet de restauration de Notre-Dame de Paris</source>. <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Imprimerie de Mme Lacombe</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lemaire, R.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>) <source>`Authenticité et patrimoine monumental'</source>, in <source>Larsen and Marstein</source>, <year>1994</year>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lowenthal, D.</surname></name> (<year>1985</year>) <source>The Past Is a Foreign Country</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lowenthal, D.</surname></name> (<year>1989</year>) <source>`Art and Authenticity'</source>, in <name name-style="western"><surname>I. Lavin</surname></name> (ed.) <source>World Art</source>. <publisher-loc>University Park, PA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Pennsylvania State University Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lowenthal, D.</surname></name> (<year>1996</year>) <source>Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Penguin Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lowenthal, D.</surname></name> (n.d.) <source>`Criteria of Authenticity'</source>, in <source>Larsen and Marstein</source> , <year>1994</year>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">
<name name-style="western"><surname>Plutarch</surname></name> (n.d.) <source>Life of Theseus</source>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Price, N. S.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Talley, M. Kirby</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Vacarro, A. M.</surname></name>, eds (<year>1996</year>) <source>Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage</source>. <publisher-loc>Los Angeles, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Getty Conservation Institute</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Riegl, A.</surname></name> (<year>1982</year>[<year>1903</year>]) <article-title>`The Modern Cult of Monuments', trans. K. W. Forster</article-title>, <source>Oppositions</source> (Fall <year>1982</year> ): <fpage>20</fpage>-<lpage>51</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Riegl, A.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>[<year>1905</year>]) <source>`Neue Strömungen in der Denkmalpflege'</source> , in <source>Dehio and Riegl</source>, <year>1988</year>: pp. <fpage>104</fpage>-<lpage>18</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ruskin, J.</surname></name> (<year>1903</year>-12[<year>1854</year>]) <source>`The Opening of the Crystal Palace Considered in Some of its Relations to the Prospects of Art, 1854'</source> , in <name name-style="western"><surname>E. T. Cook</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>A. Wedderburn</surname></name> (eds) <source>The Works of John Ruskin, Vol. 12</source>. <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>George Allen</publisher-name>, p. <fpage>37</fpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ryne, C.S.</surname></name> (<conf-date>1995</conf-date>) <article-title>`The Diversity of Cultural Values in Charters and Guidelines for the Conservation of the World's Cultural Heritage and Charters'</article-title> , <conf-name>paper delivered at the Getty Conservation Institute, Marina Del Rey</conf-name>, <conf-loc>California</conf-loc>, 9 February 1995.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Samuel, R.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>) <source>Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture, Vol. 1</source>. <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Verso</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Samuel, R.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>) <source>Island Stories: Unravelling Britain, Vol. 2</source>. <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Verso</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Scaltsas, T.</surname></name> (<year>1980</year>) <article-title>`The Ship of Theseus'</article-title>, <source>Analysis</source>
<volume>40</volume>: <fpage>152</fpage>-<lpage>7</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Smart, B.</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <article-title>`How to Reidentify the Ship of Theseus'</article-title>, <source>Analysis</source>
<volume>32</volume>: <fpage>145</fpage>-<lpage>8</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stovel, H.</surname></name> (n.d.) <source>`Notes on Authenticity'</source>, in <source>Larsen and Marstein</source> , <year>1994</year>: pp. <fpage>101</fpage>-<lpage>11</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sullivan, S.</surname></name> (<conf-date>1993</conf-date>) <article-title>`Conservation Policy Delivery'</article-title>, in <article-title>Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: Conservation and Policy</article-title>. <conf-name>Proceedings of a symposium, held in Honolulu</conf-name>, 8-13 September, ed. M. G. H. MacLean. <conf-loc>Marina Del Rey, CA: Getty Conservation Institute</conf-loc>, pp. 15-26.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Taithe, B.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>) <article-title>`Monuments aux morts? Reading Nora's Realms of Memory and Samuel's Theatres of Memory'</article-title>, <source>History of the Human Sciences</source>
<volume>12</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>123</fpage>-<lpage>39</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref>
<citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wallace, M.</surname></name> (<year>1986</year>) <source>`Reflections on the History of Historic Preservation'</source> , in <name name-style="western"><surname>S. P. Benson</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>S. Brier</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>R. Rozenzweig</surname></name> (eds) <source>Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public</source> . <publisher-loc>Philadelphia</publisher-loc>, PA: <publisher-name>Temple University Press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Randolph</namePart><namePart type="family">Starn</namePart><affiliation>Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2550, USA,</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: rstarn@socrates.berkeley.edu</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage UK: London, England</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-02</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">Authenticity was neither an exclusive criterion nor even a keyword in the rise of the historic preservation movement before the heated controversies over `Heritage' beginning in the late 1960s. Both advocates and critics have tended to ignore or oversimplify an actual history of non-dogmatic but not at all unprincipled reflection, analysis and professional practice. From the writings of Alois Riegl and Camillo Boito around 1900 through ongoing debates over the ideal of authenticity put forth by the Venice Charter of 1964, this history represents a major and an authentic contribution to understanding the values, possibilities and complications of preserving the past.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>authenticity</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>cultural heritage</topic><topic>historic preservation</topic><topic>the Venice Charter</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>History of the Human Sciences</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0952-6951</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1461-720X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">HHS</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">sphhs</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>15</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>1</start><end>16</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECF</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/0952695102015001070</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_0952695102015001070</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B">sage</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/M70-X8M5NKG0-S/record.json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Europe/France/explor/NotreDameDeParisV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000384 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000384 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Europe/France
|area= NotreDameDeParisV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:D27835EAF52DB1F1B0BDBCD8C503EBAD2C886ECF
|texte= Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |