Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta

Abstract

Experts have been gathering for decades to discuss their ideals and experiences in heritage management. One of their objectives is the search for common ground and the clarification of best practice guidelines, to be endorsed and applied worldwide. However, in the past half-century, the reality and ideals of cultural heritage management have shifted significantly. This paper will reveal and discuss how this shift is evident in the field’s professional guidelines. What triggered this shift in heritage theory? And how did the concept of heritage evolve over the past decades? First, a literature review will discuss current theory on this topic. This is complemented by a comparative analysis of seven key doctrinal documents. The selection ranges from the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964) to the Valletta Principles (ICOMOS, 2011). The content will be systematically analyzed using a descriptiveanalytical method from the narrative tradition in evidence-based policy evaluation research (Pawson 2002 [see reference 26]). Results are presented in a summary matrix, tracing and comparing the evolution of what is considered heritage and why. A correlation of the results will reveal triggers and ideologies behind this shift in the heritage concept over time. It will also provide some recommendations to shape the agendas for research in heritage theory, policy, and practice in relation to heritage management and sustainable development.

Changes of approach to urban context in international guidelines and experiences in Lithuanian urban environment

“…The physical built environment is the central issue in urban territories; it excludes movable forms and non-material expressions [22]. As the protection of urban environment (at that timemainly architectural one) was focused on the tangible dimension of cultural heritage assets, its management was mostly defined by an intolerance to change [23,245], where urban landscape of artistic and historical value was looked on as a picturesque and static view. The approach towards context prevailing in 1960-1970s is explained by the key attitudes expressed in documents by UNESCO and ICOMOS international organisations.…”

“…Nevertheless, the fundamental push forward in this period was made by influential regional document The Burra Charter [28] that continues to hold international importance due to its global recognition [23,250], and also by regional documents adopted later by the national committees of ICOMOS from Canada, Mexico, Brasilia, New Zealand. These societies are the New World societies with a need to adapt to multiculturalism, as they all result from invasion of territories previously controlled by what have become indigenous minority groups [29,4].…”

“…As an opposition to prevailing Euro-American tradition in conservation based on fabric-centred approach, authenticity, and maintaining existing structures according principle of minimum intervention, the 'periphery' documents used the term place with its full scope, instead of monument and site [24; 29]. These documents brought multidisciplinary people-centred [24] and landscape-based [23] approach, turned the management of valuable places to dynamic process instead of freezing the static situation, and put the priority on the safeguarding of people identity, the cultural meanings and associations inscribed in heritage sites: "in certain types of heritage sites, such as cultural landscapes, the conservation of overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms and spiritual value, may be more important than the conservation of the physical features of the site, and as such, may take precedence" [30]. The role of intangible attributes like uses and traditional activities, meanings and spiritual associations sprouts up towards the same importance as material fabric.…”

“…The concept of cultural landscapes as a system of interaction between human activity and natural habitat that focuses on dynamic cultural processes was elaborated. In the light of cultural landscape, urban landscape was treated as a social construct [23,255], that "is permanently undergoing a dynamic process of successive transformations" [20]. The emerging landscape-based approach in management of urban heritage territories gave priority to social practices and cultural processes.…”

Captain, where can we find the attributes?

“…Though, it could also become problematic, as it is difficult to argue a variation of different decisions within an area where the protective measures do not vary, so what happens, once precedent is set? With the introduction of the notions 'attributes' and 'values', theoretically the issue of scale disappears from protective measures (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014). Management based on attributes and values implies the whole environment is a cultural landscape and protection measures are related to the (level of) significance we attach to the various attributes.…”