In the World Heritage Sites (WHS) designation, it is required to define the conditions that ‘authenticate’ the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of heritage sites. Initially, the notion of authenticity had been understood as an objective and measurable attribute inherent in the material fabric of sites. This perspective overlooked the fact that authenticity of a place is also culturally constructed, contextually variable and observer dependent. In 1994, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) introduced a set of attributes that facilitate a holistic understanding of authenticity of heritage sites which considers both tangible and intangible aspects of heritage together. To find out the extent to which this holistic understanding of authenticity is currently applied in the WHS designations, we analyzed nomination dossiers of 31 sites from the Asian context that were designated as World Heritage between 2005 and 2014. The findings point towards the continuing need to apply systematic, holistic and integrative perspectives of authenticity standards to heritage sites.
ByrneD. (2004). Chartering heritage in Asia’s postmodern world. Conservation: The Getty Conservation Institute newsletter, 19(2), 16–19.
2.
ByrneD. (2012). Anti-superstition: Campaigns against popular religion and its heritage in Asia. In DalyP. & WinterT. (Eds), Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia (pp. 295–310). London: Routledge.
3.
ChapagainN.K. (2013). Heritage conservation in the Buddhist context (Chapter 2). In SilvaK.D. & ChapagainN.K. (Eds), Asian heritage management: Contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 49–64). London: Routledge.
4.
ChapagainN.K. (2017). Blurring boundaries and moving beyond the tangible/intangible and the natural/cultural classifications of heritage: Cases from Nepal (Chapter 2). In SilvaK.D. & SinhaA. (Eds), Cultural landscapes of South Asia: Studies in heritage conservation and management (pp. 24–38). London: Routledge.
5.
CleereH. (1996). The concept of ‘outstanding universal value’ in world heritage convention. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 1(4), 227–233.
6.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analyzing discourse and text: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
7.
JokilehtoJ. (2006). Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context. City & Time, 2(1), 1–16. Retrieved 3March2011, from http://www.ct.ceci-br.org
8.
JonesS. (2010). Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: Beyond the deconstruction of authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181–203.
9.
JonesS., & YarrowT. (2013). Crafting authenticity: An ethnography of conservation practice. Journal of Material Culture, 18(1), 3–26.
10.
JorgensenM., & PhillipsL.J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
11.
LabadiS. (2007). Representation of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses on world heritage. Journal of Socio Archaeology, 7(2), 147–170.
12.
LabadiS. (2010). World Heritage, authenticity and post-authenticity: International and national, perspectives (Chapter 3). In LabadiS. & LongC. (Eds), Heritage and globalisation (pp. 66–84). London: Routledge.
13.
LabadiS. (2013). UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: Value-based analysis of the World Heritage and intangible cultural heritage conventions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
14.
LarsenK.E. (Ed.). (1994). Nara conference on authenticity in relation to world heritage convention. Paris and Rome: ICCROM, ICOMOS and UNESCO.
15.
MunjeriD. (2004). Tangible and intangible heritage: From difference to convergence. Museum International, 56(1–2), 12–20.
16.
PendleburyJ., ShortM., & WhileA. (2009). Urban world heritage sites and the problem of authenticity. Cities, 26(6), 349–358.
StovelH. (2008). Origins and influence of the Nara document on authenticity. APT Bulletin, 39(2–3), 9–17.
24.
TaylorK. (2004) Cultural heritage management: A possible role for charters and principles in Asia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(2), 417–433.
25.
UNESCO. (1994). The Nara document on authenticity. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 17July2013, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm
26.
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
27.
UNESCO. (2005). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
28.
UNESCO. (2009). Hoi An Protocols for best conservation practice in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok Office.
29.
UNESCO. (2015). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
30.
WellsJ.C. (2014). A methodological framework for assessing the ‘spirit and feeling’ of world heritage properties. In GensheimerT. & GuichardC.L. (Eds), World heritage and national registers; stewardship in practice (pp. 19–32). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
