ICOMOS International Scientific Committee

ICOMOS International Scientific Committee

on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites

Comité Scientifique International d’ICOMOS

sur l’Interprétation et la Présentation des Sites Patrimoniaux

Report on a One-Day Roundtable Discussion

”Interpretation Standards at World Heritage Sites:

Is There a Need for Assessment Criteria for On-Site Interpretation Programmes and Emerging Interpretive Technologies?”

Organized by the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation (ICIP)

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris

27 September 2006

Participants:

Lon Addison (VP, ICOMOS – ICIP) (UNESCO WHC) (EPOCH)

Suzanne van Aerschot-van Haeverbeeck (Flemish Community, Belgium)

Alberto Aveleyra (Mundo Joven Adventures)

Francesco Bandarin (Director, UNESCO WHC)

Carla Biagioli (UNESCO WHC)

Arthur H. Chen (University of Minnesota) (US/ICOMOS)

Willem Derde (ICOMOS - ICIP)

Maurizio Forte (Italian National Research Council/CNR-ITABC) (EPOCH)

Malika Hamza (ICOMOS - ICIP) (EPOCH)

Mahmoud Ismail (ICOMOS - ICIP)

Alexandra Jeberien (European University Viadrina, Frankfurt-Oder)

Anne Lemaistre (Chief, Policy & Statutory Implementation, UNESCO WHC)

Claudia Liuzza (Coordinator, ICOMOS - ICIP)

Christian Manhart (Chief, Communications, Education, and Partnerships,UNESCO WHC)

Alberto Martorell (ICOMOS - ICIP)

Gilles Nourissier (Director, Ecole d'Avignon) (ICOMOS International Exec Board)

Franco Niccolucci (University of Florence) (EPOCH)

Agata Wasowska Pawlik (International Cultural Centre, Krakow) (EPOCH)

Arthur Pedersen (UNESCO WHC)

Michel Polge (ICOMOS - ICIP)

Marielle Richon (UNESCO WHC)

Eva Roels (ICOMOS - ICIP)

Karina Rodriguez (University of Brighton) (EPOCH)

Fathi Saleh (Director, Cultnat, Egypt)

Mario Santana (Exec Board, ICOMOS – CIPA)

Joanna Serna-Sullivan (UNESCO WHC)

Neil Silberman (President, ICOMOS - ICIP)

Lubomir Stanislavov (ICOMOS - ICIP)

This meeting of ICOMOS-ICIP was held to discuss possible avenues of collaboration between ICOMOS - ICIP and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in the study, assessment, and development of interpretive guidelines and best practices for World Heritage Sites and to expand collaboration in the technical area of interpretation and presentation with EPOCH, CIPA, UNESCO, and others.

Minutes

The morning session began at 9:30 am with an introduction by Neil Silberman on: 1) ICIP and the rationale behind its existence within ICOMOS given the importance of interpretation and presentation as an emerging area in Cultural Heritage and 2.) a presentation of the meeting agenda.

Francesco Bandarin, director of the World Heritage Centre, welcomed the participants and expressed his approval of the fact the issue of interpretation was going to be discussed. He noted that in the past, UNESCO has been interested in interpretation but the results of this interest could be more concrete, since there is no common rationale or logic in the interpretation of World Heritage (WH) sites. Also, there is a disparity between the effort that has been devoted to conservation and that for interpretation especially in light of the fact that “conservation is not an end on itself but is a tool that is used for interpretation purposes”. He underlined the importance of taking steps in a framework of international cooperation and social-human improvement to identify best practices case studies as a starting point for future developments.

Anne Lemaistre, Chief of the Policy and Statutory Implementation Unit of the World Heritage Centre, started her presentation in order to frame the following discussions by quoting Article 4 of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention which requires that among other responsibilities, each State Party has the duty of presentation of World Heritage. She suggested that there is a need to introduce the word “interpretation” in a more formal with regard to WH sites.

She reviewed the procedure for Nomination and Inscription of WH sites and explained the mechanism of Monitoring in its two different applications: reactive and periodic monitoring. To illustrate the issue of public presentation she offered some examples from the WH List, stressing the need for of WH sites to increase awareness of the reason why a particular site was nominated and to explain its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), as well as to involve the public in better understanding importance of WH sites for funding purposes.

Neil Silberman discussed the general unease and confusion between the terms Presentation and Interpretation and proposed two possible definitions: Presentation: is the explanation of a site to the general public from established, authoritative information sources. As such it is a largely one-way process of communication. Technology can contribute to this communication but it is still also a one-way process. In contrast, Interpretation: is a much wider term than Presentation (which is in fact only one element of Interpretation). Interpretation includes all activities such as reflecting, explaining, and presenting. It is an activity also connected with collective memory. Its goal is parallel to Conservation, whose purpose is to maintain a physical link with the past. Interpretation, in contrast, preserves a non-physical link, namely coherent, constructed expressions of collective memory for present and future generations. In the Interpretation process, however, there is an inevitable selectivity, with some aspects stressed and others ignored. Interpreters must be aware of this inevitable and necessarily subjective process of reflection on the past from a contemporary perspective. As examples of regional variations in interpretive practice, he broadly described some characteristic tendencies of Interpretation: “Anglo-Saxon,” Continental European, in the ex-colonized world, in the ex-communist world, and in places where heritage is in open conflict.

He suggested further that Interpretation is a part of an emerging recognition of the non-renewability of cultural heritage resources and the danger they face from both physical destruction and trivialization. As a part of the living environment, efforts must be made to consider the necessity of “Heritage Ecology,” doing for Cultural Heritage (CH) what was done for Natural Heritage a generation ago. As much as the environment has to be preserved as an unrenewable resource, the same is true for CH. He then introduced the main outlines of the current draft of the Ename Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of CH sites as a possible framework for discussion.

Gilles Nourissier pointed out that in discussing Interpretation it is relevant to ask if it is a discipline in itself and if we have to consider the WH List as a laboratory for its application. He also noted that in defining the criterion of OUV, the increasing number of properties included in the List threatens to diminish the significance of the OUV. In considering Interpretation, he suggested that the specificity of every single case makes the task overwhelming because it is necessary to perform several tasks and involve different associated communities at the same time.

Neil Silberman responded that Interpretation is a discipline but it cannot work without the contribution of other discipline and agreed that the usefulness of the World Heritage list for interpretive case studies is still an open question which this meeting would continue to discuss.

Lon Addison pointed to the use of the brand of the List as a good example of the problem of boundaries of Interpretation: where do you begin Interpretation and where do you stop? (since excessive interpretation can create confusion) Do you have to include the relations of a site with the present? Even the use of the WH Logo is not consistent or well-explained: should we perhaps start with Presentation standards for it as a case study?

Anne Lemaistre stressed the importance of sharing the OUV with the community and Gilles Nourissier underlined the importance of clearly expressing the criteria on which a site was inscribed.

ArthurPedersen said that in defining what has to be interpreted it is important to provide an explanation of the process though, for example guidelines, and it is necessary to include also the aspect of tourism

Lon Addisonstressed the importance of collaboration and involvement with both other Heritage and Interpretation/Presentation groups such as NAI, ICOM, IUCN, as well as ICOMOS-CIPA.

Mario Santana introduced the problem of defining who is licensed or qualified to interpret and the importance of policymaking in establishing some practical definitions and boundaries for this field.

For Alberto Martorell, Interpretation is a key issue in WH Policy and the Statement of Significance is a reflection on the value of the site in which the local community value should have an important role.

Fathi Saleh presented the Cultural Heritage Management structure proposed by Cultnat in Egypt and described the two new interpretation centers in Luxor and Giza. In response to Neil Silberman’squestion on the reactions to the public to their analytically organized way of presenting Egyptian civilization, Mr. Saleh answered that they have done visitors’ surveys and that they found that the sight and experience of Egyptian civilization through the “Culturama” gives visitors a sense of pride in their history and a general sense of hope.

MarielleRichonintroduced the necessity of providing different interpretations for different audiences, such as people coming from different cultures, children, and senior citizens. She also stressed the importance of disseminating public awareness of various conservation efforts to acquire public support.

Lon Addison introduced the question on how the ICIP could be useful to WH Inscription Process.

Joanna Sullivan noted that one of the issues is that there are no proper standards on Interpretation, and tools on how to convey the value of the site will be needed. In this it has to be kept in mind that Interpretation and Presentation are a continuing process and this also involves some cost issues. She also suggested the possibility of including Interpretation in the WH Periodic Reporting process.

Mario Santana informed the audience that CIPA is preparing a manual on best practices for documentation and suggested the same could be done for Interpretation and Presentation.

Arthur Pedersensuggested that in finding best practices it is also necessary to ask what the purpose of Interpretation would be how local communities can benefit from it and if this will create a better tourism product.

Mahmoud Ismail introduced the difficulties of deciding what a good practice is since there is not a unified interpretation even inside one society andwhat the final purpose of this activity should be.

Gilles Nourissier pointed out that Interpretation needs a vision in the sense that it needs to choose a message that goes to a market. This can be done in the context of ICOMOS which is in a period of change and its new directions can feed this interpretation process.

ForNeil Silbermanthe keyword is the process which goes to a strategic plan for the community. Heritage is a part of the biosphere of a community and it is related to its future empowerment.

Arthur Pedersenpointed out the connections of the process of Interpretation with the present mentality.

Neil Silbermansuggested that we never begin Interpretation by erasing totally the precedent generation. Interpretation should encourage a stratigraphy of stories and this is linked to the future of Heritage Interpretation. Also it is important to look at the sustainability of Interpretation not just Interpretative Technology but also interpretative policy and encourage the consciousness that Interpretation is a dynamic process.

After a brief discussion of the universal applicability of general interpretive guidelines and the need for more detailed research on visitor reactions and community involvement, a lunch break was called to continue the general discussions informally.

* * *

The afternoon session, devoted to a discussion of the role that emerging digital technologies play in the interpretation of WHS, began at 2.00pm.

Lon Addisonpresented the data problem in relation to Interpretation and Presentation. There are usually funds for data collection but not for Presentation and most of the times this raw data is ‘repurposed’ for presentation but without much reflection. In other cases the documentation is never available to the public and remains in archives or university labs. In general the research world in not connected with the presentation world and research efforts are sometimes conducted separately with the danger of duplication. There is a general lack of coordination efforts. As for the practice of restoration, digital instead of manual restoration can solve the problem of future changes in interpretation. Another issue is that of the danger of inaccuracy of data collection: for example in the WH nomination process once inaccurate information is provided it becomes the official presentation. Digital data collection as well as interpretation also suffers from the problem of longevity: devices and data formats can quickly become obsolete in the digital age. A possible solution to this problem is the use of Creative Common Licence System (or Copyleft), which protects the authorship of the data but gives the possibility of sharing. To correctly preserve, interpret and present the data it is necessary to define parameters and he has done that with the Heritage ID -- intended to provide basic usable information to allow information to be collected.

Neil Silbermanreferred to the problem of authenticity of data and the dichotomy of virtual versus real and the dangers of the use of Technology to our perception of the past. It is then relevant to introduce the reflective value and ask if Technology can help us in understanding what of the past is important.

Maurizio Fortetackled the issue of the difficulty of a definition of authenticity in an age of hyperreality. There is a difference in creating a model and an informative model. It is important to discuss the cognitive conceptual model before actually doing the model in that he presented the Virtual Museum of Cappella degli Scrovegni as an example of an informative way of using technology in CH.

Christian Manhart discussed the possible advantages of using Technology in create sense of place and spirituality of a place and if some Technologies are more appropriate to this end. In the last decades UNESCO and the WHC have been pioneers in using new Technologies but Lon Addisonnoted that Technology is evolving quickly and that more than ever guidelines are needed in this field with input from the Heritage community—at the moment most standards and guideline efforts are happening without the involvement of bodies like ICOMOS.

Franco Niccoluccipresented the EPOCH Network and its fields of activities: Communication and Visualization; Sustainability of Heritage Projects; Education and Communication and Stakeholders needs. He gave several examples of the holistic approach of CH dissemination of EPOCH.

Lon Addisonconcluded this discussion by stressing the importance of keeping track of the authenticity of data for keeping the trust of the public. Possible guidelines for interpretation have to create a connection with the public and in this way can offer a direct connection of visitors and contemporary communities to WHS.

Conclusions and Follow-up

At the end of the meeting several points were highlighted and areas for action by ICIP were reiterated:

-The World Heritage Centre welcomed the discussion of Interpretation and Presentation and looks forward to reports on progress in the area from ICIP.

-The lack of focus on Interpretation and Presentation suggests the need for the development of possible guidelines or best practices (as opposed to Standards which were felt to be too weighty) to support the process of interpretation for new WH nominations and existing properties.

-The need for further discussion on how Interpretation at WH Sites could be included in the next round of Periodic Reporting.

-The possibility that ICOMOS and or ICIP may want to look at assessing Interpretation at WH sites as part of developing guidelines or best practice case studies.

-The need to create a link between ICIP and other relevant heritage interpretation organizations for development of Interpretation and Presentation guidelines or best practice case studies.

-Interpretation should be included in WH management plans —and given ICOMOS’ role in often helping develop these there is a clear opportunity here.

-OUV should be better explained in future interpretation at WH sites.

-Relevant WH sites could be selected as case studies for possible scenarios of general interpretation and interpretive technologies, in order to refine guidelines on Interpretation.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30pm with the agreement that further consultations on interpretation with staff members of the WHC would be held in the coming months.

Claudia Liuzza

Secretariat Coordinator

ICOMOS - ICIP

1