Authenticity or Continuity in the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention? Scrutinizing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, 1978–2019

Continuity is a key theme in conservation and one that appears in the text of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which requests States Parties to continue to protect, conserve and present properties situated on their territories (Article 26). Despite this fact, it is not put into effect. Instead, the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of this Convention retain authenticity as a benchmark for assessing cultural heritage. This article scrutinizes Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV) to prove that continuity is the evidence presented to justify inscription. It reveals that at least 263 properties were inscribed on the World Heritage List not because their values are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes as per the Operational Guidelines (Paragraph 82), but because their values and attributes continue to exist. It also reveals that continuity is a recurring concept in other sections of the SOUV, and this holds true for natural properties. Indeed, continuity applies to both cultural and natural heritage, and to tangible and intangible attributes, but this is never admitted in the Operational Guidelines. In terms of future research directions, the article suggests exploring how change within properties affects judgements about authenticity and how guidance on impact assessment can be improved to better achieve the goal of compatible change, concluding that “an effective system of collective protection”, which is the raison-d’être of the Convention, is not one that aims at “conserving the authentic”, but one that aims at “managing continuity and compatible change” in an ever-evolving world.


Introduction
States Parties to the World Heritage Convention can include properties situated on their territories in Tentative Lists (national inventories) and subsequently nominate them for inscription on the World Heritage List. The latter is the keystone around which the international system of collective protection revolves [1] (Preamble, Article 11), [2] (Paragraph 52). A State Party can plan when to prepare a nomination file that meets the requirements set out in the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of this Convention [2]. All nominations of cultural, natural, or mixed properties must meet at least one of the selection criteria (i)-(x), the conditions of integrity, and the protection and management requirements. Nominations of cultural and mixed properties must also meet the conditions of authenticity. The files are submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for review, after which they are sent to the appropriate Advisory Body mandated by the Convention for evaluation. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) evaluates nominations of cultural properties, including monuments, groups of buildings, and sites. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) evaluates nominations of natural properties, including natural justifies why reconstruction is an acceptable conservation treatment and why the Nara Palace Site, which is part of the property, qualifies for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Many sources of literature have discussed these concepts in tandem-of which three examples suffice here. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on the Safeguarding of the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach held in Nara in 2004, a participant argues: "Continuity supports and guarantees authenticity. It does not mean however, that no change can be accepted" [14] (p. 168). In a series of articles published in international peer-reviewed journals, an independent researcher proposes replacing authenticity with continuity in the Operational Guidelines not only to nominate reconstructed properties for inscription on the World Heritage List [15,16], but also to nominate all cultural, natural, and mixed properties in future, arguing that this replacement can bridge the culture/nature divide, facilitate the application of people-centered approaches to conservation, and enhance the role of communities [17]. Finally, in a book chapter about "How to be Authentic in the UNESCO World Heritage System", the author points out: "When one scrutinises what the World Heritage institutions really look for, it is in fact continuity over time, be it continuity of material, form, usage, or some other aspect mentioned in the Venice Charter or the Nara Document. But this is never so clearly stated, and authenticity (as a term) stays in place" [18] (p. 285); however, evidence is needed to prove this point to the reader. The purpose of this article is to provide the evidence.

Methodology
This article scrutinizes Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV), which are more reliable than nomination files prepared by States Parties or evaluation reports prepared by ICOMOS because they are official statements adopted by the World Heritage Committee to justify the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and to guide their "future effective protection and management" [2] (Paragraphs 51, 154, 155).
Every State Party must propose a SOUV in the nomination file to "make clear" why the nominated property is "considered to merit inscription" [2] (Paragraph 132.3). This essential requirement was introduced in the Operational Guidelines in 2005 [8] (Paragraph 51). In 2007, the Committee requested that SOUV be drafted by States Parties for all World Heritage properties that were inscribed between 1978 and 2006. These "retrospective" SOUV are reviewed by the World Heritage Centre and the appropriate Advisory Body [19] then adopted by the Committee and uploaded progressively on the website of the World Heritage Centre [20].
Many properties, especially those that were inscribed in the early years of the implementation of the Convention, do not have SOUV available on the website. Examples include all the cultural World Heritage properties located in Libya-i.e., the Archaeological Site of Cyrene (date of inscription 1982), the Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (1982), the Archaeological Site of Sabratha (1982), the Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (1985), and the Old Town of Ghadamès (1986) [20].
A SOUV is set out in a standard format, composed of four or five sections: (1) a brief synthesis (description of the property), (2) a justification for inscription per criterion, (3) a statement of integrity, (4) a statement of authenticity if the property is cultural or mixed, and (5) a statement that demonstrates the State Party's long-term commitment to protect and manage the property [2] (Paragraph 155, Annex 5, Annex 10). Cultural and mixed properties must meet one or more of criteria (i)-(vi), which are listed in the Operational Guidelines and repeated below for the reader: Nominated properties shall therefore: (i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria) [2] (Paragraph 77).
In addition, cultural and mixed properties "may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural values (as recognized in the nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes", which are listed in the Operational Guidelines and repeated below for the reader: To prepare this article, the author gradually, and thoroughly, read all the SOUV of cultural and mixed properties available on the website of the World Heritage Centre [20] over several weeks until 28 March 2020, and kept a record of the passages that show the relevance of continuity in the sections dedicated to authenticity. This methodology is flexible and allows future researchers to replicate, and build on, the results.

Results and Discussion
The results-which prove that continuity is the evidence presented in SOUV to justify inscription and which serve as a record for future researchers-are presented in Table A1. However, Table A1 is not inserted here because it is more than 15 pages in length. Instead, it is inserted in Appendix A following the Conclusion to avoid disrupting the flow of the main text. As indicated in the instructions for authors, this journal, Heritage, has no restrictions on the length of articles and requires all research data to be openly available in order to maintain integrity and transparency. For this reason, Table A1 is available despite the fact that it exceeds 15 pages.
Of the 869 cultural and 39 mixed properties inscribed on the World Heritage List between 1978 and 2019, there are at least 263 SOUV in which continuity and/or terms that echo this concept clearly appear in the sections dedicated to authenticity. The words "at least" are noteworthy because, as explained in the Methodology section, not all SOUV are available on the website of the World Heritage Centre. Also, many scholars, including Herb Stovel, have noted, "It is meaningless to state that such and such a property is 'undeniably authentic'" [21] (p. 4) because-as explained by a Greek delegate in the 1998 session of the World Heritage Committee-"The use of the word 'authenticity', when not properly specified, is devoid of any valuable meaning" [18] (p. 270); yet, this is the case, for example, in the SOUV of the Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam in Afghanistan: "The authenticity [. . . ] has never been questioned. The Minaret has always been recognized as a genuine architectural and decorative masterpiece by the experts and an artistic chef-d'oeuvre by the aesthetes [. . . ]" [20]. Table A1 does not include SOUV with similar, unspecific, sentences. Table A1 identifies the 263 properties as well as the States Parties, the criteria, and the relevant passages where continuity underpins one or more condition(s) or attribute(s) of authenticity, especially through the keywords: continuity, continuation, continuance, continual, continually, continuously, continuous, continuing, continue, and continuum. It is also evident through the keywords: always, active, age-old, constantly, consistently, daily, enduring, exist, existing, in existence, evolve, evolutionary, handed down from generation to generation, hold onto, keep, long-term, long-standing, living, lively, life, everyday life, long occupation, longevity, maintenance, maintain, moving, millennia, ongoing, omnipresent, over time, for many centuries, over thousands of years, persist, persistence, permanent, presence, present time, passed on, progressively, prevail, perform, perpetuating, predominantly, regularly, repeatedly, routine, retention, retain, remain, re-establish, return, successive, succeeding generation, sustain, survival, still, throughout time, today, transmit, transmission, the same, thrive, until now, uninterrupted, undisturbed, unmodified, unaltered, untouched, unchanged, and viability, among others. For instance, to "maintain", "retain", "sustain" or "keep" a function or another attribute means that the attribute continues to exist. Contrary to what the reader may expect, continuity is not only relevant to living heritage or dynamic properties, such as inhabited historic towns or continuing cultural landscapes, but also to more static properties, such as monuments and archaeological sites that continue to keep their design, materials, location, or other attributes.

Examples
Examples from Table A1 are presented below to quickly show the reader the applicability of continuity per criterion:  [20] (emphasis added in bold and color).

Analysis
These properties were inscribed on the World Heritage List not because their values, recognized in the criteria, "are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes" as per the Operational Guidelines [2] (Paragraph 82), but because their values and attributes continue to exist.
Accordingly, the expression "material authenticity" in related literature [22] (p. 152) actually means continuity of tangible attributes, such as materials and form, and "functional authenticity" [22] (p. 152) actually means continuity of function, which is an intangible attribute. One may argue, therefore, that the Nara Document on Authenticity [7], mentioned in the Introduction, actually served "to de-emphasize the material continuity that was privileging European-style stone monuments" [23] (p. 254) and to encompass structures made of less durable materials, such as wood, in other regions where immaterial continuity is equally or more important, for example in Japan-hence the addition of intangible attributes, such as function, use, language, feeling and spirit in the Operational Guidelines [2] (Paragraph 82).
In fact, continuity is not only a recurring concept in the section dedicated to authenticity in the SOUV, but also in the other sections, namely brief synthesis, criteria, integrity, protection and management requirements. This holds true for some natural properties. To support this claim, the SOUV of Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System (cultural property) and the SOUV of Los Alerces National Park (natural property) are given as examples in Table A2, which is available in Appendix A. This goes to show that continuity applies to both cultural and natural heritage, and to tangible and intangible attributes, but this is never stated outright in the Operational Guidelines.
Although there is general agreement in scholarly literature that values and attributes are not fixed because they are "subjectively assigned by people and their views may change over time" [24] (p. 57), the Operational Guidelines insist that all properties, whether cultural, mixed, or natural, must continue to convey OUV to remain on the World Heritage List. This explains why States Parties must demonstrate their commitment to sustain OUV post-inscription through protection and management [2] (Paragraphs 53, 96, 97, 155). If a State Party wishes to change the inscription criteria of a property, it must "submit this request as if it were a new nomination" [2] (Paragraph 166). Once the re-nomination is evaluated and approved, the property must continue to convey the amended OUV. This detail suggests that continuity has greater practical utility in protection and management than authenticity. In fact, this is confirmed in the text of the Convention itself, which requests States Parties "to continue to protect, conserve and present" properties (emphasis added) [1] (Article 26).

Implications
Contrary to what is implied in the Operational Guidelines, continuity is not a characteristic specific to living heritage or dynamic properties, such as historic towns which are still inhabited or heritage routes [2] (Annex 3). It is in fact a qualifying condition that is used in the SOUV to justify the inscription of cultural properties that belong to other heritage categories as shown in Table A1.
Authenticity appears to be redundant. Continuity should replace authenticity in the Operational Guidelines for this reason, in addition to reasons voiced in previous studies, mentioned in the Introduction [15][16][17]. ICOMOS was actually willing to replace authenticity with another requirement. In the Report on the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting held in Amsterdam in 1998, Carmen Anon, speaking on behalf of ICOMOS, "agreed with IUCN that the 'test of authenticity' could be replaced by 'conditions of integrity'" [25] (p. 3). Bing Lucas, speaking on behalf of IUCN, had "referred to the need for a parallel level of effort to ensure the continuing integrity of World Heritage sites" whether cultural or natural [25] (p. 3). Despite this agreement, authenticity remained a benchmark for assessing cultural heritage; as for integrity, it became a requirement for the nomination of cultural properties from 2005 onwards [2] (Paragraphs 87-89).
Replacing authenticity with continuity not only has the potential to bridge the culture/nature divide in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention as argued previously [17], it can also strengthen synergies between this Convention and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in which the notion of authenticity was deliberately ousted from the entire text whereas the notion of continuity was explicitly included in the definition of intangible cultural heritage [26] (Article 2). In response to this definition, one may argue that tangible cultural heritage can also provide communities with a sense of identity and (material) continuity, for example when the character and integrity of a property, such as a historic town, are maintained over time; moreover, it can also be re-created to meet the needs of communities, which is often the case after destructive events, such as armed conflict or war [27]. One may add that the safeguarding of heritage, be it tangible or intangible, cultural or natural, and its transmission to future generations are processes that involve continuity over time.
Therefore, unlike authenticity, which applies to the cultural and tangible but not the natural and intangible heritage according to the implementation of the two Conventions, continuity applies to all heritage. It can break these artificial barriers and dichotomies to unify the treatment of heritage. Treating heritage as one integrated whole is important because it allows for the recognition of a more holistic range of values and interlinkages.
The World Heritage Leadership Programme in particular may find this research helpful [28]. Its leading experts are seeking a paradigm shift in heritage conservation practice-from the conventional expert-driven approach that focuses on protecting the physical fabric of cultural heritage to maintain material authenticity in conformity with the Venice Charter [29]-towards an integrated people-centered approach to both cultural and natural heritage that focuses on "managing continuity (and change)" to ensure the "well-being" of society and heritage as a whole in conformity with contemporary views on sustainability [30] (p. 10). It would be less difficult to achieve this paradigm shift once experts and other actors in the World Heritage system realize that continuity underpins many SOUV.

Future Research Directions
Change within properties can affect judgements about authenticity and, therefore, decisions as to whether they qualify for inscription on the World Heritage List. In reading the SOUV available on the website of the World Heritage Centre, it became apparent that the concept of "compatibility" is used to justify change, e.g., interventions such as restoration. Compatibility is in fact a qualifying condition.
Ten examples, taken from the sections dedicated to authenticity, are included below to support this claim and to instigate future research on the authenticity-continuity-change nexus: The Colonial City of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic: "The restoration interventions carried out remain evident. As far as possible, the consolidation techniques used were made using materials compatible with the original structure." . ] and every effort has been made to ensure that compatible materials are used." [20] (emphasis added in color).
Similar to continuity, compatibility is a key theme in conservation and an expression of sustainability. It implies that change "must integrate harmoniously with the whole" as noted in the Venice Charter [29] (Article 12), and have no or minimal adverse impact on attributes of cultural significance as noted in the Burra Charter [31] (Article 1.11). ICOMOS expects change such as restoration, reconstruction, or new development projects to be compatible, and this holds true for change proposed post-inscription. However, ICOMOS does not have explicit guidelines in place to direct projects proposed in cultural World Heritage properties and their buffer zones. In its guidance on heritage impact assessments, ICOMOS briefly states: "The compatibility of the scale, pattern, use, etc. should be tested according to the attributes of the property that convey OUV and other assets. Issues such as sight lines, architectural type, volumes and surface appearances, settlement form, functional uses and persistence through time etc might be relevant" [32] (Paragraph 5.11). Future researchers can work on improving this guidance to better achieve the goal of compatible change, which would be useful to ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM, and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre that have been exploring, within the framework of the World Heritage Leadership Programme, how impact assessment can be applied to both cultural and natural World Heritage [33].

Conclusions
The results and discussion provide evidence to prove a point raised in the Introduction to this article [18] (p. 285), but with an important addition, written in bold: "When one scrutinises what the World Heritage institutions really look for, it is in fact continuity over time or compatible change, be it continuity or compatibility of material, form, usage, or some other aspect mentioned in the Venice Charter or the Nara Document. But this is never so clearly stated, and authenticity (as a term) stays in place." [17] (p. 10, emphasis included). Accordingly, "an effective system of collective protection" [1] (Preamble), which is the raison-d'être of the World Heritage Convention, is not one that aims at "conserving the authentic" [9], but one that aims at "managing continuity and compatible change"-not only to meet the needs of current generations, but also to eventually transmit heritage, whether cultural or natural, tangible or intangible, to future generations. This re-interpretation of the Convention allows us to treat heritage as one integrated whole and paves the way for the paradigm shift in conservation practice that the World Heritage Leadership Programme is seeking.
Author Contributions: This article reports on the author's independent research. The author has read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding and no technical support.

Acknowledgments:
The author wishes to thank the journal Heritage for the invitation to contribute an article and for waiving the Article Processing Charge (APC).

Conflicts of Interest:
The author declares no conflict of interest.

Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots/Armenia/criteria (ii)(iii)
The authenticity of the ecclesiastic monuments is reasonable, given that they have been in religious use for many centuries [. . . ].

Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley/Armenia/criterion (ii)
The Monastery [. . . ] is still preserved in its natural setting. The authenticity of the group is high, not least because the property has been in continuous use as a monastery for many centuries. The centre of Salzburg has retained its historic townscape and street pattern to a high degree.

Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn/Austria/criteria (i)(iv)
. . . the form that it possessed in 1918 has been faithfully retained, both in the original fabric and decoration and in the restoration following wartime damage.

Semmering Railway/Austria/criteria (ii)(iv)
Given that the railway line has been in use continuously since its opening [. . . ], specific items have worn out and been replaced [. . . ]. However, since railways are by nature evolving socio-technical systems, continuity through change is an essential part of their identity, and these principles have been applied to preserve the property's authenticity. Although it is threatened and subject to natural degradation processes, it maintains its original attributes.
The age-old geological relics, ancient architectural ensembles, stone tablets and inscriptions, and ancient and rare trees all have been carefully protected and maintained. The

Historic Centres of Stralsund and
Wismar/Germany/criteria (ii)(iv) As centres, which were continuously inhabited and always the heart of urban life, whose harbour remained intact and of importance for the economy in all epochs, both cities have continuously preserved their use and can therefore be described as authentic with regard to their function.

Forts and Castles, Volta, Greater Accra, Central and Western Regions/Ghana/criterion (vi)
As symbols of trade, and particularly the slave trade, they need to continue to reflect the way they were used.

The Archaeological Site of Delphi/Greece/criteria(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Modern visitors arriving along the Holy Road from the Roman Market up to the Stadium can perceive the same feeling as the person who visited the area in the antiquity.

Medieval City of Rhodes/Greece/criteria (ii)(iv)(v)
The medieval city of Rhodes maintains the architectural character and the urban organization of a medieval city as well as its primary building materials.

Mount Athos/Greece/criteria (i)(ii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii) [mixed]
Mount Athos has an enormous wealth of historic, artistic and cultural elements preserved by a monastic community that has existed for the last twelve centuries and constitutes a living record of human activities.

Paleochristian and Byzantine
Monuments of Thessalonika/Greece/criteria (i)(ii)(iv) All monuments, despite any interventions over the centuries, maintain all elements (architecture and decoration) of their initial phase. [. . . ] The restoration and consolidation work as well as landscaping realised until now [. . . ] contributed to their maintenance and the enhancement of their authenticity.

Sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidaurus/Greece/criteria (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
The Sanctuary's location and setting has been almost entirely preserved so that visitors are still able to experience the spiritual character of the site.     Continuity of names of specific places and stories associated with them contribute to sustaining their authenticity.
160. Itsukushima Shinto Shrine/Japan/criteria (i)(ii)(iv)(vi) As an ancient place of religious or spiritual importance, the setting continues to reflect the scenic harmony of the monuments, sea, and mountain forest and is properly maintained [. At the three sacred sites, various religious rituals and practices mainly related to Shintoism, Buddhism, and Shugen-dô have been continually carried out. Such activities are still underway even now, and thus a high level of spiritual authenticity is maintained.

Um er-Rasas/Jordan/criteria (i)(iv)(vi)
The form, design and materials, location and setting of the ruined and excavated structures continue to express the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.  The work in the agricultural field attests the survival of essential elements that have shaped the agave landscape from its creation and the continuity of an ancient cultural process. The property continues to express its Outstanding Universal Value through its archaeological remains. The delicate balance must be maintained between conserving the archaeological vestiges of the property while providing for the pilgrims. The property continues to express its Outstanding Universal Value through its planning, form and design, materials and location.

Buddhist Ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and
Neighboring City Remains at Sahr-i-Bahlol/Pakistan/criterion (iv) The Buddhist Ruins of Takht   The Swedish authorities believe that the continued use of this historical environment will provide the best protection, and will assist in maintaining the property's authenticity.  The Forth Bridge is fully authentic in form and design, which are virtually unaltered; materials and substance, which have undergone only minimal changes; and use and function, which have continued as originally intended. "Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville" is substantially authentic in terms of its forms and designs, materials and substance, and locations and settings, as well as, for the University's Academical Village, its uses and functions. [. . . ] The Jeffersonian precinct of the University has been in continuous use for its original purposes since its construction.  The attributes that carry Outstanding Universal Value including the city layout, the city skyline, the city wall, the traditional buildings, and the relationship between the city and its surrounding landscape continue to be maintained.