Authenticity Determination in the Context of Universalized Heritage Discourses and Localized Approaches in the Arabian Region

Abstract

Authenticity in heritage conservation is theoretically and practically complex, dynamic and frequently contested. In conservation practice, through the decisions directing the processes of protection, restoration, adaptation, presentation and interpretation, there will be multiple interpretations of what denotes authenticity, and what is considered to be authentic by different actors. The purpose of the paper is to discuss alternative approaches to the determination of authenticity within the framework of current day conservation theories and heritage discourses. In this paper I propose that authenticity is situation specific and exists on a scale and as such is determinable using cultural perspectives and value-based assessment tools. Positioning authenticity as being dynamic and situation-specific, this research sets out to construct a framework through which the different perspectives involved in decision making are better acknowledged and the determinants of authenticity can be more clearly captured. The research utilizes the context of urban heritage conservation in the Arabian Peninsula to demonstrate how different approaches to conservation are evaluated in terms of authenticity.

1. Introduction

As the theory, governance and discourse surrounding heritage protection and conservation has become an international concern, its practitioners are expected to adhere to universal principles while at the same time be informed by, reflect upon and support local and regional cultures and traditions. The cultural context of conservation is not only defined by national, regional or ethnographic groupings, but also by cultures of practice (architecture, tourism, cultural studies, etc.). The notion of authenticity in heritage conservation and the ways in which it is theorized and perceived in different cultural contexts has been the focus of international debates since its introduction into the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention in 1977 [1], and later through the positionality of the Nara Document on Authenticity [2], hereafter referred to as the Nara Document.

Objects, buildings and places are often described as a binary of being authentic or inauthentic, or sufficiently or insufficiently authentic, as is often the case in the assessment of World Heritage Site (WHS) nominations. The precept of this paper is that authenticity is not binary, present or absent, black or white, but that it is context specific (cultural, social, environmental) and that there are multiple authenticities which could be represented as shades of gray on a spectrum. The purpose of the paper is to discuss alternative approaches to the assessment of authenticity within the framework of current day conservation theories and heritage discourses. Within this paper I propose that authenticity is situation-specific and exists on a scale and as such is determinable using cultural perspectives and value-based assessment tools. The paper specifically builds on discussions surrounding the 20th anniversary of the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity [3] and the 2014 Nara+20 declaration [4].

The key premise of the paper is demonstrated by using the example of conserved traditional settlements in the Arabian Peninsula. The focus on urban heritage is to capture a wider spectrum of conservation approaches and value sets used to inform projects, to be evaluated. A growing number or World Heritage Site nominations for urban heritage sites in the region have also instigated discussions on authenticity and how it is being assessed. Compared to Asian case studies for example, this region has been much less studied from an authenticity perspective. Furthermore, there was no representation from Arab States during the drafting of the Nara Document [5], but the region was represented in the Nara+20 discussion, to which part of the research presented in this paper also made a contribution [6]. In the Arabian Peninsula, the surviving historic urban centers and settlements are made up of vernacular dwellings surviving from the latter half of the 19th century, but part of a much older embedded urban morphology and representative of evolving craft traditions. Following abandonment in the post-oil period, many have been the subject of conservation projects since the late 1990s.

This paper contextualizes authenticity within contemporary cultural heritage discourse, before using examples from the region to describe different approaches to conservation and to authenticity. The outcomes are visualized as a gray scale and spectrum intended as a baseline on which points of acceptable authenticity can be placed. Various parameters and indicators which inform such an assessment are discussed, including value-based approaches, the prevalent cultural context and project outcome objectives.

2. Authenticity in Building Conservation

Authenticity as a notion is theoretically and practically complex [7], dynamic [8] and frequently contested. In the cultural heritage field, authenticity is most formally framed as a qualifying requirement for WHS nomination, and most frequently debated in this context [1,9]. In conservation practice, through the decisions directing the processes of protection, restoration, adaptation, presentation and interpretation, there will be multiple interpretations of authenticity, and what is considered to be authentic.

In the international building conservation discourse, authenticity is distinctly present in the 1964 Venice Charter [10] and was specifically elaborated in the 1977 iteration of the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention to cover design, material, setting and workmanship [5]. In both cases, heritage is firmly identified as a physical object with corresponding tangible indicators of authenticity [11]. In philosophical terms authenticity is linked to truthfulness, the heritage object ‘standing alone as an autonomous human creation as well as being a true evidence of something’ [1] (p. 8). In a more global context these attributes have come to be seen as Europe-centered, both in material terms (what applies for stone conservation, for example, is less relevant to earth construction) as well as local cultural and philosophical framing, such as practices of re-building [12], or in the embodiment of spiritual meanings [13]. By the early 1990s, World Heritage Site assessment processes were criticized for being predominantly based on historic and aesthetic classifications and failing to reflect living cultures and cultural and social diversity globally [7], or cultural contexts where authenticity is associated with intangible values and where materiality is not seen as a prerequisite for authenticity [13].

The Nara Document expanded the narrow perspective of authenticity to: ‘form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors’ [3], generating a ‘global impact in bringing about [a] heritage paradigm shift [which] cannot be exaggerated’ [8] (p. 151). In Nara+20, authenticity is conceptualized as a ‘culturally contingent quality associated with a heritage place, practice, or object that conveys cultural value; and is recognized as a meaningful expression of an evolving cultural tradition; and/or evokes among individuals the social and emotional resonance of group identity’ [12]. In conservation practice, favoured national narratives as well as value sets influence conservation projects and the way in which authenticity is conceptualized and upheld. Weise [14] demonstrates this in an example from Nepal, where the various cultural missions operating in the country have taken different approaches to justifying material authenticity, predominantly relying on their own cultural reference points rather than seeking guidance from Nepali cultural norms and approaches. Faiser [5] has argued that the Nara Document reflected the prevalent post-colonialist narratives of its time. Emphasizing a similar point, Munjeri [13] notes that authenticity is not limited to physical spaces but how people associate with the historic environment.

The UNESCO definitions and conceptualization of authenticity continue to sit more comfortably with built tangible heritage than intangible heritage [9]. It has also been argued that the act of making a case for authenticity as part of the WHS nomination process, not only presents conditions to stretch the truth, overlook some of the more dynamic aspects of authenticity, and ultimately binds the inscribed site to this singular ‘truth’ concerning its authenticity [15] (p. 80). The placing of authenticity as a key component of WHS nominations also invites its deconstruction into component parts [16].

In many cases in heritage conservation, the values being protected are both tangible and intangible ones; however, the protection and conservation of tangible aspects has remained at the forefront of (professional) decision making [17]. Yet, it is widely agreed that intangible values give meaning to tangible heritage [18]. Authenticity is not just inherent in the physical fabric of a building but is also culturally constructed and contextually variable [19]. Modest vernacular buildings, for example, embody social traditional practices up until the point of their abandonment, and maintain a ‘dynamic authenticity’ generated through the multiple and accumulated socio-cultural adaptations [20]. The inherently fluid and evolving nature of intangible heritage also makes it difficult to pinpoint authenticity. Skounti [21] has argued that official designations of intangible heritage to ensure its survival simultaneously results in a loss of authenticity. The notions of ‘living culture’ [22] generate a dichotomy of authenticity residing in the changing and evolving culture, or its frozen state packaged for economic consumption [16].

While authenticity in the context or heritage conservation remains to a large extent object-centered [23,24], in tourism, authenticity has focused on the dimension of experience. From the tourism perspective Selwyn [25] considers two forms of authenticity, one linked to feelings and the search for authentic social relations, and the other seeking a knowledge-based authenticity, one that can be scientifically proven. Wang [26] (p. 352) has argued that authenticity can be more important to cultural heritage tourism than other forms of tourism but also concedes that for the post-modern visitor staged authenticity is easily acceptable. In the framework that authenticity is ascribed to objects by others, the tourist industry constructs its own version of authenticity for the tourism products that it promotes [27] (p. 185). The reconstructed spaces of heritage can therefore be considered ‘objectively inauthentic’, but at the same time ‘subjectively authentic’ in their appeal to tourism [28] (p. 37). In the context of tourists’ consumption of experiences, the physical setting is merely used as a visual prompt.

However, there is an inherent dichotomy between what visitors expect of authenticity in a culture, and the present-day reality of that culture and the community’s sense of its own authenticity. The reality, however, is more complex, as most places or objects will be linked to multiple interpretations and telling of history, and the viewer (the tourist) will also project upon a place or experience their own preconceptions of that culture [26]. Authenticity thus moves beyond the object to the experience and the tourist’s desire to have an authentic experience. Wang [26] has argued that most tourists are seeking this simulation rather than the ‘real deal’, or authentic object. Smith and Brent [29] question whether there is a point when cultural heritage ends in the processes of commodification.

It is evident from the literature that the determination of authenticity is typically discussed from either a material perspective linked to physical attributes of a heritage place and underpinned by scientific knowledge [30], or from a tourism perspective where is studied from visitors’ emotional perceptions and performative perspectives [26,30]. Whilst intangible values are recognized as imbuing meaning on physical heritage [18] and in places being the more dominant value of heritage identification [13], they are rarely recalled in processes of authenticity determination. At the same time authenticity in intangible cultural heritage discourses, including in the context of the 2003 UNESCO Convention [31], predominantly focuses on specific cultural practices and ICH practitioners. What appears to be missing in much of these discussions relates to a communities’ own identification with cultural heritage and the social meaning of place. Reising and Steiner’s [32] exploration of ‘existential authenticity’ in tourism experiences, can also be considered in the context of a local community’s wellbeing, identity and creativity [33]. Zhu [30] further argues that official forms of authentication form a barrier to the expression of local meaning and values. This raises questions about not only who heritage belongs to but who dictates (or owns) the narrative, and consequently how authenticity is determined.

3. Methodology

Assessing authenticity in the urban context is more complex, yet all too often the tools used are based on concepts or methods developed around individual heritage buildings or monuments. Particularly in the WHS context, there is a perceived ‘lack of clarity and consensus over the nature of authenticity’ when applied at the urban scale [34] (p. 351). In traditional urban settlements, there is an element of ‘socio-cultural authenticity’, which can justify the continuation of traditional forms of life [35]. However, continuation of the functionality of an historic urban quarter will also necessitate changes that accommodate an improved quality of life for those using buildings [11].

Taking Silverman’s [9] (p. 69) position that authenticity is no longer stable (or definitive) but something that is ‘dynamic, performative, culturally and historically contingent, relative—a quality/tool that can be strategically configured and deployed according to the task at hand’, and Stovel’s [36] assertion that the assessment of authenticity, including in WHS nominations, is a relative measurement rather than an absolute one, this research sets out to construct a framework across which the assessment of authenticity can be more clearly captured and the different perspectives that are involved better acknowledged.

The framework sets out to demonstrate that the assessment of authenticity is rarely empirical and easily shifts from a quantitative and objective process to a qualitative and subjective mode. The starting point is to identify the different approaches taken in building conservation projects in an urban context, noting both the conservation theoretical position (physical heritage) and the local cultural context (intangible values).

3.1. Definitions Linked to Building Conservation

Authenticity in the building conservation framing is closely linked to the level of intervention and the purpose of a project. For this, the levels of conservation identified by Bernard Feilden [37] and definitions set out in the Burra Charter [38] provide a useful starting point. The following definitions have been adapted for the purposes of this research:

Conservation is the action taken to prevent decay and manage change dynamically. It embraces all acts that prolong the life of cultural heritage [37].

Maintenance or preventive care is the ‘continuous protective care of a place, and its setting’ [38].

Preservation is ‘maintaining a place in its existing state’ [38] with repairs that must be carried out when necessary to prevent further decay [31] and may include relocation as a means of preservation [37].

Direct conservation involves physical addition or application of material of the fabric in order to ensure its continued durability or structural integrity. The utilization of traditional skills and methods is seen as being of essential importance, and modern techniques applied only when proven by experience, and applicable to the scale of the project and its climatic environment [37].

Adaptation means ‘changing a place to suit the existing use or a proposed new use’ [38].

Restoration is ‘returning a place to a known earlier state’ [38] or to ‘revive the original concept or legibility of the object’ [37].

Reconstruction is ‘returning a place to a known earlier state’ and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material [38].

Replica is a facsimile copy of a historic building or part of it [37].

3.2. The Arabian Context

The Arabian Peninsula has been selected as an illustrative case study. The reason for this selection is firstly, because it is a culturally distinct region, including in the cultural approaches to heritage and its preservation. Secondly, there is a good range of different approaches to the conservation of a largely homogeneous urban heritage to enable comparison and discussions on the nuances and cultural context of authenticity. Thirdly, many of the conservation approaches are similar to approaches that can be observed elsewhere globally and therefore also allow for broader comparisons. A selection from a specific geographic region not only enables comparability but also contextualizes conservation practice and approaches to authenticity within a distinct regional and cultural context.

Urban heritage and its conservation in the region did not start to gather pace until the 1990s [39,40]. Up until this time approaches to the preservation of the vernacular heritage had mainly focused on establishing open air museums where replicas of traditional buildings were built and various craft demonstrations used to provide an educational experience [41]. For a culture where ‘cultural heritage’ is more likely to be transmitted between generations through intangible heritage in the form of beliefs, traditions and pass times, there is a growing interest in the built urban heritage as an outward transmitter of cultural identity [42]. The physical components of urban heritage, in the form of buildings or places, are rarely valued for their historic significance as they are in Western societies [43]. Heritage conservation, nonetheless, has been seen as a means for defining and celebrating local ‘identity’, coupled with a growing desire for World Heritage Site recognition and diversifying the tourism product [44]. In contrast to these common goals is a complexity of multiple identities stemming from religion, clan, tribe, class, ethnicity and language, which are intertwined and overlap and often maintain very little coordination or synchronization between past history and current labels [45].

Islam plays an important role in shaping past and present lifestyles, cultural practices and urban form and its associated socio-cultural values are upheld and traditions practiced by local communities in the region [45,46]. In the Islamic city not only are public and private spaces separated, but a regenerative approach to settlement growth underpins the prevalent organic urban form. The Islamic belief that dwellings are constructed as shelter and not monuments, means that it was common for dwellings to be regularly adapted to changing family needs and to be fully or partially rebuilt [47]. Conservation laws, often imported from Europe, are seen as operating on different value sets than those held locally [48], including overlooking long established systems of stewardship [49]. The practice of conservation is further constrained by the loss of craft traditions [50].

The buildings in the region were typically constructed out of coral stone on the coasts and mud-brick in the interior regions. The vulnerability of mud to weathering and the abundance of palm trees also dictated an architecture that was regularly repaired and re-plastered, and temporary structures made from palm fronds that provided any number of additional rooms, temporary spaces or entire dwellings, none of which would survive for more than a few years. Nore were the traditional dwellings that are being preserved static objects or spaces but were in fact part of a dynamic and regularly changing environment that was both shaped and governed by a combination of Islamic beliefs and norms and local cultural traditions.

In a region that culturally values intangible heritage [46], identification with the past is still more likely to be played out in festivals and events, some of them held within the restored historic districts. Notably, heritage districts repurposed as leisure destinations are some of the few places frequented by both locals and foreigners and are increasingly valued for their leisure attributes over their heritage authenticity [41]. For the revitalized residential districts, their location at the heart of new commercial and business districts and general unsuitability for present day housing expectations means their main purpose has become a tourist attraction [51]. While the continued functions of gold or textile souqs appeal to present-day users, others have adapted to more tourist-oriented products. The Riyadh souq, for example, is described as a good visitor attraction and an ‘enjoyable urban experience’ [52] (p. 73).

The specific examples selected for this research are from the historic neighborhoods of Dubai and Sharjah in the UAE and Yanbu Al-Bahr in Saudi Arabia. The examples selected are also representative of conservation practices evident across the region. Notably, very few buildings are used again for their original function as most were already abandoned at the time of conservation and the link to what might be termed ‘living heritage’ is already lost. A range of conservation approaches are evident in all three locations in conservation projects undertaken since the 1990s and ongoing to the present day.

Conservation works undertaken were evaluated post-conservation (Dubai), during and after conservation (Sharjah), before, during and after conservation (Yanbu Al-Bahr). In each location, 2–3 public buildings or buildings being conserved for museum uses, 15–20 historic houses and at least one souq (market) grouping was evaluated for the purposes of this research. A survey overseen by the author of Sharjah historic quarter in 2009 (during conservation works) and a detailed study of c. 200 buildings in Yanbu Al-Bahr undertaken in 2007 (before conservation works) provided a baseline against which evaluations on the conservation approach and changes to the physical fabric were evaluated. The wider range of values associated with the historic buildings and neighborhoods was informed by an established body of research [39,53,54,55] identifying not only original material, craftsmanship and design attributes of the historic properties, but also intangible value attributes such as use, functionality and social meaning of spaces at a time when they were in full time use in their original intended functions. The different conservation approaches were evaluated against the criteria of authenticity established in the 1977 Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention, the 1994 Nara Document [2] and Nara+20 of 2014 [4]. The research did not involve and does not report on human participants in ways that would have required prior ethics approval.

4. Results

Nara+20 conceptualizes heritage as a process, not an object disconnected from the past being preserved for the future [17], and conservation is defined as follows:

‘All actions designed to understand a heritage property or element, know, reflect upon and communicate its history and meaning, facilitate its safeguard, and manage change in ways that will best sustain its heritage values for present and future generations’.

[12]

As such, in the Nara+20 context, authenticity conveys cultural value and meaningful expression of an evolving cultural tradition, and evokes social and emotional resonance and group identity [4]. These build on the Nara Document [2], which has informed WHS assessments post 2005, where authenticity indicators are specified as follows: form and design, materials and substance, traditions and techniques, location and setting, use and function, and spirit and feeling. Nonetheless the four authenticity indicators of design, material, workmanship and setting, used to inform WHC nominations assessments between 1978 and 2005, continue to be the dominant benchmarks.

In all the cases evaluated, authenticity of setting can be achieved if the setting is defined as the historic district, whereas aspects such as links to the coastline or wider setting have been altered as a result of contemporary urban developments. In terms of functional authenticity, in most cases, residential and administrative functions have been replaced, whereas religious and retail functions have continued.

Taking the conservation definitions identified above, the following approaches to conservation of the built heritage are observed:

1.

Repairs and in situ conservation, using original materials and techniques: This approach is typically employed for buildings of high historic value that are used as museums. Examples include the former Al Ahmadiya school or the Sheikh Saeed Al Maktoum House in Dubai (Figure 1). As an approach they exemplify direct conservation with tangible indicators of authenticity in terms of materials and techniques, and the preservation of authentic layouts (design). As landmarks they convey the spirit of a past era as per the Nara Document [2], and evoke a group identity conceptualized by Nara+20 [4], that is also promoted as part of a nation building discourse [56].

2.

Conservation of buildings, but including some new materials and techniques, largely due to loss of craftsmanship traditions in the region: Examples include conserved residential buildings in Dubai’s Bastakiya quarter and in Yanbu Al-Bahr, often repurposed for cultural uses (Figure 2). Design, setting and some material authenticity is achieved in these cases, whereas workmanship authenticity is not. These projects exemplify conservation as managing change and can be seen as ‘expressions of an evolving cultural tradition’ as per Nara+20 [4].

3.

Fabric conservation and alterations to layouts to accommodate new uses include the use of new materials and techniques: Elements of form and design and material authenticity are maintained, and a tradition is upheld [2]. They exemplify adaptation as defined in the Burra Charter [38]. This approach is the most commonly evident in the three examples (Figure 3), can be most closely associated with evoking social and emotional resonance among individuals, reflecting Nara+20 [4], and as places of collective memory for local inhabitants. Nonetheless, the transmission of traditions and intangible heritage values is more likely to be carried over to places of contemporary living, rather than remain strongly associated with the historic environment. These urban conservation projects therefore predominantly exemplify a subjective authenticity appealing to tourism, rather than a socio-cultural authenticity [35].

4.

Construction of traditional buildings using traditional materials and craft techniques in open-air museums: In such projects, design, material and workmanship authenticity is maintained. Although the buildings are no longer within their original setting, they convey cultural values. Feilden [37] considers this a form of reconstruction. Examples of this can be found across the region (Figure 4), and they are more likely to be associated with educational values and places where intangible cultural heritage is celebrated [41].

5.

Reconstruction of buildings, often in new materials, that are either demolished or have previously been demolished, with varying levels of adherence to original plan layouts and features: In material terms, design, material and workmanship authenticity are compromised, and uniform appearance, especially of shop fronts or simplified details may reduce aesthetic authenticity. On the other hand, the reconstruction process supports functional continuity, especially retail environments. In their appeal to local and international tourists, they have become subjectively authentic spaces [28] (Figure 5).

6.

Reconstruction, but with the addition of ‘heritage’ features and embellishments to unify appearances and/or add ‘heritage’ value or aesthetic appeal: This practice is evident in all three cases and carried out at different scales. In the example of the Bur Dubai souq, a new roof canopy utilizes a traditional design to imply historic authenticity (Figure 6). Nonetheless, through the continuation of the original trading activities it was conceived for, the intangible values of the space and its functionality are maintained, and the souq is in the context of Nara+20 a ‘meaningful expression of an evolving cultural tradition’ [4]. In other instances, the predominant authenticity is that ascribed by the tourist consumer and/or the projected group identity of a curated past.

7.

Reconstruction of historic urban quarters in their original location but with altered morphological layout to accommodate roads, car parks and other services. The approach falls between reconstruction and replication. In Sharjah, the historic area was largely reconstructed [39], with evident variations in comparisons to old maps (Figure 7). The predominant tourism focus of the heritage area and its newly created covered tourist bazaar, and the rebuilt fort has been described as being ‘reimagined’ [41]. In such cases design authenticity is only partially achieved and the setting is also altered. Through the use of the area to showcase intangible heritage practices, cultural values of an ‘evolving cultural tradition’ are conveyed to some extent.

8.

New build in heritage styles that use the language of the local or regional vernacular architecture with various levels of adherence to historic proportions (e.g., residential complexes, holiday resorts, shopping malls): This practice is variously considered imitation, pastiche, or revivalism [57]. These buildings have no authenticity materially but are often associated with the portrayal of a local identity. In a cultural context where traditional buildings are no longer viable for residential purposes, the uses of heritage styles can be a viewed as a contemporary means of connecting with the past (Figure 8). The choice of historic styles and elements in new buildings can be interpreted as a local expression of identity that may also ‘evoke social and emotional resonance’ [4].

9.

Theme parks constructed as a deliberate imitation and reinterpretation of heritage for consumer purposes. In the example of the Madinat Jumeirah resort in Dubai, the architectural features of historic Dubai buildings are incorporated into the architectural design and the boats (Abra) crossing the Creek is recreated as a tourist experience (Figure 9). The replication and reinterpretation of heritage features exercised in this approach is largely focused on the provision of a memorable visitor experience, without making claims to authenticity, but nonetheless is a celebration of a local cultural idiom.

5. Discussion

What is evident is that there is a wide range of approaches to conservation practice, with multiple variations in between. They are visualized here as a spectrum or gray scale of authenticity based on internationally upheld definitions of conservation and authenticity (Figure 10). From a building conservation standpoint only the first approach fully facilitates the safeguarding of original material and the employment of traditional craft skills in repair and are most closely aligned with the Venice Charter principles. Other approaches (2–4) facilitate, to a degree, the safeguarding of original material or craft skill, and ‘manage change in ways that will sustain heritage values’, and all enable the ‘communication of history and meaning’. On the other end of the spectrum, a theme park is evaluated as the commodification of heritage and an imagined past as a visitor experience [58]. All, however, deliver a level of subjective authenticity to visitor experiences and experiential authenticity in forms of local identification, including in the provision of performative spaces for intangible heritage practices. However, beyond these physical spaces, what might be considered the most authentic forms of intergenerational transmission take place in environments that are not necessarily associated with the physical manifestations of heritage [59].

A similarly place-specific spectrum of approaches can be drawn up for any cultural context. Within a discussion of the physical attributes of heritage authenticity in situ conservation, safeguarding original material and employing traditional materials and techniques in repair is likely to be labeled as highly authentic as opposed to the other end of the spectrum when a shopping mall or theme park is deemed highly inauthentic. While there may be more general agreement to the position of authenticity at either end of the spectrum, it is much more difficult to draw a definitive line where authenticity ends and inauthenticity begins in the gradation of approaches that span it. Moreover, different cultural, social and professional standpoints will generate different positions across the spectrum.

The proposed spectrum illustrates the dynamic nature of authenticity and demonstrates that authenticity can be evaluated in many different ways and from a range of perspectives such as professional, cultural, social or environmental. The spectrum can thus be utilized as a tool to determine authenticity in terms of what is considered acceptably authentic within a certain paradigm. This is conceptualized as a red line, visualized as an analog radio dial. The dial is ‘tuned’ to a point that is an acceptable level of authenticity from any one perspective, rather than denoting an absolute authentic/inauthentic breaking point. The position of the dial will be different when viewed through different lenses, such as international conservation doctrine or that of local communities or tourists.

One tool through which to position a place- and culture-specific authenticity is the values-based approach. Authenticity is closely linked to values and to the ways in which values are determined and contested. Values typically create a framework for conservation practice. In a values-based approach, values are closely linked and qualified through attributes. The value perspective on heritage protection and other values that drive a project also determines the value placed on authenticity. Nara+20 notably defines values as follows:

The meanings, functions, or benefits ascribed by various communities to something they designate as heritage, and which create the cultural significance of a place or object.

[4]

There are multiple values that can be ascribed to a historic property or place, which are both tangible and intangible, and the determination of values will always retain an element of subjectivity [60]. Increased personal connection to a heritage place may also make value judgements more subjective at a personal level, whereas a universalized view or evaluation of values could be subjective from a cultural point of view. While some values can be quantified, others are qualitative and value assessments are influenced by cultural preferences and reflect the spirit of the time [61,62]. There will be more than one value associated with a historic property, and within this plurality of values, some will be considered to be more important than others, contested and even be in conflict with one another [1,8]. Munjeri [13] has argued that values-based assessments commonly focused on physical attributes are typically reductionist and fail to capture the complexity of heritage places and the meanings associated with them.

Values can also be considered in a hierarchical manner with some outclassing others based on the level of importance linked to overall heritage value [63], or negotiated, whereby some may need to be sacrificed to enable others to be protected. The consideration of different values and their hierarchical relationships will also ultimately influence perceptions of authenticity, and how authenticity is negotiated [30]. Measures to reduce greenhouse emissions or to facilitate climate change adaptation, for example, impact on heritage and how conservation decisions are taken [64]. Nara+20 recognizes that values evolve and therefore need to be regularly updated and contradicts some of the World Heritage Site inscription or conservation planning methodologies that generate a single point of assessment that remains a benchmark against which future change is evaluated [17].

In the tourism sphere, authenticity is determined by different criteria [25,26]. Tourism is a social but largely economic exchange where local culture is consumed by others [29]. The tourist industry thus constructs its own version of authenticity into the places and products that it promotes [65] (p. 185). In the context of tourists’ consumption of experiences, the physical setting is used as a visual prompt, and an embellished historic environment may feel more authentic to tourists. In the example of Souq Waqif in Doha, Qatar a major development and re-construction project has created a popular leisure destination that is seen as a ‘showcase for Doha’s past’ [66] (p. 240). The area, which attracts a significant number of visitors to its network of shops and cafes on evenings and weekends, is considered as another one of the city’s shopping/entertainment destinations (Figure 11) [67]. Through processes of restoration, reconstruction, embellishment, additions and interpretation the souq has taken on a new material and social identity. These reconstructed spaces in Timothy’s [28] taxonomy would therefore be considered ‘objectively inauthentic’, but ‘subjectively authentic’ in their appeal to locals and tourists alike.

The cultural context of a project is another determinant of how authenticity is valued by the communities who culturally identify with these places or consider them to be expressions of their cultural identity. In the case studies reviewed here, the cultural context is shaped by Islamic beliefs and values linked to local cultural practices. These cultural and social values are validated through the meanings they hold for the wider community or for the deeper meanings they may hold for specific groups. Cultural values in this region are less likely to be linked to the physical environment and more to the intangible values which still remain deeply rooted in parts of these societies [56]. Therefore, intangible associations with a place may be considered more authentic than the authenticity of physical attributes. Furthermore, the evolution and transmission of socio-cultural traditions may not necessarily be visible in the historic environment, as authentication takes place in different contexts. The physical attributes of authenticity, meanwhile, are negotiated through engagement with performative actions of intangible heritage (festivals) and the re-appropriation of places as leisure destinations supporting social and family interactions.

What is considered acceptably authentic clearly differs from each perspective taken, and it will also change over time, attesting to the true dynamic nature of authenticity and the presence of multiple authenticities in any context. Values, the cultural and environmental context and the purpose of any given project will influence the acceptable position of authenticity. Considered from a range of perspectives, ultimately authenticity in historic urban environments is the capacity of a place to credibly communicate cultural values, to be considered a meaningful expression of an evolving cultural tradition, and evoke amongst individuals the social and emotional resonance of group identity.

6. Conclusions

Within a globalized and fast paced environment, the understanding and framing of authenticity is continually changing and adapting [9]. Cultural heritage is both a physical construction (material aspects) and a social construction (intangible values and meanings). Authenticity is thus pluralistic, dynamic and situation dependent and can be viewed differently from different perspectives. Rather than viewing authenticity as a binary of cultural objects and considering places as being wholly or in parts authentic or inauthentic, this paper has suggested viewing authenticity as a place-specific spectrum, or shades of gray on a scale representing different approaches to conservation, often determined by place, cultural context and project aims. In this research, a spectrum of approaches have been illustrated for cases in the Arabian Peninsula. Similar scales could be constructed in other regional contexts, as has been proposed for studies in South Korea [68] or China [69], for example.

The spectrum, as presented here, deliberately uses a materials-based approach as its starting point, as this remains the prevalent framework of authenticity determination This research has highlighted a gap in expression of social meanings of place and how it is valued and assessed in the context of authenticity discourses that focus on physical attributes of materiality on the one hand and tourism discourses linked to experience and the performative nature of authenticity on the other.

There is a rich diversity amongst cultures on how value is represented and evaluated, and therefore ‘it is necessary to accept that the different cultures may have different ways of expressing themselves about issues such as truth and authenticity’ [35] (p. 43). Considering building conservation as part of the same continuum as design [70], conservation practice is also finding a new way of operating as it negotiates a path between political will, scientific knowledge and community interests. Authenticity must therefore also be viewed as being site, place and culture specific. Through this paper, I have argued that to ensure places remain relevant to their communities, the evaluation of authenticity in the historic urban context as part of the World Heritage Site nomination/inscription process needs to embrace methodologies that consider a range of value perspectives, and recognize the dynamic and changing nature of authenticity.