CH A P TER 3

Existing approaches to conservation

The above-mentioned developments in the discipline of heritage conservation could be encapsu-

lated in these two approaches, developed since the birth of the discipline to present: a material-
based and a values-based approach. These approaches, though appearing at different periods of
time, are both applicable today (see also Poulios 2010a; Poulios 2014).

3.1. A material-based approach

Presentation

A material-based approach (also referred to as ‘authorised heritage discourse’: Smith 2006, 29

− 34; 299) shows an extreme focus on the preservation of the material/fabric. Examples of a
material-based approach are: the early approach to conservation marking the birth of the disci-
pline in the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century (such as the Cambridge Camden
Society, the ‘conservation movement’, and the work of philosophers like Alois Riegl), and the
development of the World Heritage concept and adoption of the World Heritage List (UNESCO
1972; see also Simmonds 1997; Byrne 1991). A material-based approach is best epitomised in the
Venice Charter (ICOMOS 1964; see also Jokilehto 1998, 230).
A material-based approach is an expert-driven approach. The exclusive responsibility over
the definition and conservation of heritage is in the hands of heritage authorities (mostly state-
appointed), manned by political officials and especially conservation professionals. Community
is not taken into account (see UNESCO 1988; 1992; 1994c, paragraph 14) (figure 3).
The significance of heritage, namely defined in archaeological/historic and aesthetic terms,
is seen as intrinsic/inherent in the fabric. The use of heritage (by communities) is considerably
limited to ensure its protection (by conservation professionals), and is conducted strictly with
reference to modern scientific-based conservation principles and practices (ICOMOS 1964).
The preservation of the fabric allows for only minimal interventions into heritage, with respect
to the physical, material structure. Thus, fabric is seen as a non-‘renewable’ resource. The aim
of conservation is to preserve heritage, seen as belonging to the past, from human practices of
the present that are considered to be harmful, and transmit it to the future generations. In this
20  The Past in the Present

Figure 3: A material-based approach: conservation professionals and heritage site. No community

involvement.

way, a form of discontinuity is created between the monuments and the people, and between the
past and the present. The development of the broader area based on the exploitation of heritage is
sought exclusively in accordance with the interests of the heritage authorities.

Critique

A series of successes in the preservation of the fabric of the monuments – which was the primary
objective of conservation at the end of the nineteenth and the largest part of the twentieth cen-
tury, mostly due to the long periods of political instability and the armed conflicts as well as the
out-of-scale reconstruction and development that followed – are credited to the application of a
material-based approach.
The most significant weakness of a material-based approach is linked to the exclusive power
of the conservation professionals, who are seen as the ‘experts’. This means that the conservation
process, as well as its results, depends to a large extent on the specific persons/individuals that
comprise the team of the ‘experts’. Another weakness of a material-based approach is related
to its exclusive dependency on state support and funding (and not on a broader community
consensus), which is not always feasible in the long-term. Furthermore, the approach does not
embrace indigenous/non-Western communities’ (eg. spiritual and religious) associations with
the sites, nor their management systems and maintenance practices. As a consequence, the
application of the approach in non-Western places has resulted in the breaking of communi-
ties’ associations with their sites and in the long term in the harming of these sites, while on a
 Existing approaches to conservation  21

theoretical level it has been often seen as an attempt towards the imposition of Western-based
views on the non-Western world, in a colonial context (see above). On the basis of these weak-
nesses, a material-based approach is today considered out-of-date, and thus conservation pro-
fessionals prefer not to follow it; yet, it is still considered the prominent approach in a variety
of places across the world.
A characteristic example of a site that may reveal the weaknesses of a material-based approach
is Angkor in Cambodia (a World Heritage Site). In the last decades, the heritage authorities of
the site have heavily promoted the tourism development of the site. The local communities and
the monks of the site have been gradually restricted on the site and occasionally even removed
from it, and their association with the site has been altered: the local villagers are now becoming
increasingly interested in the financial aspect of the site through their involvement in the tourism
industry, while becoming a priest is now seen as a form of investment (Miura 2005).

3.2. A values-based approach

Presentation

A values-based approach focuses on the values that society, consisting of various stakeholder
groups / interest groups, ascribes to heritage. A value can be defined as ‘a set of positive char-
acteristics or qualities’, while a stakeholder group / interest group is ‘any group with legitimate
interest in heritage’ (Mason 2002, 27; Mason and Avrami 2002, 15; De la Torre 2005, 5; de la Torre,
MacLean and Myers 2005, 77). A values-based approach has been developed since the 1980s,
within the developments of post-processual archaeology (a form of archaeological theory that is
related to the broader development of postmodernism, which encouraged conservation profes-
sionals to become more engaged in a world beyond academia and to recognise other values, voices
and perspectives in the practice and interpretation of archaeology: Hodder 1991; Trigger 1989; see
also Demas 2002, 50; 34–35), and is considered the current most preferred approach to heritage
conservation. An example of a values-based approach is the attempt of the World Heritage con-
cept to evolve and open towards non-Western/indigenous communities and cultures (see above;
UNESCO 1994a, article 4; UNESCO 1994b; 1996 / 1999, paragraph 14). A values-based approach
is largely based on the Burra Charter (ICOMOS Australia 1999), and has been further developed
and advocated through a series of projects of the Getty Conservation Institute (De la Torre 1997;
Avrami, Mason and De la Torre 2000; Teutonico and Palumbo 2002; De la Torre 2002; Agnew and
Demas 2002; De la Torre, MacLean, Mason and Myers 2005).
In the context of a values-based approach, through the concepts of stakeholder groups and
values, community is considered to be placed at the core of conservation. Heritage is not self-
evident, with intrinsic/inherent values, as in a material-based approach; it is people / stakeholder
groups that ascribe (subjective) values to it and define heritage, and thus heritage is seen as an
extrinsic and social process. Therefore, the main aim of conservation is not the preservation of
heritage itself, but the protection of the values imputed to it by the stakeholder groups (Mason
and Avrami 2002, 25 and 22). A values-based approach tries to engage the whole range of stake-
holder groups early on and throughout the conservation process, and resolve conflicts that inevi-
tably arise between them assuring subjectivity and equity of conflicting stakeholders and different
values (Mason and Avrami 2002, 19−23; De la Torre 2005, 4−8; Demas 2002, 49). Stakeholder
groups are involved in a variety of ways: through consultation or, more often, through active par-
ticipation or even through a (formally/legally established) interactive, joint management scheme
with the heritage authorities, as in the cases of the World Heritage Sites of Kakadu National Park
in Australia and Chaco Culture National Historical Park in USA, often cited as key examples
of the successful application of a values-based approach at an international level (on Kakadu
22  The Past in the Present

National Park: Flood 1989, 87; Press and Lawrence 1995, 1–8; Sullivan 1985, 141–144; Wellings
1995, 242–244; Jones 1985, vi; 299–300; on Chaco Culture National Historical Park: de la Torre,
Mac Lean and Myers 2005).

Critique

The most significant contribution of a values-based approach to the discipline of heritage conser-
vation is linked to the encouragement and promotion of the involvement of communities in the
conservation process, with important benefits for the communities themselves. Furthermore, the
approach embraces the indigenous/non-Western communities’ (spiritual, and religious) associa-
tions with the sites, their management systems and maintenance practices.
The most considerable weakness of the approach is related to the power of the conservation
professionals. Conservation professionals do not have the exclusive power in the conservation
process (as in a material-based approach), but retain particularly increased power. Conservation
professionals continue to favour the preservation of the tangible – rather than the intangible –
heritage elements, and thus conservation continues to reflect mostly Western-based views.
In this context, a values-based approach attempts to expand the concepts of a material-based
approach, without yet substantially challenging them (see in detail Poulios 2010a, 172−175).
Specifically, stakeholder groups are involved in the conservation process, yet in most of the cases
within the framework and under the supervision of the conservation professionals (Demas 2002,
48−49; Mason and Avrami 2002, 16). Thus, though in theory conservation professionals may be
seen as one of the stakeholder groups, in practice they are the managing authority themselves,
supervising the stakeholder groups (figure 4). Hence, the concept of stakeholder groups (i.e. the
key concept of a values-based approach), as defined and applied in a values-based approach, proves
to be rather problematic, obtaining meaning and existence through conservation profession-
als’ power. Furthermore, new stakeholder groups such as local and indigenous communities are
also included (ICOMOS Australia 1999, articles 12 and 26.3), but the most favoured stakeholder
groups tend to remain those associated with the preservation of the fabric (De la Torre 2005, 7).
Values associated to the safeguarding of intangible heritage elements, such as user or social value,
are also taken into account (see ICOMOS Australia 1999, preamble; articles 7.1 and 24.1−2), but
their safeguarding is incorporated within and is serving the preservation of tangible remains (De
la Torre 2005, 8). The traditional care of heritage by the communities is also recognised (ICOMOS
Australia 1999, preamble, articles 7.1 and 24.1−2) yet only to the extent that it does not undermine
modern scientific-based conservation principles and practices of conservation professionals.
Heritage use (by communities) is generally accepted to the extent that it does not undermine her-
itage protection (by conservation professionals). More flexible recommendations are adopted in
conservation practice such as varied approaches allowing reconstruction depending on the nature
and values of heritage (ICOMOS Australia 1999, preamble, articles 7.1 and 24.1−2), yet it is mostly
minimal interventions in the heritage fabric, with respect to the physical and material structure,
that are allowed. Thus, the fabric is still preserved as a non-‘renewable’ resource (De la Torre 2005,
8). Therefore, the aim of conservation remains the preservation of heritage, considered to belong
to the past, from the people of the present, for the sake of the future generations (discontinuity).
Development potentials based on the exploitation of heritage are sought in an attempt to serve the
interests of the various stakeholder groups, yet with an emphasis on the interests of the conserva-
tion professionals and under their control.
A characteristic example of a site that may demonstrate the weaknesses of a values-based
approach is the Chaco Culture National Historical Park (CCNHP) in New Mexico in USA (a
World Heritage Site) (de la Torre, MacLean and Myers 2005). The history of the site is inextricably
linked to the presence of Navajo [Indian] indigenous communities, who settled in the area in the
 Existing approaches to conservation  23

Figure 4: A values-based approach: conservation professionals, stakeholder groups and heritage

site. Stakeholder groups are equally involved in the conservation process, under the supervision
of a strong managing authority, which is in most of the cases the conservation professionals.
Local community is seen as one of the stakeholder groups.

late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century and developed strong family, cultural and religious
ties to the site. In designating the site as a National Monument and as a National Historical Park at
the beginning of the twentieth century, the Park authorities (following a material-based approach)
recognised officially only the aesthetic and age values of the archaeological remains, and moved
the remaining Navajo communities out of the designated Park area. In the last decades, however,
the Park authorities (following a values-based approach) have shown a consistent interest in the
consultation and the active participation of Navajo communities in the conservation and man-
agement of the site through a joint management scheme, though still within their own rules and
under their supervision and control. From the 1980s onwards, ‘New Age’ groups claimed the right
to perform rituals on the site, which were seen by the Navajo communities as violating their own
religious beliefs. Faced with this conflict between these two stakeholder groups, the Park authori-
ties felt they had only two alternatives: either allow both groups to perform rituals or ban them
totally. Favoring one group over another in religious issues would be considered discrimination
on the basis of religion, according to the American Constitution. As a result, the Park authorities
decided to prohibit all religious ceremonies in places regarded as sacred. Therefore, despite the
attempts on the part of the Park authorities in the last decades, the primary aim has always been
the protection of the tangible remains of the site.
24  The Past in the Present

Conclusion

The key principles of the discipline of heritage conservation, as developed along with a material-
based approach and maintained by a values-based approach, may be summarised as follows (see
also McBryde 1997, 94; Clavir 2002, xxi; Jones 2006, 111): first, the responsibility for the operation
and management of sites is in the hands of the conservation professionals; second, the authenticity
of heritage is primarily associated with the fabric of the sites despite the increasing recognition of
intangible elements, and the emphasis on the original meanings and uses of the sites despite the
increasing recognition of the later developments in the history of the sites; and third, heritage is
considered a monument of the past that has to be protected from the present community, for the
sake of the future generations.