Beyond Eurocentrism? Heritage conservation and the politics of difference

Abstract

There is a long-standing debate concerning the suitability of European or ‘western’ approaches to the conservation of cultural heritage in other parts of world. The Cultural Charter for Africa (1976), The Burra Charter (1979) and Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) are notable manifestations of such concerns. These debates are particularly vibrant in Asia today. This article highlights a number of charters, declarations and publications that have been conceived to recalibrate the international field of heritage governance in ways that address the perceived inadequacies of documents underpinning today’s global conservation movement, such as the 1964 Venice Charter. But as Venice has come to stand as a metonym for a ‘western’ conservation approach, intriguing questions arise concerning what is driving these assertions of geographic, national or civilisational difference in Asia. To address such questions, the article moves between a number of explanatory frameworks. It argues declarations about Asia’s culture, its landscapes, and its inherited pasts are, in fact, the combined manifestations of post-colonial subjectivities, a desire for prestige on the global stage of cultural heritage governance and the practical challenges of actually doing conservation in the region.

Keywords:

• Asian heritage
• conservation
• post-colonial theory
• materiality
• cultural policy

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Dr Russell Staiff and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and constructive comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

Notes

1. See: http://globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/blog/fate_of_old_beijing.

2. For further details see, in respective order: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/science/gateway-to-myanmars-past-and-its-future.html, http://www.kahoidong.com/kh06012006.htm, http://hua.umf.maine.edu/China/HistoricBeijing/Qianmen/index.html http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/olympiccities/beijing/antique/s214239393/n214240239.shtml.

3. See also Mohd et al. (2011).

4. The full titles for these are: Nara Document on Authenticity; Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China; Shanghai Charter 2002: Museums, Intangible Heritage and Globalisation; Indonesia Charter for Heritage; Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage; Okinawa Declaration on Intangible and Tangible Cultural Heritage; Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of The Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas; Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia; Seoul Declaration on Heritage and the Metropolis in Asia and the Pacific.

5. See: http://www.whitrap.org [7 accessed September 2012). It is worth also noting that UNESCO has regional offices in Bangkok, Jakarta, Beijing and Delhi.

6. UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; ICOM: International Council of Musuems; ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites; ICCROM: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property; ISCR: Istituto Superiore for Conservation and Restoration; GCI: Getty Conservation Institute; and WMF: World Monuments Fund.

7. Similarly neither is the concept of ‘living heritage’, as the collection of papers emanating from the 2003 ICCROM forum on religious heritage sites reveal Stovel et al. 2005.