In this Issue:** Savannah City Plan: Nomination to the World Heritage List** Letter from the Executive Director** The U.S. and World Heritage Cities** Edward Sekler, Historic Preservation at the End of the 20th Century** An Interview with James Murray Howard** 1994 World Heritage Sites** The Tools of Preservation: Documentation vs. Monitoring** News of U.S. World Heritage Sites** Son et Lumière at Borobudur** Recognizing the Recent Past: A World Heritage Perspective** Teaching with World Heritage** World Heritage Youth Forum in Bergen** Hiroshima at 50** ICOMOS NEWS** Draft Charter for the Underwater Cultural Heritage** US/ICOMOS NEWS** CalendarSAVANNAH CITY PLAN: NOMINATION TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LISTA LOCAL PERSPECTIVEIn 1994, Savannah’s city plan (1733-1856) was the only U.S. nomination by the Federal Interagency Panel to the World Heritage List. The nomination, conforming to U.S. regulations, includes the streets and 52 acres of tree- shaded squares, parks and internationally acclaimed public monuments. The 2.2 square mile area in nomination is a National Historic Landmark District, and the urban center of this former British Colony.The creation of the Savannah City Plan is a unique artistic achievement in the history of town planning and is a masterpiece of creative genius. It is an outstanding example of a town plan structure which illustrates 18th-century British Colonial expansion. It has widespread influence on urban planning as a man-made spatial organization that gives a humanly-scaled discipline to the three-dimensional development of a city.The nomination process began in 1989, when Catherine Louise Wilson- Martin, a student at the University of Georgia, completed her masters thesis entitled UNESCO World Heritage List: An Assessment of the City of Savannah. Savannah was subsequently placed on the Indicative List of Potential U.S. World Heritage Cultural Nominations. In 1992 the City of Savannah decided to complete the nomination process, having received encouragement from such noted planners as Edmund Bacon and John Reps. After two additional years of research, the proposal was forwarded to the Federal Interagency Panel of the U.S. Department of the Interior.For European countries settling North America, the creation of planned towns was an essential component of the colonization process. Savannah, the last of the major British colonial capital cities in North America, was given a more complex and integrated layout than any of the towns that preceded it. This perhaps was a reflection of the humanitarian and social ideals held by its founder General James Edward Oglethorpe, as well as a response to specific economic, climatic and administrative needs. Unlike many utopian colonial settlements, Savannah survived as a remarkable achievement in British colonial town planning, the creative genius of which has been commented on since the city’s establishment. The plan has continued to evolve as the sophisticated urban center of a contemporary city and plays an animated role in the city’s cultural life. The verdant squares, together with the monuments by sculptors of such renown as Daniel Chester French, exhibit significant material evidence of their evolution creating a cultural landscape which publicly commemorates the history of the city.Begun in 1733, the original concept was maintained and the town was extended by the creation of eighteen new squares and wards between 1790 and 1856. As population increased, new wards were created on the adjacent common land, always following a distinctive pattern which integrated the squares into the town’s arterial system.The Savannah Plan synthesizes elements from a number of essays in town planning of the 16th to 18th century to create a wholly original solution. The basic unit is the ward with a square in the center. Uninterrupted through streets separate ward from ward. The square is surrounded by a hierarchical arrangement of individual house lots called tythings, and larger trust lots for public buildings. The 60 foot width of the individual tything lots allows division into subsidiary elements of 30, 20, 15 and sometimes 24 feet, establishing an underlying rhythm which governs the physical expression of the plan in the third dimension. The structure of the plan is the character-defining feature which has determined the shape and maintained the integrity of the humanly scaled built environment for which the city is so remarkable.Savannah’s urban plan remains virtually as it was when its public officials laid out the last of the common land. The plan’s ingenious flexibility has accommodated the automobile while preserving a pedestrian pace. It is a clear example of city growth by public design, and illustrates that in intimate and intensely human small scale unit can be the basis for large scale regional organization.Another notable feature of the plan is a profusion of trees. One 19th century visitor described its appearance as “an agglomeration of rural hamlets and small towns.” Like the plan and the architecture, Savannah’s urban forest is diligently protected by a Tree Ordinance and the Park and Tree Commission.Nomination of the Plan to the World Heritage List has touched off an interesting debate. Is the nomination of the plan, its public spaces, streets, squares and public monuments within the spirit of the World Heritage Convention? Members of the Savannah Committee discussed the possibility of including the buildings in the nomination with members of the Federal Interagency Panel but were told that 100% written concurrence by property owners is required under U.S. regulations. Thus, under existing regulations, no city in the United States can be listed.The nomination outlines the adequate legal protection of approximately 1100 buildings of historical and architectural value within the nominated area which have been restored and put to appropriate contemporary use. All the cultural resources, both public and private, within this area are protected from adverse development by an historic district ordinance which permits no demolition, alterations or new construction without first receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Board of Review. In addition to conforming to the Federal consent provisions for listing on the National Register, it was necessary to hold a public referendum in order to obtain from the State of Georgia the enabling legislation to establish the historic district. Historic District zoning for Savannah was approved by an affirmative three to one vote, demonstrating strong local support by private property owners. Oglethorpe’s sympathy with all sorts and conditions of men, reflected in the colony’s motto, “Not for ourselves but for others,” made the Savannah colony a very open society — the plan was and is today accessible to all. The artistic qualities embodied in the plan have influenced the quality of life in the city for more than 250 years. The power of Savannah’s public grid, its system of parcelization and the richness of vegetation on its streets and squares, both encourages and tolerates significant architectural diversity.Savannah believes that its nomination, which does conform to this country’s regulations, is a strong one and is in the spirit of the World Heritage Convention, given the Federal and local protection measures in place and the positive support by private property owners demonstrated by public referendum and the consistent level of integrity and authenticity of the site.Beth Reiter, Savannah Preservation Officer Prior to review by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, the ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator conducts research, prepares summaries and drafts evaluations of the cultural property nominations to the World Heritage List. The ICOMOS Bureau reviews the cultural nominations and drafts final evaluations and recommendations to be forwarded to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. The following is an extract from a letter sent by ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator, Dr. Henry Cleere, to the Mayor of the City of Savannah: “Your appeal for inscription of the City of Savannah on the World Heritage List is an eloquent one. Our problem as professional advisors to the World Heritage Committee is that there are clearly drafted Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention with which we must conform in preparing our evaluations and recommendations. It is not, I am afraid, within the province of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to extend the interpretation of the Convention: only the World Heritage Committee, composed of representatives of twenty-one States Parties to the Convention, may do this. In the case of Savannah the exceptional nomination of the City Plan lies outside the current interpretation of the Convention, and so ICOMOS was unable to recommend inscription on the World Heritage List. The final decision rests with the Committee: our work is done, in that we have carried out the evaluation required. It remains to be seen whether the Committee feels that this is a case that justifies an extension of the present interpretation. I might add that ICOMOS is conscious of the importance of Savannah in terms of town planning in North America and also of the pride taken in preserving the City’s exceptional townscape.” Letter from the Executive DirectorThe World Heritage Convention sprang from the altruistic ideal that the international community could rise above political and ideological differences to recognize and protect universal cultural heritage on the basis that the human race is one species united by similar needs through time and space. The mandate of the Convention, entered into freely by each ratifying nation is simple: identify, nominate and protect sites that embody universally significant historic trends that must not be forgotten.The people who over time have inhabited what is now our country’s territory have left us a valuable legacy of places that are within that category. Those who were here before the Europeans built places of extraordinary beauty and awesome majesty that portray humanity’s ability to adapt to variable environments, and the perpetual need to explain our place in the cosmos — the World Heritage Sites of Mesa Verde, Chaco and Cahokia immediately come to mind. The advent of new cultures to North America in the sixteenth century brought different traditions that continued to transform and adapt to the natural environment for humanity’s material and spiritual survival. The Jeffersonian compounds, Independence Hall and the San Juan Historic Site are obvious examples that celebrate this spirit.But when scanning the list of U.S. World Heritage Sites, the question inevitably arises whether this venerable group of places, taken as a whole, can by themselves tell the complete story of the United States. To me, the answer is a resonant NO. The historic impact of the United States on world culture is much larger than our World Heritage Sites attest.In architecture, Chicago’s Loop contains a masterpiece ensemble of innovation and expression that is fundamental to understanding the urban environment today, whether one lives in Casablanca, Rio or Hong Kong. The compelling skyline of New York is probably among the top five universally recognized architectural icons in the world. Washington, DC, perhaps the greatest center of concentrated political power in the history of the world, expresses through the intentional monumentality of its architecture and its plan, the power of our government’s decisions to impact the life of even those unaware of its existence.The technical and industrial behemoth of the Unites States also shaped the world irreversibly and continues to do so. Our space facilities in Texas, Maryland and Florida which allowed man to reach the Moon; our great metallurgical centers of Pennsylvania and Alabama; the manufacturing plants of Michigan, which motorized the world; and even the Georgia sites related to Coca-Cola, are among the places that are crucial to understanding our country’s role in changing the way in which people live today.With the massive global distribution of our movies, television and recordings, the popular culture of the United States has been universalized — and at times distorted — in ways unprecedented in the history of the planet. Blue jeans are the universal attire of all the young and those who want to remain so. Rock and Roll is an inevitable sound; Mickey Mouse tee shirts are accepted in Kiev, Mexico and Mogadishu as normal everyday wear. In fact, the denizens of Disney are not only globally known, but a visit to them in Florida or California is among the most common recreational goals of humanity. Controversial as these contributions may be, the technical centers and studios where these products of cultural dissemination were conceived and generated have universal cultural significance of the broadest order.And like these, there are numerous other themes of our national trajectory whose sites could be identified as amply meeting World Heritage criteria even in the briefest of analyses.Unfortunately, as with all international conventions, the World Heritage is limited because it must be implemented through States Parties, i.e., the signatory national governments, who in turn, must manage their obligations under the Convention according to their own laws and popular socio-political sentiments and economic pressure. Within our national framework, the power of our federal government has been severely curtailed in nominating many of the sites that express our significant contributions to civilization.Rather than being dismayed by these limitations and the regrettable failure of the Savannah City Plan nomination, we must recognize them as a great challenge. I am optimistic about the success of our preservation and cultural communities joining forces to ensure the conservation of those resources that help us (and our friends and foes) to understand the sources and development of our nation’s drive, idiosyncrasy and our concept of the world and its order. If managed correctly, preservation can be a peace- keeping instrument that promotes tolerance through mutual understanding. Our national structures, laws, institutions and outlook must be under permanent scrutiny so that they will constantly evolve to allow the preservation of our memory.Gustavo F. Araoz, AIA U.S. NOMINATION RESTRICTIONS AND WORLD HERITAGE CITIESIt is anticipated that the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee will refer the Savannah City Plan nomination back to the U.S. for revision and resubmission to include the actual physical structures of the city. If this is the case, is there any recourse for Savannah? If the plan (and its embodiment in the public historic areas of streets, squares and monuments) is judged not to qualify for World Heritage listing under present criteria, what are the options for Savannah and any other historic city or district in the United States?ICOMOS is one of two nongovernmental organizations named in the World Heritage Convention to serve in an advisory capacity in the implementation of the Convention and the World Heritage List. In the U.S., the National Park Service has official responsibility for coordination of U.S. participation in the Convention and in U.S. nomination of properties of “outstanding universal value” for inclusion in the List. The Park Service’s role is set forth in NPS Guidelines developed in 1982 in response to the 1980 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (PL 96- 515). Section 401 of the amendments notes that: The Secretary of the Interior shall periodically nominate properties he determines are of international significance to the World Heritage Committee on behalf of the United States. No property may be so nominated unless it has previously been determined to be of national significance. Each such nomination shall include evidence of such legal protections as may be necessary to ensure preservation of the property and its environment (including restrictive covenants, easements or other forms of protection). Before making any such nomination, the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate. c. no non-Federal property may be nominated by the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion on the World Heritage List unless the owner of the property concurs in writing to such nomination. In the early years of the Convention’s implementation, many States Parties nominated historic cities and districts which were found to merit inclusion in the list. To cite a few examples, among these were: Historic Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil); Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena (Colombia); Islamic Cairo (Egypt); Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France); Historic Centers of Venice, Florence and Rome (Italy); Medina of Fez (Morocco) and the Historic Centers of Cracow and Warsaw (Poland). Recent additions to the List include the historic centers of Bath (UK) and Quebec (Canada). World Heritage listing has become a matter of considerable national and local prestige and pride. One of the benefits of World Heritage designation is, in fact, the increase in tourism to listed sites, an economic benefit of considerable appeal to some local and national governments.However, because of very restrictive federal legislation, only the U.S. is not represented in the List by historic centers, districts or towns that might well merit consideration.A question that might be asked is whether the U.S. has limited itself unreasonably (especially compared to other States Parties) as a result of the legislation. Another question that might be raised is that relating to National Historic Landmark status and whether the NHL List is in fact sufficiently comprehensive for those properties which might not fall into a particular Landmark theme category.It is important to note that any State Party nominating a property must cite the legal protection afforded to the property under its existing legislation but no other State Party requires either government ownership or 100% private property owner consent to a nomination. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURYWhen it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, can the claims of historic preservation still be defended as legitimate in a world of shrinking budgets and growing demands by a steadily growing population, a world of cyberspace and virtual reality? How does one reply today to John Ruskin’s famous exclamation, “there are but two strong conquerors of the forgetfulness of men, Poetry and Architecture; and the latter in some sort includes the former, and is mightier in its reality…?” Would one not be tempted to answer that now databases and CD-ROMs are the best guarantee against oblivion, and that eventually experiences in virtual reality will take the place of genuine architectural experiences, thus eliminating the need to preserve the actual works?But information cannot replace experience, and such an answer overlooks the difference between actual object and simulacrum, and, in particular, fails to recognize the special character of architectural (and landscape) experience due to the facticity of what is experienced. Facticity, the state of being a palpable fact, in this case refers to all factors — including the shadow of the passing cloud and the echoing footstep — that during the experience engage the “senses as perceptual systems” (James J. Gibson). Such factors in the richness of their continuously changing interaction are hard to capture by the mechanics of digitization. Moreover, they are there for the reaction of any human being, including those who could not hope to ever afford the expensive equipment needed for the experience of virtual reality.While what has just been said presents a strong case for the continued validity of architecture and the landscape as valuable sources of enrichment for the human experience, an equally convincing case for the preservation of historic architecture, landscapes and artifacts still needs to be made. Why should something ancient be considered so valuable that national laws and international conventions have been made to assure its survival by protecting it?Ever since Alois Riegl at the beginning of our century gave his answers to this question, every new generation has found its own formulations, but there has been continuous agreement on one point: the tangible cultural heritage of a country in powerful ways helps to sustain the intangible cultural heritage of memories and traditions which in turn are essential for the survival of a cultural identity. Unfortunately, it is the recognition of this linkage that is behind the recent tragic destruction of so many historic buildings in the former Yugoslavia, destructions which make a mockery of the UNESCO 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.Considering this, it becomes clear why the preservation of tangible cultural heritage has a rightful claim to the allocation of sufficient resources. But it also becomes clear that only authentic objects can justify such a claim. The concept of authenticity in historic preservation recently has been much discussed and the Nara Document on Authenticity (November 1994) has significantly broadened its interpretation, but without changing basically what the term denotes: an authentic object is one that is genuine, “really proceeding from its reputed source,” true in substance. When we speak of the aura that comes across from authentic remnants of the past as something unique and precious, this is not a romantic reference to something semimystical, but a reference to the evocative power of historic truth.There are degrees of intensity and significance to such evocations, and value judgements can be made about them. they must be made because resources for conservation are limited, and they must be made by an informed public guided by expert advice. This is where ICOMOS has to fulfill its most important functions, in both helping to inform the public and providing expert advice. Just as in the international arena, prior to decisions by the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS experts vet the applications from different countries for inclusion in the World Heritage List, so ICOMOS advisors on the national level can be invaluable in helping to steer the right course between too little and too much — between shortsighted parsimony and overzealous enthusiasm.Eduard F. Sekler, US/ICOMOS Fellow A CONVERSATION WITH JAMES MURRAY HOWARD Jefferson’s Monticello and the Academical Village at the University of Virginia constitute one of the two non-federally owned U.S. sites listed in the World Heritage List. To find out the implications of being a World Heritage Site, US/ICOMOS spoke with Dr. James Murray Howard, AIA, Curator and Architect for the Academical Village at the University of Virginia. Here are excerpts from our conversation: US/ICOMOS: How did the initiative first come about to nominate the Jeffersonian Opus to the World Heritage List?JM Howard: The idea probably started in the early 80’s when many began to realize that the Academical Village was much more than a very nice piece of real estate. Before then, there had been an aesthetic appreciation, but no curatorial concern and little awareness of its deep cultural and historical significance. Around that time, it somehow became clearer that Jefferson’s work marked a new cultural starting point for his time and that, more than previously suspected, the Academical Village was an icon and a benchmark for his whole philosophy.USI: What was the procedure for preparing the nomination?JMH: The National Park Service took the initiative to write the nomination by hiring Antoinette Lee, an eminent historian, who worked very closely with the staff at both Monticello and the University of Virginia to obtain the necessary background data. It was a very smooth process that involved informal reviews by UVA and Monticello as the nomination was taking form. Since the process was tracked closely by all involved, there was never an unpleasant moment.USI: U.S. Law requires owner consent for inclusion in the World Heritage List, and because it is an international convention, the federal government is liable in international courts for maintaining and preserving all nominated properties. What were the government’s demands in terms of a commitment from the Commonwealth, the University of Virginia and Monticello to preserve the site?JMH: In the case of the University, the United States Government required a pledge that the Commonwealth would conserve the property in perpetuity. The text of the pledge, which was drafted by the government, is actually very vague and non-threatening, which removed all potential that might have existed for friction.USI: Are there any requirements for reporting or monitoring?JMH: No, which is a little surprising. At the Santa Fe World Heritage Meeting that I attended a few years ago, there was lots of talk about monitoring requirements for all sites, but nothing seems to have come of it. In a way, it’s too bad, because with no monitoring to enforce the preservation commitment, the Convention becomes somewhat toothless.USI: Perhaps the well-known fact that the Academical Village is so well cared for removes the need to monitor this site, especially in view of the growing list of endangered sites. Has the University taken any steps to publicize the World Heritage rank of the site?JMH: Our listing in the World Heritage List is the single fact that is mentioned the most often in all our lectures and writings about the Academical Village. It is also featured prominently in all our descriptive brochures and public information literature. We at the University view it as a tremendous honor, even though the local Charlottesville population does not seem to be particularly impressed by the World Heritage status if we are to judge from an increase in their visitation. But then, I suppose that this is true of most people living in close proximity to a great monumental site. We do not have any plaque advertising the fact on the site, perhaps if we did…USI: Why no plaque?JMH: The Academical Village has been the site of so many important events and is so imbued with significance to so many different groups that if we accepted a plaque from each, all the building surfaces would be covered. For that reason we have established a “no-plaque” policy.USI: In general, what have been the advantages and the disadvantages of being a World Heritage property?JMH: I can’t think of any negative effects. As for the positive ones, just mentioning World Heritage immediately captures people’s attention.USI: Has it helped catch the attention of donors and state officials in helping fund the preservation needs of the site?JMH: Well, at first, there was an undefined general attitude, especially from those in the public sector, that since the site was so important, fundraising would become a breeze and donations would pour in from private sources, something that, of course, rarely happens. We did get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts that was almost coincidental with the listing, but I am not sure that the two were connected. The Commonwealth has been very good in providing some maintenance funds for the Academical Village, but we do encounter the usual difficulties when a special conservation project must be funded.USI: Has the University ever sought assistance from the World Heritage Fund in Paris?JMH: Oh, no. It has never even occurred to us. I suppose that out of respect for the needs of so many World Heritage sites with much greater needs, we have never considered tapping this source. Perhaps in the future.USI: Any final thoughts about the World Heritage List?JMH: I guess the best way to summarize our experience is that it has been a happy one. I would like to see the World Heritage List expanded with more of the great cultural sites and cities that we have in the United States. 1994 INSCRIPTIONS IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LISTIn Phuket Thailand at its 18th session, the World Heritage Committee inscribed 21 new cultural and 8 new natural sites. The limits of three already-inscribed cultural sites were extended and one previously listed natural site was recognized for its cultural values. The World Heritage List now includes 440 sites in 100 States Parties. Cultural sites inscribed in 1994 are:Croatia. The Old City of Dubrovnik, on the list since 1979, has been extended by a narrow urban strip that follows the town ramparts from east to west, including the 11th-century Lovrijenac Fortress and the Lazarets, a 17th-century quarantine center, as well as the nearby island of Lobrum with its 11th-century Benedictine Abbey.Czech Republic. The Pilgrimage Church of St John of Nepomuk at Zelena Hora was constructed in the early 18th century in a star-shaped design, is the most original work of the architect Jan Blazej Santini, whose highly original style falls between the neo-Gothic and Baroque.Denmark. Jelling Mounds, Runic Stones and Church. The Mounds and one of the runic stones are striking examples of pagan Nordic culture, while the other runic stone and church illustrate the Christianization of the Danish people in the mid-10th century.Finland. Petäjävesi Old Church, in central Finland, built from logs between 1763-1764, is Lutheran country church, typical of an architectural tradition unique to Scandinavia, and combines the layout of a Renaissance central church with older forms deriving from Gothic groined ceilings.Georgia. The City-Museum Reserve of Mtshheta includes the historical churches of Mtskheta, former capital of Georgia, striking examples of the religious architecture of the Middle Ages in the Caucasus.Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery, dating from the late 10th century and the 12th century respectively, represent the blossoming of medieval architecture in Georgia.Germany. The Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of Quedlinburg. Quedlinburg, in Sachsen-Anhalt, was the capital of the East Franconian German Empire at the time of the Saxonian-Ottonian ruling dynasty and a prosperous trading town since the Middle Ages. The number and quality of its well-preserved timber-framed buildings make it an exceptional example of a medieval European town.Völklingen Ironworks, which cover six hectares, above the city of Völklingen in Saarland, are the only integrated ironworks, built and equipped in the 19th and 20th centuries in Western Europe and North America, that went out of production in the recent past and have remained intact.Italy. Vicenza, City of Palladio, founded in the 2nd century B.C., boasts urban planning by Andrea Palladio. It has at least 26 buildings or parts of buildings designed or reconstructed by Palladio.Lithuania. The Old City of Vilnius, political center of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the 13th to the end of the 18th century, had a profound influence on the cultural and architectural development of much of Eastern Europe and has preserved an impressive complex of historic Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Classic buildings.Luxembourg. The City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications, founded in 963, played an important role in European history for several centuries. It has preserved the remains of its impressive fortifications and ancient quarters in a striking natural environment.Russian Federation. The Church of the Ascension at Kolomenskoye built in 1532 to celebrate the birth of the prince that was to become Tsar Ivan IV “the Terrible,” is one of the earliest examples of traditional wooden tent-roofed churches on a stone and brick structure. It had a great influence on the development of Russian ecclesiastical architecture.Spain. The Historic Center of Cordoba, which surrounds the Mosque of Cordoba, included on the World Heritage List since 1984, is a complex of extraordinary value and a living expression of the different cultures that have lived near the banks of the Guadalquivir River.The Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin in Granada. The Albayzin quarter, added to the two previously inscribed parts of Granada, is a rich repository of Moorish architecture.Sweden. The Rock Carvings in Tanum represent a unique artistic achievement due to their rich and varied motifs (humans, animals, weapons, boats and other objects) as well as their cultural and chronological unity, illustrating the life and beliefs of the people of Bronze Age Europe. The Skogskyrkogärden cemetery in Stockholm, built between 1917-1920 by the architects Asplund and Lewerentz in former gravel quarries overgrown with pine trees, combines vegetation and architectural features with irregularities of the landscape in perfect harmony with its function.Turkey. The City of Safranbolu knew great prosperity as a caravan station from the 13th century until the early 20th century. The historic center has kept its homogeneous character and its public, civil and religious architecture is representative of the ancient Ottoman Empire.Australia. The Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was first inscribed in 1987 as a natural site. It is now recognized as an outstanding illustration of successful human adaptation over 5,000 years in a hostile arid environment. Its dramatic monoliths form an integral part of the traditional belief system of one of the oldest human societies.China. The Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples in Chengde. The Mountain Resort, the Qing dynasty’s summer palace, was built between 1703-1792, a vast complex of palaces and administrative and ceremonial buildings. Temples of varying architectural styles and Imperial gardens blend into a landscape of lakes, pasture land and forest, a rare historic vestige of the final development of feudal society in China.The Potala Palace at Lhasa, an administrative, religious and political complex, is built on Red Mountain in the center of the Lhasa Valley. The Potala, winter palace of the Dalai Lama since the 7th century, symbolizes Tibetan Buddhism. The beauty and originality of its architecture, its ornate decoration and its harmonious integration in a striking landscape add to its historic and religious interest.The Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu is the home of the great philosopher, politician and educator of the 6th-5th century B.C. The temple, built in his honor in 478 B.C., destroyed and reconstructed over the centuries, today comprises more than 100 buildings. The cemetery contains Confucius’ tomb and the remains of more than 100,000 of his descendants. The small house of the Kong family has become a gigantic aristocratic residence, of which more than 152 buildings remain. The complex of monuments at Qufu has maintained its historic character due to the devotion of successive Chinese emperors over more than 2,000 years.The Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains consists of palaces and temples forming the nucleus of secular and religious buildings exemplifying the architectural and artistic achievements of the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. Built as an organized complex during the Ming dynasty (14th-17th century), it contains Taoist buildings from as early as the 7th century and represents the highest standards of Chinese art and architecture over a period of nearly one thousand years.Japan. The Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto. The capital of Japan from 794 to 1857, Kyoto has remained the cultural center of the country for more than a thousand years. Spread out over the cities of Kyoto, Uji and Osu, the 17 sites included in this property trace the development of Japanese wooden architecture and the art of Japanese gardens which has influenced garden architecture throughout the world.Mexico. The Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl consists of 14 monasteries representative of the architectural model of the first missionaries — Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians — who Christianized the indigenous populations at the beginning of the 16th century.Peru. The Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas of Jumana, located in the arid coastal plain, cover about 450 km2. These lines, drawn between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D., are among the most impenetrable enigmas of archaeology by virtue of their number, nature and size, as well as their continuity. The geoglyphs, depicting living creatures, plants, imaginary figures and geometric figures, are believed to have had ritual functions connected to astronomy.Natural sites inscribed in the list include: Canada/USA. The Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Wilderness Park; Australia. The Australian Fossil Mammal Sites and the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves; Spain. Donana National Park; Venezuela. Canaima National Park; Uganda. Rwenzori Mountains National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National Park; Oman. The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary; Viet Nam. Ha Long Bay; Colombia. Los Katios National Park. THE TOOLS OF PRESERVATION: DOCUMENTATION AND MONITORINGAs the international preservation field has matured from years of ICOMOS and World Heritage learning experiences, monitoring site conditions has assumed an increasingly prominent role. It is understood that the preservationist’s ultimate task of ensuring the conservation of the material cultural heritage hinges not only on treatment but also on the documentation and monitoring process.The tasks involved in monitoring are variable, depending on the needs of the site, and the specific objectives of the effort, but the underlying foundation for the entire monitoring process is documentation. Documentation and monitoring are often treated as the same activity or as being inextricably interwoven, when in fact they are complimentary but separate. Driven by different goals, each one requires different skills and results in a different product.Documentation is subjective, in that it is undertaken from a particular point of view, but it is most importantly a descriptive, non- interpretive process that gathers and records observable facts in order to establish a base-line against which to assess change. On the other hand, monitoring is an analytical and critical process of comparative evaluation of conditions existing at a point in time with the base-line data accumulated in the documentation process, with the objective of determining physical evolution in the historic fabric.Documentation can help define the significance and integrity that contribute to official recognition of a site’s importance. At its best and most useful, documentation is more than that: it is an ongoing process that periodically records the physical status of the site in accordance with consistent methodology.Site stewards are handicapped without this type of documentation when diagnosing existing site conditions, and may be led to the wrong conclusions and diagnosis, leading to overly aggressive or inappropriate treatments. For example, if a surface condition appears suddenly and worsens daily, one approach may be correct; if the condition has been completely stable for 20 years, that approach may be disastrous. Only good documentation can support this analysis. A well-planned photographic archive spanning fifty years is an unbeatable monitoring tool for clearly identifying types of deterioration and their progression over time. Linked to other methodical recording (regularized intervals, fixed observation posts, testing procedures, etc.) of climate, treatments or visitation, the documentation archive provides the firmest base for sound monitoring interpretation of condition and diagnoses.Monitoring guidelines are beginning to be formulated and tested for World Heritage sites by various regional consortia around the world. A prototype was developed by the UNDP (Southern Cone), and a model mission was designed and commissioned by ICOMOS Sri Lanka. While the process of monitoring varies depending on the objectives or the type of information sought, the process of base-line documentation in this context more easily lends itself to standardization. Because of its perceived similarity to “auditing,” monitoring by outside experts can be perceived as threatening to the owners, who may view monitoring suspiciously — as foreign intervention with a potential for making local administrators appear negligent or incompetent.Documentation work, however, has not yet been the subject of good, economical and straightforward guidelines within the World Heritage context. While each site or site type may require specific adjustments to the “perfect site archive,” the best process of periodic observation and documentation is often most effective and user-friendly when it is low-tech and relies on relatively inexpensive recording methods, such as black-and- white photography, simple measurements and standardized field forms.Developing such a set of guidelines is the point of a collaboration between the Getty Conservation Institute and the World Heritage Centre. They are starting by examining the range of needs on site, identifying a set of interested test sites, creating a set of recording strategies, and discussing with Earthwatch the possibility of their support for a set of low-cost, well-organized recording projects. The intended results are well-described, economical, responsive, tested options for recommendation to the World Heritage site managers interested in creating useful documentation archives to support site management and conservation.Margaret G.H. Mac LeanDirector of Documentation, Getty Conservation Institute NEWS FROM U.S. WORLD HERITAGE SITESTaos Pueblo: The Town of Taos is requesting federal funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to construct an 8600′ by 100′ runway with medium intensity runway lights, an associated parallel taxiway, a new terminal apron and a new access road for the Taos airport. FAA has sent out a draft Area of Potential Effects as part of their efforts to include all interested parties in partial response to the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. The existing airport is located north of the Town of Taos and west of Taos Pueblo. Pueblo lands will be indirectly affected by the audible and visual intrusions of air traffic although overflight patterns have been designed to avoid the areas of population. Identification of archaeological properties has been completed and an ethnographic study will be undertaken in the future. No final decisions have been made. Beyond the specifics of the airport expansion, the point of debate centers around the potential (or threat) for accelerated local growth and development due to easier access through the expanded airport.San Juan National Historic Site. The urban site of San Juan includes the Spanish city walls, the fortresses of San Jerónimo and el Morro, plus the Fortaleza or Palace of Santa Catalina, which has traditionally been used as the Governor’s Residence.Site ownership is mixed, with parts under the stewardship of the National Park Service, while others are owned by the Puerto Rican Government or the Municipality of San Juan.The City Walls, which originally surrounded the entire Colonial core are largely extant. Constructed of massive rubble masonry and originally clad in stucco, the protective coat was shed years ago, reaching our time covered by a romantic patina of dark lichens and mosses on natural stone with the ochre and white patches of the early stucco.In the past decade, the National Park Service has determined that water penetration is threatening the walls. To preserve them, NPS has proposed to re-stucco the walls in their entirety. Reaction to the proposal has been varied, and there is widespread concern that the visual character of walls and the city itself will be seriously altered by returning them to a past lost so long ago that it is no longer remembered. The NPS claims that the work is permitted under an existing Memorandum of Agreement. The Puerto Rico SHPO has gone on record opposing the preventive stuccoing of all the wall, claiming that the visual transformation will be too drastic, and that the intensity of treatment is not justified. Instead, the SHPO proposes retention of the rich patina, and a continuation of conservation treatments on localized problem areas.A second problem facing the integrity of the site are developments being proposed for La Puntilla, a flat peninsula to the south of the city just outside the walls. The U.S. Coast Guard is planning a 4-story structure that the SHPO claims will block the historic view of the walls from the harbor. Recently the SHPO terminated consultation with the Coast Guard based on the Guard’s apparent unwillingness to propose changes other than cosmetic ones. The matter has now been referred to the Advisory Council.Accentuating the problems in the area of la Puntilla are conceptual plans being considered by the Municipality of San Juan to build a five- story commercial and parking structure in areas adjacent to the Coast Guard land. Under intense development pressure, the area of la Puntilla is quickly becoming the focus of difficult decisions whose outcome could have an impact on this World Heritage site. One former SHPO regards the threats serious enough to consider recommending the Site for inclusion in the World Heritage Endangered List.(Based on an interview with Milagros Flores, San Juan Historic Site, and Milagros Ortiz, Architect at the Puerto Rico SHPO).Cahokia Mounds. Unlike San Juan, Cahokia faces little development pressure, but is periodically threatened by the high water of the nearby Mississippi River. Located in the American Bottoms area, much of Cahokia is in a flood plain that is dependent on the levies of the eastern shore of the river. While the Mounds themselves have survived centuries of floods and rains, the Museum was seriously endangered by rising water in 1993 and again this year. The most immediate conservation challenge at Cahokia now is a slump on Monk’s Mound, whose 16 acre base makes it the largest earthen structure north of the Valley of Mexico. A State of Illinois-funded engineering study to address the problem is currently under way.With 2,200 acres, Cahokia Mounds depends on a staff of 4 site technicians to implement its site management program. Under intense visitation and an aggressive outreach program, from September 30-October 1, Cahokia will host “Heritage America,” an annual celebration of Native American crafts and traditions attended by 35,000 people every year. Last year, visitors from more than 90 different countries indicated that they came to Cahokia attracted by its World Heritage status. To accommodate them, Cahokia has developed a multi-lingual approach to the site’s information and interpretation program by printing its tour guide booklets in twelve languages and providing tour tapes in French, German and Spanish. Proud of its listing, the Site displays its plaque at the entrance to the Museum, and the United Nations flag is flown daily along with those of the U.S. and the State of Illinois.Gaining access to the site’s hidden knowledge remains a central challenge to Cahokia. Only 1% of the site has been excavated. This past summer, 3 field schools were held on the grounds. Rather than continuing to expand its visitation and interpretation areas, most excavations are back-filled to assure proper conservation of the archaeological resources.(Based on an interview with Paul Nixon, Assistant Site Manager). SON ET LUMIÈRE AT BOROBUDUR “PARIS — UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee had given the go-ahead for Indonesia to stage a controversial light show close to an ancient Buddhist Temple at Borobudur, in central Java, project officials said. The seven-person committee chaired by Mr. Gerard Bolla, a deputy director-general of the world cultural organization and an expert on the 9th-century temple, agreed finally to the Son et Lumière project after a study lasting several months. However the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization demanded guarantees that the spectacle would not harm the monument or its close environs in any way. It authorized two sessions of 45 minutes each per day in front of audiences initially of no more than 500 people — although the number could later be raised to 2,000 — for a total of 200 days per year during the dry season, the officials said. It also demanded that the text written for the spectacle avoid any terms that could cause offense to Buddhists. An earlier version of the project presented in January gave rise to strong objections by the Heritage Committee. — AFPDespite certain inaccuracies and ambiguities in the account sent over the wires by Agence France Presse, the news was quite shocking to those involved in cultural tourism and to those familiar with Southeast Asia.Facts to note: UNESCO convened a Special Experts meeting, January 23-28, 1995, at Borobudur. Among other subjects for discussion, the Committee disapproved the Sound and Light show proposal. On June 29, 1995, UNESCO agreed to the plan saying that certain changes in the proposal had dealt with the Special Experts concerns. The approval is separate from World Heritage Committee approval.Note also, a Sound and Light show was installed on Malacca Hill, Malaysia. Across a main street a large grandstand was erected at the base of the hill. There are 1100 lights used in the show. It is now impossible to take a photograph of the Gate, the Chapel ruins or the hillside without having the green metallic boxes in the pictures. Looking down from the top, the view is cluttered by an array of colored light bulbs. Lights now clutter the ceiling of the Museum entrance.After the specific questions have been answered, we still have to ask ourselves some other questions. Here we are forced to deal with a sincerely developed application by the Government of Indonesia to mount a Sound and Light show that will feature and use the Buddhist temple of Borobudur, and Cambodia wants to mount one at Angkor Wat.Someone has to say no. If UNESCO can’t say no, the World Heritage Committee has to say no. They would say a quick no to a show in front of Notre Dame, or in front of a mosque in Jakarta, or one that used Nara as a backdrop.How did the proposal at Borobudur get this far? These are great monuments and continuing religious sites for residents and pilgrims. I don’t blame the backers of the proposal for a minute; I blame all of us for not articulating the edges of our indignation. Have the processes we have built up to identify and to protect the finest cultural and natural sites in the world failed?How did we all drift so far away from anticipating the pressures and expectations of the World Heritage listing?For two years, UNESCO had an intense presence in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap. How could so much effort bring us to a row of benches along the moat before Angkor Wat? We have defined boundaries and required site management plans but there is more, and it is the “more” that we have difficulty defining. There are judgments to be made, matters of taste to be applied. We are talking about values, matters of worth, decisions that reflect manners and appropriateness.If we are talking about protecting the world’s cultural heritage for the benefit of mankind, we assume that there are universal values that exist across diverse peoples and regions. By implication we assume that while respecting local attitudes and practices, there are universal expectations of respect, honor and appreciation for these great sites of the world’s heritage.Many countries look at their World Heritage sites as tourism marketing features — as sources of hard currency. They propose a Sound and Light show and we argue back that the local standards used to justify the project do not justify warping or ignoring international standards which have been built up out or research, error and experience. We have a problem.A personal opinion — the best possible tourism and educational experience at Borobudur would be to experience the site at dawn. This was not a night place or a light place, it was a temple of worship. Borobudur was designed as a show. It hardly needs another. The first three levels are carved story-boards that function as both memory cards and educational lessons. As one continues to circle the monument and climbs the stairs, the architecture compels the visitor to experience humility and awe rising to spiritual confidence.Two thousand people at Borobudur, seated in the dark watching colored lights and listening to a recorded announcer, might just as well be at home with their TV. Better they be in their beds, to rise early and have a truly universal experience watching the dawn outline the shrine.Robertson E. Collins, ChairmanICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism The following section relating to Sound and Light shows was excerpted from Tourism at World Heritage Cultural Sites: The Site Manager’s Handbook, published by US/ICOMOS, 1993, for the 10th General Assembly of ICOMOS in Sri Lanka: At many World Heritage Sites, son et lumière is used as a motivational and educational technique. This system serves as an important source of additional visitor-generated income. It can also be the source of many problems. Commercial producers of shows, or of lighting equipment, tend to over-sell the potential revenues and under-sell the problems. The first question is who will attend the show, day-in, day-out year- round, year after year. The shows are expensive to install and to operate and can seldom survive on local traffic or as mere weekend attractions. Most of them are used at the height of the tourist season. Tour operators should be consulted as to whether they will include the show in their packages; it is useless and expensive to proceed with a sound and light show if tour operators are not interested. A feasibility study is the most important step. Beware of figures presented by suppliers or producers. The investment costs can be determined easily, but be sure there is careful financial analysis of anticipated revenues. Seek private advice from tour operators. Write to your preservation counterparts in other countries who have experience with similar installations to get the benefit of their experience and knowledge. If you decide to proceed, be sure to reserve contractual rights to approve the final script. The approved script must accurately portray the history of the site in a dignified fashion. Avoid overly theatrical scripts. The system’s overall installation and design must be sensitive to the historic fabric of the site. It should be designed to impose only the most minimal intervention in the physical historic fabric. Any physical interventions should be done so that they are reversible. The color of all materials used in the installation should be compatible with the historic/natural colors at the site. Son et lumière requires the installation of a highly sophisticated system of electronics. All installation plans must be submitted to, and approved in advance, by the site administrator. The installation contract must provide for direct day-to-day supervision of the contractor’s workers as they proceed with the actual installation. The placement and concealment of wiring systems and the enclosure of lighting and sound systems require thorough consideration. It must be remembered that such systems will require sustained, ongoing maintenance and should be accessible for servicing. Every installation decision should be based on how it will effect the day- time visitor’s opportunity to photograph the site and to enjoy an uncluttered experience. Many son et lumière installations, especially at large sites, require the movement of masses of people through the site in a darkened environment. Adequate safety lighting is essential. Permanent low-level lighting, directed at primary walkways may have to be supplemented by hand-held directional lighting used by site guards during the performances. Many such public presentations are a combination of sequential mass movements through the site, followed by a final presentation that is made to a seated audience at a fixed location. The placement and design of this fixed seating arrangement can have a major impact on the physical characteristics of the cultural site. Seats may be portable chairs, benches or fixed bleachers. It is especially important when using fixed bleachers to be sure that they are sensitively positioned within the historic context of the site so as not to be visually disruptive. Any fixed seating should be designed so that it can be easily removed once the son et lumière program is discontinued. RECOGNIZING THE RECENT PAST: A WORLD HERITAGE PERSPECTIVEToo often the public and the media associate the notion of the architectural heritage with history and the past. But what about the distinguished architecture, landscapes and other resources of this century; and at what point do we decide that these properties of more recent vintage merit concern and protection? The problem is more acute in countries whose man-made cultural heritage dates back centuries where age and rarity are prime considerations in terms of earning public support and recognition. The vast number of standing properties from this century makes it even more difficult to choose those worthy of preservation especially because of the relative dearth of objective historical analysis of works dating from this century. The question of integrity arises as well in view of the built-in obsolescence and ephemeral qualities that characterizes some architecture from the recent past.In recent years a number of international meetings have examined problems associated with the recognition of 20th-century works as cultural heritage. ICOMOS held an expert meeting on the subject in Paris in 1985. The intergovernmental Council of Europe has held seminars in Vienna and Barcelona; the latter, in 1989, examined Twentieth Century Architectural Heritage: Strategies for Conservation and Promotion. Recommendations resulting from the meeting called on member governments to develop strategies for identifying, protecting, conserving, restoring and promoting the 20th century’s heritage.Also in 1989, the International Working Party for the Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO) was formed in order to facilitate the exchange of documentation and conservation information, protect threatened Modern Movement buildings, stimulate interest in the Modern Movement and create a register of significant buildings of the period. Thirty DOCOMOMO working parties have been established; the U.S. group will be affiliated with the University of Southern California’s School of Architecture and housed in the Frank Lloyd Wright Freeman House.Closer to home, in 1994 Art Deco of France and Canada met in Ottawa and in March 1995 a number of U.S. organizations sponsored the Chicago conference on Preserving the Recent Past. The Chicago conference examined resource management strategies and challenges facing architects and architectural conservators.In June 1995 ICOMOS in conjunction with UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Conservation of Cultural Property) sponsored a meeting in Helsinki, Finland. Thirteen countries were represented by the 25 participants who examined national efforts on the 20th-century heritage within an international context, explored methods for analyzing the significance of properties of this period and considered techniques for identifying properties for possible future inclusion in the World Heritage List.During discussions a number of questions emerged including whether criteria different from those used in evaluating traditional heritage are indicated, especially since the concept of heritage is moving from architecture, monuments and masterworks to broader and more modern concerns including new types of cultural resources ranging from urban and rural districts to transportation corridors or systems, modern landscapes and even vernacular architecture.Discussions addressed questions concerning the inscription of 20th century properties on the World Heritage List. Even though properties 25 years old can be considered for listing, only four of the 440 properties now included in the List date from this century. They are Auschwitz (Poland), Niemeyer and Costa’s Brasilia (Brazil), Gaudi’s Parc and Palace Guell and Casa Mila (Spain) and Skogskyrkogarden (Sweden). The U.S. has nominated two 20th-century properties: the Wright Brothers National Monument was withdrawn in 1981 because it was no longer materially associated with the first flight; Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin and Taliesin West were withdrawn for further study in 1991.Under World Heritage Convention procedures, States Parties to the Convention are called on to submit tentative lists of properties that they are considering for possible future nomination, but few 20th-century properties are included in these lists. The U.S. tentative list includes the General Electric Research Laboratory (Schenectady, NY), Goddard Rocket Launching Site (Massachusetts), Lowell Observatory (AZ), Pupin Physics Laboratory (NY City), Trinity Site (NM) and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unity Temple (Oak Park, IL) and Robie House (Chicago).Participants in the ICOMOS Helsinki meeting agreed that more 20th- century properties deserve inclusion in the World Heritage List but were unable to reach agreement as to whether current World Heritage guidelines require changes to accommodate such nominations. It was agreed that the 25 year rule of thumb for nominations allowed the necessary time for sufficient historical perspective for evaluation.To aid ICOMOS and UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre in some of their evaluation efforts, DOCOMOMO will develop a working document (including proposed guidelines and new criteria, if necessary) for Modern Movement properties that might be proposed for inclusion in the List. This document will be examined at DOCOMOMO’s 1996 conference before it is submitted to ICOMOS for consideration.Questions relating to the recognition and protection of the 20th century’s heritage are not easily answered but it is encouraging to observe the growing recognition of the need to ensure that the architectural heritage of this century is preserved for future generations.(This article is adapted from one written by Thomas Jester, National Park Service architectural historian and participant in the ICOMOS Helsinki Seminar on the 20th Century Heritage.) TEACHING WITH WORLD HERITAGEUnder the leadership of Barbara Timken, US/ICOMOS has been developing a World Heritage Teaching Unit for middle school-level called Wonders of the World: Places on the World Heritage List. Meant to promote responsible awareness of the built and natural environments at a young age, the unit has been tested and positively evaluated in the Maryland and Virginia school systems, and is now ready to undergo one more round of testing. In the next stage, the unit will be further refined by teachers and will be implemented by schools in close proximity to World Heritage sites. The San Juan Historic Site in Puerto Rico will translate the unit into Spanish, making it available for use throughout the Spanish-speaking world. US/ICOMOS REPRESENTED AT FIRST UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE YOUTH FORUMSome 60 students from 30 countries around the world met from June 25-28, 1995, in the World Heritage city of Bergen, Norway, in order to attend the World Heritage Youth Forum organized under the auspices of UNESCO and in cooperation with the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO.The Forum was the first international youth gathering to be held on the subject of World Heritage education and included young people, accompanied by their teachers, from all over the world. The Forum was an integral part of the UNESCO Interregional Project on “Young People’s Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion” which aims to develop new and innovative educational approaches to reinforce World Heritage education in the curricula and to exchange experiences gained in different countries. The interregional project was launched within the framework of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project and was an intersectorial activity (conducted by the World Heritage Centre and the Education Sector). Because the U.S. is not a member of UNESCO, it did not participate in the project.The objectives of the Forum were to enable students to: 1) share their views concerning their participation in the above mentioned Interregional Project and make proposals to enhance World Heritage education; 2) meet their peers from other parts of the world and learn more about other heritage sites, cultures and ways of life, and to forge bonds of friendship and solidarity between schools in different countries; 3) develop their creative and artistic skills in favor of World Heritage education; 4) debate the importance of World Heritage and effective ways and means to protect/promote it with the Mayors of World Heritage Cities, also meeting in Bergen.The Forum also sought to enable accompanying teachers to: 1) learn more from the students about their views, attitudes and needs concerning World Heritage education; 2) learn from each other about new and innovative educational approaches and materials developed in support of World Heritage education; and 3) make proposals for the continuation of the UNESCO World Heritage Interregional Project and the production of an educational multi- media kit.At the invitation of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO, US/ICOMOS sponsored the participation of one U.S. student and one teacher. Ben Anderson, a 15 year-old student at Good Counsel High School in Wheaton, Maryland, was in the class of Lance Dempsey, a teacher at Earle B. Wood Middle School in Rockville, Maryland, when she tested the US/ICOMOS World Heritage Teaching Unit. Ben and Ms. Dempsey had the opportunity to share the Teaching Unit with other Forum participants, who identified it as the most advanced and comprehensive curriculum on this subject in the world.The success of the Forum is conveyed by the words of Ben Anderson. “My experience at the Forum changed my view on a lot of things. I did not realize how important World Heritage was to all different countries around the world. All the student delegates were genuinely and passionately committed to helping preserve heritage. I also learned that as an individual I can help in furthering the World Heritage cause. Finally, I realized that although people may be separated by language and distance, if we all want to commit to something and take the initiate to do it, we will prevail.”Ms. Dempsey said that “We need to raise awareness of the World Heritage sites in general, but especially those that are in danger. We need to spread the grass roots approach and incorporate World Heritage as part of the formal curriculum in all countries…. We need strategies for national, regional and international levels. Teacher training, reference materials and resource materials must be provided…. The conference installed in me the fact that we need to make World Heritage a way of life.” HIROSHIMA AT 50As part of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, many Japanese visited Washington to witness the Smithsonian Institution’s opening of the controversial exhibit of the Enola Gay. On July 12th, Shinichi Kojima, a journalist with the Sankei Shimbun, requested an interview with Elliott Carroll and Gustavo Araoz to explore the possible reaction of US/ICOMOS to a nomination of the Dome at Hiroshima to the World Heritage List.Charred remnants of an exhibit hall, the Dome survived the devastation of the first atomic explosion used during warfare by being located directly beneath the point of detonation.While no formal indication has been given of Japan’s wish to nominate the structure to the World’s Heritage List, the concept is not new and in some ways parallels another World Heritage site — Auschwitz — as a memorial to the horror of human violence and warfare.In response to the direct question by Mr. Kojima whether US/ICOMOS would oppose the nomination, it was made clear that the opinion of our national committee in no way affects the decisions of the World Heritage Committee concerning nominations. US/ICOMOS expressed confidence that such a nomination, if forthcoming, would reflect the usual meticulous scholarship and documentation evident in earlier Japanese nominations. The nomination will be evaluated by the World Heritage Committee, according to the Operational Guidelines, as an actual, physical cultural property, not on the basis of a symbol or idea inherent in the site. It is hoped that the nomination will assign significance of the site in the context of the long historic evolution of human warfare rather than the specific military conflict of which it was part. While accepting the enormous symbolic value of the Hiroshima Dome, US/ICOMOS reiterated its hopes that the World Heritage Convention always be used to emphasize international harmony rather than underlining differences that have yet to be resolved and wounds that are not completely healed.The Japanese showed considerable curiosity about the National Register status of the Trinity Site and its inclusion in the United States indicative list of potential World Heritage nominations. It was at this site that the US atomic bomb was tested prior to its military use in World War II. At this time, nothing is being done to nominate this site to the World Heritage List. ICOMOS NEWSICOMOS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, JUNE 1-3, 1995As Chairman Ann Webster Smith reported in the previous Newsletter, Esteban Prieto, Vice President of ICOMOS and Chairman of the Dominican Committee of ICOMOS, invited and provided funding for the Chairman of all 21 of the Western Hemisphere National Committees to attend a regional meeting, May 29-June 1, immediately preceding the ICOMOS Executive Committee meeting, June 1-3, in Santo Domingo, the colonial portion of which is a World Heritage site. The regional national committee chairs were also invited to attend the Executive Committee meeting.ICOMOS has urged all four ICOMOS regions to hold similar regional meetings and Asia has already done so, in Sri Lanka in June 1995, to be followed by Europe at Cesky Krumlov, Czech Republic, and by Africa at Harare, Zimbabwe, both in October 1995. Additional regional meetings are being planned by US/ICOMOS, on authenticity in San Antonio, Texas, in March 1996 and by Lebanon ICOMOS on risk preparedness in Beirut in April 1996. The Costa Rican national committee is also planning a regional assembly in April 1996. As previously reported, all ICOMOS national committee chairs, which comprise the Advisory Committee, will meet immediately following the ICOMOS Bureau and Executive Committee meetings on September 10-11 respectively, in Cracow, Poland. These meetings will end with a ceremony celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of ICOMOS in the World Heritage site where it occurred. ICOMOS Poland will conduct a symposium on September 14-16 on Heritage Responsibilities and Market Rules, Their Role in Managing Historic Cities.ICOMOS President Roland Silva reported that plans are progressing well for the publication of twenty books describing historic preservation principles and practice in as many countries, in time for the 11th General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996. The national committees who have accepted the task of preparing manuscripts are: Africa: Egypt, Zion; Americas: Bolivia, Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica; Asia/Oceania: Australia, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Israel, Japan; Europe: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Russia.DOCUMENTATION CENTRE:With the financial assistance of UNESCO, ICOMOS maintains at its Paris Headquarters the UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre, staffed with a full-time documentalist, interns and volunteers. It was initially established to provide a repository of documents relating to cultural heritage, and it has been an active participant in preparing the UNESCO bibliographic database “ICOMMOS,” published by UNESCO and in an online form by the Canadian Heritage Information Network. The Documentation Centre also provides the archive for the nomination dossiers for all cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. Two recent studies have called for these dossiers to be cataloged in a group of relational databases that would allow researchers and conservators easier access to the information contained in these dossiers. Funding has been provided by UNESCO for this purpose in the current year.Discussions are currently ongoing concerning the role of the Documentation Centre in information exchange. Various reports have suggested that the Documentation Centre should be made available to a new Internet World Wide Web server, augmenting and in cooperation with the existing servers operated by ICOMOS Canada (see below). In particular, the ICOMOS Scientific Journal, new programs initiated on disaster preparedness, the Blue Shield Program, the catalog of the Documentation Centre, and selections from World Heritage files are candidates for electronic distribution via this Internet server.ICOMOS’s Internet involvement was begun by the Canadian National Committee (ICOMOS Canada). ICOMOS Canada initiated a local bulletin board system in 1992 to link members across Canada in a common network of information exchange. With the donation of space on a Canadian government computer, ICOMOS Canada opened a gopher in January 1994, followed shortly thereafter by a World Wide Web server. Installation and operation of the servers has been entirely by volunteers with the network or conservation experience. The content of both servers reflects the international interest of the committee. All material has been either electronically scanned or submitted on disk, although the operators recognized from the start that eventually a distributed information system would be desirable, with individual national and scientific committees making files available on their own host computers. The gopher and web servers contain most of the ICOMOS charters and other organizational documents, and reports and newsletters from a selection of national and international scientific committees. Texts of relevant international treaties, and international agreements and resolutions of other organizations such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE have been included. In the absence of a UNESCO Internet server, UNESCO resolutions and World Heritage materials were also included in the ICOMOS Canada servers. Notably, the web server includes an experimental hypertext version of the World Heritage Convention marked up with links to relevant sections of the Operational Guidelines. [Postscript — now on the World Heritage Centre’s server at http://www.unesco.org:80/whc/world_he.html.]US/ICOMOS shares space and maintenance responsibilities in the ICOMOS Canada servers. In addition, through its Committee on Telecommunications, Information and Technology, it has developed several electronic mailing lists: email@example.com for communications issues. The Communications Committee is actively encouraging other US/ICOMOS committees to develop similar mailing lists.HEADQUARTERS IN VERSAILLES:The external restoration of the Maréchalerie of the Palace of Versailles, a portion of which has been reserved as future offices of ICOMOS, has been completed by the French government at a cost of 7.1 million French francs ($1,420,000). the interior rehabilitation is estimated to cost approximately 5 million FF ($1,000,000) which has not been made available by the French government; hence, ICOMOS continues to negotiate for new space with the City of Paris which has generously provided the existing offices in the Hotel Saint Aignan for many years. The City now wishes to add this space to an existing museum next door.PROFESSIONAL HANDBOOK OF ICOMOS:Actually, a “Who’s Who” or directory of ICOMOS members planned for publication in time for the 1996 Sofia General Assembly, the Handbook is suffering from a lack of members’ response to the questionnaire published in both the international and US/ICOMOS newsletters (US/ICOMOS Newsletter December 1994 and May/June 1995).MONITORING:Post-listing missions to World Heritage sites to monitor the state of conservation and protection being provided, had been relatively rare until the last few years when ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee determined that visits at regular intervals were a top priority. As a result, the Committee has provided 212,000FF ($424,000) in 1995 for this purpose. A pilot monitoring mission was conducted at three World Heritage sites in Sri Lanka this years with observers from the Getty Conservation Institute. A 100-page report will be published as a general guide to future missions. A total of 16 monitoring missions are scheduled for this year.A report was received on the completion of a 5 year-long ICOMOS monitoring and advisory mission in Kizhi Pogost, Russia, which resulted in agreement on conservation solutions for this 1990 World Heritage site.SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL:In 1993, the first two issues of the new journal, on historic landscapes and historic towns, were published through the generosity of ICOMOS Spain and distributed to the national committees in 1994 for all members. In 1994, two more issues were published with the assistance of ICOMOS Hungary and will be distributed in the number ordered by each national committee. The first is a compendium of members’ professional articles, the second a 30th Anniversary publication of the Venice Charter in 28 languages. The first issue of 1995, Thirty Years of ICOMOS, will be ready for the birthday ceremonies in Cracow in September 1995.ICOMOS BUDGET:The 1995 ICOMOS budget proposes 4,624,258FF ($925,000) in expenditures while expecting 4,085,460FF ($817,000) in receipts for a deficit of 538,798FF ($108,000), with similar losses in three of the last five years. This intolerable situation requires emergency action, if ICOMOS is to avoid bankruptcy within the year.Our potential revenues come from two categories, government and nongovernment. It appears that the current political climate in most countries, rich and poor, make increases in government subventions, or even level funding, increasingly unlikely or impossible, though this source must be vigorously pursued in every nation, using government support of IUCN as a model.Nongovernmental sources include member fees from individual, institutional and sustaining members. The latter two categories offer potential, in that the Executive Committee has set those fees at 1,050FF ($210) and 150,000FF and ($30,000) respectively for five years. Individual member fees, having been recently raised by 30% with the usual effect of members losses, would be unwisely increased again. It is vital therefore that two problems with member fees be resolved. These are immediate payment of past and present unpaid fees and the early amendment of those national committee statutes that permit two categories of members, international and national, which contravenes ICOMOS statutes, creates second-class members and gives the impression of international participation without sharing in the costs.For those national committees who find it impossible to pay their past due fees, the Executive Committee agreed that the Treasurer General is authorized to grant exemptions where justified. In those cases, it is reasonable to expect those national committees to provide services-in-kind to ICOMOS, following the example of the Hungarian national committee which has edited, printed and mailed professional documents. Other such services-in- kind could include translation, printing and mailing the ICOMOS News.Elliott Carroll, FAIA, ICOMOS Vice President DRAFT CHARTER FOR THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGEThe ICOMOS International Committee on Underwater Archaeology has distributed for comment a draft Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. The Committee plans to complete the review process in time to present the charter for adoption at the 11th General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996. Copies of the draft charter can be obtained from US/ICOMOS. US/ICOMOS NEWSUS/ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL SESSION AT THE NATIONAL TRUST ANNUAL CONFERENCEUS/ICOMOS will conduct an educational session on international preservation issues at the 49th National Preservation Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday, October 13, from 1:30-3:00pm. The session will focus on the World Heritage Convention and specifically on World Heritage cities. Guest speakers will be Dr. Henry Cleere, ICOMOS World Heritage Coordinator, and Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park Service. This World Heritage issue of the Newsletter can be considered a background reader for the presentations and discussions.The same day, from 7:15-8:30am, US/ICOMOS will host its traditional International Preservation Breakfast. Places are limited, so members are urged to register soon. Members who wish to make a brief 5-minute presentation or an announcement should contact US/ICOMOS.INTER-AMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON AUTHENTICITY PROGRESS REPORTThe Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) of Marina del Rey, California, and the San Antonio Conservation Society have joined US/ICOMOS as cosponsors of next year’s Inter-American Symposium on Authenticity in the Preservation and Management of Cultural Resources. The topic will be addressed from many angles, including World Heritage listing. Since the announcement last May, the Symposium has received broad endorsement, including the support of the office of International Affairs of the National Park Service and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. In preparation for the hemispheric dialogue, the Southern Cone countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) will hold a regional assembly in Rio de Janeiro in late November. The Mexican Committee will address the topic at its annual Symposium from October 10-15, 1995, in Taxco, Guerrero, the Mexican town most recently nominated to the World Heritage List.NOTE: For logistical reasons, the dates for the Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, have been moved forward two days to April 26-30, 1996.NOMINATIONS SOUGHT FOR US/ICOMOS TRUSTEES AND OFFICERSThe Trusteeship Committee of the US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees is currently soliciting nominations of members to fill positions available as Trustees and Officers. The Committee is composed of Robert Wilburn, Chairman; Adele Chatfield Taylor, Spencer Leineweber, Elliott Carroll, Chester Liebs and Samuel Stokes. The Committee urges US/ICOMOS members to participate in the nomination process by forwarding suggestions of qualified persons to Mr. Wilburn at Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, P.O. Box 1776, Wiliamsburg, VA 22222-1776, before November 15, 1995.There are no officers up for election; there are six positions available on the Board. Board members whose terms expire at the end of the year are John T. Joyce, James P. Kiernan, Norman L. Koonce, R. Randolph Langenback, Constance W. Ramirez and Michael R. Taylor. Current Board members are eligible for reelection unless they have already completed the maximum three consecutive terms and are not nominated for a position as officer.In considering their nominations, US/ICOMOS members may wish to review the following list of major qualifications of Trustees and Officers: 1. Demonstrated interest in US/ICOMOS and the preservation of the interna- tional cultural heritage. 2. Experience in managing or influencing the management of a commercial, educational, professional or other enterprise — nonprofit or otherwise — with responsibility for conducting business affairs or programs and managing assets, both tangible and intangible. 3. Working knowledge of the financial structures and the means by which nonprofit organizations customarily conduct their business affairs. 4. Ability to creditably represent US/ICOMOS in public forums dealing with US/ICOMOS matters. 5. Close relationships with other public and private institutions in this and related fields. 6. Significant national and international professional connections.”The Successful Volunteer Organization,” has this to say regarding how to achieve the most effective Board: “Many people recommend a board made up of one-third affluent people, one-third volunteers and one-third professionals — the three Ws: wealth, work and wisdom. Ideally, a board member should be someone who: 1. Is committed to the mission of the organization; 2. Raises money for the organization; that is, this person asks others for money and gives according to his or her means; 3. Is recognized by the people in the organization for his or her honesty, enthusiasm, courage and common sense; 4. Attends meetings regularly; 5. Is willing to work hard; 6. Knows about the issues, the problems and the solutions; 7. Commits himself or herself for a complete term of office; 8. Recruits new members and helps each one find a place in the group; 9. Believes in democracy and majority rule. Enthusiastically supports the group’s decisions, even when he or she is on the losing side; 10. Wants to serve on the Board.US/ICOMOS also tries to maintain geographic and gender diversity among its Trustees.NOMINATIONS FOR FELLOWSHIPUS/ICOMOS is also seeking nominations of members for US/ICOMOS Fellow. The criteria and guidelines are as follows:The United States Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites shall honor, for achievement in international preservation, American scholars, professionals and civic volunteers, who have made notable long-term contributions to the enhancement of the quality of life. Those honored shall be known as Fellows and must have worked to advance international preservation standards and programs. Outstanding accomplishments shall be recognized in one or more areas of activity, including but not limited to architecture, architectural history, conservation, history landscape architecture and urban planning. Nominees shall be members of US/ICOMOS. The sponsor of a nomination shall submit a digest of the nominee’s career and achievements. It must contain a biographical sketch and summarize and editorialize the nominee’s accomplishments in the international preservation activity in which the nominee has excelled. The sponsor shall list five individuals as references, to whom the jury will write for supporting letters. Sponsors must not solicit supporting letters.Nominations are due to the Trusteeship Committee no later than December 1, 1995. CALENDARMembers attending these and other international programs should please inform US/ICOMOS of their participation. * September 15-16, 1995. US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees meeting.