Nara Document on Authenticity

Nara Document on Authenticity The Nara Document on Authenticity is an international declaration addressing cultural heritage authenticity, produced at a 1994 conference in Nara Prefecture, Japan, with participation from representatives of UNESCO, ICOMOS, Japan, ICOM, ICCROM, United Nations and numerous national cultural ministries and heritage professionals. The document supplemented the World Heritage Convention and engaged stakeholders including Archaeological Survey of India, Getty Conservation Institute, Chinese State Administration of Cultural Heritage, ICOMOS International Scientific Committee (ISCC)],] to clarify definitions for assessing World Heritage Site values across diverse cultural contexts.

Background and adoption

The drafting conference convened in Nara Prefecture under the patronage of UNESCO and ICOMOS, bringing together delegates from Japan, India, China, France, United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Russia, Germany, South Korea, Egypt, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine Liberation Organization, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mongolia and other entities to reconcile differing notions of authenticity rooted in traditions such as Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Aboriginal Australians and nomadic cultures. The document was formally adopted following deliberations involving scholars from University of Tokyo, Harvard University, University of Cambridge, Sorbonne University, University of Delhi, Peking University, Beijing University and professionals from British Museum, Louvre, Smithsonian Institution, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Principles and definitions

The Nara Document emphasized context-sensitive definitions of authenticity, integrating perspectives from conservation theory, traditional custodians such as Shinto priests, Buddhist monks, Tibetan lama, Hindu pandit, Sufi sheikh, Indigenous elders, and institutional actors including ICOMOS International Council, UNESCO World Heritage Committee, ICCROM Directorate, Getty Conservation Institute Director and national agencies like Ministry of Culture (France), Ministry of Culture (China), Ministry of Culture (India), Agency for Cultural Affairs (Japan). It proposed that authenticity be assessed through multiple attributes—materials, workmanship, form and design, function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, language and other forms of intangible expression—and cited examples from sites such as Himeji Castle, Taj Mahal, Great Wall of China, Angkor Wat, Machu Picchu, Petra, Acropolis of Athens, Historic Centre of Rome, Old City of Jerusalem, Stonehenge, Mesa Verde, Rapa Nui and Great Mosque of Djenné.

Criteria and guidelines for authenticity

The document recommended assessing authenticity by evaluating dimensions like materials and construction influenced by traditional craftsmanship, continuity of use as practiced at Shirakami-Sanchi, oral histories documented by institutions such as Smithsonian Folklife Festival and National Museum of Anthropology (Mexico), and evolving practices recognized by UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists, World Monuments Fund, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). It advised multi-disciplinary teams drawing on expertise from archaeology institutions like British Institute in Ankara, École française d'Extrême-Orient, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, conservation specialists from English Heritage, Historic England, curators from Victoria and Albert Museum, legal scholars from International Law Commission and community representatives including Māori elders, First Nations leaders, Sami Council and Zapatista delegates.

Implementation and impact

Following adoption, the Nara Document influenced UNESCO World Heritage Committee decisions, national inventories administered by bodies such as Historic England, National Trust (United Kingdom), National Park Service (United States), and conservation projects led by Getty Conservation Institute, World Monuments Fund, ICCROM, ICOMOS and regional networks like Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO. It shaped management plans for Himeji Castle, Old City of Jerusalem, Angkor Archaeological Park, Historic Centre of Vienna, Lumbini, Old Town of Dubrovnik, Old Havana, Bryggen, Bergen, and informed legal frameworks in jurisdictions including Japan, India, China, France, Italy, Spain, Mexico and Brazil. The principles have been incorporated into training at University College London, Columbia University, Kyoto University, University of Melbourne and professional guidelines by ICOMOS National Committees.

Criticism and controversies

Critics from institutions such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, academic centers at Princeton University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Oxford, Yale University and activists from World Wide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace argued that the document's pluralistic approach could be applied unevenly, potentially privileging state narratives in sites like Tibet Autonomous Region, West Bank, Kashmir, Balochistan, Kurdistan and contested areas such as Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Western Sahara. Debates persisted in forums convened by UNESCO General Conference, ICOMOS General Assembly, World Heritage Committee sessions and scholarly journals including Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, Journal of Cultural Heritage and International Journal of Heritage Studies about balancing community rights represented by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and national preservation priorities advocated by ministries like Ministry of Culture (Russia), Ministry of Culture (Egypt) and Ministry of Culture (Saudi Arabia).

Category:International cultural heritage documents