Authenticity is one of the fundamental elements of cultural heritage, showing or designed to show that cultural heritage is undoubtedly authentic, that it can represent the “true” past, embody “reliable” facts, etc. In the European concept of cultural heritage protection, two opposing paradigms of authenticity are presented: historical matter and historical image. They interpret the essence of the authenticity of cultural heritage in different ways (the first paradigm embodies it in historical matter that is unique and not to be recreated; the second in a historical image that can be reconstructed) and its treatment (the first paradigm ideally preserves objects; for the second recovery, analogy method, etc. are acceptable). Currently, the paradigm of historical matter is considered official, although in practice the paradigm of the historical image is very widespread.
The article presents an analysis of the origins, context and consequences of this conflict, as well as the development and trends of understanding the authenticity of cultural heritage.The European Tradition: Two Paradigms.
1. VIOLLET-LE-DUC, Eugène Emmanuel. Restoration. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996, p. 314. 2. RUSKIN, John. The Lamp of Memory, I. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996, p. 42. 3. Ibid, p. 322. 4. JOKILEHTO, Jukka. A History of Architectural Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002, p. 137–212; CHOAY, Françoise. The Invention of the Historic Monument. Cambridge University Press, 2001. P. 99–116; Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996, p. 307–323. 5. FEILDEN, Bernard M.; JOKILEHTO, Jukka. Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: ICCROM, 1998, p. 66; 6. Ibid, p. 67. 7. Ibid, p. 69. 8. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). ICOMOS, 1965, a. 9, 11, 12. <http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf>. 9. PETZET, Michael. «In the full richness of their authenticity» — The Test of Authenticity and the New Cult of Monuments. Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Trondheim: TAPIR Publishers, 1995, p. 91. 10. The Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relationship to Cultural Heritage, 2000, Preamble, a. 5, http://www.altes-rathaus-halle.de/dokumente_17.asp . 10. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, 1977, a. 9. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/out/opgu77.htm . 11. The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994, a. 1. <http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf>. 12. The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994, a. 1, 2, 6, 7. <http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf>. 13. The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994, a. 6,11–13. <http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf>. 14. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, 2005, a. 79–86. <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf>