Preceding the Nara convention in 1994, the World Heritage Committee’s concept of ‘authenticity’ was based on the American ‘integrity’, which was described as “a composite quality connoting original workmanship, location and intangible elements of feeling and association” (Stovel 2008). This framework, which was overly concerned with ‘the original’, proved to be a problem for the Japanese as it did not accommodate their conservation practices of regular dismantling, repair and reassembly of wooden temples. As such, they proposed a reconsideration of authenticity to encompass wooden architectural traditions and acknowledge skills as part of heritage valuation (Stovel 2008).

     

The Nara Document on Authenticity discusses that it is not possible to judge values and authenticity within fixed criteria. Hence, elements need to be considered within their own local cultural contexts (Lemaire and Stovel, 1994).  The recommendations outlined in the document opens up the discussion on conservation to view our built heritage as ‘living’ objects instead of relics, through associated skills, technology, methods and craftsmanship which are transmutable. This ensures the continuity of knowledge and knowhow. Hence, it is not the object that is authentic, but the ability to build the house and the idea that this building represents that knowledge.