The objective of this chapter is to study the notion of a 'common heritage.' I intend first to discuss whether World Heritage sites are a 'common heritage.' Thereafter I will identify three different interpretations of heritage being held in common, before I analyse the composition of this heritage.

2.1. Interpretations of 'Common Heritage'

A central idea behind the Convention is that it relies on an argument of cultural heritage being held in common, but it is important to have in mind that the Convention never uses the term 'common heritage,' but 'World Heritage' and 'heritage of mankind.'(1)

However, both the background for the Convention and references in literature to the Convention make it clear that 'World Heritage' and 'heritage of mankind' is a 'common heritage.' Two recent promotional leaflets from WHC say for example: 'World Heritage sites belong to all peoples of the world, irrespectively of the territory on which they are located,'(2) and 'these monuments and sites constitute... a common heritage, to be treasured as unique testimonies to an enduring past. Their disappearance would be an irreparable loss for each and every one of us.'(3)

The notion of a 'common heritage' goes further back than the Convention. The Athens Conference in October 1931 - organised under the auspices of the League of Nations - was convinced 'that the question of the conservation of the artistic and archaeological property of mankind is one that interests the community of the states, which are wardens of civilization.'(4) The Nubian action in the 1960s served as a catalyst for the concept of a 'common heritage,' and the essential lesson that emerged from this campaign was that in 'the duty of conserving common property, mankind recognizes its own oneness through time and space, through the centuries and the nations, and proclaims the unity of its destiny.'(5) In 1970 it was also written that 'historic monuments are the adornments with which Man has decked the earth; they are the common heritage of mankind and remind us that civilization is made up of contributions from all peoples....'(6)

However, in the context of the Convention not all cultural heritage is viewed as 'common,' and a comparison of all three UNESCO conventions concerning protection of cultural heritage confuses the picture: the conventions have divergent interpretations of heritage. The 1954 Hague Convention concerning protection in wartime views all culture as the cultural heritage of all mankind,(7) while the 1970 Convention regarding trade of cultural property is framed within a nationalistic notion of cultural heritage.(8)

According to the Convention, it is immovables and tangibles of 'outstanding universal value' that require collective protection and this is the designating factor for heritage to be World Heritage,(9) but even if a site is not on the List, it can have 'outstanding universal value.'(10) Despite the importance of this criterion it is not defined in the Convention or the Operational Guidelines, and a major philosophical problem is that the existence of universal value implies the existence of universal concepts, a highly controversial issue and focus for much debate in the philosophy of history. In the context of the Convention the debate ranges from Titchen who asserts that 'heritage of outstanding universal value exist,'(11) to Cleere who - with the possible exception of Palaeontological or Paleolithic sites - doubts cultural properties can possess universal value.(12)

The problem of universality was already on the agenda at the first session of the Committee in 1977 when ICOMOS expressed the problem of drafting criteria that could 'be applied throughout the world and of translating concepts into words that were meaningful on a universal scale.'(13) IUCN expressed the view in 1979 that the organisation interpreted 'universal value' to mean that only the best natural property of its kind should be inscribed on the List,(14) and Thorsell has recently said that the List is 'the Nobel Prize or the Hall of Fame of national parks.'(15) However, in 1979 it was recognised that selection is more difficult for cultural properties where 'several properties of the same family might have intrinsic universal value.'(16)

Regardless of the problem of defining and understanding what universality means, the term governs the Committee when it decides if a property is of universal value. Train called the Committee during the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 to continue to 'identify the best of the best,'(17) reflecting a restrictive view of World Heritage which Michel Parent gave an account for in 1988:

It is true that everything belongs to history and that the whole of nature and all human artefacts leave traces worthy of interpretation. But the world is changing rapidly and if the truly essential of the heritage is not given special universal recognition, then even they may be swept away by the forces of change. If this happens, the notion of permanent value and its expression in specific sites and artefacts may be lost.(18)

The Committee often decides that a site is only of national importance, a conclusion many countries find hard.(19) For example, when Norway in 1979 nominated the building where the Constitution was adopted in 1814, the Bureau said it was undoubtedly of national importance.(20) Afterwards the Director-General of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage wrote that the process of selection is painful, but necessary.(21)

Despite the fact that designated World Heritage is a 'common heritage,' none of the documents from UNESCO I have come across have given extensive attempts to explain the possibilities of a 'common heritage.' It is noteworthy that during the first session of the Committee in 1977 delegates asked for a statement of the philosophy underlying the Convention.(22) I will therefore identify some interpretations of the concept of a 'common heritage,' and it is my position that it must be interpreted in various vays. Interpretations are distorted by different usages and compositions of the concepts 'common heritage,' 'World Heritage' and 'heritage of humankind.' Another problem is that the term 'heritage' is hard to define, but I will not define this concept.

Emphasis will be on 'common' as indicating 'shared.' In an address to the Committee at the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 Frederico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO, stressed that 'the World Heritage must be a shared inheritance in every sense of the term,'(23) and in April 1995 he emphasised 'the need for a collective effort by the international community to promote the concept of a shared human heritage which transcends national boundaries.'(24) I will focus on three interpretations of shared: shared responsibility, shared resources and shared history.

2.2.1. Shared responsibility

'Common heritage' can denote a shared responsibility and a moral duty to participate in the protecting and passing down of the cultural heritage of all people of the world for future generations. The duty represents a 'global stewardship,'(25) where the earth is viewed - in the term of the economist Boulding - as a 'spaceship,'(26) and the Convention is a tool of a global conservation ethic. Expressions of this duty include for example financial assistance from the Fund and a respect for other people's heritage. This interpretation of 'common heritage' does not necessarily affect any questions of ownership; the cultural heritage can still belong to the people who created it.(27)

The Fund was established with the adoption of the Convention and is managed by the Committee.(28) A history of the background to the Convention,(29) shows that the creation of this Fund was an important factor behind the adoption of the Convention, but there is a compound of attitudes to the shared responsibility of protecting cultural heritage in other countries.

The third General Conference of UNESCO in 1948 recalled the UNESCO Constitution - which calls for the 'protection of the world's inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science'(30) - and requested the possibility of establishing a fund to subsidise preservation and restoration.(31) Several suggestions for a fund were made, but studies stopped at the beginning of the 1950s and were not taken up again before 1962 when the General Conference adopted a resolution to resume the study.(32)

A study carried out in 1963 suggested that contributions from the fund should 'provide particular States with the financial assistance needed to carry out essential work for the preservation, restoration and presentation of monuments of world interest existing in their territory.'(33) The attitude to a fund among the member states was in 1963 mixed and Syria's Department of Antiquities, for example, expressed a strong concern for a fund that would contribute only to masterpieces recognised by the international community:

The real danger threatening mankind with impoverishment of its legacy of monuments is the general tendency to make do with a few fine specimens of a country's architectural history and to neglect the others.... The cultural heritage of any one country is a complete whole, and it is very dangerous to break this up by putting forward international standards which give preference exclusively to safeguarding masterpieces.(34)

The United States found 'the suggestion of an international fund neither convincing nor realistic,'(35) but despite this negative attitude it was the United States that in 1965 called for a World Heritage Trust. According to Train the idea of a Trust emerged in discussions between him and Joseph Fisher under the White House Conference of International Co-operation, 29 November - 1 December 1965.(36 The conference was a result of the UN designation of 1965 as an International Co-operation Year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the UN, 'convinced that a designated period may serve both to direct attention to the common interests of mankind and to accelerate the joint efforts being undertaken to further them.'(37)

Despite many years of effort to create the Fund, the debate before the final adoption of the Convention the 16 November 1972 illustrates a mixed attitude towards contributing to the Fund. Several countries wished to replace the wording in Article 16 'shall' with 'ought to' contribute to the Fund. Among these countries were the United States, Thailand and the delegate from the United Kingdom who said: 'I have to say that if the word "shall" remains, this paragraph will be quite unacceptable to the United Kingdom and I know also many other countries who are certainly not the least wealthy.'(38) However, the delegate from India said: '... the delegation of India supported the principle of compulsory contribution... because it involves equal partnership and equal commitment on the part of all Member States. The Convention regards all participating States as equal partners, fully equal partners, in a great enterprise.'(39)

Another aspect of 'common' as denoting shared responsibility is the duty and respect of the State Parties not to damage any of the cultural heritage situated on the territory of other countries.(40) The Convention is therefore - as a former Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Tschudi-Madsen, puts it - 'a lesson in modesty and understanding of other people and their heritage.'(41) This obligation is interpreted differently, and when Iraq and Syria entered the Convention it was stated that this should not signify recognition of or entering into relations with Israel.(42) On 16 November, when the General Conference of UNESCO had finished the debate concerning the Convention - adopted it with 75 for, 1 against and 17 abstentions - only the American delegate had more to add: 'First of all, more or less as a footnote, we would like to say that there is one aspect on which the United States wishes to clarify its interpretation of the Convention - it is clear that this Convention is not intended to impose or govern obligations in cases of armed conflict.'(43) This ambiguity has obviously set its mark in cases of war, where several designated sites have been damaged.(44)

The shortcoming of the Convention in cases of war - and especially internal conflicts - is one of the major limitations of the Convention,(45) and in 1993 a paragraph that refers to the 1954 Hague Convention was first included in the Operational Guidelines.(46) The 1954 Hague Convention has not been viable for protection of cultural heritage, and the register of properties to be protected under this Convention contained by November 1994 only one site, the Vatican City State. UNESCO is currently working to get cultural sites of States Parties to both conventions also registered for protection under the 1954 Hague Convention.(47) However, a reinforcement of the 1954 Hague Convention might have an opposite effect, and designation of sites might mark these out for special destruction, as seen in Yugoslavia where Dubrovnik and Split were damaged.(48)

2.2.2. Shared resources

The second interpretation of 'common heritage,' is that it denotes shared resources. The rationale behind this interpretation is that the cultural heritage is a legacy for all.(49) This interpretation of 'common heritage' has been understood as a right of the world community to use the heritage in other countries. If the first interpretation of 'common heritage' is an important duty, this interpretation represents own interests. The past is a resource to be used and enjoyed by all, and it represents a utilitarian view of the past.(50)

When the White House Conference on International Co-operation in 1965 called for a World Heritage Trust, it was this interest in the past that was emphasised when the Committee on Conservation and Development of Natural Resources suggested:

The world community has an interest not only in the resources that produce the raw materials for economic development but also in the resources that are a part of its heritage. Certain natural, scenic, and historic resources are unique and irreplaceable and should be shared by all peoples of the world. Establishment of an international trust could, where necessary, help the host countries to preserve and maintain these resources for the benefit of present and future generations of all mankind - such resources as the Serengeti Plains, Angel Falls, Angkor, the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, or the ruins of Incan cities.(51)

Rights of the world community to the heritage in other countries have been strongly emphasised by writers such as Merryman: '...people in other nations have an interest in archaeological and ethnographic objects in Peru and in paintings in Italian churches. They are the cultural heritage of all mankind, not merely of Peruvians and Italians.'(52) Williams expresses similar views when she develops her concept of a 'common heritage of humankind:' 'cultural property is a medium through which the peoples of the world may gain intellectual exchange and thus they have a right to claim access to it.'(53)

This interpretation of the 'common heritage' concept raises several ethical questions. It has been much criticised, especially from indigenous people. In Norway the view has been expressed that the concept represents a new colonisation and a way of obtaining the past of others by underhand means.(54) From an Australian perspective it has been emphasised that the concept of a 'common heritage of humankind' represents rights of the white man,(55) and it is a means of excluding people with particular interests in the cultural heritage.(56)

2.2.3. Shared history

An interpretation of 'common heritage' as denoting shared history, will here be interpreted in two different ways. First, it denotes contact between people and cultures in the past. Second, it is a grand narrative, or metanarrative, of the 'common heritage of humankind' where the aim is the promotion of world peace.

The first interpretation of 'common heritage' as shared history can follow world-system models,(57) and take into account cultural contact between people in the past. During the World Conference on Cultural Policies in 1982 this was stated: 'in the reciprocal influences they [cultures] exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage.'(58) Cultural interaction has been used as an argument by the Council of Europe to justify that the Elgin Marbles should be perceived as a 'common heritage of Europe,'(59) and in 1984 interaction was suggested to be taken into consideration for inscription on the List, because 'the List is becoming a long enumeration of such diverse elements that it is difficult for the broader public to understand the rationale behind it.'(60)

However, cultural interaction does not seem to have any major impact on inscriptions on the List and many countries want to protect what is particularly their heritage. A former President of Colombia, Borrero, said in 1992: 'Colombia is still a young nation.... In order to create its own destiny and not one borrowed from other nations, it is necessary to conserve the legacy of previous generations. To create and conserve its own features is the great compromise that will unify the national being.'(61)

The second interpretation of 'common' as denoting shared history is to emphasise not specifically the role of contact between the individual cultures, but humanity as a whole - 'world heritage of mankind.'(62)

Heritage of humankind can be interpreted to reflect the Enlightenment position of thinking and writing history in terms of humankind,(63) and I interpret the List to reflect a Renaissance and Enlightenment desire to 'establish the position of mankind in the grand scheme of things.'(64) Similar notions of humankind antedate the Enlightenment, and Kristeva has emphasised the ancient philosopher Meneander who says: 'I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me.'(65) In a similar way, World Heritage shows the universality of human expressions, and reminds us what it is to be human.(66)

This notion of a common history of humankind can be viewed as a metanarrative, a common myth which aims at unity instead of division.(67) Culture has historically been divisive, but is now interpreted as a unifying force of internationalism,(68) and World Heritage sites become - in the words of the President of China, Shangkun - 'one of the friendly links between the world's people....'(69)

The ultimate goal of this metanarrative is not conservation - conservation is a tool only to achieve a higher goal - but peace among people, which is the ultimate aim of UNESCO: 'That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.'(70) This was one of the roles of World Heritage sites Mayor emphasised during the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992; they 'serve to remind humanity of its unity in diversity and thereby contribute powerfully to one of UNESCO's essential goals - the promotion of mutual understanding and solidarity among peoples....'(71)

After these interpretations of what a 'common heritage' denote, I will search for the nature of this heritage.

2.4. Monumentalism and Westernisation?

Analysis of the List immediately gives the impression of a 'common heritage' that is dominated by Europe (figure 2.1.), some large countries (2.2.) and sites of a monumental character.

Europe has clearly the highest number of sites on the List, while Africa is the continent with least sites on the List. The ten States Parties with most sites on the List are responsible for almost 40% of the cultural World Heritage. Remaining ninety-seven States Parties with cultural or natural sites on the List are responsible for 60% of the cultural sites on the List. France and Spain take the leadership, each with twenty-one cultural sites inscribed.

Analysis of the List in categories of sites shows that highest representation on the List are by historic towns (28%), archaeological sites (26%) and Christian monuments (20%). Religious monuments that are not Christian have a minor representation on the List (8%).(73) The majority of sites are of a monumental character.

These three analyses demonstrate that certain cultural manifestations are favoured more than others as forming part of the World Heritage.(75) This Western attitude to cultural heritage was strongly criticised by the World Commission on Culture and Development in 1995:

[The Convention] was conceived, supported and nurtured by the industrially developed societies, reflecting concern for a type of heritage that was highly valued in those countries. The World Heritage List... reflects a framework which is not really appropriate for the kinds of heritage most common in regions where cultural energies have been concentrated in other forms of expression such as artefacts, dance or oral traditions.(76)

Despite a List favouring European heritage, there is a strong concern that it should be more representative. The Bureau suggested at its first meeting in 1978 that to attain a balanced List, each country should limit themselves to two nominations for the first inscription.(77) IUCN expressed the view in 1979 that delegates to the Committee should not advocate for nominations submitted by their own countries, but limit themselves to clarifying the information already provided.(78) In 1981 the Committee realised that the List was still not fully representative of the heritage of the whole world and stated that the 'List should be as representative as possible.'(79)

However, it is doubtful whether it is possible to create such a thing as a representative List that reflects human culture. Human culture is not a fixed entity, and all attempts to grasp the varieties of culture will conflict with the problem of representativity. A major problem is that in a World Heritage context, culture is perceived by an international Committee outside given cultures. This problem has already been expressed during the first session of the Committee in 1977.(80) Cleere has also demonstrated that a large number of European cathedrals have been inscribed on the List because these monuments have a secure aesthetic and art-historical standard. When the Committee discusses less appealing categories, there is a tendency that these are deferred for comparative studies.(81)

The debate concerning a representative List has culminated in the launch of a Global Strategy, which has been said to shock some of the Convention's fundamental ideas.(82) Emphasis is on traditional and living cultures and cultural landscapes are one new category of sites.(83) When experts suggested the Global Strategy in 1994, they would sett aside a rigid and restricted List and

instead take into account all the possibilities for extending and enriching it by means of new types of property whose value might become apparent as knowledge and ideas developed. The List should be receptive to the many and varied cultural manifestation of outstanding universal value through which cultures expressed themselves.(84)

The Global Strategy seems to demonstrate a possible change in emphasis from perception from outside the culture to inside. During the first Global Strategy meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, October 1995, Southern-African cultural heritage was discussed in relation to the Convention. Participants at this meeting stated that 'Africans themselves are best placed to tell us exactly what the universal and exceptional aspects of their physical heritage are.'(85)

Despite all these efforts to create a representative List, it has still not succeeded (figure 2.1., right). Europe has continued to increase the number of sites after the launch of the Global Strategy. Of the nominations for consideration for inscription on the List during the twenty-first session of the Committee, December 1997, 63% come from Europe.(86)

It is debatable if the attempts to make a balanced List will succeed. First, there is not only a Western hegemony in perception of what cultural heritage is, but also in the management of World Heritage. Despite a new emphasis on viewing universality from inside a given culture, World Heritage activities are still executed under the auspices of the world community. The expert meeting that launched a Global Strategy in 1994 was held in Paris and dominated by participants from the Western world; the Global Strategy meeting in 1995 was attended by experts and international observers from Europe; there is an imbalance in the Committee, noted by Algeria in 1987.(87) Second, it is doubtful if it is possible to create an inventory of the diversity of human culture by identifying cultural heritage of 'outstanding universal value.' We express ourselves in a variety of ways that are not outstanding, but represent the daily life. The capturing of the condition of humankind in what is universal is therefore a poor representation of what it is to be human. Third, inscription of new categories of sites from traditional cultures that are still living and with emphasis, inter alia, on spiritural and creative expressions, might raise new ethical dilemma. The world community's enjoyment of this heritage is more controversial than the enjoyment of heritage of 'dead' cultures. Fourth, the emphasis on representativity of the List calls into question what function it has. If the preparatory work of the Convention emphasised the importance of conservation or enjoyment of cultural heritage, the focus on balance seems to denote that the major function of the List is to capture the position of humankind in sites and monuments.

2.5. Summary

The discussion has shown that the concept of a 'common heritage' reflects a variety of meanings. It also demonstrates that not all heritage is a 'common heritage,' and those expressions that constitute the World Heritage are dominated by the Western culture. After coming to this recognition, I will direct my attention to various local levels and see in what way the designation of a World Heritage has an impact and try to identify some of the commitments to a 'common heritage.'

Footnotes

(1) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(2) UNESCO 1996a

(3) UNESCO 1997?

(4) www.icomos.org/docs/athens_charter.html

(5) UNESCO 1970a: 48 (my emphasis)

(6) UNESCO 1970a: 9 (my emphasis)

(7) UNESCO 1954: Preamble

(8) UNESCO 1970b: Preamble

(9) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(10) UNESCO 1972: Article 12

(11) Titchen 1995: 1

(12) Cleere 1996: 228. The position here is similar to that taken for example by Clark when he wrote his world prehistory (Clark 1961). Prehistory is seen as the uniting factor of all people, and the only history that can be common to all civilisations (Clark 1939/1968: 263 and 1970: 51). Similar view is also expressed by Daniel (1962/1964: 166). An underlying assumption is that material traces of the past can not necessarily be associated with the people living in the same area thousands of year later, and serving as symbols of nations. The main bond is that they also live there (Johansen 1990:239). Prehistory should from this point of view appear somehow anonymous, but the result might be the opposite - claim from more groups of ownership (see Chippendale et al. 1990).

(13) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 19

(14) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: § 13

(15) Waldron 1992: 9. Thorsell is advisor for IUCN concerning nominations of natural sites to the List.

(16) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: § 13

(17) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 1/4. Train was in 1992 chairman of the World Wildlife Fund and the Conservation Foundation.

(18) Parent 1988: 32. Parent was a member of the committee that drafted the Convention, later chairman of the Committe and president of ICOMOS 1981-1987.

(19) Prott 1992a: 83

(20) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: Annex II/7

(21) RA Doc. 1980? It is noteworthy that in context of the Convention is the concept of World Heritage protected, and not all of the worlds' inheritance is a World Heritage. The Committee objected in 1979 against the name of an organisation in the UK bearing the name 'World Heritage Association' and stated that 'the term "World Heritage" should be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention' (UNESCO Doc. 30 November 1979b: 4), and in 1980 a paragraph concerning protection of the name was included in the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO Doc. 29 September 1980: § 31, UNESCO 1997b: § 124).

(22) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 17

(23) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 2/3

(24) UNESCO Doc. 27-29 April 1995: Annex C

(25) Tanner-Kaplash 1989: 16

(26) Boulding 1966

(27) Strati 1995: 440

(28) UNESCO 1972: Articles 15-26

(29) Titchen 1995: 40ff

(30) www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/constitution/index.html: Article 2(c)

(31) UNESCO Doc. 1948: Resolution 6.43

(32) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1963: 2-3

(33) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1963: 2-3 (my emphasis)

(34) UNESCO Doc. 16 June 1964: Annex 2: 22

(35) UNESCO Doc. 16 June 1964: 2

(36) Train 1992: 377. Fisher was then president of Resources for the Future.

(37) UN 1962: Resolution 1844

(38) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1110

(39) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1117

(40) UNESCO 1972: § 3

(41) Newspapers: Aftenposten, Thursday 18 April 1985 (my translation)

(42) UNESCO 1983/1985: 98

(43) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1124

(44) Cf. Cleere 1992, Prott 1992

(45) Pressouyre 1996: 9ff

(46) UNESCO Doc. 4 February 1994: XIV.2, UNESCO 1997b: § 139

(47) UNESCO Doc. 16 November 1994: § 3

(48) Chapman 1994: 122

(49) Mayor 1988: 4

(50) Hodder 1993: 13

(51) Gardner 1966: 142 (my emphasis)

(52) Merryman 1983: 759 (my emphasis). See also 1985 (pages 1895, 1916, 1923) and 1986. However, Merryman's major concern is a possible contadiction between the common heritage of mankind principle in the 1954 Hague Convention and a cultural nationalism in the 1970 Convention.

(53) Williams 1978: 52 (my emphasis)

(54) Magga 1990: 120

(55) Langford 1983: 4

(56) Bowdler 1988: 521

(57) Cf. Wallerstein 1974, Wolf 1982

(58) UNESCO 1982: 17

(59) Greenfield 1989: 82

(60) Anne Raidl, quoted from Cleere 1993b: 13

(61) Borrero 1992: 86

(62) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(63) Harbsmeier 1989: 94, Randall 1926/1976: 371

(64) Impey & MacGregor 1985: 2

(65) Kristeva 1991: 56, 1993: 20

(66) Wheatley 1997: 3

(67) Eriksen 1996: 81

(68) Tanner-Kaplash 1989: 201

(69) Shangkun 1992: 97

(70) www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/constitution/index.html: Preamble

(71) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 2/4

(72) Based on UNESCO 1997a. Middle-East, Armenia, Cyprus, Turkey and Uzbekistan are included under Asia/Pacific.

(73) This anaylsis is based on ICOMOS Doc. 1994? and Cleere 1996. Updated for 1994-1996 by me after UNESCO 1997a.

(74) Based on UNESCO 1997a

(75) Western World Heritage bias underlines a European dominance also evident in many writings of world prehistories (see Kohl 1989, Preucel & Hodder 1996: 521) and world histories (see Burke 1989 on the UNESCO writing of a history of humankind).

(76) Cuéllar 1995: 178

(77) UNESCO Doc. June 1978: §§ 20-21

(78) UNESCO Doc. 30 November 1979a: § 15

(79) UNESCO Doc. 5 January 1982: § 22

(80) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 19

(81) Cleere 1993b: 11

(82) Boukhari 1996: 7

(83) Cf. Cleere 1995, Droste et al. 1995, Titchen 1995 and 1996

(84) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1994: 3 (my emphasis)

(85) Berre & Messan 1995: 85

(86) ICOMOS Doc. May 1997

(87) UNESCO Doc. 20 January 1988: §§ 42-43