The author acknowledges TU Wien Bibliothek for financial support through its Open Access Funding Programme.
“Visual Integrity”: Everywhere Yet Nowhere
At the World Heritage Committee’s 36th session at St. Petersburg in 2012, State Parties met to review the controversial construction of a viaduct near a World Heritage site in Panama. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) argued that construction would impair the “visual integrity” of the Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá. On this basis, ICOMOS recommended adding the site to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. Footnote 1 This sparked debate among State Parties on two fronts. The first centered on practical issues: construction scale, progress, and site impact.Footnote 2 The second debate revolved around abstractions surrounding the term “visual integrity.” The delegation from India argued that the Panamanian people had the right to better infrastructure. The Indian delegation also noted that, despite featuring in committee discussions and inscriptions, the term “visual integrity” and its interpretations and applications remained arbitrary.Footnote 3 The term is not featured in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the document that has determined World Heritage Site selection since 1978. Consequently, and contrary to this expert opinion, the site stayed off the World Heritage Sites in Danger list.Footnote 4 Confusion surrounding the application of integrity creates persistent disagreements among state parties, and between parties and experts.Footnote 5 In 2013, at a meeting on visual integrity was held in Agra, India, a document stated that between 2004 and 2012, the World Heritage Committee examined 120 “issues and questions” on visual integrity.Footnote 6 It further noted: “As can be seen from the above debates and decisions, the term “visual integrity” has been used by the World Heritage Committee over time on many occasions, although the term is not defined by the Operational Guidelines.”Footnote 7
Along with “authenticity,”Footnote 8 the criterion of “integrity” is used to evaluate and inscribe World Heritage sites. The Operational Guidelines describe integrity as a “measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes.”Footnote 9 Assessing the integrity of a site then requires considerations of size, how well it represents what it is being nominated for (its “Outstanding Universal Value” or OUVFootnote 10), and whether it has been impacted negatively in any way. It is clear from these definitions that integrity is not an objective measure; indeed, the Kenyan delegation in 2008 noted that its interpretation and assessment were often highly subjective.Footnote 11 One could say it is found everywhere in the World Heritage realm in the committee’s discussions and even official site inscriptions, but it is nowhere officially defined.
This paper argues that visual integrity, although not explicitly defined in UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines, functions as a powerful and selective evaluative lens – one that privileges idealized visual intactness over the recognition of social complexity and the multifaceted histories of heritage sites. Idealized intactness can either entail prohibiting visual or material changes in the area of a site or actively suggesting the demolition of buildings to achieve visual unity. Both practices reflect a form of “white sight”Footnote 12 rendering certain histories visible while erasing others, reinforcing colonial and exclusionary views on World Heritage sites. Mirzoeff conceptualises white sight as visual politics driven by patriarchy, racism, and capitalism, designed to uphold white supremacy and marginalize all that is non-white.Footnote 13 In the disciplines of architecture and heritage studies, concepts of visuality not only inform the documentation of sites but also shape our perception and modification of historical environments, as well as the ways in which we construct their meaning.Footnote 14 Consequently, examining integrity in the context of white sight serves as a framework for exploring the interconnections among normative aesthetics, art, architecture, and heritage.
The article begins by exploring the concept of “white sight” through a discursive analysis of the relationship between integrity and the history of European heritage conservation, as well as the World Heritage domain. Initially, it examines how widely cited texts in European heritage conservation, specifically those by John Ruskin (1819–1900) and Cesare Brandi (1906–1988), employ the notion of integrity. These texts, whether discussing architectural decay or restoration, share a common underlying ideology of purity within their conceptualization of integrity. The article then investigates this historical bias within the concept of integrity in World Heritage by analyzing protocols and documents from World Heritage Committee sessions, all revisions of the Operational Guidelines since 1978, and the global strategy, charters, and recommendations on the protection of historic urban areas. These are identified as significant discursive arenas for the history of integrity.Footnote 15
Following an analysis of the discursive evolution of integrity, this article examines two specific instances of World Heritage site inscriptions, emphasizing the definition of integrity in these contexts. Most scholarly work has concentrated on the definitions of integrity and its future applications, with comparatively little research on existing applications.Footnote 16 Based on an analysis of all 275 statements of integrity between 2005 and 2023,Footnote 17 I selected two case studies for closer examination: Mbanza Kongo, Vestiges of the Capital of the former Kingdom of Kongo, Vestiges of the Capital of the former Kingdom of Kongo (in Angola), and Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi (in Canada). They serve as meaningful examples, as their statements of integrity advocate for the retrospective demolition of buildings,Footnote 18 despite integrity often being described as safeguarding (visual) intactness. While these sites are located outside Europe and differ in size and character, their inscriptions contain similar interpretations of integrity and prove the thesis of a common logic of interpretation based on visuality. Rather than analyzing the inscription process or stakeholder perspectives, the second section of this article focuses on the presentation of sites through the brief inscriptions. It illustrates how the complexity of diverse heritage sites is simplified through the lens of these inscriptions. This reduction can be interpreted as evidence of how white sight is intertwined with the present, where efforts for decolonisation coexist with the aftermath of colonialism and contemporary ambitions for neocolonialism.Footnote 19
John Ruskin’s concept of virginal integrity
The use of integrity is foundational to the writings of influential conservationists and restorers such as Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814–1879), Ruskin, Alois Riegl (1858–1905), and Brandi. These prominent authors in the field of European heritage conservation have historically articulated that both the aesthetic intactness and the perception of authentic decay contribute to the visual appreciation of monuments. They have conceptualized this enriching experience through various notions of integrity. While they may not always use the term integrity, their work engages with closely related notions – such as Geschlossenheit (closedness, Riegl), état complet (complete state, Viollet-le-Duc), unità potenziale (potential unity, Brandi), and integrity itself (Ruskin) – to articulate concepts of visual and material wholeness.Footnote 20 As a result, discussions concerning integrity have historically been associated with aesthetics and the visual impact of monuments. This emphasis was later integrated into the World Heritage program, as participants in the program drew upon these concepts. In this article, I use Ruskin’s concept of integrity and Brandi’s unità potenziale to illustrate that integrity links to both the visuality of decay and the restoration of an object to ideal unity. But Brandi’s concept was the one extensively used by Jukka Jokilehto (1938–2023), who charted significant contributions to the literature on integrity and World Heritage.Footnote 21
In “The Seven Lamps of Architecture” (1849), Ruskin articulated the idea that the gradual and natural decay of a building is pleasing to the human eye.Footnote 22 Ruskin’s perspective and his opposition to restoration as illegitimate renewal has attracted considerable attention in heritage conservation.Footnote 23 Importantly, Ruskin’s concept of aesthetic decay connects to his notion of truth and integrity:
Down with it to the ground, grind it to powder, leave its ragged place upon the wall, rather; you have not paid for it, you have no business with it, you do not want it. Nobody wants ornaments in this world, but everybody wants integrity. All the fair devices that ever were fancied, are not worth a lie. Leave your walls as bare as a planed board, or build them of baked mud and chopped straw, if need be; but do not rough-cast them with falsehood.Footnote 24
In his argument, Ruskin condemned false ornaments and restoration while praising the integrity of authentic decay. When true architecture deteriorates, it attains an aesthetic Ruskin referred to as parasitical sublimity. Footnote 25 He equates this sublimity with the superior beauty that manifests when nature, as a divine entity, deteriorates a structure:
Whereas, even when so sought, it [the picturesque] consists in the mere sublimity of the rents, or fractures, or stains, or vegetation, which assimilate the architecture with the work of Nature, and bestow upon it those circumstances of colour and form which are universally beloved by the eye of man.Footnote 26
It can also be contended that this decay is intended to appeal not only to any observer but specifically the male gaze, as Ruskin draws parallels between decaying architecture and the body of a virgin in his writings.Footnote 27 His use of gendered metaphors to express his views on art and architecture,Footnote 28 and his appreciation of aging architecture paradoxically correlates with his preoccupation with intactness and virginity. Accordingly, Robson postulated that Ruskin’s view of antiquity is epitomized by young girls’ imagery.Footnote 29 Similarly, Austin concluded that Ruskin’s writings expected analogous virtues from architecture and women.Footnote 30
For Ruskin, the concepts of truth and integrity necessitate the stylistic purity of historical architecture, one that was violated by progress and innovation, leading to its loss of supremacy:
So fell the great dynasty of mediaeval architecture. It was because it had lost its own strength, and disobeyed its own laws – because its order, and consistency, and organization, had been broken through – that it could oppose no resistance to the rush of overwhelming innovation. And this, observe, all because it had sacrificed a single truth. From that one surrender of its integrity, from that endeavour to assume the semblance of what it was not, arose the multitudinous forms of disease and decrepitude, which rotted away the pillars of its supremacy.Footnote 31
In this passage, Ruskin meticulously examines the deterioration of aesthetic purity and visual coherence, identifying it as a threat. It can be interpreted as the violation of stylistic purity, which precipitates social decay. Mirzoeff contends that rape has historically served as a potent metaphor, “central to both imaginary and practice of Atlantic world racialising capital.”Footnote 32 He described Ruskin as envisioning the British viewer as someone looking from the outside at the world through glass, observing what was to be depicted.Footnote 33 In doing so, he emphasises how this white perspective, judging from outside, aligns with Ruskin’s endorsement of white supremacy and colonialism.Footnote 34
As an art critic, Ruskin justified his judgment on society with the analysis of style and the visual appearance of architecture. His notion of integrity shows this phenomenon closely as he latently intertwines his idea of visual purity with the patriarchal norms he imposes on women. Conversely, if men can appreciate the visual deterioration of authentic historical architecture, they also demonstrate moral integrity and support gendered power hierarchies. Ruskin’s discourse on integrity illustrates that the depiction of a monument’s visual attributes serves not merely to assess aesthetics but also to render moral judgments about society. This more critical interpretation of Ruskin’s writings has not yet been recognized in the context of World Heritage even though Ruskin is referenced.Footnote 35 It is crucial to recognize that the concept of integrity has historically encompassed not only the physical restoration of monuments but also the appreciation of their decay. Ruskin’s writings, then, reflect an established architectural theory regarding the aesthetics of decaying architecture and its restored counterparts. This visual conceptualization of heritage sites, particularly historic towns, has consistently been a central theme in European heritage conservation, for instance, in the way urban planning has incorporated visual axes and viewpoints to strategically position monuments within cityscapes,Footnote 36 and also in the way that architectural design is intricately linked to the creation of drawings and their visuality.Footnote 37 Integrity serves as a discursive filter that focuses discourse on the visual outcomes of conservation and restoration.
Restoring the Unity of a Work of Art
In analyzing Ruskin’s work, examining individual quotes was advantageous for uncovering the gendered metaphors within his descriptions of historical architecture. Conversely, Brandi’s esteemed concept of potential unity, along with its reception within the World Heritage domain, effectively illustrates the connection between integrity and the restoration of heritage sites as works of art. However, Brandi’s theory requires a more comprehensive evaluation of his overarching concepts. This broader approach facilitates an understanding of his notion of potential unity and underscores its citation by experts who have shaped the interpretation of integrity within the World Heritage domain.
Brandi’s concept of potential unity was proposed by Jokilehto as a guideline for interpreting integrity in assessing World Heritage sites.Footnote 38 Jokilehto represented the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) on the World Heritage Committee and served as an ICOMOS advisor between 2000 and 2006.Footnote 39 According to ICCROM, Jokilehto “helped develop and refine key concepts and practices that emerge from the World Heritage framework, including the ongoing development of concepts such as authenticity and integrity as applied to World Heritage and methodologies for managing World Heritage properties.”Footnote 40 Jokilehto compares the application of integrity to understanding a work of art and its core idea. He strongly ties integrity to European art history, aesthetics, and Brandi’s teoria .Footnote 41 Brandi is one of the most renowned Italian restorers, having influenced the Italian school of restoration through his activities and published works.Footnote 42 From 1939 to 1960, he was the founding director of the Istituto del Restauro in Rome.Footnote 43 This institute has greatly impacted Italian restoration and played a significant role in international cultural property protection. It is affiliated with ICCROM, which was founded in 1959.Footnote 44 Among Brandi’s students is Paul Philippot, one of ICCROM’s founders.Footnote 45 Brandi himself also carried out UNESCO missions.Footnote 46
Central to Brandi’s theory is its focus on works of art, underlining the duality of historical and aesthetic qualities. According to Brandi, the historical aspect ( istanza storica ) is characterized by the materiality of a work of art as historical artefact.Footnote 47 More importantly, a work of art inherently possesses potential unity ( l’unità potenziale dell’opera d’arte ) that can be restored if the restorer grasps its artistic essence. For Brandi, the unity of a work of art surpasses mere replication of the real world, offering a distinct realm of realization.Footnote 48 As long as this unity remains potentially present within a fragmented work of art, it can be restored to reveal its (visual) unity once more. The potential unity, which Brandi elaborated extensively, also drew criticism.Footnote 49 Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that Brandi does not consider the social and political contexts of works of art, thereby normatively objectifying the restorer’s judgment.
Jokilehto interpreted the potential unity of a work of art as integrity, encompassing architecture, painting, cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, and historic urban areas as cohesive artistic entities. In the context of archaeological sites, Jokilehto refers to Brandi’s book on Leptis Magna, where Brandi asserts the archaeological site remains still intact on an ideal level, despite plundering by colonizers.Footnote 50 In this context, the potential unity of art depends on the restorer’s ability to render colonial plundering imperceptible by establishing ideal unity. The potential coherence of a work of art serves as a perspective through which the restorer can employ white sight and render the effects of colonialism invisible.
Ruskin and Brandi exemplify how integrity can be conceptualized as an overarching term representing visual purity and authenticity within the discourse of European heritage conservation. They characterize either the natural material decay of historical architecture or the ideal unity of a work of art as integral. At first glance, these interpretations may appear contradictory; however, both not only describe the visual and material characteristics of historical objects but also associate their notions of integrity with moral judgment or aesthetic idealism. Consequently, integrity encompasses ideas of visual purity and is also intertwined with the worldviews of Ruskin and Brandi. Although they articulate differing visual objectives for historical objects, both make these objectives contingent upon the authority of an external observer and evaluator: either the discerning art critic or the expert restorer. Thus, integrity is reliant on the perspectives of experts who assess heritage from an external standpoint. The influence of these discourses on contemporary interpretations of integrity within the World Heritage program becomes evident when Jokilehto references Brandi in his considerations on integrity and the evaluation of World Heritage.
Debates on change and intactness in historic urban landscapes
Within heritage scholarship, the concept of integrity has also strong links to the discourse on historic urban landscapes, which emerged from European heritage conservation in the early twentieth century.Footnote 51 The central idea here is to conserve and limit harmful changes to (mostly European) townscapes. The concept of integrity gained importance in the 1970s with the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, which stated that historical and architectural areas must remain “unchanged” wherever possible;Footnote 52 the French translation of this definition includes the word intégrité .Footnote 53 This largely Eurocentric view informs the Vienna Memorandum of 2005, a document that is not officially adopted but is nevertheless frequently cited in World Heritage documents and heritage conservation:Footnote 54
With regard to historic urban areas already inscribed on the World Heritage List, the concept of the historic urban landscape and the recommendations expressed in this Memorandum need to be taken into account when reviewing any potential or ascertained impact on the integrity of a World Heritage property.Footnote 55
Thus, a dichotomy between conservation and change is consistently reproduced regarding even highly populated areas like historical city centers. While concerns such as legibility, continuity, and protection against changes to the historical stock are used as arguments to conserve historic urban landscapes, the memorandum states that the protection of historical continuity and aesthetic qualities, such as visual axes and legibility, must remain goals of sustainable urban development:
Taking into account the basic definition (according to Article 7 of this Memorandum), urban planning, contemporary architecture and preservation of the historic urban landscape should avoid all forms of pseudo-historical design, as they constitute a denial of both the historical and the contemporary alike. One historical view should not supplant others, as history must remain readable, while continuity of culture through quality interventions is the ultimate goal.Footnote 56
Thus, the Vienna Memorandum views integrity as a negotiation between necessary change and protection against harmful gentrification or rapid urban development. Consequently, the influential Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes (HUL) in 2011 underlined the threat posed by rapid urban development and globalization to the integrity, urban fabric, and identity of communities.Footnote 57 From this perspective, integrity mandates conserving an unaltered state inhibiting dynamism, as critiqued by García-Esparza.Footnote 58
In the context of historic urban areas, Jokilehto posits that development and conservation can be reconciled, provided that the natural evolution of a place is protected and the “traditional habitat,” along with its context, is conserved. In his conclusion, Jokilehto compared the conservator responsible for a site to a biologist observing a specimen at risk of extinction.Footnote 59 Within this framework, the history of heritage sites is depicted as seamless continuity, perceived as natural evolution. This evolution must be guided by an ideal core or visual unity, which Jokilehto equates to the aesthetics of art referencing Brandi’s theoria. Jokilehto seemingly reconciles the apparent tension that integrity provokes between the intactness and necessary transformation of a site. Nevertheless, an analysis of the historical discourse reveals that the challenge of integrity lies not so much in the tension between conservation and restoration, as it has been used to justify both practices. Integrity is intrinsically associated with a discourse that establishes a hierarchy of visuals, which is justified by moral or intellectual judgment.
Interpretation and Evolution of Integrity in World Heritage
The concept of integrity as a qualifying condition for World Cultural Heritage emerged significantly in 1994 with the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced, and Credible World Heritage List, and was subsequently formalized in the Operational Guidelines in 2005. In 1978, the Operational Guidelines, adopted to govern the inscription and management of World Heritage sites alongside the World Heritage Convention, defined integrity but only used it as a criterion to inscribe Natural World Heritage sites.Footnote 60 Integrity emerges as a central theme in discussions concerning the global strategy, which promotes the integration of cultural and natural heritage rather than their categorical separation. This approach advocates for initiating with a nature–culture continuum to consolidate the criteria for both natural and cultural heritage. These concepts were revisited unsuccessfully during meetings in Phuket and Sri Lanka in 1993 and 1994.Footnote 61 At a 1996 meeting in France on the global strategy, a specific proposal was made to merge the criteria for natural and cultural heritage within the Operational Guidelines. Footnote 62 While amendments to the World Heritage Convention (1972) are challenging, the Operational Guidelines, since their inception in 1978, have been subject to continuous revision. These guidelines can be regarded as a form of soft law, allowing for greater flexibility in modifications. This objective was reiterated in 1998 at a meeting in the Netherlands, which Stovel identifies as a pivotal moment for introducing integrity as a fundamental qualifying condition for World Heritage sites.Footnote 63 Among other recommendations, it was suggested that integrity should be applied as a criterion for all World Heritage sites. However, authenticity, the existing criterion for World Cultural Heritage, should remain intact because certain World Heritage sites necessitate this criterion.Footnote 64 In 1998, UNESCO launched a comprehensive action plan in Kyoto aimed at disadvantaged regions worldwide. This plan is informed by analyses of the World Heritage list conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and ICOMOS. Criticism arises from the observation that European regions have yet to reduce their nominations to create a more balanced World Heritage list. The meeting report underscores the challenge of evaluating cultural and natural heritage using uniform criteria and differentiating between integrity and authenticity.Footnote 65 In 2000, a working group met in Canterbury, England, to integrate these aims into World Heritage processes and inscribe more sites outside Europe.Footnote 66 Nevertheless, the Operational Guidelines underwent significant revision only in 2005.
In 2005, a revised version of the guidelines changed the inscription criteria. Now integrity was declared an obligatory qualifying condition for the inscription of both natural and cultural heritage sites. From here on, state parties were requested to submit a mandatory “statement of integrity” to inscribe all properties on the World Heritage list. Paragraph 88 of the revised guidelines defines integrity and its conditions as follows:
“a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes” adding that its examination requires assessing the extent to which the property: “includes all elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value; is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance; and suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.”Footnote 67
Critically, paragraph 89 that follows adds an important caveat, stating that
for properties nominated under criteria (i) to (vi), the physical fabric of the property and/or its significant features should be in good condition, and the impact of deterioration processes controlled. A significant proportion of the elements necessary to convey the totality of the value conveyed by the property should be included. Relationships and dynamic functions present in cultural landscapes, historic towns or other living properties essential to their distinctive character should also be maintained.Footnote 68
Paragraph 88 describes integrity as a measure of the wholeness and intactness of a World Heritage site, which is related to the size and representativeness of its OUV elements and the influence of negative effects on the site. All of these aspects must be justified in a statement of integrity. According to paragraph 89, cultural and mixed sites must be in good material condition, and important elements, relationships, and dynamic functions should be protected. While it appears frequently in committee discussions and even inscriptions, the term “visual integrity” is not mentioned in this fundamental document. As for the application of integrity, to date, there is only a single footnote near paragraph 89 stating that “Examples of the application of the conditions of integrity to properties nominated under criteria (i) – (vi) are under development.”Footnote 69
Experts and heritage scholars have offered views and analyses of integrity. For Jokilehto, integrity refers to a historical continuity reflected in the social, functional, and structural aspects of a site, as well as in a consistent aesthetic that gives an area its historical appearance.Footnote 70 Building on this, Stovel merges the criteria of integrity and authenticity to propose a new criterion of “functional continuity” for inscribing World Heritage Ssites.Footnote 71 Eshrati, Eshrati, and Nezhad broaden the idea of continuity further by stressing the continuities of both material and intangible aspects to justify the integrity of a site,Footnote 72 while Khalaf views integrity as a measure of the continuity and compatibility of a World Heritage site.Footnote 73 All of these authors stress the importance of historical continuities (of particular functions, structures, or aesthetic qualities) in maintaining the integrity of a site and/or posit ways in which integrity may be applied to cultural heritage in the future. Fewer analyses have addressed the existing applications of integrity. In 2022, Liu et al. conducted a study that presented empirical data on the tourist experience in the city center of Prague through the use of eye-tracking technology. They advocated for the concept of visual integrity, which entails, for instance, maintaining undisturbed viewpoints to enhance the experience of visitors.Footnote 74 Budiman et al. identified orientation, sequence, continuity, and complexity as essential for maintaining integrity in Vienna, Istanbul, Kyoto, and Yogyakarta. Their methodology focuses on delineating visually recognizable historic urban areas and their surrounding landscapes.Footnote 75 Both studies primarily concentrated on identifying visual elements rather than engaging in a critical examination of the concept of visual integrity.
In his analysis of the World Heritage nomination process, Brumann equated integrity with the completeness of a property and the definition of sufficient boundaries for a World Heritage site.Footnote 76 Unlike other scholars, he identified continuity as a goal of authenticity, not integrity.Footnote 77 Taking the example of rural landscapes, García-Esparza sees visual integrity as often associated with a material intactness of architecture that has to be controlled.Footnote 78 For him, the interpretation of integrity, in particular, portrays a very static view of heritage that may curb the potential of dynamic change for the development of a site. He states that “the approach to this concept should be twofold, examining both material and social continuity,” and concludes that there is little room for dynamism in the concepts of authenticity and integrity.Footnote 79 The discourse surrounding the balance between change and continuity in preserving the integrity of World Heritage sites is essential for understanding integrity in academic research and its evolution within the World Heritage context, as evidenced by repeated analyses of the discourse. However, the case studies indicate that an emphasis on the visual impact of changes may obscure the intricate historical and social dimensions of a site.
Mbanza Kongo, Vestiges of the Capital of the former Kingdom of Kongo
In 2017, the remains of Mbanza Kongo, the capital of the former Kingdom of Kongo, were inscribed as World Heritage sites.Footnote 80 Situated in present-day Angola, the inscription on the 90-hectare site highlights the outstanding precolonial architecture of the Kongolese people.Footnote 81 It continues to document the arrival of the Portuguese and the addition of stone buildings and churches constructed through European methods. The inscription states that although the Portuguese spread Christianity across the population, Kongolese culture was not entirely displaced. The last sentence of its OUV synthesis states:
The Kingdom of Kongo was at the centre of the most important route for the trade in enslaved persons, who were deported to the Americas and the Caribbean. No material vestige attesting to the slave trade has been found up to now.Footnote 82
Thus, the remains of the kingdom and Christianization are presented as harmoniously complementary historical periods in the inscription. Further, the site’s statement of integrity refers to its “visual integrity” as “fragile” and considers the removal of elements as a given:
The conditions of visual integrity of the property are fragile, particularly because of the presence of telecommunications antennae (currently being dismantled) and the airstrip, located in the buffer zone, built by the Portuguese in the interwar years. The demolition of the airstrip, which is rarely used nowadays, has been confirmed by the State Party, and a new airport site has been chosen outside the town.Footnote 83
Press articles confirm that almost all of UNESCO’s requirements have been met and the new Mbanza airport is due to open in 2025.Footnote 84
The map delineating the spatial boundaries of the inscription reveals that the historical airport bisects Mbanza with its landing strip, functioning as a spatial threshold.Footnote 85 However, the inscription does not address the spatial impact of the airport; instead, it emphasizes the visibility of temporal layers. The airstrip in Mbanza Kongo was constructed between the two world wars and is about 100 years old, yet it diminishes the site’s integrity because it does not visually fit with its defined historical continuity. According to the most recent conservation report by UNESCO from 2020, the utilization of Mbanza airport was significantly limited, and the construction of a new airport to fully replace it was imminent.Footnote 86
The telecommunications antennae are similarly visually incompatible with the historical image of the early Christianization period. Both objects are regarded not only as historical but also as visual intrusions to the protected time period. The 2020 State of Conservation Report by the Ministry of Culture indicated that between 2017 and 2020, one antenna was replaced with a palm tree–shaped structure, another was relocated outside the buffer zone, and a third was in the process of being replaced. During this period, the government undertook efforts to substitute dismantled antennas with palm tree–shaped ones.Footnote 87 These procedures illustrate the intention to ensure that the visual elements closely mimic a natural environment, thereby concealing technical features within the designated site area.
Furthermore, the slave trade is portrayed as an invisible variable with no material traces and little relevance to the site’s OUV period. Yet income from this trade enabled the construction of European-influenced architecture for the local elites.Footnote 88 Though there are different historical assessments about the extent of Portuguese influence on the kingdom through the costly rebuilding of Mbanza, or how much this influenced the expansion of the Portuguese colony of Angola,Footnote 89 it is agreed that Christianization did not take place without conflict between the Portuguese and the Kongolese elite.Footnote 90
Máximo critically reexamined the colonialist historiography of Mbanza. In the nineteenth century, archaeologists characterized Mbanza as colonial property and a result of colonial progress. In 1957, Mbanza, then known as São Salvador, was designated a Portuguese national monument. Following Angola’s independence, the communist party dismissed Mbanza as a relic of colonialism and regressive African traditions. According to Máximo, the heritage discourse in Angola underwent a significant transformation after 1992 when the Pope’s visit underscored the Christianization of Angola and its role as a historical confluence of diverse cultures. This narrative realigned the heritage site more closely with colonialist historiography and was adopted as the official narrative for its inscription as a World Heritage site. Consequently, a hierarchy of knowledge and historical evidence was established, marginalizing local interpretations of heritage sites and oral history.Footnote 91 The statement of integrity, with its focus on visuality, clearly reinforces this hierarchy and dismisses visible evidence, such as the antennae, that does not align with the narrative of harmonious Christianization. Concurrently, the slave trade is emphasized as being of lesser significance for the site because it is portrayed as invisible.
Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi
In 2019, the Canadian border region of Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi in the Milk River Valley was inscribed as a World Heritage site.Footnote 92 Over a thousand hectares, the site is considered sacred for the Blackfoot Nation or Siksikáíítsitapi. The inscription highlights that the archaeological remains are dated between 4,500 BP and 3,500 BP. It further indicates that the majority of the rock art images were created either prior to or shortly following the initial interactions with European settlers.Footnote 93 However, a rodeo has been held at this site since 1958.Footnote 94 The statement of integrity recommends relocating the rodeo grounds:
All the elements that are necessary to express Outstanding Universal Value are contained within the property boundaries, including a comprehensive representation of culturally significant landforms, a full range of characteristics of the two main documented traditions of rock art at Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi, and the viewsheds that contribute to their sacred character. The tangible and intangible attributes of Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi continue to be incorporated in the cultural and spiritual context of the Blackfoot people today. The rodeo grounds, located in the heart of the restricted access zone or archaeology reserve, should be removed and relocated in order to strengthen the property’s integrity.Footnote 95
In its evaluation of the nomination file, the IUCN questions the appropriateness of this on-site rodeo, citing reports of rodeo events that damaged the site.Footnote 96 The ICOMOS evaluation also mentions the rodeo’s negative impacts and damage to the rock art nearby, recommending its relocation within five years.Footnote 97 A letter from the director of ICOMOS’s evaluation unit to the permanent delegation of Canada to UNESCO even asks the state party for a timetable for the removal of the rodeo grounds, although the reasons for this demand and timeframe are unclear.Footnote 98
It is therefore significant that the site’s draft management plan, which is prepared by the state party, does not support the removal of the rodeo grounds, calling the rodeo a “cultural tradition of European settlers” and a valuable “expression of Western culture.”Footnote 99 The plan deems the rodeo “non-conforming-use” and notes that it is visible from certain viewpoints in the area of the cultural landscape. The nomination file terms the rodeo a “moderate visual intrusion.”Footnote 100 Yet the 2018 draft plan also characterizes the fence which separates the rodeo from the area of the inscribed property as an aesthetic intrusion to both the cultural landscape and the rodeo events. Amid problems with graffiti and rock art damage from rodeo events, the current management plan aims to remove the visually intrusive fence in favor of another protective solution.Footnote 101 The 2023 management plan presents the rodeo as a “tangible expression of western Canadian culture” and a “part of modern Indigenous cultures.”Footnote 102 To date, no further reports have been published on the UNESCO website.
In Writing-on-Stone, the call to remove a rodeo constructed in 1958 is far from self-evident. Terming this “visual intrusion” means the subsequent creation of a supposedly undisturbed historical environment, but the rodeo is arguably a historical part of the cultural landscape; it has been treated as such by the state party.Footnote 103 The inscription for Writing-on-Stone does not mention the intangible history of the practice of rodeo or the site of the rodeo grounds as a symbol of discrimination and cultural appropriation. While Indigenous peoples historically taught white settlers how to rope cattle, the image of the white male cowboy still dominates mainstream media.Footnote 104 Barraclough argues that this image fueled the “myth of the frontier,” which justified settler colonialism and the occupation of Indigenous land in the United States, Australia, and Canada.Footnote 105 Discrimination faced by Indigenous people across the world is well documented; one might ask why rock art is damaged during rodeo events in the first place. The available management plans appear to fluctuate in their interpretation of the rodeo and the fence. However, they justify the rodeo and the fence as merely visually problematic without addressing issues of discrimination or racism.
James Opp examines the evolution of Writing-on-Stone from a relatively obscure site in the 1960s to its emergence as an official heritage site by the 2000s, complete with signage, infrastructure, and an interpretative center established in 2007. Contrary to the narrative of the seamless historical continuity of Blackfoot culture, Opp identifies that the rodeo grounds have been a contentious issue for decades. Visitors to rodeo grounds have caused traffic congestion, engaged in alcohol consumption, and damaged rock art.Footnote 106 Still, Opp concludes that the rodeo grounds have been systematically hidden from the visual narrative of the rock art:
Visitors and heritage officials alike have maintained a selective vision in reconciling the artistic and formal qualities of place, and selective visions have long guided a variety of understandings about what Writing-on-Stone should be.Footnote 107
Opp underscores the enduring racist and settler colonial history at Writing-on-Stone.Footnote 108 His primary critique targets the risk that the “spirit of place,” a significant concept for Canadian officials and ICOMOS in the context of intangible heritage, could homogenize perspectives on the heritage site into a “singular whole,” thereby obscuring conflicting histories and diverse viewpoints from stakeholders.Footnote 109 The statement of integrity, with its call to demolish the rodeo grounds, can hence be seen as a result of the site’s longer history, which is shaped by an archaeological gaze that envisions an intact prehistory.Footnote 110 Correspondingly, the brief synthesis of the inscription contextualizes the rock art as originating either prior to or shortly after the arrival of colonial settlers.Footnote 111 Opp’s critique of the projection of a singular whole can be linked to the discursive history of integrity, which seeks to restore a potential ideal unity, even when a site may be perceived as damaged or incomplete. From my point of view, emphasis on visuality neglects to address conflicting histories or the social implications of a heritage site, similar to how the rodeo grounds are abstracted as a visual intrusion and not discussed as symbols of settler colonialism.
Conclusion: Contextualising visual integrity in World Heritage Site inscriptions
Apart from denoting that the site is conserved as it is found at the time of its inscription, protecting visual integrity can involve actively demanding aesthetic changes at a site. From this perspective, visual integrity means removing all elements that do not visually fit with the historical OUV period. Both inscriptions describe built structures as foreign bodies and subsequent changes to the original historical design of the sites, even though they existed years before the World Heritage inscriptions. Therefore, subsequent changes to a site are not seen as historical continuity if they do not correspond to the development logic of the site defined by its inscription.
Both Mbanza and Writing-on-Stone are sites characterized by complex historical interactions with colonialism and settler colonialism. The integrity statements for these sites specifically address elements that visually contradict the narrative of harmonious Christianization and the uninterrupted continuity of Blackfoot culture. From Mirzoeff’s perspective, these descriptions align with the concept of “white sight,” which involves visual politics that either obscure colonialism or align the representation of non-white cultures with a narrative of historical evolution and their musealized presentation. In the case of Mbanza, the slave trade is rendered invisible, while in Writing-on-Stone, the demolishment of the rodeo grounds is demanded to support the narrative of harmonious continuity.
While statements regarding the integrity of the site do not directly cite the concepts of integrity as articulated by Ruskin or Brandi, they can nonetheless be associated with a heritage concept that explicitly connects heritage to its physical remnants, which must be conserved according to aesthetic principles. In this context, intactness and wholeness refer to the establishment of clear visual viewpoints and aesthetic characteristics of a site. The proposed measures for demolishing buildings may be more closely aligned with Brandi’s notion of potential unity and the idea of restoring a work of art, even if it is fragmented. From my perspective, it is significant that heritage sites, which encompass extensive areas or architectural ensembles, are approached using principles derived from the analysis of artworks, as exemplified by Brandi’s reception. This situation reproduces the historically well-documented tension between architecture as a living space and a work of art. As I have argued, Brandi played a pivotal role in establishing ICCROM and ICOMOS. He is also referenced by Jokilehto as a central figure in the discourse on integrity, while Jokilehto himself is commended by ICCROM for his significant contributions to the development of the concept of integrity as applied to World Heritage Sites. This opens up a discursive avenue that may be interpreted as a strong indicator of Brandi’s influence in shaping the interpretation of integrity from the advisory bodies’ perspective. The commonality among all the concepts of integrity presented is their focus on closely controlling the visual appearance of historical architecture, works of art, or heritage sites, striving to achieve a defined state of visual purity as closely as possible.
This article has shown that the concept of integrity, particularly in its implicit guise as “visual integrity,” operates less as an objective evaluative tool and more as a selective aesthetic lens shaped by historical and political forces. By tracing its intellectual roots in European conservation theory and its aesthetic ideals of purity and completeness, I demonstrated how the language of integrity, even when applied to globally diverse World Heritage sites, continues to perpetuate a Eurocentric and colonial framework of heritage assessment. The case studies of Mbanza Kongo and Writing-on-Stone reveal how the pursuit of visual unity not only marginalizes complex local histories but also silences narratives – such as the slave trade or settler colonialism – that do not conform to the curated image of harmonious continuity.
Open access
