Gamini Wijesuriya

ABSTRACT This paper argues that modern conservation concepts, as portrayed in documents like the Venice Charter, have led to the ‘secularisation’ of built heritage. The term ‘secularisation’ is used to describe the over-emphasis on materiality that has led to it being distanced from people. The main focus of this approach has been on the well-being of the material contents of heritage. The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that conservation philosophy in its formative stages was rooted in the contemporary secular values of the Western world. The paper discusses secularisation and its consequences, resistance to change and its authority or dominance in conservation practice. Despite this dominance and authority, the paper argues that changes which focus on people have happened, particularly, over the last two decades. These changes are characterised as the de-secularisation of heritage. Such changes can also be read as a paradigm shift of moving from the care of heritage to that of pursuing the well-being of both heritage and society as a whole. While providing some sources that can sustain de-secularisation, the paper argues that this shift is a sine qua non for heritage to be meaningful and also to act as a cultural motivator for development.
KEYWORDS secularisation, conservation, management, heritage

The modern conservation movement that began to influence heritage practice globally from the mid nineteenth century propagated a " one size fits all " approach. It dealt primarily with monuments and sites, which were seen as belonging only to the past, threatened by the actions of nature and human beings, and best understood and interpreted by heritage professionals – the experts – through the application of scientific approaches (Wijesuriya 2010). In this view, the role of the present generation is to act as guardians and to ensure that, in the words of the Venice Charter, monuments and sites are passed on to future generations " in the full richness of their authenticity " (ICASHB 1964: pmbl.). Such authenticity was to be judged in terms of materials, form, design, and setting, thus placing the main focus on fabric and leading to an educational response that focused on the technical. This way of understanding heritage and going about its conservation has been identified as the Conventional Conservation Approach (Wijesuriya 2010). Since the 1980s, scholars have criticized it as too narrow and fabric‐bound, and have sought to focus more on the cultural politics underlying the interpretation and valuation of heritage. Among those developing these criticisms, Laurajane Smith (2006) characterized the conventional approach as Authorised Heritage Discourse. The present volume makes it abundantly clear that it is now necessary to deal with a wide variety of issues, many of which have been discussed in the preceding chapters, and that the range of disciplines relevant to the task has broadened beyond archeology and architecture to CHapter 37

The deliberate destruction of the Temple of the Tooth Relic in Sri Lanka (a World Heritage Site) in 1998 is seen as an attempt to destroy the identity of a group, the Singhalese Buddhist community. It is argued that the assault on group identity helped to justify the decision that was taken immediately to
proceed to physical restoration of the shrine and its continuity as a place of worship. The author argues that the ‘cultural content’ of heritage lie in a place’s function, its community connection and its continuity; it is these that give a society identity. He describes the significance of the temple, the role of the local monastic community and its expectations regarding restoration, which led to a negotiated solution that
reconciled local aspirations with the principles of international conservation practice.