Introduction
Cultural heritage encompasses, among other things, the intangible, human dimension of cultural assets that is reflected in the sum of stories and meanings attributed to them by people and communities.Footnote 1 These meanings and stories are often what connect cultural assets to national or local identity and memory, making them worthy of protection and preservation.
Legal protection of cultural heritage follows pragmatic and economic considerations.Footnote 2 As the listing of heritage encourages states to allocate substantial resources for preservation and sustainable management, most legal systems do not attempt to protect all their heritage indiscriminately. Instead, states rely on pre-established criteria or context-specific assessments to select cultural assets worthy of heritage status. This process of attribution operates as a filter that balances competing heritage values through the lens of a state’s institutional culture, national identity, and legal history. Broadly defined, these criteria attribute a “national character to objects, independently of their location or ownership, and legitimize national export controls and demands for the ‘repatriation’ of cultural property.”Footnote 3
Although the debate on intrinsic versus contextual heritage values is well charted from many different angles by scholars in heritage studies,Footnote 4 legal scholars have rarely treated attribution criteria as a subject in their own right.Footnote 5 This omission may create the misleading impression that all attribution criteria are or should be universal. Yet when heritage is assumed to be universally intelligible, it risks underestimating the plurality of heritage values at national levels. This article argues that national heritage attribution operates along a broad spectrum, in which legal systems integrate intrinsic values (e.g., age, rarity, architectural style) and contextual values (e.g., historical or personal associations, social and moral significance, and community traditions) through distinct normative frameworks. Similar comparative studies have been done only for intangible cultural heritage (ICH).Footnote 6
By mapping five national heritage attribution frameworks from distinct legal and geographic contexts—Italy, Australia, Japan, the United States of America, and Peru—onto an “intrinsic–contextual spectrum,”Footnote 7 this article discusses why there is no single continuum from intrinsic to contextual values. The article is made up of the following parts.
The first section sets out the theoretical framework, defining key concepts in heritage attribution and situating the study within the debate over intrinsic versus contextual values. The next section briefly analyzes the attribution standards of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural HeritageFootnote 8 (the 1972 Convention) and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural HeritageFootnote 9 (the 2003 Convention). The third part presents five jurisdictional case studies—Australia, Japan, the United States, Peru, and Italy. The fourth part places all the selected attribution frameworks on an intrinsic–contextual spectrum and provides an in-depth comparative analysis and discussion. The conclusion summarizes our contributions, offers recommendations for future heritage policy, and proposes ideas for further research.
Theoretical framework
Attribution of cultural heritage takes place at three distinct levels—community, national, and global (World Heritage). Each level is governed by its own legal thresholds, categories, and procedures. Whether an object is inscribed on a national register or the World Heritage List (WHL), becomes subject to export controls, or must be reported as an archaeological findFootnote 10 depends on and in turn shapes these attribution criteria.Footnote 11 These criteria function as an artificial legal filter that creates “official heritage,”Footnote 12 determining what is protected and what is excluded and how governments determine conservation priorities and eligibility for funding and pursue restitution claims.
At the core of all attribution systems lies the concept of cultural significance. Cultural significance may be defined as an aggregate of aesthetic and social values, historical narratives, and scientific or spiritual values of a place for past, present, or future generationsFootnote 13 “embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.”Footnote 14 It is a fluidFootnote 15 and multivalent social construct that reflects overlapping cultural and economic values.Footnote 16
To operationalize heritage values in law,Footnote 17 jurisdictions tend to translate them into concrete thresholds like age, rarity, financial value, or historical association or into more evaluative categories such as artistic value, social importance, or research potential. Scholars of heritage studies have divided heritage values into intrinsic (inherent, objective) and contextual (socially constructed, community-driven) values.Footnote 18 In the field of environmental ethics, intrinsic or noninstrumental value is the “value that an object possesses independently of the valuations of valuers.”Footnote 19 However, as Harding points out, by construing intrinsic value in strictly objective terms, the objective values theory limits its scope to such an extent that cultural heritage cannot be regarded as having intrinsic value apart from culture itself.Footnote 20 Thus, Harding notices the need for an adaptive approach and suggests that for cultural heritage, intrinsic value should refer to “essential, irreducible value that rests in its embodiment of aesthetic and cultural experiences.”Footnote 21 This can be, among others, age, rarity, architectural style, craftsmanship, and integrity of cultural objects.Footnote 22 The role of an elite group of valuers, like architects, art historians, and archaeologists, in determining the age, rarity, authenticity, and other feature of a cultural objectFootnote 23 does not negate the intrinsic character of heritage values. Following the same approach, this paper defines intrinsic values as qualities inherent to the object itself, which may be embedded in materials, architecture, craftsmanship, aesthetic or artistic excellence, technical complexity, authenticity, rarity, and so on.
In contrast, contextual (contingent,Footnote 24 extrinsic,Footnote 25 or instrumentalFootnote 26) value is embedded in the associations, meanings, stories, and uses that communities, groups, and individuals attach to a site or practice.Footnote 27 In this approach, the value of heritage arises from its use for understanding social, historical, economic, or other contexts.Footnote 28 Contextual values are woven by communities and individuals around cultural heritage and shaped by their social structures and institutions.Footnote 29 This paper defines contextual values as qualities that arise from the object’s external associations, such as historical significance, association with persons and events, religious or social use, contribution to landscape or setting, and cultural symbolism.
Although the artificial divide between intrinsic and contextual values is analytically useful—and is adopted as such in this article—heritage cannot be defined exclusively by either category. Likewise, the UNESCO conventions are not constructed solely around intrinsic or solely contextual values, and no significant strand of scholarship advocates such an idea.Footnote 30 Yet it would be safe to argue that the 1972 Convention and the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) lean toward the intrinsic value framework by borrowing its many important elements, whereas the 2003 Convention leans toward contextual values.
At the national level, as different jurisdictions employ nuanced blends of heritage attribution criteria that reflect their legal traditions, institutional structures, and priorities,Footnote 31 a comparative legal analysis is needed to revisit the diversity of intrinsic and contextual approaches to heritage attribution. In heritage attribution, comparative legal analysis has only been conducted concerning the methods of attribution.Footnote 32
This article employs a comparative analysis of heritage attribution criteria in five jurisdictions, namely Italy, Australia, Japan, the United States, and Peru. This selection spans five continents and distinct legal traditions and includes both civil and common law regimes. Our study combines a doctrinal analysis of relevant statutes, regulations, and operating guidelines, followed by a comparative review of the attribution of places to national heritage. By mapping each system onto an “intrinsic–contextual spectrum,” we demonstrate how each jurisdiction’s legal framework presents a distinct blend of values stemming from cultural sites themselves and associations and meaning attributed to cultural sites.
Before we move on to national frameworks and comparative analysis, the next section summarizes how UNESCO’s global frameworks incorporate and promote intrinsic and contextual approaches.
Heritage criteria in UNESCO’s global frameworks
The 1972 convention
Over five decades, UNESCO has established the global conceptualization of cultural heritage. The 1972 and 2003 conventions have provided key definitions, categories, and assessment standards now utilized by many states.
The 1972 convention has undergone a significant expansion since its adoption; its focus has shifted from monumental historic sites to diverse heritage forms in a more inclusive setting.Footnote 33 Today, the concept of “heritage” under the 1972 convention includes vernacular architecture, cultural landscapes, and intangible expressions. UNESCO’s World Heritage List has grown not only in the diversity of its properties but also in the complexity of categorization, listing, and monitoring. What originally began as a purely selective framework for “the masterpieces of the world” has become an increasingly inclusive model, which brings new tensions around standardization and the global visibility of local values.Footnote 34
At the heart of the 1972 convention lies the concept of “outstanding universal value” (OUV),Footnote 35 the conceptualization of which has been of great importance to the World Heritage Committee (WHC). For this purpose, the WHC adopted the “representativeness” criterion to allow the WHL to reflect the totality and diversity of all cultures of the world.Footnote 36 At the operational level, the pursuit of representativeness evolved through three stages. Initially, the idea was to conduct a global study to produce an inventory of all sites worthy of inscription, but this approach was abandoned as unrealistic.Footnote 37 In the early 1980s, the idea became identifying typologies and categories of cultural properties, drawing on both inscribed sites and national tentative lists to assess gaps in the coverage of the WHL.Footnote 38 Finally, in the early 1990s, the “global strategy” approach to the application of OUV replaced the static inventory model with a dynamic interpretation of universal value grounded in anthropological rather than purely aesthetic criteria. The goal was to reverse the structural imbalances that favored Eurocentric and monumental conceptions of heritage in the composition of the WHL.Footnote 39
For a site to be inscribed into the WHL, it must meet at least one of the 10 criteria and satisfy the conditions of integrity or authenticity, supported by appropriate management and protection mechanisms in place.Footnote 40 Authenticity, rooted in material integrity and visual continuity, remains a key criterion,Footnote 41 despite the global efforts like the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity pushing toward more dynamic interpretations of heritage.Footnote 42 The integrity criterion, though not originally part of the 1972 convention, has become a formal requirement for cultural properties since 2005.Footnote 43 It is defined as “a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes”Footnote 44 in expressing its OUV. Unlike authenticity, integrity avoids static notions of original state and focuses on whether the nominated site includes all the attributes necessary to show its cultural significance.
While the languageFootnote 45 of the 10 WHL criteria blends both intrinsic and contextual values, it leans notably toward intrinsic values by highlighting sites with artistic qualities, antiquity, and architectural magnificence encompassed in criteria (i), (iv), (v), and (vii–x). The adoption of the global strategy approach led to significant changes to five of the six criteria defining OUV, aiming to reflect intercultural interaction and the exchange of human values better.Footnote 46 For example, criteria (ii), (iii), and (vi) allow places with contextual values attributed by living and disappeared civilizations to be inscribed into the WHL. Particularly, criterion (vi) allows taking into account the ICH associated with tangible heritage.Footnote 47 Overall, the periodic revisions of operational guidelines have gradually expanded the interpretative scope of criteria (i–v) to accommodate emerging categories of heritage, the value of which depends more on contextual factors.Footnote 48 This has been without prejudice to the role of a comparative approach and universal appeal in the inscription of the places with predominantly intrinsic values into the WHL.Footnote 49
The 2003 convention
The 2003 convention represents a normative shift in international heritage governance by formally recognizing the value of intangible living traditions and community practices. It emphasizes the contextual or anthropological value of heritageFootnote 50 by placing the communities who create, maintain, and transmit intangible heritage in the center of attribution. It introduces a more participatory and flexible attribution model for ICH and formalizes “representativeness” and community agency through the Representative List (RL),Footnote 51 which serves to enhance the visibility of ICH and support its safeguarding.Footnote 52
Despite the influence of the 1972 convention,Footnote 53 the 2003 convention resists hierarchical universal rankings of ICH. Initially proposed criteria of “excellence” or “uniqueness” for ICH were rejected due to their resemblance to the “outstanding value” threshold of World Heritage.Footnote 54 Throughout the 2003 Convention, the terms “universal” and “outstanding” were also avoided, because the significance of ICH does not lie in its intrinsic values but in its relationship with the communities that create it and ensure its transmission and dynamic development across generations.Footnote 55
Elements of ICH nominated for the RL must fall within one or more of five domains (e.g., oral traditions, performing arts, social practices), be recognized by and confer a sense of identity and continuity on the communities that transmit them, and be actively transmitted and constantly recreated in response to changing environments.Footnote 56 The Operational Directives of the 2003 convention list five cumulative criteria for the inscription of an element of ICH:
-
• R1— falling within the definition of ICH in Article 2
-
• R2—the contribution of the inscription to the visibility and awareness of the significance of the ICH and to encouraging dialogue
-
• R3—the presence of safeguarding measures in place
-
• R4—free, prior, and informed consent of the community, group, or individuals concerned
-
• R5—the inclusion into national inventories.Footnote 57
As part of the definition of ICH in Art. 2(1) of the 2003 convention, Criterion R1 includes intergenerational transmission. It demonstrates the dynamic character of ICH, since its elements are continuously shaped and adapted in response to the environment, history, and other factors and foster a sense of identity and continuity.Footnote 58 It is generally considered difficult to assess Criterion R2 as it measures the impact of inscription on enhancing the visibility of ICH as a whole. It requires a broader perspective that goes beyond the views of the communities concerned.Footnote 59 Criterion R3 does not require the preservation of authenticity of ICH, which would risk the dynamic characteristics of ICH as the state parties try to keep it intact.Footnote 60 For satisfying Criterion R5, essential information for inventories include the element’s name, description, associated communities, geographical scope, functions, and transmission methods.Footnote 61
In addition to the five criteria, the nominated element must be compatible with human rights.Footnote 62 While the traditional practices that do not comply with human rights retain their status as ICH, they cannot benefit from the safeguarding mechanisms under the 2003 convention.Footnote 63
Unlike tangible heritage, intangible heritage often has a transboundary character, resulting in different groups, communities, or peoples attributing diverse contextual meanings and values to the same traditional practice.Footnote 64 The Operational Directives permit both single-state and multinational nominations,Footnote 65 provided that each nomination demonstrates the relevant contextual values, including community recognition and continuity of traditional practice. Successful single-state inscriptions, such as Chovqan,Footnote 66 and multistate inscriptions, such as Nowruz Footnote 67 and Falconry,Footnote 68 illustrate how the RL accommodates and recognizes the plurality of contextual values associated with ICH across different communities and regions.
Attribution criteria from a comparative perspective
UNESCO recognizes the freedom of each member state “to adopt the most appropriate criterion for assessing the public interest of objects found on its territory,”Footnote 69 which essentially is the attribution criterion for national heritage. This section studies national heritage attribution criteria in Italy, Japan, the United States, Australia, and Peru. Applying Harding’s classification of intrinsic (noninstrumental) and contextual (instrumental) heritage valuesFootnote 70 This section maps each country’s heritage attribution framework onto an intrinsic–contextual spectrum. The comparative spectrum is then examined to discuss patterns and correlations in the tendency of certain national frameworks toward intrinsic or contextual values.
Italy
Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (CHLC) reflects the strong role of the state in the attribution of cultural heritage. The CHLC defines “cultural heritage” broadly to include immovable and movable items of artistic, historical, archaeological, ethno-anthropological, archival, or bibliographical interest.Footnote 71 Objects owned by public bodies or private nonprofit associations are presumed to have cultural interest unless the Ministry of Culture declares otherwise, whereas privately owned assets require a formal declaration of cultural interest.Footnote 72 Thirty-nine superintendence offices staffed by archaeologists, art historians, architects, and other related experts assess cultural interest based on the criteria that are not publicly available.Footnote 73
Given the lack of published criteria of cultural interest, we turn to the legal criteria used to exercise export control over cultural property. The assessment criteria used in Italian export control practice combine intrinsic and contextual values. According to Ministerial Decree no. 537, cultural property must be assessed both in terms of its material qualities and its relationships with broader historical, social, and cultural contexts.Footnote 74 These six criteria include the following:
-
• Artistic quality
-
• Rarity
-
• Representational significance
-
• Belonging to a historical, artistic, archaeological, or monumental complex
-
• Particularly significant testimony of the history of collection
-
• Significant testimony of important relationships between cultural areas
The decree identifies artistic quality as a fundamental element of objective evaluation.Footnote 75 Artistic quality is assessed based on features inherent to the cultural object itself, including executive mastery, expressive capacity, and inventiveness and originality. Executive mastery refers to the level of technical skill and craftsmanship demonstrated in a cultural object. Expressive capacity concerns the semantic richness and formal complexity of cultural objects, which are assessed through comparison with other cultural objects.Footnote 76 Although it requires some contextual knowledge, the core of this assessment remains intrinsic, since expressive capacity would be inherent to the cultural object in question.
Rarity occupies an intermediate position between intrinsic and contextual values. Qualitative rarity relates to intrinsic features of cultural property, such as formal, thematic, typological, or technical characteristics that distinguish a cultural object from others of its kind. Quantitative rarity, by contrast, leans toward contextual values by assessing the number and availability of comparable cultural objects by the same author or within a similar category.Footnote 77
Representational significance leans toward contextual values. Its defining feature lies in the exceptional capacity of cultural property to represent cultural, historical, artistic, geographical, or ethno-anthropological realities through iconography or its documented connection to a broader historical setting.Footnote 78 Such representational significance of cultural property value derives less from its material qualities and more from what it signifies, such as its ability to embody a particular historical period, social practice, or cultural identity.
The criterion of belonging to a historical, artistic, archaeological, or monumental complex also represents a contextual value. It assesses the relationship of cultural property to an original or historically established context, even when that context can no longer be physically reconstructed. When cultural property may possess limited intrinsic quality, yet its removal would undermine the integrity of the complex, the decree requires the refusal of export.Footnote 79
Both of the last two criteria—significant testimony of the history of collection and significant testimony of important relationships between cultural areas—lean toward contextual values. The testimony of the history of collection focuses on the role of cultural property within historically or culturally significant collections. Even if cultural property is not of Italian origin, its relevance may stem from its involvement in cultural exchanges that have influenced Italian artistic, archaeological, or anthropological history.
The criteria set out in the decree for the export control over cultural property provide an attribution framework in which intrinsic and contextual values are not hierarchically ordered. In the absence of published criteria for the assessment of cultural interest for listing heritage, the criteria for export control provide a comprehensive picture of Italy’s attribution framework that uses both intrinsic and contextual values. Most of the six criteria highlight contextual values in the assessment of cultural objects, while artistic quality and, to some extent, rarity stand out as intrinsic heritage values. These conclusions will be relevant in a later section where we place Italy’s attribution framework alongside other national frameworks on a comparative spectrum.
Japan
Japan’s ICPNT framework
Japan presents a unique model of cultural heritage attribution that operates through two overlapping yet conceptually separate regimes: the designation of Important Cultural Properties and National TreasuresFootnote 80 (ICPNT) on one hand and the inscription into the Japan Heritage List on the other. While the former aligns more closely with conventional heritage attribution and governance, the latter introduces a narrative-based, community-oriented approach that prioritizes storytelling through heritage and uses ICPNT to revitalize local communities.
Under the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties,Footnote 81 ICPNTs are selected according to their “high historic, artistic and/or scientific value.”Footnote 82 This value is demonstrated, among others, by age and rarity, as well as “originality and authenticity of the asset, in terms of its architectural style, craftsmanship, or cultural practices.”Footnote 83 The National Commission for Cultural Affairs has published the following designation criteria for paintings and sculptures, crafts, calligraphy, classical books, ancient documents, and archaeological and historical material as important cultural properties:Footnote 84
-
• Excellent craftsmanship, the quality of production reflected in the object
-
• Uniqueness in terms of quality, form, or technique, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on the quality, form, and technique reflected in the object
-
• Particular significance in history, which is a contextual criterion assessed based on the historical importance of cultural property
-
• Representation of an artist/school/style, which is a mixed criterion combining the assessment of the intrinsic character of artistic style with the contextual examination of the association with an artist or school
-
• Particular significance to Japanese culture, which is a contextual criterion associating the value of a cultural object with its place in Japanese culture
-
• Originality or authenticity, which is an intrinsic criterion attributing value to manuscripts when they are original copies in history
-
• Being part of a historical or systematic collection, which is a contextual criterion because an object is considered valuable in the context of a broader collection
-
• High academic value, which is a contextual criterion because it emphasizes academic and research context
-
• Relationship with significant events, which is a contextual criterion that attributes value to an object in the context of an event
-
• Relationship with significant historical figures, which is a contextual criterion that attributes value to an object due to the significance of the figure it is associated with
-
• Exceptional craftsmanship and particularly profound cultural and historical significance (national treasures), which is a mixed criterion combining the instrinsic criterion of craftsmanship as embodied in an object with the contextual criterion of cultural and historical significance
A closer look at these attribution criteria shows that the ICPNT framework is not solely built upon intrinsic values. The emphasis on historic values brings the context of cultural properties to the fore. On the other hand, buildings, civil engineering structures, and other constructions are designated as important cultural properties based on their architectural and technical excellence, high historical and academic value, and notable characteristics of a particular school or region, which balances intrinsic and contextual values with an emphasis on the latter. Designation as a national treasure requires the cultural object to be extremely excellent, with especially deep cultural-historical significance, increasing the weight of contextual values in the heritage attribution.
To illustrate, the National Repository of Cultural Properties database entry for the Former Tokyo Science Museum (now Tokyo National Museum main building, 1931) lists the designation criterion as high historical value “as the first full-fledged museum building for social education in Japan.”Footnote 85 Here “high historical value” is contextual due to the emphasis on the role of the building in the history of social education in Japan, although the inscription notes the well-preserved design quality of the building. Overall, Japan’s ICPNT framework carefully balances intrinsic and contextual values while placing slightly more weight on contextual values.
“Japan Heritage” framework
Another regime that assesses and attributes values to heritage is “Japan Heritage.” The Japan Heritage framework attributes cultural significance through the narratives that are associated with the local identity and historical continuity of each city or region.Footnote 86 It shifts the focus from preservation to utilization of cultural assets for broader economic goals.Footnote 87 While the ICPNT framework serves the legal protection and preservation of cultural properties, the Japan Heritage framework aims to utilize ICPNTs for the revitalization of local communities and unlocking the tourism potential of different regions.Footnote 88 The granting of Japan Heritage status results in the allocation of monetary resources and mentorship for three years.Footnote 89 As of March 2026, 104 sites have been designated as Japan Heritage, with the latest designation being the city of Otaru.Footnote 90
The Agency for Cultural Affairs evaluates the nominations for Japan Heritage based on the following criteria:
-
• The narrative is based on historically unique traditions or local customs passed down over generations.
-
• The narrative has a clear thematic structure that reflects the cultural appeal of the area, including tangible and intangible heritage such as structures, archaeological sites, festivals, or scenic locations.
-
• The narrative is not mere historical summary but a cohesive and culturally resonant narrative.Footnote 91
The Japan Heritage model reflects a contextual approach to cultural heritage, with a slight inclination toward intrinsic values due to its connection to ICPNTs. The attribution process largely concentrates on the evolving social meaning of heritage, especially ICHFootnote 92 and its relevance to the revitalization of communities.Footnote 93 All three criteria listed previously embody contextual values such as connection to local customs, cultural appeal, and the history of the region. In addition, nominations must demonstrate not only a meaningful connection between local customs and the narrative but also the connection of the narrative to designated ICPNTs. For example, “The Henro: The Pilgrimage Route and 88 Temples of Shikoku” has been inscribed for connecting local customs and traditions to 88 Buddhist temples located on the Shikoku pilgrimage route, most of which have been listed as ICPNTs.Footnote 94
Both the ICPNT and Japan Heritage frameworks are illustrated on the intrinsic–contextual spectrum in a subsequent section, where the ICPNT is represented with a relative balance of intrinsic and contextual values and the Japan Heritage framework with a sole focus on contextual values. The spectrum also includes a combined entry for these two frameworks.
United States of America
The 1966 National Historic Preservation ActFootnote 95 established standards for listing historic properties and created the National Register of Historic PlacesFootnote 96 (NRHP). The attribution criteria reflect a mixed system that incorporates predominantly contextual and some intrinsic values. NRHP defines a property as a building, structure, object, site, or district that retains the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and satisfies at least one of the following four criteria:
-
• Events: Association with events that have contributed to broad patterns of history
-
• Person: Association with the lives of significant persons in the past
-
• Design or construction: Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master, or high artistic values
-
• Information potential: Potential to yield important information in history or prehistoryFootnote 97
It is important to note that despite the emphasis on some intrinsic qualities like craftsmanship and artistic beauty, each property must have a historic context.Footnote 98 The requirement for historic context reinforces a chronological, evidence-based rationale for attribution. A special class of historic preservation professionals plays an important role in the attribution of historic places to national heritage.Footnote 99
The “events” criterion leans toward contextual values because a property’s significance derives from its association with broader historical processes such as wars, revolutions, riots, or other significant events. The value does not stem from the features or appearance of the property but from the role it played within a wider historical development. This criterion accommodates community narratives around culturally remarkable events, as it did in the case of the inscription of the Old Bruley Plantation,Footnote 100 insofar as those narratives are supported by documentary research and physical evidence.
The “person” criterion is also contextual, as the value is found in the association of the property with an important historical figure. The assessment of this criterion depends on the historical role and contribution of that person, as well as the property’s connection to the historical figure in question, rather than the property’s own physical properties.
The “design or construction” criterion focuses on intrinsic values embedded in the structure, architecture, originality, level of craftsmanship, and high artistic value of the property. Although this criterion considers “works of a master,” it does not highlight the value due to the relationship of the work with a master but the craftsmanship of the work itself.
Finally, the “information potential” criterion contains elements from both intrinsic and contextual values. On the one hand, the scientific or archaeological information potential arises from the fabric of the property itself. This criterion is most often applied to archaeological sites and is based on the property’s capacity to yield important historical or scientific data through its physical remains. On the other hand, the information potential of the property would be meaningless without the historic or prehistoric context that requires information. Even if the potential stems from the property itself, the reason that makes the potential valuable lies in some historic or prehistoric context.
In addition to these four criteria, the requirement of integrity, which is sought in the location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association, concerns both intrinsic and contextual values. While the integrity in the design, material, and workmanship of the property is an intrinsic value, its setting, feeling, and association cannot be valuable without context.
Although the US criteria combine both intrinsic and contextual elements, a closer examination of each criterion shows that the system overall leans more toward the contextual side of the spectrum. The strength of this attribution framework lies in its legal and procedural clarity and consistency provided by NRHP’s comprehensive guidelines. Attribution decisions are supported by documentary research, peer review, and physical inspection. Even though the system formally recognizes traditional cultural significance, it often does so through NRHP’s standardized thresholds rather than participatory instruments.
Australia
Australia’s national heritage framework is regulated by the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation ActFootnote 101 (EPBC), which governs the National Heritage List (NHL). Under the EPBC, only places of outstanding heritage value to the nation may be inscribed, which triggers statutory obligations for the protection and conservation management of the listed heritage. While the EPBC provides the legal framework for the attribution of heritage value to different places, the Burra Charter, developed by Australia ICOMOS in 1979 and updated in 2013, provides guiding principles for the conservation and management of heritage by setting best practice standards. The Burra Charter defines heritage value as “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.”Footnote 102
The Australian Heritage Council (AHC) evaluates nominations against nine criteria that establish outstanding heritage value, using indicators such as integrity and authenticity. Places must demonstrate outstanding heritage value at the national level, which is usually assessed through comparative analysis with similar places.Footnote 103 Indigenous places are exempt from such comparative assessment. The following paragraphs weigh each criterion individually in terms of its position on the spectrum of intrinsic–contextual values.
-
• Events and processes. This criterion recognizes places shaped by natural, historical, or Indigenous events and processes of national importance. A site may qualify for national heritage where evidence, be it geological formations, ecological dynamics, or remnants of historic events, remains sufficiently intact to convey its role in natural climatic, social, or political transformations.Footnote 104 Thus, while a battle site or a fossil landscape may draw upon inherent qualities of material evidence, their selection depends on the contextual narratives of national identity and continuity.
-
• Rarity. This criterion identifies places that embody rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s heritage, often as the sole surviving example of a habitat, tradition, or artefact of national importance.Footnote 105 The rarity criterion invokes the intrinsic value approach, as its assessment prioritizes the uniqueness or endangered status of heritage places that must be supported by factual evidence.Footnote 106
-
• Research value. This criterion highlights places that can yield valuable information to understand Australia’s natural or cultural heritage. Here, the AHC distinguishes between mere interpretive value and the actual research value. The assessment relies on archaeological, ecological, or ethnographic evidence that promises new insights, emphasizing an objective, evidence-based approach.Footnote 107 This criterion combines both intrinsic and contextual values; the value depends on the specific intrinsic qualities of the place and the field of research that requires information about the place.
-
• Principal characteristics. A place must demonstrate the defining features of a broader class of places in terms of geological formation, architectural style, or industrial process.Footnote 108 This criterion requires completeness, coherence, and integrity and privileges intrinsic authenticity. A place may represent the principal characteristics of a broader class only if it embodies certain aesthetic, architectural, industrial, or other formal qualities.
-
• Aesthetic characteristics. This criterion concerns the sensory and perceptual experience of a place, as valued by communities and cultural groups rather than professional groups.Footnote 109 Aesthetic characteristics, though prima facie based on the intrinsic qualities of form, composition, and ambience, are validated by collective human responses to the visual and nonvisual aspects of the place.Footnote 110 This factor engages contextual considerations of memory, identity, and shared emotional resonance.
-
• Creative or technical achievement. A place must exhibit a nationally significant degree of design, craftsmanship, or technological innovation. The emphasis on a high degree of achievement reflects the intrinsic value approach.Footnote 111
-
• Social value. This criterion recognizes places for their enduring social, cultural, or spiritual associations with communities, including ethnic communities.Footnote 112 It reflects the contextual value approach, as the meaning of the place derives from persistent communal use and identity, whether among present or historically displaced groups.Footnote 113
-
• Association with significant people. This criterion selects places linked to nationally significant people in the history of Australia. The requirement that the place provide evidence of the formative or productive activity of significant peopleFootnote 114 places this criterion in a contextual framework.
-
• Indigenous tradition. The last criterion honors places that are important to Indigenous traditions. Within a two-stage test, the AHC first establishes a living connection to creation narratives or ceremonial practices, then confirms that the context of the place is exemplary rather than comparable.Footnote 115 This criterion strongly demonstrates the contextual value approach by highlighting the meaning of the place in its traditional context.
Australia’s EPBC framework is based on expert-led assessments of material qualities and information potential of places, as well as deeply contextual attribution criteria. The aesthetic characteristics criterion is notable for relying entirely on community perceptions, which stands out as an uncommon approach in heritage attribution frameworks at national and global levels. While the criteria based on creative and technical achievement or research potential bring the attribution framework closer to the intrinsic value approach, criteria such as social value, the association with significant people, Indigenous traditions, and aesthetic characteristics pull it toward the contextual value approach. Taken together, these criteria place Australia slightly toward the contextual end of the spectrum.
Peru
Peru’s cultural heritage, which is one of the richest in the world, reflects the legacy of successive civilizations, from pre-Hispanic (prehispánico) cultures such as the Inca to the colonial period and the diverse communities that arrived during the Republican era.Footnote 116 This history is reflected in an extensive material record, such as architectural monuments, ceramics, and textiles, and in living traditions such as music, dance, and crafts.
The national heritage framework of Peru is established by the Constitution of the Republic of Peru and the General Law No. 28296 of the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (GLCHN). GLCHN provides an inclusive definition of what counts as national cultural heritage, which includes “any tangible or intangible expression of the human work, which paleontological, archeological, architectural, historical, artistic, military, social, anthropological, traditional, religious, ethnical, scientific, technological or intellectual importance, value and significance is expressly declared as such or if there is a legal presumption for it.”Footnote 117 Legal presumption is established for “property from pre-Hispanic, viceroy’s and republican times, regardless of its condition of public or private property,” and attributes the property to the Cultural Heritage of the Nation if the property possesses “the above-mentioned importance, value and significance” and/or is mentioned in international treaties Peru is a party to.Footnote 118 The cultural property attributed to the Cultural Heritage of the Nation is inscribed in the Registry.Footnote 119
GLCHN does not break down the “importance, value and significance” into specific heritage attributes. For immovable historical heritage, this is done by the National Regulation, which sets out technical identification criteria (encompassing antiquity, authorship, authenticity, materials and construction techniques, physical characteristics, condition, and the immediate context) and enumerates cultural values (including historical, architectural, social, technological, artistic, traditional, and others listed in Art. 2 of the GLCHN).Footnote 120
The National Regulation determines the following technical identification criteria:
-
• Antiquity, which derives value from the age of cultural property (intrinsic) or an event (contextual)
-
• Authorship (evidence of a recognized author, school, or style), which is a mixed criterion that points to intrinsic stylistic features, but cultural significance becomes contextual when the author is important to cultural history
-
• Authenticity, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on materials, construction, fabric of cultural property
-
• Materials and construction techniques, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on physical composition of cultural property and traditional construction practice
-
• Physical characteristics and condition of the property, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on appearance, style and integrity of cultural property
-
• Immediate context, which is a contextual criterion assessed based on spatial, monumental, territorial, urban, and landscape relationships of cultural property property, such as its setting and topography
-
• Historical and sociocultural representativeness, which is a contextual criterion that derives significance from social meaning, identity, communal practices, and ICH.Footnote 121
In addition, the National Regulation determines the following cultural values:
-
• Historical value, which is a contextual criterion that derives value solely from the testimony of events, processes or developmental stages
-
• Architectural value, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on the style, façade, details, construction technology, material, ornamentation, and aesthetic aspects of cultural property
-
• Social value, which is a contextual criterion that concerns the symbolic value of cultural property for communities and links it with ICH
-
• Technological value, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on the construction material and technology of cultural property
-
• Traditional or vernacular value, which is a mixed criterion that encompasses material elements like traditional technologies (intrinsic) and the way the property is used or interpreted by communities (contextual)
-
• Artistic value, which is an intrinsic criterion assessed based on the aesthetic and plastic design quality of cultural property.
As the preceding summary of technical identification criteria and cultural values reveals, the GLCHN framework combines both intrinsic and contextual approaches, as well as their mixtures. There is a place in the Registry for the cultural property with unique artistic, architectural, and technological elements and for those that are valuable for their association with historical events, people, and community practices. That said, heritage attributes associated with intrinsic values are highly detailed; three distinct categories focus specifically on the material and aesthetic aspects of cultural property. This gives the GLCHN framework a pronounced orientation toward the intrinsic end of the value spectrum.
Mapping the intrinsic–contextual spectrum of heritage attribution criteria
The summary of the findings from the comparative analysis of seven national (including a combined entry for Japan) and two international heritage attribution frameworks is displayed in Figure 1. Each attribution framework has been assigned percentages based on the consistency of intrinsic and contextual values in the heritage criteria studied. Then each attribution framework is placed on an intrinsic–contextual spectrum illustrated as a scatter plot to present and discuss the patterns in preferring intrinsic or contextual values (see Figure 2).
Percentage-based representation of comparative heritage attribution frameworks.
Figure 1. Long description
A horizontal stacked bar chart with the x-axis representing percentages from 0 percent to 100 percent in 20 percent increments. The y-axis lists nine frameworks. A legend at the bottom identifies blue as Intrinsic values and orange as Contextual values.
* 2003 Convention’s R L Framework: 100 percent Contextual.
* 1972 Convention’s W H L Framework: 70 percent Intrinsic, 30 percent Contextual.
* Peru’s G L C H N Framework: 58 percent Intrinsic, 42 percent Contextual.
* Australia’s E P B C Framework: 38 percent Intrinsic, 62 percent Contextual.
* The United States N R H P Framework: 40 percent Intrinsic, 60 percent Contextual.
* Japan combined: 21 percent Intrinsic, 79 percent Contextual.
* Japan Heritage Framework: 100 percent Contextual.
* Japan’s I C P N T Framework: 36 percent Intrinsic, 64 percent Contextual.
* Italy’s Export Control Framework: 25 percent Intrinsic, 75 percent Contextual.
Intrinsic and contextual value spectrum of heritage attribution models.
Figure 2. Long description
The scatter plot uses a grid from 0 to 100 on both axes. The horizontal X axis represents Intrinsic values and the vertical Y axis represents Contextual values. Nine data points are plotted, showing a clear linear decrease where higher intrinsic values correspond to lower contextual values.
From top-left to bottom-right, the data points are:
* 2003 Conventions’ R L Framework: A gold diamond at approximately (0, 100).
* Japan Heritage Framework: A green hollow triangle at (5, 95).
* Japan (combined): A blue X at (21, 79).
* Italy’s Export Control Framework: A dark blue solid diamond at (25, 75).
* Japan’s I C P N T Framework: An orange hollow square at (36, 64).
* Australia’s E P B C Framework: A green solid triangle at (38, 62).
* The United States N R H P Framework: A red hollow circle at (40, 60).
* Peru’s G L C H N Framework: A black asterisk at (58, 42).
* 1972 Convention’s W H L framework: A purple solid square at (70, 30).
In Figure 2, the vertical (Y) axis indicates the weight of contextual values, while the X-axis indicates intrinsic values. At the top of the Y-axis stands the 2003 convention, as the RL emphasizes community meanings and intergenerational transmission over “outstanding heritage value.” At the relatively far right of the X-axis stands the 1972 convention, with its WHL framework highlighting intrinsic aspects of sites and landscapes, such as aesthetics and authenticity. However, unlike the 2003 convention, the 1972 convention blends both values by allowing the inscription into the WHL based on some contextual values.
Among the national frameworks, the Japan Heritage framework is the closest to the contextual end of the spectrum, followed by the combined entry for Japan and Italy’s Export Control Framework. The Japan Heritage framework brings together local stories and unique regional customs, seeks active community participation, and forces the connection with Japan’s ICPNT framework by requiring the nomination of at least one ICPNT. This reminds us that even a “pure” community approach usually needs to rely on an underlying intrinsic value-based framework.
Interestingly, Italy’s Export Control Framework places significant emphasis on contextual values when assessing cultural objects, while artistic quality and, to some extent, rarity stand out as intrinsic heritage values. Despite the reliance on expert judgments in the assessment of artistic quality, rarity, and historical significance, export control measures are directed at those cultural objects that possess a historical context. However, it is important to note that, as a national framework designed to prevent the illicit export of movable cultural objects, it offers only a limited perspective on how cultural property—particularly immovable property—is attributed to national heritage.
The middle section of the scatter plot features three frameworks—from Japan (ICPNT), Australia (EPBC), and the United States (NRHP)—all of which demonstrate a balance between intrinsic and contextual values. Australia, Peru, and the United States each host several Indigenous peoples and local communities; however, this factor does not seem to shift their respective frameworks toward contextual values as substantially as Italy’s Export Control Framework or the Japan Heritage framework. Unlike the Japan Heritage framework, however, Australia’s EPBC framework, at least conceptually, allows sites to be recognized as national heritage based solely on social value or their association with Indigenous traditions; furthermore, aesthetic characteristics are judged exclusively through community perception, extending beyond visual intrinsic qualities to encompass sound, smell, and sensory experiences. However, when considering the scholarly concerns that “the settings of the EPBC Act and the resources afforded to implementation are insufficient to support effective inclusion of Indigenous Australians,”Footnote 122 these contextual values may be less impactful in Australian heritage attribution practice than is suggested by the national guidelines of the AHC. Similar concerns have been raised in relation to the NRHP in the United States, which allegedly fails “to trust communities to decide what’s important to them, insisting on ‘professional’ evaluations instead.”Footnote 123 Notably, the only two federal, common-law jurisdictions analyzed appear side by side on the spectrum, revealing a strikingly similar balance between intrinsic and contextual values in how they operationalize heritage assessment.
Conversely, Peru’s GLCHN framework places greater emphasis on intrinsic values than any other national framework in the study. This is because it defines intrinsic values in detail, with three separate attributes focused on the material and aesthetic features of cultural property. While it still exhibits a balance between intrinsic and contextual values—similar to the frameworks in Japan (ICPNT), Australia (EPBC), and the United States (NRHP)—the balance in this instance clearly leans toward intrinsic values. The compelling question is why Peru, a country rich in the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples and local communities, nonetheless prioritizes intrinsic values such as antiquity, authenticity, materials and construction, and physical characteristics of the property. One hypothesis concerns the administrative feasibility of assessing intrinsic values of heritage, especially for countries like Peru, “with bureaucratic and resource constraints.”Footnote 124 Even though contextual values provide a broader perspective on the historical, cultural, and social associations of cultural properties, they are harder to standardize, particularly when conflicts arise between documentary data and the testimony of community members and consultants.Footnote 125 In addition, Peru has traditionally focused on the identification, attribution, and conservation of pre-Hispanic monuments within a “traditional material-centred heritage paradigm,”Footnote 126 which has led to “a top-down approach that dismisses integrative work on the connections with local populations.”Footnote 127
Finally, although the intrinsic–contextual spectrum omits an institutional reading of heritage values, it provides a robust starting point to explore subsidiary questions of who is empowered to articulate intrinsic or contextual values and what legal consequences follow from attribution. The findings demonstrate that none of the heritage attribution frameworks studied achieve a precise 50–50 balance between intrinsic and contextual values; instead, the balance is often observed in a 60–40 ratio. The recurring 60–40 patterns in Japan, Peru, Australia, and the United States suggest more than mere coincidence. The issue is not that national heritage attribution fails to perceive both intrinsic and contextual value; rather, legal frameworks are designed to translate intrinsic qualities and contextual meanings into practical decisions, and that process almost always requires some dominant evaluative criteria (either intrinsic or contextual). Whether a particular heritage framework tilts toward intrinsic or contextual values in its 60–40 or 70–30 setting may be influenced by a variety of political, economic, or social factors, including the institutional realities of heritage assessment. In any case, heritage attribution frameworks not only balance intrinsic and contextual values differently, but they also institutionalize different compromises between bureaucratic and financial constraints, community participation, and the social purposes that heritage law is meant to serve.
Conclusion
Our study reveals that there is no single “right” way to decide what gives value to heritage. Across both international and national frameworks, all systems combine intrinsic and contextual values, but they do so in different proportions. Our observations from the intrinsic–contextual spectrum demonstrate that approaches to valuing heritage at the national level tend to have some common features in terms of balancing intrinsic and contextual qualities of cultural properties, echoing Harding’s observation that “there are fundamental similarities in how we think about cultural heritage.”Footnote 128
At the international level, the 2003 convention sits at the contextual end of the spectrum, while the 1972 convention places greater emphasis on intrinsic values, though it still allows for some contextual values. At the national level, the Japan Heritage and Italy’s Export Control Framework lean more toward contextual values, even if they still rely on basic intrinsic criteria. In contrast, Peru’s GLCHN framework places the strongest emphasis on intrinsic values, due to its detailed focus on material and aesthetic features. Between these ends, the frameworks of Japan (ICPNT), Australia (EPBC), and the United States (NRHP) show a relatively balanced use of both value categories, although none stand out with a perfect 50–50 split. The findings also show that the presence of Indigenous peoples and local communities does not automatically lead to a stronger focus on contextual values. For example, Australia allows heritage recognition based solely on social value or Indigenous associations, yet its overall framework remains balanced rather than strongly contextual.
Our study moves beyond a simple dualism of “expert versus community” assessment of heritage values.Footnote 129 Instead, by mapping the national frameworks on the intrinsic–contextual spectrum, it demonstrates how national systems operationalize global templates from the 1972 and 2003 conventions, filtering and contextualizing them through their distinct legal and institutional cultures and histories, national values, and policy goals. For policymakers, this highlights the need for clear and flexible criteria that can recognize both material qualities and social meaning.
Future research could expand the comparative analysis presented in this article to more jurisdictions and further explore how heritage frameworks change over time, particularly in how they balance intrinsic and contextual values. Ultimately, extending this analysis will deepen our understanding of how national heritage laws evolve worldwide and what legal consequences follow from attribution. By mapping the diverse ways legal systems navigate material authenticity and traditional meanings, we hope to inspire further debate and better heritage policies at the national and international levels that reconcile intrinsic and contextual values in heritage attribution.
Acknowledgment
This research was conducted with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the Culture4You think tank. The views and conclusions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan or any other organization.
Open access
