Our story begins in Africa, cascading from its source in the Great Rift Valley, whereabouts the evolution of humans likely happened, weaves the headwaters of a great river. Here it is still one of two tributaries, known as the White Nile, it flows from the depths of the continent, through the dense forests of Uganda, and the grasslands of South Sudan before carving out the desolate sands of the Sahara. At Khartoum the headwaters converge, forming the mainstem of the river, it is now the Nile, where its seasonally flooding banks allowed for the cultivation of crops and formation of one of the most influential civilisations in history, Egypt.

This reflection, like a journey down the Nile, will navigate you through parts of our history, and our impulse to protect it. Here I seek to understand the global manifestation of heritage protection, in the form of UNESCO’s World Heritage List. I go into its origins, in the international campaign to save the treasures of Nubia, in which 22 monuments were moved out of the flood basin of the Aswan high dam. However, what was once promising idealism, in which the advancement of society is balanced with the “treasure” of our past, has been diluted by UNESCO’s desire to find objective truth in the subjective. With every bureaucratic layer in which they seek to codify “universal value” as global society we abstain from protecting what we actually find valuable.

Like crossing a river cataract, I will go on to highlight the avoidable rocks of mismanagement, and paradoxical frameworks, in which authenticity is a possibly unnecessary qualifying factor, further wading into the debate of what authenticity is and means in a heritage context. These reflections and findings will then be implemented and further explored through the Eiffel Tower as a case study. From one great river to another, we will reflect on tower and its Paris, banks of the Seine heritage listing, understanding its historic connotations and the way UNESCO has assessed its Universal value. In comparison I will reflect on other aspects of value and understanding. Through cultural artefacts I will discuss the towers intangible connotations, and their alignment with UNESCO’s assessment. Finally, we will analyse the perimeter barrier erected beneath the tower in the wake of a string of terror attacks in 2015, raising questions regarding how we protect and conserve heritage in the face of essential change.

All of this to say, how important heritage protection is, while critiquing our global perception of what constitutes protection. Further, I seek to provide a framework for understanding the centrality of experiential value in our perception of heritage and authenticity, and the importance and consequences of disregarding this in conservation discussions. In doing so allowing you to ruminate on how we perceive and interact with heritage sites so important they are deemed universally valuable.

UNESCO

Our Impetus to protect humanities cultural heritage is a recent global ambition, manifesting in the past two centuries particularly in response to World War I and II.5 Prior to this, cultural heritage had been protected specifically from the destruction of war on a local, culturally closed scale. For example, Ancient Greece, Medieval Christian Europe, Islamic Caliphates, Hindu Kingdoms, and Feudal Japan all had civil or religious codes of conduct, that prohibited the war-time destruction of religious and sometimes cultural monuments within these societal spheres.6 However, wars between cultures did not warrant the same respect for cultural spaces, nor was the protection based on a structure’s physical qualities, rather its experiential connotations.7 It was in the 18th century, with the development of modern international law that ideas of Universal Value based on aesthetic began to appear, such as in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 The Law of Nations in which he describes the intentional war-time defacing of “beautiful” architectural sites as a deprivation for “humanity”.8 Finally, it was in wake of the cultural horrors and disfigurement of numerous European cities during WWI and II, that formed the basis of Heritage protection as we see it today.9 In this new global rules-based order, manifesting visibly as the United Nations, international cooperation and communication was prioritised, with the common goal of providing alternative pathways of conflict resolution, beyond warfare. This intergovernmental platform sprouted a plethora of adjacent organisations. In particular, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which was formed from the belief that a lasting peace could only be established “upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind”.10 Their role as the supranational defender of cultural heritage manifests as the World Heritage list and with its far reaching cultural, economic, and political influence, this collection of monuments is a glimpse into our achievements as a species, and connection to our planet.

It is here that we return to Egypt, to delve into this survey of humanity’s cultural value. On the banks of the Nile, just under twenty kilometres from the Sudanese border, two immense sandstone temples stand before us, overlooking a vast reservoir held back by the Aswan High Dam. The waters have a dendritic spread through what was once a great gorge, with hundreds of islands and inlets glistening in the desert sun. The two temples of Ramses II imbedded in great stone embankments on one of these islands seem to be immovable objects on the landscape, their 3000-year-old carvings surveying the river, as voyeurs of great swaths of our human story. However, the civilisation they represent would never have seen them here in their duplicitous concrete mounds. It was in 1813, sixty metres below the surface of the current lake,11 where the Nile originally meandered, that Swiss explorer Johan Ludwick Buckhardt (Anglicised as John Lewis Buckhardt) discovered these ancient wonders carved into the cliffs of the ravine.12 He writes in his record of travels that “Judging from the features of the colossal statue visible above the sand, I should pronounce these works to belong to the finest period of Egyptian sculpture”13 and they may as well be, their unique character is synonymous with the greatness of ancient Egypt, standing with cultural icons like Tutankhamun and the Great pyramid of Giza. While in reality they were never lost, being well known and used by the Nubian tribal groups of the region,14 it was this rediscovery by the west that continued to fuel the European Egyptomania of the time. An interest in Egypt had existed throughout history, but it was the accessibility granted by Napoleon's invasion at the end of the 18th century that caused an exponential explosion in western intrigue.15 Great monuments were scientifically analysed for the first time, hieroglyphics were decoded and understood as a language, artefacts were plundered for European institutes and used to express the greatness of western nations. It was seen in literature, film, art and architecture, the world had become high on these exotic treasures of an ancient culture16 What this meant is that the notion of 'Ancient Egypt' had taken on a life of its own, no longer tied to the Nile River and specific monuments, but also interlaced into the narratives of nations thousands of kilometres away.17

This interest was essential, when in the 1950’s the temples at Abu Simbel were threatened by the creation of the Aswan High Dam.18 The societies that had once relied on the predictable flooding of the Nile to cultivate their fields, had moved beyond what the river could provide. The regular flow of the river is more conducive to modern irrigation practices; therefore, the dam was deemed as essential for the advancement of Egypt in the modern world.19 But to flood a valley littered with thousands of years of monuments and cultural artefacts would have erased a portion of ancient history not only significant for the modern state of Egypt, but now established as valuable to much of the western world. In fact, it was the French Archaeologist working with UNESCO, Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, who was pivotal in instigating the protection of the temples at Abu Simbel, along with the other Treasures of Nubia.20 She was directly influenced by aspects of Egyptomania, with the Obelisk of Ramses II, expatriated in the 1830’s from Luxor to the Place De La Concorde in Paris,21 sparking her interest in Egyptology.22 Through her diplomatic efforts, in 1959, she convinced the Soviet leaning, Egyptian President Nasser to seek the assistance of UNESCO jointly with the government of Sudan. Further she coordinated essential support and funding of the rescue mission from the French and American Governments, who lay ideologically opposed to Egypt at this time.23 Because of her efforts, that seemed to signify an alleviation in cold war tension, UNESCO could be perceived at the time as effectively promoting peace through cultural solidarity. In an era before global treaties, standards and bureaucracy regarding the protection of heritage, the campaign was focused on ensuring the retention of universal value, despite the impact of the dam’s reservoir.24 While multiple ideas were floated, including building a second dam around the site, or allowing it to flood and turning it into a diving location, the archeologically preferred method involved moving the entire temple above the impending reservoir's water line.25 This was both the cheapest solution, as well as the most viable method of preservation. Moving it would protect the soft sandstone elements that would have been ruined due to flooding or a higher water table,26 as well as retaining solar alignment that allowed the temple to be lit to its centre by the sun twice a year.27 This is significant as it is a recognition of the importance of a heritage sites experiential value, not just its spatial value.

Over a period of 20 years twenty-two monuments in the flood zone were saved, including the temples at Abu Simbel. The effort cost an estimated USD$80 million in 1979 (over USD$300 million in 2023)28 donated by 50 members of the international community.29 This exemplifies the newfound recognition that some cultural monuments have a value that transcends national borders, a Universal Value, in which all of humanity is tasked with their protection. This idea went on to form the basis of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which established the World Heritage List, List of World Heritage in Danger, and the World Heritage fund, designed to assist in the protection of cultural sites with Universal Value.

But with this formalisation of the need for heritage protection, new questions emerge. Though we recognise it exists, how can we define Universal Value? Further, through what lens can we assess if a cultural site has Universal Value? As we explore these questions it is essential to make explicit the role UNESCO played in saving the treasures of Nubia. In this first international mission, UNESCO did not assess value, rather it protected what society had already deemed valuable, even if that meant an intervention that entangled a new historic layer into these monuments. Secondly, the method of protection was particularly focused on retaining the experiential values of the site, more so than the physical authenticity. Keep this in mind as we explore the functioning of the world heritage list and reflect on its impact and efficacy.

Today, the World Heritage Convention has promoted UNESCO to be the superlative body for heritage conservation globally. While UNESCO retains a focus on promoting global peace, the World Heritage Convention aims to preserve sites from more than just war, also natural disaster, national interest, terrorism, and other forces that may impact a sites Universal Value (as designated by UNESCO).30 However, with the evolution and day to day functioning of the world heritage list it becomes apparent that UNESCO’s role and impact has also evolved. The organisation has vertically integrated, becoming the designator of value, and gatekeeper of preservation methodology as much as it acts as a protector of heritage. In doing so, allowing politics, money and ideology to pollute the World Heritage Lists function and impact.

Vittorino Veronese the Director-general of UNESCO from 1958-1961,31 eloquently delineates the central issue of cultural heritage protection in his opening letter to save the treasures of Nubia:

“An agonizing Dilemma faces the authorities charged with developing the Nile Valley: how are they to choose between the needs and welfare of their people and the treasure which belong not only to their country but to humanity as a whole?”

This issue persists today, with the need to balance social progress and cultural protection omnipresent in our spatial landscapes. Though this was known when the convention was designed and implemented, its focus is on protection and conservation33 which consequently neglects the idea of balance as described by Veronese. We can see this in the static nature of a listing, six fixed criteria are used to assess the value of a cultural property (ten criteria exist in total with four reserved to assess natural heritage). Each heritage site must fulfill at least one criterion to establish Universal Value, as well as prove its authenticity and integrity for it to be inscribed on the list.34 Subsequently, the efficacy of property management is assessed against these criteria, authenticity, and integrity, which can work against each other in retaining Universal Value and balancing progress. For example, The Dresden Elbe Valley was famously delisted in 2009 due to the construction of the Waldschlösschen Bridge, which was viewed to “irreversibly damage the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property,”.35 Firstly, the use of irreversible is grossly misused considering in 2004 in order to be listed the city was required to demolish two “post-war” buildings, reversing the impact they had on the site’s integrity.36 Secondly, ICOMOS was aware of the possibility of a new bridge in this area at the time of inscription, which they accepted. UNESCO argues the original plan was an “urban bridge” not a “traffic artery”,37 though I question the visual difference this would have made. Thirdly, and most egregiously, the bridge construction has not impacted the criteria establishing Universal Value as is inscribed, with the basis of delisting grounded in the visual damage the bridge would do to the integrity of the river valley and views of the city.38

What UNESCO perceived as a destruction in universal value, was in reality, an evolution of spatial form, deemed essential by the inhabitants,39 in which the same qualities that warranted listing persist and the value remains. Here we see how the current format of the list inhibits progress, and requires a choice, to either retain the often perceived as prestigious listing or loose it to allow enhancing change.

This example also illuminates the judicial role UNESCO has been appointed. It is with their list and criteria that they are capable of assessing and deciding value,40 as they see it, under the authoritative term 'Universal Value'. This lay in stark contrast to the role they played protecting the Treasures of Nubia in which they conserved what had already been deemed valuable. In this legislative order, UNESCO prescribes Universal Value, with the role of protection and management delegated to the State in which the property lies.41 This is not to say UNESCO is completely absent from participating in protection, they do provide advice and guidelines as well as contribute to a few specific protection efforts, for example “saving Venice and its Lagoon (Italy) and the Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro (Pakistan), and restoring the Borobodur Temple Compounds (Indonesia).”42 However, it is to point out the incongruence in that the list was created to protect cultural heritage which has a universal value to all humanity, yet that protection is to be carried out predominantly by a singular state,43 rather than the supranational body representing humanity. This is quite evident in the budget of the World Heritage Fund, which is flaunted as a “key benefit” of ratifying the World Heritage Convention.44

The 2022-2023 budget of this fund is USD$5.9 million, with a dedicated emergency assistance budget of USD$0.4 million.45 To put this into proportion, the stabilisation of Notre Dame after the fire in April 2019, until April 2021, was reported to have cost approximately USD$ 180 million, and this does not include any reconstruction.46 Further, the majority of these funds were donated by private citizens,47 which is made possible due to the wealth of places like France and other developed economies, in conjunction with the incredibly high profile of the Notre Dame Cathedral. What this comparison alludes to is the severe lack of resourcing available from the World Heritage Fund, and the impact this has on developing and emerging economies that have lesser-known World Heritage Sites, that cannot raise millions from donations and cannot receive adequate emergency assistance provided by national governments. Therefore, provisions available from UNESCO are clearly not adequate to protect and conserve all 1157 World Heritage Sites (Natural, Mixed and Cultural as of April 2023).48

Finally, let’s discuss the many incongruencies of the World Heritage List, in which the criteria, and prerequisites can be manipulated and applied inconsistently by UNESCO when identifying value. As you can imagine, finding a common application for six criteria that are meant to describe everything Universally Valuable throughout 15000 years of human history is an incredibly complex task. Nevertheless, both the Sydney Opera House completed in 1973, and the prehistoric cave paintings of Tassili n’Ajjer dated to 10000 BCE, are listed as fulfilling Criteria (i) as expressions of human creative genius.51 This is a building that was a one-of-a-kind structure, revolutionising the field of architecture and ascending a nation onto the world stage, in the same category as prehistoric cave paintings which are outstanding and unique representations of culture, essential to understanding our human story, but may not have been the first, nor the best, representations to have existed. I am not arguing that one is more valuable than the other, rather highlighting these properties have completely different connotations of value which is somehow covered by one criterion on the World Heritage List. Next is the Bagrati Cathedral in Georgia, which was delisted from its World Heritage Site in 2017 due to a reconstruction process that was deemed to irreparably impact its authenticity and integrity.52 While only 7 years earlier, the Tombs of Bugunda Kings were placed on the World Heritage in Danger list due to a fire that destroyed one of the wooden structures, with UNESCO highlighting a path out of danger that includes rebuilding the destroyed structure.53 In 2023 the Historic Centre of Odesa was inscribed onto the World Heritage List, and the World Heritage List in Danger, which was not only fast tracked, but the United Nations itself alludes to the listing's role in demotivating Russia from deliberate destruction.54 While this use may be seen as warranted, it does not bode particularly well for a body that has been criticised in the past for being partisan, which is what also led to the withdraw of the USA and Israel from the organisation.55 Lastly, in Article 12 of the World Heritage Convention it states that a lack of inclusion on the World Heritage List “shall in no way be construed to mean that it does not have an outstanding universal value for purposes other than those resulting from inclusion in these lists”.56 But if the purpose of the list is to collate all the universally valuable spatial achievements of humanity, what are these universal values for purposes incongruent with being listed?

Through this I see the very functioning of the list as a bureaucratic quagmire, which has attempted to provide an objective assessment of subjective value, and in doing so impacts UNESCO’s ability to protect what we value. Particularly significant is the deadlock invoked by the listing criteria which requires the most imminent re-evaluation. The interplay of listing mechanisms, particularly the interpretations of Integrity and Authenticity, which often go hand in hand, present a substantial dilemma, that fails to satisfy the legacy and ambition of the campaign to save the treasures of Nubia. But why is this? How is our interpretation of authenticity impacting the quality of heritage protection?

“The rot starts at the top.”

Declares Robert Bevan in his 2022 book Monumental Lies. He is speaking about UNESCO’s role in endangering the meaning of authenticity; throughout this book he describes what he sees as corrosive post-modern thought that has infiltrated our World Heritage Authority and diluted fact and evidence with tradition and feeling when it comes to assessing Authenticity. His reasoning appears sound, the idea that if we allow truth to be perceived rather than known, it will, and has, led to the growth of misinformation and the proliferation of lies. But perhaps the search for authenticity itself is promoting the manipulation of facts, is it within the requirement of authenticity that UNESCO is unable to project value without construing truth?

Bevan defines the authenticity of a site as both the “original iteration” in conjunction with “the meaningful historical layers”58 in which he is specifically defining the authentic as the material qualities of heritage. His argument builds around the observation that a loose definition of authenticity is weaponised often by far right and nationalist groups as a mechanism of control.59 For example, he discusses the reconstruction of Poznan in Poland as a mechanism of Polish retribution in a post-war and post-Soviet world.60 Bevan goes on to discuss the way in which this becomes a breeding ground for inauthenticity and lies, as in this specific case the reconstruction was hallmarked by what he describes as architectural “fakery”.61 To him the nationalistic reconstruction of Poznan destroys what was materially authentic and perpetuates an untrue historical narrative. With this background he goes on to suggest the heritage definition of authenticity as outlined by UNESCO was better before the ideas introduced in the Nara Document.62

The Nara Document was signed in 1993, as a successor of the Venice Charter, which had previously defined the authenticity of a site in relation to four components: materials, workmanship, design and context.63 The Nara document ¬broadly asserts that the value of a site should be assessed in relation to authenticity, as understood by its cultural context, while remaining a “qualifying factor” for the identification of Universal Value. It goes on to identify spirit, tradition and feeling as essential factors in assessing authenticity.64 It is logical that Bevan sees this as a dilution of truth65 when he is defining the authenticity of a structure as the strictly material qualities that act as primary historical evidence. However, not all agree with this understanding of authenticity. Dawson Munjeri, who was in 2004 the Deputy permanent Delegate of Zimbabwe to UNESCO, saw the finite qualification of value based on a sites physical authenticity as a cause of cultural disconnection.66 His assessment that “Objects, collections, buildings, etc. become recognized as heritage when they express the value of society”67 reflects the actions of the campaign to save the treasures of Nubia, prior to when UNESCO began assessing value. Munjeri goes on to identify that “society and values are intrinsically linked”, meaning authenticity is not only material but experiential. He uses the example of the Dutch Rietveld Schroderhuis, included on the world heritage list in 2000,68 in which he describes the material “fabric” as a “manifesto of the De Stijl Movement”, and “a masterpiece not in terms of the tangible expression but as a philosophy”.69 Upon reflection, there are many buildings and monuments that stand to be expressions of the intangible as much or more so than their tangibility, for example, the use of buildings as national symbols, such as the Taj Mahal globally seen as a symbol of India or as I will discuss in more detail later, the Eiffel Tower, which is not only a widely accepted symbol of France but also of the concept of monumentality itself. This particularly crosses over with Beven as he describes the White House as “essentially, a fake” due to its mid-20th century rebuild that completely changed the internal material fabric of the building, stripping it of what he sees as authenticity.70 However, I would argue that more valuable than the early 19th century interior, of which exist many other examples in the USA, would be the well-known intangible value the White House represents, as the seat of power of the most influential nation of the last century.

Throughout his chapter Authenticity: The Material Truth, Bevan inconsistently points to specific periods of reconstruction as “fakery.”71 Going further he promotes this idea of 'Disneyfication' as a process of erasure. He bases this idea on the act of inauthentic reconstruction, particularly of cities.72 But if we compare two of his own examples, we can see a production of authenticity based on perspective rather than material qualities. As we discussed before, the rebuilding of Poznan, described by Bevan, is a fantasy pushed by Polish Nationalism, that reconstructed a city that did not exist, with an architectural vernacular that is indicative, but not true to traditional Polish architecture.73 I agree that from this perspective it can be perceived as inauthentic, however something Bevan neglects to do is view certain periods of history as a “historic layer” as he defines authenticity to comprise of.74 We can see this further in his view of the White House reconstruction, which he denotes as inauthentic.75 But under his own logic, the original neoclassical nature of the white house should itself be perceived as inauthentic, as an act of Disneyfying a classical style. Just like in the ideologically based reconstruction of Poznan, neoclassicism has a symbolic basis in the Classical civilisations of Rome and Greece, pushing a nationalistic narrative, which in this case connected the connotations of ancient democracies to that of the USA.76 However, this is not how Bevan views it, he presents neoclassicism as an acceptable and valuable historical layer, but not the reconstruction of Poznan, therefore I cannot help but wonder whether rephrasing the reconstruction of Poznan, as an architecturally Neo-Polish reimagining, would convert the “fakery” to authentic? In this way we see that the social and descriptive qualities of space have an impact on its authenticity beyond the physical manifestation.

Bevans view of authenticity as a finite and quantifiable expression of truth, adheres to the theory of Objective Authenticity, which Barbara Wood describes and compares with other theories of the authentic in her article A Review of the Concept of Authenticity in Heritage, with Particular Reference to Historic Houses. 77 Wood discusses multiple views of what stands to be authentic, such as a constructivist view, which is the idea that authenticity is not always “inherent” to an object but instead socially constructed; or an emergent view, which sees the authentic as “negotiable” with authenticity manifesting over time, based on the diverse perspectives of people; or theoplacity, which sees authenticity as a construction based on both experience and fact.78 Wood goes on to support the idea that “while there is a vibrant discussion focused on the qualitative definition and measurement of authenticity, there is very little which can be described as quantitative.”79 In conjunction with this particularly poignant observation, more problems arise when you consider authenticity outside of a western context.

Bevans particular view is intrinsically linked to western and even more specifically English-speaking expressions of understanding. Jukka Jokilehto points out that the word authenticity does not have a blanket meaning across cultures nor does a translation always exist,80 leading to cultural miscommunication, which is an overt issue for UNESCO as it attempts to protect global heritage using the concept. Jokilehto highlights a speech by Ambassador Yai, in which they denote that the separation of the physical and spiritual is nonsensical in an “African context”.81 Here we see that Beven's particular western-view, is incongruent with the needs of global heritage protection, as by its establishment it is meant to represent the views of all humanity. Therefore, if current discourse particularly lacks a quantitative assessment of authenticity, perhaps we as a global society should question the centrality of authenticity in assessing and protecting heritage. In the case of UNESCO, if we can identify value in space according to the prescribed criteria, perhaps the existence of value is enough to warrant protection based on existing truths. Whether that be spatial or experiential, regardless of a definition of authenticity which is disputed at best, and unquantifiable at worst. However, until we can answer this question, expanding our understanding of authentic beyond the material qualities, is necessary in order to identify and protect what we as a global society actually value without perpetuating manipulated or false information.

We emerge from our Egyptian foray and labyrinthine theoretical journey at number 7, Place De Fontenoy on the edge of Paris’ 7th arrondissement. Back in architectural space, in front of us we see a robust modernist office building, obscured from view by a colonnade of what seem to be Horse Chestnut trees. Nevertheless, the structure offset from the street’s curvature appears to envelope this southern edge of the plaza. A tall perimeter fence denotes the site's importance, but you may find yourself wondering why. There is no grand entrance or unobstructed line of site; only an empty forest of flag poles that, despite being erected to express international value, become lifeless masts without any insignia. Instead, bolted to the fence, ten metres from the main entrance is an inconspicuous grey plaque with the letters U-N-E-S-C-O extruded from its surface. It is here that our power of global heritage protection emanates, but it is not this building I find interest in, rather the shadow cast upon it. As from each north facing window, you view past the Ecole Militaire, along the corridor created by the Champ de Mars to see a vast iron edifice rising from the green plain.The Eiffel Tower not only defines this extensive garden but every other building of its context. The streets of Paris, while beautiful in their own right, are today a backdrop for one of the most iconic and most visited structures on the planet. However, this has not always been the case, in fact a significant proportion of its history is scarred with dissatisfaction, functional evolutions and laminations of meaning.82 Further, it has not proved particularly resilient to current global challenges, and with the erection of a perimeter barrier in the wake of the 2015 Parisian terror attacks,83 the sites universal value as inscribed by its UNESCO world heritage listing is under threat more than ever.

The Eiffel Tower and Champ De Mars lie on the southern banks of the Seine, appearing relatively recently in the 2300-year history of Paris as a formal settlement.84 Built on historical swampland to the east of the Ile de la Cite, the barren land remained undeveloped until the mid-18th century, with the construction of the École Militaire. An extensive training ground was also constructed adjoining the school to the north,85 this being the Champ De Mars. The field was demarcated in the north by the river and the south, east and west by the military school and its flanks. A key avenue extended from the school’s entrance to river, bisecting the plain. Very quickly the Champ De Mars became an invaluable historical space, hosting many festivals, as well as being a key location during the French revolution.86 Though its form evolved, with its edges being incorporated into the grid of the city, and military function assumed by a parkland, the central avenue was only strengthened, integrating into Haussmann’s Paris as a significant urban corridor. As river islands where incorporated into the main bank this corridor grew, further with the construction of the Pont d’Iena in 1814,87 and again with the construction of the Trocadero Palace along this same axis for the 1878 World’s Fair.88

It was here in 1880 that Jules Ferry, French Prime Minister at the time, proposed the Paris Exposition Universelle for 1889, significantly, the centenary year of the French revolution.89 It was for this exhibition a grand centrepiece was to be built. In 1886, the French government held a competition, which requested designs for a 300-metre, iron tower, with a base of 125 by 125 metres. As we know the subsequent tower was designed and built by the man whose name is now inseparably tied with the structure. Gustave Eiffel won the competition with a design produced by engineers Maurice Koechlin, Emile Nouguier, and architect Stephen Sauvestre.90 The tower goes on to have a particularly unique process of realisation. Firstly, the site of the Champ de Mars was included in the competition brief but not made certain, there were many proposals to place the tower in other locations, some believing a hill would be preferred to accentuate its height.91

However this was opposed by Eiffel as the exhibition was to be held on the Champ De Mars and not only did he provide the plans but he was manufacturing and funding the project with through his company in return for 20 years of ticket revenue, meaning the best return on investment would be to locate the tower on the fairgrounds. This is important to note as from the beginning the tower has been treated as an object conceptually untethered from its site. It is also essential to note the immense opposition to the tower by the French cultural elite. A committee of three hundred was created (a member for each meter of the tower) who opposed the construction on aesthetic grounds. Seeing the industrial nature as “alien” to the stone vernacular of Parisian architecture.92 Further a letter was penned to the French government, in which reads “Is the city of Paris to permit itself…to be disfigured forever”93 terminology reminiscent of UNESCO’s use of “irreversible”.94 Despite this protest, funding issues and an uncertain site, the tower rose over the central axis of the Champ De Mars, across a span of two years, exactly on schedule, being complete in March of 1889.95 During the exhibition it was an incredible success, making back 80% of its cost during the event, with a variety of attractions, beneath, around and on the tower, it acted as a gateway to the event, and symbolised the technological prowess of a nation.96 However, this success did not last, by the 1900 Worlds Fair it had become dated and unstimulating to the population,97 with talk of its removal, its saving grace came with its scientific utility, with Jean-Louis Pascal saying in his report provided to the government regarding discussions of removal “it is certainly true that the huge leg span of the tower cuts the long view which could be seen from the Trocadero to the École Militaire” but “the exceptional suitability of this building for past, present, and future scientific research” he goes on to say, is unparalleled. His primary statement supporting the towers retention is delivered with a tone of indifference, “if it did not exist, one would probably not contemplate building it there, or even perhaps anywhere else; but it does exist.”98

Today the value we place in the Eiffel tower has evolved immensely, no longer do the French, or the world for that matter, hold the same laissez-faire view of the early 1900s. With 7 million visitors annually, it is the most visited monument in the world that you pay for,99 further becoming an integral part of the romantic Parisian image and remaining a national symbol of France. It seems to be with time people learned to love what was once considered an industrial stain. So much so that along with monuments such as the Louvre, Notre Dame and Hotel De Invalides, the Eiffel tower was inscribed as part of the Paris, Banks of the Seine World Heritage Site in 1991.100 It is with this inscription that UNESCO presents their view of the outstanding universal values of the Eiffel Tower, and Paris as a whole. Important to note is that Paris was inscribed without a statement of Universal Value, which includes the assessment of criteria, authenticity, and integrity. It was in 2017 that this statement of outstanding value was retrospectively adopted.101 The criteria are rationalised as follows and quoted where relevant to the Eiffel Tower:

Criterion (i) : “The banks of the Seine are studded with a succession of architectural and urban masterpieces built from the Middle Ages to the 20th century, including… the Eiffel Tower…”

Criterion (ii) : “…Finally, the Eiffel Tower and the Grand and Petit Palais, the Pont Alexandre III and the Palais de Chaillot are the living testimony of the universal exhibitions, which were of such great importance in the 19th and 20th centuries.”

Criterion (iv) : “United by a grandiose river landscape, the monuments, the architecture and the representative buildings along the banks of the Seine in Paris each illustrate with perfection, most of the styles, decorative arts and building methods employed over nearly eight centuries.”

To simplify, the Universal Value as assessed by UNESCO derives from: the towers unique aesthetic and ingenuity of architectural form (i); the symbolic connotations of the tower as a remnant of its function (ii); and the relationship it has with its context (iv).102 Interestingly, this rationale includes connotations to feel, spirit and other intangible qualities. Further, the site is assessed as being authentic and integral due to the “completion and consolidation of the riverside, urban and monumental vistas of Paris” and the “urban and visual integrity” of the property.103 This is particularly interesting when you consider a century before World Heritage inscription, people saw the Eiffel tower itself as a detracting factor of Paris’ vistas.104 Considering this, do these values presented by UNESCO align with the societal value placed on the tower? To traverse this question, it is important to contemplate the greater cultural understanding of the Eiffel tower as a monument and an object. In doing so we understand how well UNESCO’s assessment of value aligns with the global cultural assessment and can use this to reflect on the conservation and protection of the site.

The following images are a collection I curated to illuminate and question the Eiffel Tower's true cultural value. As a product of my context, I alone cannot produce an objective assessment, but as I have stated previously, perhaps qualitative objectivity when it comes to Universal Value does not exist. In this way, the image study illuminates not only my own but other subjective opinions of value and inform a theoplacic (as defined by B. Wood)105 understanding of spatial and experiential understandings of the tower.

Photography creates a snapshot of a single lived movement, but nevertheless it remains an impression of reality and not truth itself. I believe photo A. titled “La Tour Eiffel foudroyée” by Gabriel Loppé is a great example of the manipulation of reality. Taken in 1902, the tower is almost pictographic with its structure seemingly stencilled onto the skyline, its positive and negative spaces strictly delineated. So weightless in comparison to the structures of the time, it is presented as this industrial edifice stepping out of its context. Further the lightning bolts add a dimension of danger. Though we can safely say the tower was struck by lightning, as this was noted by the photographer,106 the image presents a more ambiguous story, perhaps the tower is producing it? This danger or fear present in the image is reminiscent of the conflict particularly between the art world and industrial barons like Gustave Eiffel, this idea of art vs. industry, feeding into those fears of an industrial takeover.107

Comparatively, photo B. provides an alternative impression. Produced in 1889 by photographer Alphonse Liébert, from a balloon,108 you can see the Eiffel Tower rooted within its context. Its great height does not appear as massive when compared to the great length of the Palais Des Machines behind it, and the atmosphere of the image seems jovial with patrons of the World Fair filling the axis of the Champ de Mars. Further the tip of the tower is faded out by the vignette, silently asserting a more benign character of a perforated tower so tall it vanished into the sky. These two photos produced 3 years apart present very different characters of the Eiffel tower, and I believe this adds weight to the idea that the same fact can be manipulated to produce different perceptions of value.

Artistic representations are also an invaluable way of understanding cultural values, with embellishments, technique, representation, and many other visual points providing insight into the artist's ideas, opinions and in turn values. Engraving C. was actually completed by Gustave Eiffel himself, before 1889.109 He has interestingly removed the entire context, all of Paris has been replaced by a forest in his eye, all that is left is the immense arching tower and what I assume is his idea for the Palais Des Machines. Particularly interesting is the way he presents the tower as an immense gateway into the expansive courtyard shown within. Eiffel accentuates the building as a cavity climbing over the existing axis of the Champ de Mars. Its monumentality is almost like a beacon guiding you to the fair and brings up connotations of lighthouses or even ancient narratives about the Colossus standing over the harbour of Rhodes. Sketch D. further presents this image of a grand gate, as you see the internal view from level 1 during the 1900 World Fair.110 People are navigating its 4 bases in all direction with different gardens and pavilions intersecting the archways. The artist C. P. Renouard has further intersected the image with a realistic punctured shadow which accentuates the voids of the structure as much as the iron beams. In doing so it presents the juxtaposition of a tangibly symmetrical tower, but an intangibly dynamic shadow that morphs into suggestive and free forms.

As we move into different mediums, we can understand deeper the connotations that have grown from the Eiffel Tower, and in turn the value it holds. Painting E. by Robert Delaunay, belongs to the cubist movement. He chose the Tower due to its connotations of “modernity and progress” and painted it from multiple different overlayed perspectives.111 What’s striking about the image is the way the Eiffel Tower is clearly visible in the highly fragmented form, leading us to question why? Personally, I see the tower in the arches, in the cross bracing, in the A shaped format of voids and in how it grows out of the rooftops. Therefore, because of the painting’s vagueness, we as the audience have space to project our understanding of the Tower onto the image, in turn revealing some of what we value. Painting F. by Henri Rousseau also helps us ruminate on this value through connotations. His representation of the Tower is simplistic, as is the nature of his art movement, Naivism, therefore it alone could not strongly represent the Eiffel tower. Its context clues like the view he has painted from, the bridge, the monumentality of it and of course, the French flag fluttering at the tower's peak. Here we can see how the intangible qualities of the tower, and its symbolism contribute to its readability. Overall, the artistic representations have provided deeper insight into the representation of the tower, in conjunction with the symbolism and connotations that make that possible.

Personal Experiences often reiterate understanding and perception of value. Therefore, this analysis would be incomplete without touching on the way connotations, and in turn value, are perpetuated through communities. Photo G. is an image of AWA tower in Sydney, Australia. It was built as an office building and communications tower in 1939,112 and clearly bears resemblance to the Eiffel tower, particularly due to its curvature and iron lattice structure. Interestingly, this structure was inspired by the Funkturm Tower in Berlin, which was itself inspired by the Eiffel Tower.113 The Eiffel Tower has monopolised this form as its own, even surpassing function as an identifier. Regardless of whether it is a copy, or a copy of a copy, the Eiffel Tower is still implied. From lived experiences Image H. is a communications tower in a city I have lived in and due to its scale and form, the community held a running joke regarding its resemblance to Eiffel’s Tower. This particularly included joking that you had spontaneously transported to Paris when you could see it on the skyline. What this further reveals is the singularity the tower holds as an individual object. Despite the Towers repetition and without an identical context, its authenticity and value is not diluted.

Perhaps Replicas even serve to substantiate the authentic. Robert Bevan asserts that no one would mistake the “dozen of faux Eiffel Towers” globally as authentic.114 Which is rightly so, as they are not, however in their imitation we can perhaps find compliment, and further understand why they don’t seem authentic. Image I. is of an Eiffel Tower replica in Hangzhou, China. Aesthetically it looks similar, they have created an accurate shape and structure, with a navigable axis beneath. Like the authentic Eiffel tower, it too has been presented as an object on the landscape. However, there are some clear indicators of inauthenticity, obviously the context which solidifies the interconnection between Paris and the Tower, but interestingly the top third of the tower seems strange as well. The ratio of void to material is visually incorrect, implying that the existence of the void and material alone is not valuable without creating the correct relationship between them. This can be further seen in Image J. which is an art installation erected in April 2023, called Eiffela Tower. This image also highlights the centrality of the towers navigable experience, so much so that the sculpture was raised to allow patrons to walk beneath it. Image K. also highlights this, with a building intersecting the void beneath the Las Vegas version of the Eiffel tower. collectively, these “faux” towers present an image of the real Eiffel Tower as an object composed of both material and voids, that can be moved, as well as experienced.

Finally, image L. is an Artificial Intelligence (Ai) generated representation of the Eiffel Tower. As an emerging technology this is particularly interesting as its generated visual opinion will impact how we perceive value as it becomes integrated into media. The prompt I asked to produce this image was “The Eiffel Tower if it was built by the Egyptians” and while this nicely relates back to the origins of UNESCO’s heritage assessment, I proposed this question as it provides interesting insight into the machine’s perception of value and connotation as designed by people. By using an image data base with captions written by people, the Ai produces an image based on the human perception. In doing so, it has created architectural articulations that are vernacular to ancient Egypt but while retaining the connotations to the Eiffel Tower. as you can see the porosity of the structure has been retained but the lattice shapes are more diverse in appearance reminiscent of Egyptian forms. Further the rising curve and A frame structure have been retained, with the Ai presenting the base arches almost as a tunnel, like the gateway Gustave Eiffel himself presented in his etching. By doing this image analysis we have brought to light many values we as communities hold in the Eiffel Tower, importantly, its porosity and relationship between void and material, secondly its appearance as an object which could seemingly be moved, and thirdly its role as a portal or entrance to something. These are important as we go on to discuss how the perceived Universal Value can be retained in the face of UNESCO’s bureaucracy.

In the two hundred years we have travelled through, the world has changed significantly, wars were fought, monuments built, moved, and destroyed, and an impetus to protect global heritage was born. But within this changing world, we need to be dynamic and ensure our international heritage mechanisms are protecting what society values. In the wake of the devastating 2015 Paris Terror Attacks in which over 100 people were killed and more than 400 injured,115 the French nation was shaken and unnerved. With attacks intended to dismantle the identity of a nation,116 it was essential to increase protection of its people, and relevantly its symbols. In 2018, in order to protect the patrons and structure of what could be the most recognisable monument for France, a permanent perimeter solution was implemented beneath the Eiffel Tower.117 This barrier bounds every edge of the Eiffel Tower, with the NE and SW edge bounded by an iron fence, designed to aesthetically resemble the towers curvature, and NW and SE sides intersecting the Champ de Mars axis with a 3-metre tall, 72mm thick bulletproof glass.118 The structure follows the existing pathways of the site, designed to have a minimal impact on the park's curated fabric, while also retaining the “vistas”119 of Paris by using glass on the edges that impact the visual corridor. Further, the entrances have been relinquished to security booths on the NE and SW edges.

Functionally, the barriers implementation alone does not solve the issue of terrorism, particularly as visitors still congregate outside the barrier at a few key choke points, like the security booths and vistas of the tower. Secondly, even while access is free, it creates a two-tier delineation of public space, despite its visual clarity, its impermeability defines a safe and an unsafe zone. Interestingly, the retention of perceived spatial integrity has been prioritised over the experiential integrity of the structure, which as we have discussed previously, is arguably more important to the Eiffel Towers authenticity. The great archway the site acted as has been infilled, with the balance of material and void spatially present but experientially destroyed. Compared to the historic representations of the tower as four separate buildings, it has merged into a wholistic form, architecturally attached to its context, no longer this light dynamic object, that could seemingly walk away. Further, like the dynamic shadow juxtaposing the towers great symmetry, the play of light on the barriers materiality acts to divide. While on paper, glass is clear, in reality light traverses the material slower than in air, causing refraction and obscured representations.120 In doing so, what we see through the glass, while being so close to accurate is almost a replica of the tower rather than the real thing, its visual appearance impacted by refraction and reflection. In this way the central axis, established over 200 years of habitation, has been divided due to a structure that was only meant to be a temporary edifice on the park.

Reflecting on UNESCO’s assessment of value, we can see the barrier has impacted all aspects of their Universal Value. The form has been obscured no longer an object rather a building. Further, its been dislocated from its context, and the historical connotations as an archway and centrepiece for the worlds fairs has been fractured. While the authenticity can be perceived to be intact, with the spatial values of the Champ De Mars retained, functionally the glass has still impacted this due to its material qualities. Therefore, we can begin to question what could have been done better? With essential interventions such as those meant to reduce terrorism how can we navigate the protection of our heritage values? While there is no single answer, I believe in this case the towers experiential qualities are more valuable than its spatial qualities and need to be prioritised in its retention. The Champ De Mars has evolved constantly, its central axis always retained but layout shifting and morphing with the times, for military training, festivals, world fairs, concerts and more. And with each shift in function or transformation, a layer of identity is added, a new historical layer reflecting its authenticity. Therefore, one solution may be the spatial reconsideration of the Champ de Mar to improve safety, rather than a physical barrier.

“The story of mankind begins to unfold from the moment that men’s memories, their hopes and doubts, take shape in stone or find expression in a mask or musical rhythm… our generation is the first in history to perceive the totality of these works as an indivisible whole, each of them being considered as an integral part of a single universal heritage.”

-Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow Director-General of UNESCO (1974-1987)

M’bow is reflecting on the campaign to save the treasures of Nubia, titled by the UNESCO Courier as the “greatest archaeological campaign of all time”.122 It was a campaign built off the pure ambition to protect the collective history of humanity. But this action itself has become a symbol, that imbued a vigour to protect more, to locate everything that humanity finds valuable and conserve it, in the name of peace, and in the name of future generations. A task bestowed upon UNESCO but lost in its application, as we discussed the World Heritage List today is plagued by bureaucracy with culturally western ideas permeating at the centre of an organisation designed for all humanity. Further, the assessment of Universal Value is fraught with issues, key being the centrality of authenticity as a qualifying factor. As we have reflected upon, perhaps authenticity isn’t essential, but for now, it at least needs to be reframed, to capture both the tangible and intangible, to allow us as a global community to protect what we actually value. As we have explored, the Eiffel Tower is as much material structure as it is voids, so too its value is just as much physical as experiential. In the Tower's case perhaps its intangible connotations and experiential authenticity is more important to protect. This reflection hopefully provides more questions than answers. Questions about how we quantify the subjective, how we assess value, how we interact as a global society, and how we will inevitably be our own historic layer, contributing to the “single universal heritage”123 we are all defined by.