|
|
 |
 |
|
This
publication presents three internationally agreed standards
for the documentation of the cultural heritage: the Core
Data Index to Historic Buildings and Monuments of the Architectural
Heritage, the International Core Data
Standard for Archaeological Sites and Monuments, and the
recently agreed core data standard for identifying cultural
objects — Object ID. These
standards have been brought together in a single publication
to provide a readily accessible guide for use by those responsible
for documenting the archaeological, architectural, and movable
heritage. The publication explains the genesis of the individual
standards, presents each in turn, and provides examples of
their application — examples that illustrate the compatibility
of the standards and demonstrate the potential for linking
them in documentation centres.
The Importance of Documentation
The role of inventories in the management of the cultural
heritage has long been recognised. They are indispensable,
for purposes of identification, protection, interpretation,
and physical preservation of movable objects, historic buildings,
archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes. They have a
significant place in all the major international conventions
relating to the protection of the heritage.
The 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage included the provision
that a World Heritage Committee be established, to which each
party state would submit an inventory of its national heritage.
Article 2 of the Council of Europe’s Convention for the
Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada,
1985) states that:
For the purpose of precise identification of the
monuments, groups of buildings and sites to be protected,
each Party undertakes to maintain inventories and in the
event of threats to the properties concerned, to prepare
appropriate documentation at the earliest opportunity.
Similarly, Article 2 of the Council of Europe’s Convention
on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta,
1992) requires each party to make provision for "the
maintenance of an inventory of its archaeological heritage
and the designation of protected monuments and areas."
Inventories are also recognised as a vital weapon in the fight
against the illicit trade in cultural objects. Article 5 of
the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership
of Cultural Property called for the establishment and maintenance
of national inventories of cultural property. In 1993 the
Council of Europe, concerned by "the situation of the
movable heritage in central and eastern European countries,"
organised an intergovernmental meeting in Prague. This meeting
recognised:
that the conservation and protection of the movable
cultural heritage is currently amongst the worst problems
facing central and eastern countries and agree that such
problems can be solved through effective international co-operation
in Europe within the framework of the Council of Europe,
and in close cooperation with other international bodies,
in particular UNESCO, the EUROPEAN UNION and INTERPOL.
The meeting also stressed "how important it is to identify
movable cultural property" and called for inventories
to be compiled.
The most recent major international initiative aimed at combatting
the illicit trade in cultural objects is the 1995 UNIDROIT
Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally
Exported Cultural Objects. This convention "seeks to
create a unified code whereby claimants in countries that
are party to the convention may sue in the courts of other
signatory countries for the return of stolen or illegally
exported cultural objects." The importance of inventories
is recognised by article 4, which states that the possessor
of a stolen cultural object who is required to return it shall
be entitled to fair compensation only if it can be proved
that he or she
exercised due diligence when acquiring the object.
In determining whether the possessor exercised due diligence,
regard shall be had to the circumstances of the acquisition,
including the character of the parties, the price paid,
whether the possessor consulted any reasonably accessible
register of stolen cultural objects, and any other relevant
information and documentation which it could reasonably
have obtained.
|
top | previous | next
contents | foreword | introduction | standards | appendix | bibliography |
|
