24th June 2010, 04:21 PM
mpoole Wrote:If heritage is a commodity, then charge for it and use the funds to preserve it. If heritage is a 'cultural right' then expect the rights-holders to maintain it. It is infamous that places like Pompeii are handled so badly. It's much the same as my problem with Stonehenge, there is no consistency in applying access. Does being a World Heritage Site have no responsibilities to maintain the sites?
Shows that I'm not an archaeologist, doesn't it?
The Burra Charter 1999
Article 2. 'Conservation & Management':
2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved.
2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place.
2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.
2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.
Article 12. 'Participation':
Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.
So, is Stonehenge a place of Cultural Significance? If yes it should be conserved and thus the CS is retained. Conservation is achieved through good management. Is this left to 'experts' or do the 'great unwashed' also get involved (e.g. 'Druids'/farmers/landowners/public), as supported by Article 12? One of the gripes from archaeologists and heritage professionals is that there are too many 'stakeholders' and nothing is getting done. But the alternative is to allow only a limited number of people to interpret and choose what to conserve for the public at large. It's messy but the alternative is cultural fascism.