Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Wax Wrote:Heritage Management??..what do we as archaeologists understand by that?
Is the heritage managed for its own sake & preserved for future generations or is it managed to make a quick buck today?
Possibly it is a fine balance between preserving/conserving a public resource but at the same time generating income from that resource that can be ploughed back into conservation.
Personally I think we are beginning to slip into the Dinsney heritage park approach
The theme park "Historic Briton" might help the economic crises but will it compromise our heritage?
As archaeologists we dig stuff up. They have been doing that at Pompeii for years because that is where the money is. Then they do off and dig more stuff up and let the first site go to hell. No money for conservation and no plan to let people in to view the remains so as to generate income for the conservation. No plan as to how people can view the remains in a sustainable way so even if they are allowed they trash what is there. If you don't want to have people on the site who will pay? I know examples where tourists pay a premium and locals pay little or nothing - the tourists are taxed for the benefit of locals. Good idea? And for fecks sake don't go off on what you all have been doing - not interested.:face-topic:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
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?
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
The Burra Charter 1999 ??????
You seem to be assuming that Stonehenge is in Australia Comarch, or have I missed something? :face-huh:
You want the Venice Charter mate!
and Circular 07/09
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ldheritage and PPS5 of course.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
24th June 2010, 09:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 24th June 2010, 09:36 PM by Comarch.)
vulpes Wrote:The Burra Charter 1999 ??????
You seem to be assuming that Stonehenge is in Australia Comarch, or have I missed something? :face-huh:
You want the Venice Charter mate!
and Circular 07/09 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...ldheritage and PPS5 of course.
Perfectly aware thank you. The points made by the charter are universal surely. Its the language and commitment to the protection of world heritage that counts here. Or is Stonehenge only for the English?
"The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and presented in a seemly manner". How 'seemly' is Stonehenge at the moment? Also the Venice Charter makes a strange comment on monuments being "useful". Any comments?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
My point was only that the Burra Charter is based on the Venice Charter and is a response to it. Whereas we have our own guidance so no the Burra Charter is not at all relevant. This forum just gets more bizarre.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
vulpes Wrote:Personally I'm not sure why Stonehenge 'needs' a visitor centre :face-thinks:
Based on the numbers of people who visit Stonehenge every year, is there a need for some sort of central management area (toilets, parking, etc) at the least as well as a presence that will give information to those who need it (the audio tour things are very popular) or should it simply be released into the wild again, with no management whatsoever? Would it be responsible to simply leave it to the public to manage things for themselves?
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
"Personally I'm not sure why Stonehenge 'needs' a visitor centre :face-thinks:"
In which case, why bother with any interpretation at any site, let alone at the most visitied tourist attraction in the UK. Why bother to provide toilets and parking? This forum does indeed get ever more bizarre.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
My point was to question the assumption that important archaeological sites 'need' visitor centres, marketing etc. It seems a bit chicken and egg to me. The so called 'success' of Stonehenge as a visitor attraction (actually more like the 9th or 10th most popular in the UK and a long way behind Blackpool Pleasure Beach!) has inexorably lead to inappropriate development within it's setting, car parks, subways and so on. It has also resulted in reduced access to the site itself. I personally have no interest in visiting such a heavily circumscribed and compromised site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
I don't see how one person's interpretation means an entire forum is bizarre. Seriously, debate on a topic means that not every opinion is going to match, but that's how a concensus is reached. The bizarre can always be balanced by the well-reasoned.
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.
