World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
General discussions about WHS Forum / General discussions about WHS /  

Is there a need for a world heritage artifacts list?

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2

Author m_m
#16 | Posted: 8 Mar 2009 21:57 
for artifacts that may be classified as religious relics, those being referred to above were mostly confined to the history of crusades, reconquest and christianization of the new world. some of these items (esp those related to the life of christ) may be of dubious origin. but we also overlooked those religious relics found in other continents, like the remains of buddha. one excellent example here is the tooth relic in sri lanka. its removal from polonnaruwa was used as justification for criterion vi inscription. while its eventual transfer to kandy was also used for the site's criterion vi inscription. note that the context of the removal is internal struggle/war among historical kingdoms. hence, the pillaging and removal of artifacts may not just be confined to the transfer from one culture/continent to another, but may also happen within a country/region in its historical context. another example is bangkok's emerald buddha, which is actually a war booty from a temple in laos, although both are currently not world heritage sites.

Author Cardolan
#17 | Posted: 11 Aug 2009 06:13 
Hmm, I think there should be a list for moveable heritage artefacts. If only to allow the use of images of the artefacts for free when used for Educational purposes. I've seen schoolbooks that don't have images of certain artefacts and artworks simply because the bookprice would go up with all the royalties that need to be paid out. Also, online encyclopedia's like Wikipedia won't upload images of certain artworks or artefacts simply because they cannot be certain of the licensing issue.

When dealing with the non-moveable heritage sites/artefacts (WHL), one can freely use it for educational purposes simply by stating that it is World Heritage. I find it ludicrous that one can use such a double standard: The Pyramids of Gizeh are freely useable because they are world-heritage, but the Mona Lisa, the Codex Aureus of Sankt Emmeram, the David by Donatello, ... aren't?

I wonder where we will draw the line? If it cannot be stolen without a crane it's World Heritage?

Although, I understand where they are coming from. If we made a moveable Heritage List, what would apply to be on it? What about the Cuneiform tablets, the Cycladic Figurines, the beautifully illustrated and decorated medieval books and codexes, the Gold-plated Carolingian books, Minoan Pottery, ... Where to draw the line? Is it heritage because it is old and unique or because it is in a museum?

Author Solivagant
#18 | Posted: 11 Aug 2009 08:14 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Books/Codexes (Codices?) etc can be placed on UNESCO's "Memory of the World" register. As well as preservation this has an objective of dissemination so presumably (??) items on it are made available electronically. Some are enormous archives - I don't think there is any requirement for them to be "on line" prior to inscription - whether there has to be an agreed objective to make them so for "free use" at some time in the future I know not. I suspect most items placed on this list are within national collections though UK has just added Magna Carta and 2 copies are in the ownership of the Church which might have been expected to hold views about copyright and its "value" - that owned by the British Library was already available to view on line.

We have had earlier discussions on this forum about the fine line between "moveable" and immoveable. The most (in)famous bit of case law on this was UK's attempt in 1988 to gain inscription for the SS Gt Britain. Weighing in at c2000 tonnes and sitting in a dry dock in Bristol it is never likely to "sail" again but was excluded as it was intended to be moveable. Somewhat illogically the Cutty Sark built in Dumbarton in 1869 is part of the inscribed site of Maritime Greenwich - like SS Gt Britain it sits in a dry dock (albeit somewhat "singed" after its fire the other year.) but was ok to be included apparently as part of a bigger site

The Statue of Liberty was built in France and was part assembled and put on display there before being moved to USA but this was OK apparently as "moveability" wasn't part of its purpose. We have a "connection" for items within WHS which have been moved - it includes complete buildings

There is also an interesting issue about the moveable contents of buildings -are they inscribed or not? There are 2 types of contents - collections as in museums and the intended contents of buildings like the Palais Stoclet. Isues about selling any significant number of objects from within are unlikely to arise with museums but could arise in a case like Stoclet. Why shouldn't the Stoclet owners legitimately move and sell (all or some of) things which belong to them? How "essential" are they for the OUV of the building? Can/do they have the same protection?

Also - Thinking about it, the mere inscription of a site/building as a WHS makes no difference at all to copyright issues for images of that site/building. There are are many WHS which prevent photography inside the site/structure. This could be justified on the grounds of "protection" (from flash etc) and crowd management - but it does often also seem to be to protect the copyright value.

Page  Page 2 of 2:  « Previous  1  2 
General discussions about WHS Forum / General discussions about WHS /
 Is there a need for a world heritage artifacts list?

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®