We must unfortunately add that the conflicts and destabilisation of some of the most interesting regions of the world from the point of view of an archaeologist add to your worries.

Big data management and the involvement of the public seem to be a way out (e.g. the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the UK): Social media and raising the awareness of the cultural heritage through well thought-through media offers.

May I suggest that you chase up Cornelius Holtorf's work? Cornelius usually produces intellectually provocative stances, and has been examining these issues in various recent publications - as well as giving background to the more traditional/conservative stances about heritage and heritage value.

To follow recent developments I recommend this German blog: http://archaeologik.blogspot.co.uk/

And I agree with the Mark: http://web.comhem.se/cornelius/

Conflict and poverty in developing regions certainly are a threat to cultural resources. Not only do they hinder research and fieldwork in those areas, but they usually result in an increase in the looting of archaeological sites and thus feed the illegal antiquities trade. The high degree of corruption among government officials who are responsible for protecting cultural resources renders enforcement of antiquities laws almost impossible in many regions. Education programs in the schools may help the local populations to understand the value of preserving their cultural heritage, but people must eat, and often selling antiquities is an important supplement to the household income. There is of course nothing new in all of this. Local people must have a stake in their cultural heritage in order to develop a strong desire to preserve it.

In North America, we archaeologists have had to realize that the cultural heritage(s) we have been so fortunate to study are not really ours. Museum and other institutional curation space actually holds the heritage of the many bands and tribes that were here first and lost their lands in too often undeclared wars to eliminate these first native people. Thus, these groups should have major roles to play in deciding what parts, if any, of their cultural heritages should be preserved and how they should be interpreted. I would say the cost of federal funding of national political conventions and support of elected (and retired) Senators and Representatives would more than underwrite the responsible care, preservation, and presentation of the Native American diversity that our forefathers attempted to eliminate.

The main problem I see in construct of group (collective) or local or ethnic memory, generation transmission of values culture heritage and saving of living micro cultures.

In cognition of man are cultural heritage representation fixed symbolically without clasification in culture heritage materia. If is something in memory of man be in existence.But in global impact to stabilisatare mainly important phenomenon Tourism and Transport; Global Migration, Mobility; Ageing Populations and Generation Y. More about it please see attachment.

Hi Mark and Andrea,

I have been directed to find an answer for my question in Holtorf's book and a German blog. Well, the first handles and I quote "the vibrancy and diversity of current archaeological research about our own time" which is not the same what I had in mind when I wrote my question about Cultural Heritage, whereas the German blog refers most of the time to war and vandalism because of being in my region (as Andreas writes),. which falls under the heading of 'vandalism' which is already a question in Searchgate.

No, my question was--and I explain myself a bit better--who on earth is in the future going to pay for conservation by applying nuclear and synchrotron techniques to preserve it which are almost prohibitive according to the the amount of money these techniques are costing. I do both, using a nuclear reactor for applying INAA as well as two synchrotrons at the ESRF, Grenoble and DESY, Hamburg for obtaining 3-D tomography of the Dead Sea scrolls and its ink. I know for a fact that Israel pays the ESRF 7.5 million Euros only to participate in SR research at Grenoble and that a reactor requires not much less for a dozen of samples.

So, I repeat my question--leave for the moment vandalism and war aside--who in the long run is going to pay for all that we want to preserve from our ancestors?

I agree with you Don on the major points that it is up to the people whose heritage and ancestors were exterminated to decide which parts of its heritage he wants to keep and promote.

Also, it is high time that previous occupants, explorers or even actual "protectors" assume their responsibilities in giving back what has been taken from lands that are not theirs and which have population to claim them. It is also high time that international researchers assume their ethical role in criticizing practices such as antiquity international black market. We all know where all these objects sold for nuts or taken illegally end up to be kept and sometimes even exhibited....

Finally, it is a big mistake to believe that we can lie to ourselves and take others' land and others' heritage simply because we think we are strong enough to impose silence around us...What has been don in America or is being done in Jerusalem and similar cities in Palestine or other regions of the world is a shame and it will stay shameful even if there is a thick silence around. May be it is also of the responsibility of academia to address such topics seriously.

Thank you Jan for uploading this interesting question.

Conservators and museums often have to deal with budget constraints, unaware visitors and unaware politicians, decision makers and stake holders.

Museums should not be perceived as static warehouses, but rather as active places to educate people on the importance and care of our cultural heritage. Public involvement and awareness rising should be two of the major goals of every museum in order to safeguard our heritage and what it represents. Conservation work should be made known to the decision makers and the people responsible for allocating money to museums and cultural organisms, as well as the public, and especially children, who are the future of our society.

In one of my papers entitled "Conserving the Lesvos Petrified Forest" I have written

"Ignorance, or insufficient knowledge, results in a lack of appreciation of the rarity and sensitivity of the fossils, and indifference towards the need for protective measures. The Natural History Museum of the Lesvos Petrified Forest is fully aware of its educational role and develops various educational programmes for people of all ages. From its foundation, the museum aimed to act as a place of recruitment and knowledge. The main tools for the achievement of this goal are the educational programmes that bring people closer to the natural environment and the unique ecosystem of the Lesvos Petrified Forest.

Emphasis is given to educational programmes for schoolchildren, aiming towards the development of young students as responsible and sensitized citizens. The programmes have been developed according to contemporary pedagogic guidelines, in order to familiarize children with natural history subjects and the exhibits of the museum, to trigger their interest in the planet, the evolution of life, the importance of geotopes, the protection of ecosystems and the role of the museum and the various professionals working within it.

(.......)

The outcomes of the conservation programmes are valuable for the museum since young children come face to face with a subject that is not widely known to the public. The pupils appreciate the role of the conservator and fully understand the time, patience and effort needed for the conservation and restoration of each fossil and are willing to share their experience with their friends and family on their return home."

(Evangelia Kyriazi and Nickolas Zouros, “Conserving the Lesvos Petrified Forest” in Conservation and Access: Contributions to the 2008 IIC Congress, September 14-19, 2008, ed. David Saunders, Joyce H. Townsend, Sally Woodcock, London: International Institute for Conservation, 2008, p.141-145)

As a german archaeologist I am not very optimistic about the future of heritage management in general at least in Germany. From my perspective, the recent trends in heritage management and the related sciences develop towards a kind of "infotainment". This means that "spectacular" monuments, finds or scientific research will continue to be comparatively well funded, while the less visible or attractive monuments or relating more complex research questions will suffer from a continuous decrease of funding. To some extent this is our own fault, because most of us - or at least most of the more passionate colleagues I know - are bad "businessmen" in "selling" our stuff, but decrease of public money, reduction of permanent positions in a scale that the public heritage management is not able anymore to act if not even to react, is certainly another reason. This is further worsened by a decreasing public interest in the past: Teaching of history in german schools is more and more restricted to the Nazi-Period. This is of course an important subject, but it is not the only crucial period in history! Prehistory on the contrary is not at all subject of teaching in most schools, and if it still is, it is treated in the most superficial way - resulting in the well known clichées of fur clothed mace swinging Neanderthals that do not have to be teached at all. As a result, I virtually do not know any younger people interested in archaeology in my personal environment and, admittedly, I also obviously failed myself in promoting archaeology to them.

The only way to change this is to promote heritage management in a way more successful than we do at present - but this needs professionals in promotion and I am almost certain that I won't like the methods they would suggest...

Jan poses interesting questions, both in his initial question, and his follow-up remarks about nucleur and synchrotron techniques. We have had at least a couple of generations of scientific archaeology and of cultural resource management, and it will be increasingly necessary to question the costs for storage, preservation, and analysis of the materials collected to date, as well as to future collection. Let's face it. We collect everything, and commit to storing everything--or we leave it in the ground and preserve the location so that someone in the future can excavate. There have been fascinating techniques devised for analyzing artifacts, comparable in many ways to crime scene analysis. And the more we accumulate, the less likely it becomes that anyone will ever look at the majority of it.

Let's face it. Politicians will not give up their pensions, or the funding for their conventions, so that the monies saved can be used for cultural resource preservation. But the truly unique--the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Lesvos Petrified Forest, and the like--will be preserved. Important evidence from the recent past can be preserved in the Holocaust Museums. But how do we approach the issues pertaining to the tons of lithic debris, of broken potsherds, classic Greek and Roman statuary remains and skeletal material, etc? How do we balance the fear of losing critical evidence for some future research question with the cost of preserving that evidence?

If we were purists, would we not look at our own cultural detritus, and banish the concept of recycling in order to create the middens for generations of future researchers? Would we decry urban renewal, asserting that architectural presevations cannot be limited to saving the unique, the hisotrical, or the beautiful? Lets face it. In an academia espousing cultural relativism, our own cultures must also be acclaimed and preserved.

I don't have the answers, but some of them may lie in a thoughtful consideration of what we are preserving? What important scientific questions may the future pose (realizing none of us are clairvoyant)? And of the potential questions to be posed, what is the value to society in answering them? Because it will be society that we will ask to pay for the answer.

Dear Naima Benkari, Can we, please, once in a while discuss something without to descend into politics? I work at the Synchrotron at SESAME as a lecturer in User Meetings and have made friends as an Israeli with scientists from Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Palestinian Territory and Cyprus without mentioning once in 4 years anything that has a smell to politics. OK?

I must praise Thomas who is the first one who tackled my question. I am talkinmg about what I see around me in Jerusalem. A University with storage place for archaeological artifacts and just shards and stone remains that, in fact, no one will ever see after it was stored, and then the third store for the Israel Antiquity Authority--two in Jerusalem and one in Beth Shemesh--with more storage place needed for the many excavations that take place year after year

Thomas' view of letting bio- and material cultural objects buried underground is however questionable seen the damage done to it by our ecology whose products penetrate the soil. Iron objects that have been preserved so far, will in ten years from now survive as rusty negatives in the soil if someone does not go through it with her/his archaeology-hammer. Nevertheless, we keep looking for an answer

I'm surprised by the volume of cynical answers to this query. Perhaps these folks believe they are only being realistic.

I, however, see our history and heritage as something we all share and are connected to, without choice. Historians, museum facilitators, archaeologists, and conservationists must engage the public. They must INVOLVE the public.

Wayne State University has done just this for the last 8 years in Corktown, a historical section of Detroit, Michigan. By putting shovels in community members hands, and coordinating with business owners and organizations, the Corktown project has been a great success.

Emmet County, the Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association, and the Mackinaw Historical Society have coordinated efforts in similar projects at historic lighthouses and former village sites. When they had CMU conduct excavations at a lighthouse, the administrators made sure to notify the public this was happening. The result was a record season for heritage tourism.

No, such efforts will not work everywhere, all of the time. However, by getting everyday people involved in excavations, archival research; the story itself, the chances certainly increase.

To answer your specific question regarding how to fund the expensive preservation, testing, or dating methods; with the support of these "everyday people," there is the potential for effective letter writing campaigns to representatives, angel investors, and even private funding.

Patrick- I'm a fellow Michigander, now studying at GWU. In the late 70's I did an internship at the Edison Institute. It was really sad how underutilized Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum were. Fresh blood was brought in and more relevant exhibits, traveling shows were instituted. Well researched cultural interpretations brought life to what was formerly "dusty." It's thriving now and that's really wonderful- much as I'm an old fashioned museum purist at heart. My point to all is that in order for the Cultural Heritage to get the respect we know it merits, it must bring value to the public. Why should they be interested? Often there are more pressing needs in their personal lives.... How can this subject be presented in such a way that the majority of people understand how integral Cultural Heritage is not just to the current generation, but for those in the future? My other field is cyber. My concern is what will we leave in terms of records, writings, musings...etc., for those who follow? Data is pretty ephemeral...OS's change all the time. Media common a decade ago has few common devices that are capable of reading it. Information that resides on this will be lost.

In response to your specific question, which I understand to be "who pays for artifact preservation and conservation, such as applying nuclear and synchrotron techniques," there have only ever been 4 answers to this question:

(1) Patrons (Monarchs, Nobles, Aristocrats, Captains of Industry, etc)

(2) Taxpayers (Regional, Federal, National, State, and Local governments)

(3) Collectors (which may intersect/overlap with patrons)

(4) General Public (through museum gate receipts, organizational and private fund drives, etc)

Your concern, as I understand it, is that the artifact pool is growing, and ethical standards of care are increasing, but institutional (museum) budgets are static or declining. So, you ask, what will the future hold? Three possibilities:

(1) Fewer future acquisitions

(2) Lower standards of care for existing collections

(3) Follow the Money. Over the past half-century, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the income classes represented by (2) and (4) above, to the income classes represented by (1) and (3). Those classes - who founded the large institutional collections with which care we are all now entrusted, for a half-century passed that torch to the growing, largely urban, middle classes. With the contraction of those classes, at least in Europe and North America, in favor of the newly emergent super-rich, simple arithmetic would dictate that the super-rich must now re-assume the lion's share of that burden.

DR. JAN

Our attitudes thoughts standing pisitions teaching strategies and even research choices are somehow affected by politics. Your friends you mentionned decided to be your friends by a political choice the mere mention of "palestinian territory" that you made in you reply is also a political choice. The approach to have towards heritage is also a politic decision (see my artivle about the subject). So pleaee dont bring this old stick called "no politics" again. If you think any one beleives in this you are mistaken. Now that i said what i had to say to you and those who beleive they can exterminate nations and steal there welth and then sit in their chair to give lessons wrapped with hypocrisy to others instead of facing their sad reality, I shall say I dont have time for that.

With my regards

Dear Naima, thanks for the note, but instead of your answer, would it not be interesting for all of us if you could write us what the future of Cultural Heritage in Oman is?

Regarding your comment on the wording of "Palestinian Territory", this is correct, because the Palestinian Territory is not yet a state as real states as Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Israel. I really hope that soon also Palestine will be a real state. To mention this, I do not consider as "loosing my time" as you suggested.

An interesting question. I guess it will depend on who decides what "cultural" and "heritage" means. UNESCO has recently taken an interest in this issue, and I am also on a PhD committee of a thesis where a candidate examines the very role that UNESCO plays in preserving the "national heritage." Who "owns" culture is also a very important issue. Unfortunately, some political overtones cannot be avoided -- and it was political discourses on the nation that drew my attention to this issue. But, with the exception of some unnecessarily cynical answers, a very timely topic for discussion.

You are right as a general statement. However as a scientist, I must underlinet that it remians still a problem to get samples for some specific analyses for some countries are not allowing the samples to go out. I am thinking to Egypt which press excavators to have analyses carried out in the country and consequently which cut down discoveries that may be important for humanity.It is not so easy to get samples therfore I wonder whether we have reached the point to have toomuch materials?

All the best

Hi Jacques, you are right in the domain of taking samples in general and taking them to a lab abroad in particular. Taking samples becomes a no-no.

Therefore, I think that in this domain--which was not covered in my general question--there is a highly important place for engineers who develop machinery in physics and chemistry. I am aware of the fact that portable X-Ray machines and even hand-hold X-ray detectors are already doing their round in various museums. I also remember how a group of chemists in Fraunhofer IRB in Germany developed a glass that was placed in showcases and absorbed light by becoming blue. Later on, the glass was analyzed of how much light the exhibited artefact also got without to take any sample of the artefact in question.

In short, since money becomes scarcer by the day, there is a place of collaboration between cultural heritage persons and science engineers to develop new tools that are portable. I even heard of a portable synchrotron, which was a bit ridiculed, but which--I think--is a good step in the right direction. There would be only a one-time budget for the development of the new analytical technique.

Jan, I am sure you don't really believe what you said about Palestine. A scientist looks straight in the eyes of reality and keeps searching till he finds the truth. and with Palestine it is so easy task to do. Get out of your comfort zone and be coherent with the ethics of being a scientist. A lot of Jew researchers went through this step and earned the respect of themselves and of others. Chomsky, Finkelstein and many others are living examples. I wish you the wisdom to realize this soon. Then only I would agree with you that I did not waste my time :)

Your answer is largely a dream and not applicable to organic chemistry which is my field of expertise for to really say something reliable on organic remains in archaeological artefacts you must properly analyse them in labs and take time to fractionate their extract for a proper identification of compounds present. All along my long scientific carreer I have seen many attempts to use high resolution device to solve problems at a low cost but all have failed because of limit of detection, interferences , etc. You must do what you need to work properly...All the best

Dear Jacques, Thanks for the bitumen info. I know Arie and was present when he gave his last lecture in Archaeometry Congress in Mexico City 2000. There he showed the lump of bitumen in the Dead Sea and the hair that was implanted on a skull, which if I remember well was a polymer and not bitumen what everybody thought.

For my research, I have analyzed Dead Sea water and mud and bitumen and bituminous dolomite by INAA. The bitumen data were not much revealing and I will refer to them in my next book on the Dead Sea scrolls. What type of analyses did you perform when you indicated in your book: III.2.2. Basic analyses on crushed samples………..p. 97 ?

As a comment on your earlier note, of course, I agree that sampling is needed, is always destructive and is treated with wet chemistry or radiation techniques. I have only hoped that because of the prohibition to take real samples there would be a branch in engineering that would some day come up with something different as reliable as the aforementioned techniques. Dreams come sometimes true, you know

Furthermore, I am doing my best to not be neither cynical nor paternalistic. Salut

Dear Jan,

I start my reflections from at least some valuable insights of UNESCO's 2003 Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. This convention, as you know, highlights the importance of community participation in the identification and safeguarding of cultural heritage. On the other side, safeguarding is not understood anymore as "conservation" and "freezing" of heritage, but more as sustainable development.

Of course there are some fundamental problems when applying this new concept of safeguarding to material objects, but at least I would agree about the importance of community participation in the decisions about WHAT IS and WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN with heritage. Conservation of heritage is not guaranteed even under the supervision of "institutions" and "experts". Just think what is going on in Pompei.

Best wishes, Emanuel

Dear Emanuel, I just visited Pompeii last year, after a long period of not having been there--1972--and found out that not much was done to protect walls from collapsing with or without frescoes. That recently a part of a fresco was removed by robbers is no surprise to me. I remember after having paid the entry money that I was wondering where that money is going while walking through the site.

Elsewhere, I have pointed to Malta's underground cave=temples and Akrotiri's and Ephesos' reconstructions by UNESCO, great successes, whereas I was astonished that Pompeii is still open to the destructive weather elements.

Since 2003's last UNESCO convention that you mentioned, many wars have taken place everywhere on earth and I think it becomes time to have a follow-up convention by UNESCO the alter some of the plans that were valid in the 2003 period, but yet invalid.

In the private sector, I see wealthy banks and insurance companies as well as weapon dealers and oil magnates sharing --in the future--the costs needed for dealing with the bio- and material cultures that our ancestors left us behind.

Thanks and ciao.

Thank you for additionnal comments . On criushed samples I am doing X-Ray diffraction, Rock-Eval pyrolysis and dichloromethane extraction with GC-MS analysis of alkanes and aromatics and carbon isotopic analysis of asphaltenes.Developments about Dead sea bitumen are included in II.I.8 bitumen und funerary practices of Ancient Egypt p.75 to 82 and also in VI.2 Bitumen from the Dead Sea : a flourishing trade in particular to Egypt for mummification. Hope it will be of use to you . Regards jacques

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the general statement made. That "One needs bio- and material cultural objects that reflect how our forefathers were living and left behind." I believe that this is inadequate to maintain cultural heritage. I believe, and observed, that cultural heritage is only preserved through practice. The root-knowledge and the material objects will only help to preserve a memory of a culture, and typically create a skewed interpretation of what the culture truely was. It does nothing to preserve the unique epistemology of the culture, which, again only in my opinion, is the core aspect of what culture and cultural heritage is. If the essence of the culture (i.e. the world view and epistemology) is lost, then we are no longer preserving a cultural heritage, we are simply performing an exercise in history. This is also important, and there are many aspects of human cultural evolution that we will know nothing more of besides the history, but if this discussion is truly on culture and cultural heritage then I strongly feel that there is nothing that will preserve it other than to preserve the ability for individuals to practice and live the lifestyle of the culture, and therein preserving the ways of thinking and knowing that the culture represents.

The key sentence of Noa's contribution was

"a skewed interpretation of what the culture truly was does nothing to preserve the unique epistemology of the culture, which is the core aspect of what culture and cultural heritage is".

Well, let me quote the following website http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Epistomology where one can find a description of what epistemology means as referred to by Noa.

Epistemology indicating 'knowledge or science', is the branch of philosophy that is directed toward theories of the sources, nature, and limits of knowledge.

I omit the history of epistemology over the past centuries and point to:

"The causal theory of knowledge, advanced by Alfred North Whitehead and others, stressed the role of the nervous system as intermediary between an object and the perception of it. The methods of perceiving, obtaining, and validating data derived from sense experience has been central to pragmatism and developed the view that scientific knowledge that rests on hypotheses that, while they cannot be positively verified, can be proven false and have withstood repeated attempts to show that they are. Philosophers in the 20th cent. have criticized and revised the traditional view that knowledge is justified true belief, in other words "knowledge is theory-laden"'.

So, I repeat that--in my opinion--, this is the reason why we need the bio- and material remains [objects and perception] that came to us over time. Without these, one cannot philosophize about the culture of our recent and/or ancient forefathers. And, finally, science is needed to conserve the outcome for the future by pointing to the bio- and material remains.

How much money this is going to cost is another problem and my original question was asked with the latter on the background.

Absent in Noa's discussion is whether or not the members of an indigenous group participating in a cultural heritage wish to continue their practices. Cultures evolve, change, interact with others. Even in industrialized societies, cultural practices change, and it is often a matter of preserving the evidence of, and material remains of the cultural heritage.

Perhaps analogies are not the best form of argument, but consider a family, preserving the mementos and memories of their gradnparents and great-grandparents. This does not mean they wish to continue living the same lives and practicing the same customs as were common 2 or 3 generations previously.

To return to Jan's original question, preserving that knowledge of the past cannot rely solely on the oral tradition. And families pass on family homes, furnishings and heirlooms, photo albums and letters, written account. To continue the analogy, preservation of these can become problematic as houses deteriorate, land gets sold, photo fade, furnishings need special care, jewelry gets lost, etc. So families are now digitalizing photos, electronically storing documents and stories, sharing these amongst the new generation, and passing on their heritage as shared memories. It is a chore for the family to do these things, often dependent on one or two with a special interest.

How much more challenging is preserving heritage on a national level? As I understand Jan's question, as more and more of cultural remains are discoverd, as newer technologies develop that permit either preservation of inherently unstable remains, or of recovering and interpreting trace evidence, how do we pay for all of this.

Years ago, excavating a Mayan burial, I found several miniature ceramic vessels. One of these contained a solidified substance filling the vessel about 1/4 to 1/3 of its volume. The vessel sits in storage somewhere in Guatemala, but we did not have any resources to analyze the contents of the vessel. Now, years later, will anyone ever look for, or find it and analyze it? We stored crates and crates of sherds and lithic artifacts, and miscellaneous stuff collected, The museums set aside the complete vessels, the finer lithics, the gold, and I suspect ehy would have also set aside the miniature vessels. But I don't know--it might have been left with those thousands of potsherds. In this world of "pack everything up and store it" how will we rediscover the unique artifact that will tell us something more?

Cultural Heritage is extremely ancient, rich and diverse and it is essential to preserve the monuments, temples, different artifacts, paintings, sculpture, handicrafts, old remnants, etc, to retrieve the past historical pinnings as well it forms evidence for future generations to study about past. Cultural heritage forms a dynamic part of community life though increasing in number and we should constantly maintain, strengthen rich multi-cultural, multi-linguistic cultural heritage. Whenever, i visit any cultural area of research in different geographical settings, i have developed the interest to collect different cultural materials for the Anthropological museums.

I agree with Bharathi in spite of the fact that he mentioned "Cultural Heritage is extremely ancient". Of course, Cultural Heritage CAN be ancient, but even the cultural heritage of my parents, my hometown and school where I was educated are even so important; in other words, Cultural Heritage has no time-limits, all heritage has to be taken care of whether it is the CH from yesterday or from nine millennia ago.

Several thoughts come to mind.

In order to understand who we are and what and where we're 'going' in life, we need to have a physical and a social context - an understanding - of our pasts, what ever that is.

Buildings and objects create contexts for meaning and of meaning..that are different for all of us, while at the same time they hold us together.

They should be conserved for the health of the coming generations.

It is exceedingly distressing, and often disorienting, to live in a society that constantly destroys its past by tearing down older buildings. Too much leeway is given to developers who are allowed to 'develop' the community's old sites with completely new buildings. In effect, they are cleansing the past. The people who live in these same areas often end up with no sense of the local history nor the significances of their particular geographical location viz a vis somewhere else.

The costs of repair, conservation, curation, could be partially spread throughout the community. Building owner could be encouraged to repair their buildings, keeping them in historical repair. Historians, museums, and others should learn to work with town planners and private developers. The social and cultural loss is too great.

Thank you for the response. Just to clarify I did not mean to imply that the physical objects for the past are not an important, if not essential, part of the cultural heritage, but simply that they are inadequate alone. Any object kept without knowledge of its role and purpose will only be interpreted under the modern cultural paradigm. The mysterious precipitate found in the Mayan excavation may someday be analyzed and identified, but what will it tell us about the culture of the people? Was it a spice, a food, a medicine, a drug? Was it used in a ritualistic ceremony relating to the worship of animals as the true gods on earth? Was it a childʻs science project? I believe that there is danger in thinking that objects themselves can preserve our cultural history. Even a shallow understanding of an object (e.g. the precipitate was a medicine used to treat diarrhea) to me indicates more a study of a cultureʻs technology, and tellʻs me very little about the cultural beliefs and values. These, to me, are the important things to preserve about the culture. I, unfortunately, see quite often the misintepretation of my own culture from outsiders attempting to understand objects or even actions from their own cultural perspective. While I am not extremely experienced in my own global experiences it seems even worse elsewhere, where significant objects and sites from a cultures history are interpreted solely as an amusing tourist attraction. I have read a good number of papers indicating how designation as a UNESCO site tends to lead to the loss of culture in that area...not itʻs preservation.

Hi Jean Colson, you pointed to an interesting phenomenon: the tearing down of old buildings to make place for new ones with a new population that has no idea of the history of the place where they live now.

I am going to show that it is also possible to conserve a site. I live in west Jerusalem in a place that was built by Moses Montefiore with the money of Judah Tura in 1890. During the many wars and struggles the site deteriorated so that in 1948 refugees from Europe moved in freely but lived there without electricity, water and sewage. Each family had a cistern where it collected rain water and another cistern for sewage that regularly had to be emptied.

After the Six-Day War in 1967, two architects of the Technical University in Haifa had the idea to make a green zone around the entire Old City of Jerusalem, a plan that was adopted by Teddy Kollek the Mayor of Jerusalem. In my area, each house had to be reconstructed according to harsh laws where even the way to fill the space between stones at the outside walls was prescribed. I made my own plans, got a license in 1976 and started building. Within two years our house was ready with electricity, running water, gas, telephone and TV connections all underground. The original 120 ruins are now 129 villas whereby the outer architecture is preserved as it once looked 124 years ago.

Last year the blue prints of the only working windmill in Israel were dug up somewhere in the UK and a Dutch miller reconstructed the windmill as it was depicted in 1867 on copper plate prints i.e. 147 years ago when the same Montefiore built the first building for Jews outside of the Old City walls in 1865. Our area can be seen on http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msjan/design.html and we are proud to show this as an example what some people who think outside the box can establish.

@Jan - yes, that is very good.

This level of detailed 'reconstruction'/conservation also occurs along side new construction in the UK. It is also benefits the tourism market besides making the environment that people live in more evocative of historical pasts.. And I suspect that because space is limited, careful use of space as well as reuse of space is important. It can't be wasted,

I do recall trying to make a visit to the house where I had lived with my parents not that long ago. I almost missed finding the correct street for the house, The corner that I was looking for had had a 'landmark building' - a church - that marked the beginning of 'their' street. It had disappeared. It was replaced by a parking lot. Trees had been cut down. I had never needed to look it up on a map, as I had always used visual landmarks to work out where I was. The sad part - for me anyway - was that this church was a symbol of the history of the town...Although it was not my history, none the less, it was part of the town's history..which had disappeared. It made me wonder how many of the inhabitants of the town, just eat and sleep there. while others had had their roots there but now somehow cut up.

I love a good old bifurcated discussion! I can see the strengths in both sides of this debate. Possibly it is not an either or but a both For my part, and also coming from New Zealand, i can see where Noa is coming from. Also, as a dance researcher there are difficulties with survival and retrieval of relics ancient or even more recent. Film is notoriously inadequate in many ways, not least of which being the film maker can heavily influence what we are shown and much of the dynamic range is washed out, also it can lack any record of the cultural values that dances embody.

As stated in UNESCO’s (2003) Article 2.3 (‘Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’), transmission is among the measures aiming to ensure the viability of intangible cultural heritages:

One of the biggest threats to the viability of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is posed by declining numbers of practitioners of traditional craftsmanship, music, dance or theatre, and of those who are in position to learn from them. (http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00061.html)

As part of this convention, UNESCO encourages the establishment of national systems of “Living Human Treasures”, to identify exemplary traditional bearers of ICH. This scheme aims for sustainability and support for bearers of heritages to transmit their knowledge and skills to younger generations. The selection criteria that UNESCO lay out for Living Human Treasures include: a high degree of knowledge and skills required for performing or re-creating specific elements of the ICH; the basis of their accomplishments; their willingness to convey their knowledge and skills to others; the value of the traditions and expressions concerned as a testimony of the human creative genius; their roots in cultural and social traditions; their representative character for a given community; and the risk of disappearance. So how do we pay for this?

In Greece, in the 1920s, after the Greeks of Minor Asia had to leave their houses after the Greco-Turkish wars, vast areas of cities were dedicated to construct houses for the refugees. The houses were very small and simple, they may have no architectural value, yet they were important monuments (in the greater sense) of Greece's early 20th century history. A history the memory of which is very vivid in the hearts of the children and grandchildren of the refugees. However, most of these areas throughout Greece have been demolished to make space for blocks of flats, and part of the history of Greece is therefore being lost. I am not suggesting to keep all of these tiny little houses, as they cannot meet the needs of the contemporary society - too small to live in, lacking contemporary comforts etc. However, I strongly believe that there should have been a provision that parts of the old refugee neighbourhoods were kept as standing witnesses of a very painful chapter of Greece's history, so that it is not forgotten by future generations.

Another case of small houses being demolished is the case of the neighbourhoods in Beijing. Many traditional housings were demolished in an attempt to modernise and westernise Beijing in order for it to welcome western visitors, spectators of the Olympic Games.

I do accept the fact that our contemporary society has different needs than the societies for which such neighbourhoods were built, yet there should be a way that at least parts of these neighbourhoods were kept.

Evangelia, thanks for the info. Perhaps that I can give a hint to something that already exists for quite some time in the Netherlands. I am pointing to two open-air museums, one at the Zuiderzee and the other at the city of Arnhem.

The first is called the "Zuiderzee Museum' and is located at Enkhuizen--North of Amsterdam-- where all the various house-types and boats and wooden shoes- and smoking fish gilds are preserved in an open and a closed museum that have to do with the previous use of the South Sea (Zuiderzee in Dutch) that is now land and inhabited. Fishing that took once place there is now exhibited in the open air and indoors, whereas skilled workers are continuously at work to preserve and conserve this branch of Cultural Heritage. Their website is http://zuiderzeemuseum.nl

The second open air museum is in the city of Arnhem where entire houses, windmills, bridges, churches from all over the Netherlands have been reconstructed--stone by stone-- from places in Holland where they wanted to take them down. Every stone, brick and plank was numbered and reconstructed in the Arnhem park. One can choose between 1,3 or 6 hours walks through the entire exhibit and everywhere explanations are given by people who work at the various farms etc. that are also reconstructed and brought from elsewhere.

I think that Greek conservationists should pay a visit to Holland, being informed and start something similar in Greece too.

This is going to cost money, as everything in Cultural Heritage is financially-bound. Nevertheless, if the government does not have the needed insight, other sources could be tapped like really rich people who will give a percent of what they have and get their names on the facility to be build to remember them for the coming generations. By doing so, the rich become a part of Cultural Heritage itself.

I forgot the website of the second open-air museum in the Netherlands http://www.openluchtmuseum.nl/ cheers

Of course, conservation has costs..but the costs of not conserving some things of the past costs the people and society their mental health and mental balance. We all end up paying something. Better to support museums, conservation efforts, history and archaeological projects, scientific research, philosophic inquiry, and ultimately education/availability of cultural information/ for all, than find ourselves ultimatelly living actually and metaphorically in a 'parking lot". That sort of tarmacked environment dehumanises us and causes mental dysfunction. Surely the real problem is working out how to equitably share the cost throughout society. This problem is not dissimilar to the question of conserving books (knowledge in books) in libraries so that everyone has the chance to read them, or trying to educate more people. Presumably our goals should be those which help to create a society that actually is a nicer place to live for everyone and not just for those who can afford to ignore or isolate themselves from the nasty aspects of life.

It is quite possible that most museums are only able to show 5 to 10% of their collections to the public. It might be useful to invent new ways of seeing and talking about the objects that are in storage .but perhaps present the results of these efforts on-line. This takes preparation, expertise, and money as well, but at the very least it offers this richness to other people who may not be able to go to the museum in the first place.

Dear colleagues, for Europen research perspective in culture heritage and changes is important our initiative to founding of research. May be it is relevant platform for action in programming research activities in tangible, intangible and digital CH.

If you see http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu that will be usefull for our discussion.

Ivan, what great web site! Preservation begins and ends with community engagement.

In my home town we had a "castle." Unusual for the US. If you have seen the US Army Corps of Engineers patch, with the building with 3 turrets, there were 5 of those buildings, I understand. We had one, a US Civil War Armory, that was converted to an orphanage, and then abandoned for decades. As a child I would play with friends within the deteriorating structure, climbing to the top of the turrets. But the structure was never preserved, and was eventually torn down in the 1960s. It was probably doomed because no one thought of preservation during the decades before, and by that time it was too late to save the structure.

It taks an active community interest, as described by Jan, above, to initiate the task,

I like the website of Ivan with all the collaborations between various countries.

Ivan wrote "For European research perspective in culture heritage and changes is important our initiative to founding of research." I am happy and know as a matter of fact that Europe has money for the required research in Cultural Heritage.

My original question, however, is also of importance for Aboriginal research in Australia as well as music played during Berber weddings in Morocco and tool making preserved among the Eskimos in Alaska. In other words, I had in mind the CH of all nations and ethnic groups all over the globe. The majority of those cannot pay--as Europe--to preserve their patrimony and keep the tradition alive as the bio- and material cultural remains from yesterday or thousands of years testify.

In Israel, we have in our Universities entire departments that go after all available groups of immigrants that arrived from all directions of the world. They are interviewed and put on tape while recalling their memories of traditional wedding ceremonies,specific clothes, different dialects, songs and music instruments among other stories that can feed academic research in the historical facts of these people.

And so--again--who else is going to take care of that archive and with whose money?

http://www.britishcouncil.ru/en/programmes/arts

Money is very important, but human cross-cultural relations are more important. We highly appreciate the UK-Russia Year of Culture, which will celebrate the rich and diverse, cultural heritage of both countries, fostering cultural exchange and the flow of ideas.

Here is an anecdote for Jean. She wrote:"not conserving some things of the past costs the people and society their mental health and mental balance."

Well, some years ago in Toronto, Canada, the head of the neutron activation archaeometry group there got the order to close the lab and the reactor, because they needed the site to construct a hospital. The scientist asked all of us in the same profession to write a letter to the president of the Toronto University. As an obeying citizen, I wrote a letter to the president in saying that thanks to the work done at the reactor in Cultural Heritage, the average man saw interesting projects shown by the big media. By closing the reactor, it would take away the mental health and balance of a large group of people who from the moment of closure wouldn't get any longer this info. I wrote the president that by leaving the lab open, he would not need the hospital to hospitalize these people.

He answered that the decision was not his but somewhere higher up. Everythin seems always to happen 'somewhere higher up' who are voted in by us!

that says alot...

It looks like another case of the utter lack of 'joined-up thinking' .

:>(

I recently visited the Liverpool world Museum warehouse and was amazed to see the collections there. They were so beautiful, it is a shame they are not on show there was also mummies which I have been studying of which haven't been studied ever. The museum has had them since before the World War I and World War II. The curator said it was due to funding, conservation and lack of exhibit space they cannot show these collections. Unlike earlier time periods were artefacts and foreign goods were invested in to show people culture. People either don't have the money to fund these excavations and collections like in the Victorian period there was boom in museum collections with outside finances. The economy is now focused on what money they can gain from their investment which isn't a lot when you purchase 5,000 pot.

It is a terrible shame that we now struggle to display the wealth of history we have due to funding, money is being to wealthy office people who rarely have anything to do with the collection. There is now reliance on donations which cannot meet the demand museums needs, when the economy is struggling. People don't realise the investment they are putting in would be an investment in history, nowadays they only care what wealth can be attained from making such investments.

I hope that a solution comes soon other wise a lot of our cultural heritage may be lost due to poor preservation.

By now, after 755 individuals who have read the question, every single one of the 32 odd responders agrees that there is a problem, or better, there are two main problems 1) who is going to take care of the future of Cultural Heritage and 2) who is going to pay for it. Both are not necessarily connected.

In the responses we have had answers for either one of the two sub-questions and I would appreciate it when further comments would start with a sentence which of the two items will be approached by the writer of an answer.

By the way, it is going well, because the entire problem(s) is/(are) slowly becoming clearer, thanks to your attention.

Jan, there is point of view form sociocult anthropological position :

1) an anthropology functionalistic theory leds to suppose that every cultural element can be preserve in future with preserve of its functionality, if every forms of function pass off element cease to exist. Changing of functions CH objects are significnatly today from utilitarian authentic function to representative and epistemic.

A may be joke model with this : Homo neanderthal do not troubled that plaener disappeared.

2)primarily practicaly users that CH elements represent utilitarian functions (busines, turismus), secondly society for this is CH symbolic value and finally subjects of knowledge transmission (formaly, unformaly education)

That is me opinion

Ivan

Jan,

I would maintain the two questions are intimately linked. Can we designate who is to preserve the cultural heritage without consideration of the resources required? One of the major challenges to the profession of archaeology is to make the case to the society at large that there is value in what the archaeologist seeks to discover and//or preserve. I suppose nearly every step in the process requires external support, be it from a dissertation proposal committee, a granting agency, a governmental agency to permit the research, enlisting support of colleagues to participate in the process, etc. Same hold true for cultural resource preservation in our communities, eg, have a neighborhood considered historic, get community and government buy-in, draw up preservation plans, develop codes for enforcement, etc.

We have to make a case that some cultural element warrants preservation, then convinve th community that our plan for preservation is appropriate, in order to next ask how can this be accomplished, and who is to pay for it.

Archaeologists do have to become culture heritage activists if they want archeology to be feasible in the near future.

This is a complex subject and from a western perspective all the things you say are pretty much true. However, some indigenous cultures actually do not want their artifacts on display, even going so far as burning the masks after the ceremony due the spiritual power that the mask holds or represents. One interesting project that seems to be strike a balance between archiving and only releasing relevant data to appropriate members of that tribe’s community is the Irititja Project http://www.irititja.com/challenges/index.html .

On a more forward looking note the future will need to really emphasize digital archiving and progress beyond simple 2-D scans. We need something that captures, preserves, and stores the texture and subtleties of cultural material. This includes 3-D scans and tomography where appropriate. An interesting example of this is the Antikythera device that was featured on an episode of NOVA. Hopefully there are no regional blocks on this link. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html .

Here is a PDF that gets pretty interesting from page 56 onward.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Tasso.Tzioumis/Antikythera2012/presentations/X-ray_Tomography-Ramsey.pdf

As we all know digital archiving is not an inexpensive process, but if it is deemed culturally appropriate, the knowledge can be disseminated on an immense scale and can be recognized as an authenticate capture of the artifact.

I am concerned about what i infer from the use of the word, "activist." We have to be promotors, salesmen, proponents, but activism can take on other connotations about actions when we are unsuccessful in garnering support for our cause. Archaeology has thrived because there are those in our society that are curious and interested in these topics, and fortunately some of these people have financial resources to bear the costs involved in research. Our roots do go back to those cabinets of curiosities. My sense of the word, activist, however, is that it enables one to compel or coerce uninterested people to support us.

To the extent we can get official government support for activities, promoting archaeology and preservation can indirectly get the uniterested to contribute through their taxation, I do not want to put meaning into Victor's words that he did not intend, however, but rather express how the concept of activism can be perceived.

One great thing about humanity is its apparently limitless curiosity--but not everyone is curious about the same thing. We have the Hubbell telescope and we have the Nikon technology to unlock the Antihythera device. But we should not forget that many people are just managing to survive, many countries are struggling to keep their economies going, or even to create an economy.

We are a small segment of society, and I sincerely believe we willl be able to continue to satisfy our yearnings, and will develop ever more sophisticated technologies to employ. But I also know we are small voices in a world of people pleading with far more vital needs than those for which we seek support.

It could be argued that saving and conserving our heritages is part of the moral obligation to teach our younger people something of their pasts. If the majority of our schools are funded by the community, then like public libraries, the 'public' museums should be at least partly funded by the community as well - as some of them are. They conserve our pasts. We can only understand 'where we are now' by understanding 'where our ancestors have been'. Having access to knowledge conserves the mental stablity and mental health of society. It follows that if we live our lives as teachers, conservators, archaeologists, historians, or for that matter any specialist interested in the 'exploration' and 'conservation' of knowledge, then this role is part of our job. We are morally obligated to share this knowledge with society as a whole. It clearly takes funding to do this on a large scale. But that does not remove a moral obligation to share information with other people for the 'greater good' of all.

Having said that, I know that not everyone agrees or does it.

Concerning Thomas Babock's reaction the following:

I wrote and I quote myself: "there are two main problems 1) who is going to take care of the future of Cultural Heritage and 2) who is going to pay for it. Both are not necessarily connected."

I must confess that I had something else in mind when I formulated point 1). I meant: Who of the present conservators are going to take care of our cultural heritage? As you are well aware, most conservators in various places all over the world received their training a few--but for the majority many-- years ago.

Meanwhile, science and engineering have developed tremendously and new techniques are available. I am afraid that not all that news has dissipated to the conservationist. Of course, they have a painstaking job and lots of hours of work and they cannot possibly keep up with the demands for the right way of conservation.

I suggest that every country, museum, university develops a five year-plan to provide conservators with the newest scientific information, each with its specific demands, whether it is language, dance and music recording, architectural photography, art and archaeological artefacts care and more of these.

The second question remains: Who is going to pay for this. By now you have read the various answers to this question in this column and you are right in writing that this must be regulated in neighbourhood, city, county and country circles.

I'd like to share with you all a link about the UK's Science Museum.

I hope that it is interesting to read..

http://www.opendemocracy.net/participation-now/jen-kavanagh-kayte-mcsweeney-deanne-naula-charlotte-connelly/journey-into-particip

I think that it shows a commitment to public participation that is quite laudable.

Jean, that is why I am confident that we will continue to have support for cultural preservation--people do have an interest and are willing to participate or to contribute. One of the problems in some archaeology from recent years has been a tendency to do research that may have little popular appeal, or to denigrate research that does resonate with the public. But it is that resonance with the public that has kept the field alive all these years.

There has always a cynicism on the part of certain people that suggests that 'ordinary people' (whom ever that is...) have no interest in specialist's subject matters. But I think that it is actually the opposite of that view. Given the chance, there is a lot of interest.

To say the truth, after 760 people have seen the original question, I must confess that the question was actually a rhetorical question, because our team of 157 scholars in every domain in Humanities, Social Sciences and Analytical Science focused on a single topic: The Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran in Israel, which has been a success that kept us busy for 16 years since I started it in 1998.

During our many meetings and e-mails, I also got an answer to the question who is going to pay for it, because when I may make an analogy by using the movie industry, if in Hollywood someone has a good script, he will find good actors and after that there will be good producers to pay for all this. So things went with the Qumran project, we had a good topic and so we got scholars from 45 institutions in Europe, Israel and the USA who all worked together to analyze all the artefacts we wanted to analyze in order to shed light on the people who lived with the scrolls. Finally, this research also paid for the cutting edge technology in nuclear and optic (synchrotron) domain.

We published four books on Qumran alone.

My advice for every cultural Heritagist is to formulate a good topic-question and the rest will soon or later take care of funding by the mere magnetic power of the topic-question itself.

Good question, I'll come back later.

The essence is not to make is digital, not even keep it in musea etc...

the essence is creating your own muse,which will be fool enough to go through fire for the heritance of one clear idea.

The roots are laying in neuroscience changing the dna by one stroke of art.

But for the prove there is not enough space for this moment.

I am entering to your coversation and I belive interest in culture heritage y growing on the mind of many peaple who are not working specifcly in that field, but there is lot to do. First, research should be more visible because only the persons related to the theme know about it. So many are not even awared of the neccesity to contribute. We are few in this field. Second there is an enourmeous need to form comunities to valuate their cultural heritage. There are many interesting projects like the one Jean showed us going on.

As things will go on moving new professional lines of approach, teaching, and comunicating as well as creative ways to looking and conecting with cultural heritage should flow wit it.

As rita says we have to awake that personal muse and transmit that develop curiosity.

In some answers I have read that the future of taking care of our Cultural Heritage has, among others, also to do with the education toward CH. Of course, there should be a type of education in schools to learn of what in every country is available in order to appreciate what we have in our own neighborhood, city and country. By the time we become older, we also should get an insight into what other countries have as CH and so we are getting a global view of what is available.

Having said that, the future of CH does not stop. We have to promulgate the news and in science specifically, what to apply to save our CH for the next generations.

Three weeks ago, I was at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon and the University of Saskatchewan where I delivered two lectures on the application of nuclear and optical and biological analytical techniques on CH speaking to the staff of the synchrotron and to people who were interested in the type of work I do in the Qumran project with the Dead Sea scrolls.

At the round table session, I suggested that we have not to wait until curators, restorers and museum staff will become interested in science applied to CH in one way or another. No, WE as scientists have to decide how to dissipate the newest research in various domains, being it language, dance, ceremonies or archaeological and art relics, by inviting them over to the various nuclear reactors and synchrotrons in workshops wherein people can hear and understand how to deal with CH remains.

The idea was immediately accepted and the staff decided to have two workshops for the whole of Canada, so that the abovementioned CH people will get an opportunity to look and communicate and get the gist of what collaboration can do in each domain when one comes together for an entire week in a place where science and art/archaeology provide a virtual handshake. This knife does not only cut for Ch people who do not know what science can offer, but also to scientists who do not know the questions regarding CH.

It is not enough to mention that education is needed in CH, but the emphasis has to be placed on what do YOU decide to ameliorate in the present case of taking care of our cultural heritage, The WHY we know, the HOW is at the order of the day.

One of the topics that certainly belongs to the question of what is the furure of our CH is the message we received yesterday evening when the famous Bet Gubrin and columbarium caves at Maresha (Marissa) in Israel were put under the protection of world cultural heritage by UNESCO. Bravo.

this things simply have to be accomplished in order for us all to remain human. Without the objects of our memories we can not improve our own futures together.

A bunch of remarks:

- In a million years 99% of the physical material of our CH we try to preserve today will be lost. So it is a fact the actual objects which testify the richness of our past will end up as undefinable dust. And let’s be honest, for most of the material a million years will not be needed. In other words, the temporality of our museum, library, ... collections of today is rather high. New things will enter these collections; and fires, earthquakes, revolt, war, time, ... will make things to disappear or to be destroyed. Yes, the physical object is an attraction to us all, for scholars and scientist the ultimate proof of our theories. But No, if we make the preservation of all of them our ultimate goal, we will lose and we will have lost a lot of energy we might have better invested in other efforts. (for the record I do not plea for a neglect of CH, I only want to highlight the inevitable)

- We have more and more the appropriate technology to register the physical CH in all dimensions, texture, X-ray the interior, … but who can grasp all of these techniques. Well orientated workshops (for all conservers) are a good idea, but even then, who can manage all of this? If full registration has to overcome the loss in time of our physical CH, we need to focus to the maximum on integrated – all-in – systems. And crucial, utilized by a big to very big user-group to overcome the temporality of digital approaches. Operation systems evolve faster than any unique research group can adapt to. Only if a vast group, working with an established, sufficient and adequate integrated system, it will be possible to overcome the issues of digital preservation. That means, today, we have to many fantastic systems and approaches, announces and applauded at conference all over the world, but only used by those who developed it, plus a few more. Initiatives such as Europeana are a step in the good direction, but unfortunately not yet sufficient for the demand of a broad field (i.e. public and research). We need to ‘unicode’ the virtualization of our Cultural Heritage.

- What humanity wants is not what scholars and scientists seek. The latter want to understand the past and spread their insights on it via publications, the first might indeed take the challenge to preserve the physical and intangible CH in all its glory. As such, scholars and scientists do not need to make just another discovery of an Egyptian tomb full of golden jewelry. They know, it has been established the ancient Egyptian did those kind of things, it doesn’t add anything to their insight of this ancient culture. On the other hand, that excavation has created an extra ensemble of most precious CH artifacts, to be preserved by mankind. Collections all over the world are packed with this kind of just another example of what lays to the right, left and bellow; and what lays to the left, right and below in hundreds of other collections spread around the world. For every field of research there was a starting point, on which whatever that was found or added to the collection, that piece gave new insights and was an added value. So when we create, enlarge or reevaluate collections we need to make that exercise. The question is, are we able to throw away the surplus of CH? How many scanning programs need to make a virtual copy of one and the same book? And when we have sufficient and adequate virtual copies of one type of object, stored and never anymore consulted in real; should we keep it? Libraries sell their old books; should a museum sell a 54’th etching by Rembrandt without being put in the pillory?

I'm sorry, but it is extremely misguided, if not a little bit ignorant and arrogant to monolithically define for other people [a mythical monolithic group] what they should accept without question as the cultural materials [that you defined as what remained after the 'surplus' has been culled].

How can you monolithically determine for the future generations what will become representative of their 'past' for future generation when you don't really know the contexts or the contents of their present. Assuming that they have a singular present.

We're are all different. My past is not yours. Yours is not mine. How can we be forced to share the same things...we might share subsets of the same things but we can't share everything unless we live inside each other. You know that isn't the case.

1. this certainly assumes that all peoples have the same interests. They/We don't.

2. It assumes that all cultures and all peoples share a monolithic view of themselves. They/We don't.

3. it assumes that all peoples share the same ideas of their past 'THE PAST". We/They don't.

This portrait of human life is not realistic..and disrespectful of people's differences.

4. this assumes that technology has not changed since the 'beginning of scanning'...also not accurate.

5. this assumes that the CH that was scanned in 30 plus or minus years ago is still machine-readable, and much less human-readable. It wasn't/ It isn't.

At that time, images were scanned at the resolutions that were possible at the time. However, those resolutions are very much lower than today's standard resolutions - which are also changing.

This means that much of the scanning work that was created then is actually useless today. It is lost.. The technology has moved on leaving the CH behind.

This technological change is a mechanical process. Selecting books, etc. scanned decades ago is a nonsense.

It is a nonsense to make the decision that some books or objects may hold interest for future readers when the decision maker has no idea what will 'be important' in the future..

It is a nonsense to purposely throw away a book - Libraries often discover that they have made mistakes.

Dear Hendrik, let me start with a small quote of your comments: "As such, scholars and scientists do not need to make just another discovery of an Egyptian tomb full of golden jewellery. They know, it has been established the ancient Egyptian did those kind of things, it doesn't add anything to their insight of this ancient culture". [end quote]

If you apply this to what is happening around us on a daily basis, TV, radio broadcasting, Newspapers, documentaries and the like should be without work, because every day they are giving an overview of something that has already happened before in the past, so why to report it again; it would be enough to make a footnote saying "please read a similar crime story or happening of a week or a year ago". Although the saying is that l'histoire ce repete", in fact history is never the same and thus worth to be told. Likewise, CH is never the same as something from the past, not even an Egyptian tomb.

I was not very encouraged with your comment for the following reasons:

1. What happened during the Roman period at Rome and elsewhere, we only know through writings of ancient authors who penned down what they saw and heard from others. Some of their writings reached us in book-form and only because of that we know now what happened 2000 year ago.

2. I think it is our duty to preserve with all our powers, curiosity and funding everything for the next generations, even if most of it does not any longer exists in a million years from now, as you allude to. I am not interested what is happening with our up-to-date Cultural Heritage in a million year from now, but what it is worth at THIS moment.

There are many questionable comments in your message, but I think that I have answered the most important of them with the aforesaid two points.

.

Hendrik stirred a hornet's nest, but there was much truth there. If we "preserve with all our powers, curiosity and funding everything for the next generation," what does that "everything" comprise? We constantly destroy in order to bebuild, selecting certain examples to preserve. We tear down houses, and put up new ones, or use the land for other purposes. Preservationists may preserve certain neighborhoods and certain structures, but the rest serve only as redundant copies. Museums do sell artwork in order to acquire new pieces. Libraries purchase new books, and make room for them by discarding others. reasoned choices are made, but is it right to say those choices represent a monolithic view?

Is it not appropriate when deciding which archaeological project to fund, to ask the applicant what the proposed research will add to our knowledge base if successfully executed? Also, we may indeed seek that additional Egyptian tomb, because it could hold something newly discovered. On the other hand, if a choice is to fund an excavation for a new tomb or to fund research on an little understood era of Egypt's past, where would we reasonably spend the money?

Certainly in a million years all will be lost, but are we not able to make reasonbable judgments about what reasonably appears importand to preserve for now, without unduly burdening ourselves with the posssibility someone in another generation or another 100 years would have thought differently? I say reasonable, not monolithic decisions. For if we preserve everything, then for what purpose, since we will never be in the position to interpret everything. We will store stuff away that nobody will ever see.

Let us take as an example the Cultural Heritage remains from a million years ago, declared by Hendrik as "99% will be completely lost". Well, there remains a single percent--by subtraction--that apparently leaves bio- and material cultural remains.

I think about the perforated sea shells that have been found, the perforated beads of glass, the obsidian and silex knives and scrapers, as well as animal bones shaped to instruments that can produce some type of music, after having drilled holes on which to put your finger. Furthermore, what about teeth of tigers and sharks and the position of human skeletons and skulls and so I can go on for quite some time.

They were saved because they were worn and venerated for one reason or another and can be studied today because the finds are there.

Let us say that in a million years from now, 2% of what we have around us today will be saved, then it is worth it to start taking care of our CH today, everyone according to her/his interests, budget and intelligence.

Does this gives an answer to " What is the future of taking care of our Cultural Heritage?." I guess it does; and if not, I would like to hear otherwise.

El patrimonio cultural de Irá aumentando, Nuevos Yacimientos Arqueológicos, Nuevos Materiales bibliográficos, Culturales, Que motivará Dentro de la Sociedad reales UNA ESPECIE De DELEGACION ES DEL ORGANISMOS PÚBLICOS aquellos (Museos, Bibliotecas, archivos). El patrimonio permanecerá en Manos Privadas (aquellos Objetos ONU de la estafa Valor económico Cierto, en Lugares pequeños Donde no existan Organismos Públicos concienciados estafa do protection ...). La Reducción del Espacio sociales, Los Nuevos Elementos Tecnológicos, la Creación de Espacios Públicos patrimoniales motivarán el trasvase de los Elementos Culturales de lo Privado a lo Público. 

SE El AUMENTO de la Gestión del patrimonio cultural, a instancia de parte del Público Por sector, la Necesidad real no Solo de Buenas gestiones, sino-de Rentabilidad (Política, social, cultural) de organismos europeos de normalización Espacios implicará Que MUCHOS Objetos Culturales tiendan a guardarse en Espacios de COMO Edificios anexos, sótanos ... y aquellos estafa Cierto valor o Simbolismo seran exhibidos. Todo ESTO motivará la ruina del patrimonio cultural, (Falta de Presupuesto Público, escasez de Restauración o Cuidado, ...).

Elementos Externos de como las Guerras o Cambios Políticos Also producirán ESE Deterioro.

Ahora bien, Deben Buscarse Nuevas Fórmulas de Gestión de ESE patrimonio Que paracultural Los Elementos Negativos de Futuro no aparezcan. Soluciones de los muchas heno: la publicación Gestión Privada estafa APORTE Económico de Empresas-Empresarios, Ciudadanos estafa Pequeñas o Grandes aportaciones, Buscar Nuevos Valores al patrimonio cultural, etc

Creo que tal como esta Evolucionando El Mundo real, el patrimonio evolucionar Dębe culturales, Sobre Todo en el Apartado de Do Gestión y Puesta en valor, Aprovechando Las Nuevas Tecnológicas potencialidades de la sociedad real.

la question est de savoir: a partir de quel moment une société fait sien un héritage qui n'appartient pas à sa matrice civilisationnelle? Et quand considère -t-elle ces héritages comme des lieux de dialogue intérieur constructif non seulement  entre soi et le semblable mais également entre soi et le différent, voire le surprenant!

sommes nous ce qu'on a été ou sommes nous ce qu'on veut devenir??

la sauvegarde de ce patrimoine est  étroitement liée à la réponse.

Sabah, when I am so free to translate your French sentence into English, asking "Are we what we have been or what we are becoming"then i believe that both are evenly important.

We want to know from where we come as we are interested what is going to happen with us in the future. Both are interwoven with a civilisation, whether it is a sophisticated one in western terms, or a primitive one, again according what the western world calls primitive. Who on earth decides how high or low a civilization is? Perhaps there are individuals who think that they have the right to decide that, but in my mind nobody can make that decision and both levels of civilization have their cultural heritage no matter how high or less high that may be.

After a short period wherein you probably thought that the original question of "What is the future of our Cultural Heritage" had lost its importance, a new player has appeared, Daesh, ISIS, certainly not IS which stands for Islamic State, whereas the idea of a State is lacking, since there is NO Islamic State up to this moment.

So, let me rephrase the question in the context of terroriists who roam the Middle East, including hundreds of bored Europeans who are out for some action: What is now the future of Your and Mine Cultural Heritage in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East?  Answer as UNESCO  will take care of it, or some well-off municipalities and the like are no longer up-to-date.

Please, do not spend any word of what you think of the political situation because that belongs to the politicians who have all the time in the world to make a decision or not.

What I suggest is to hear from you some realistic suggestions of what COULD be done in order against those who loot, steal, buy and sell whatever came to light in the Fertile Crescent and what now seems to end up in private vitrines all over the world.

Model for multi-pollutant impact and assessment of threshold levels for cultural heritage

http://www.netheritage.eu/download/2_prista.pdf

Lorsque l’on évoque le patrimoine, nous pensons spontanément à un héritage familier, culturel ou naturel ; ce patrimoine implique l’idée de quelque chose qui a été transmis par ceux qui nous ont précédés.

 A titre d’héritage, le patrimoine est aussi constitué des biens dont nous devenons propriétaires individuellement ou collectivement. Il est alors le signe visible de biens meubles ou immeubles ; il enracine en un lieu ou en un temps. C’est donc un avoir constitutif de notre être.

 En l’occurrence, on comprend le rôle effectif que peut jouer le patrimoine. Il contribue à forger une identité par le retour aux racines du passé et par la prise la de conscience des valeurs collectives du présent.

Culturel ou naturel, ce patrimoine ne peut être, aujourd’hui, ni cédé, ni vendu, ni détruit ; il constitue un don fait à la génération présente ; nous en devenons les usagers ; mais nous sommes surtout responsables de sa sauvegarde pour les générations à venir.  Les traces laissées par les civilisations disparues ont défié le temps ; elles ont résisté aux intempéries et aux guerres ; désormais, la tâche essentielle des professionnels du patrimoine ne consiste plus uniquement à mettre au jour ces vestiges ; elle consiste à les protéger , à les mettre en valeur : qu’ils deviennent ainsi la fierté de celles et ceux qui viendront les observer, les étudier, les admirer ! à tous de trouver  les moyens de le conserver  et de le transmettre aux générations  à venir!!

Dear Krishnan, concerning the website you provided us and your note on "Model for multi-pollutant impact and assessment of threshold levels for cultural heritage", I have some observations.

1. The CH model plan was signed in Lisbon in 2009 concerning the CH in Europe alone. The powerpoint talks of 340 billion Euro distributed every year to the various countries in the EU

2. The powerpoint deals with "CH within EU research policy " and I particularly like/dislike the sentence " European CH is the most diverse and rich patrimony in the world" (sic!). (diverse and rich were highlighted!)

3. Besides the paternalistic line in point 2, I do not see any model that could be used in the Middle-, Further- and Far East, because everything would be based on our suggestions what SHOULD BE done, without having the 340 billion of Europe to implement it.

 Cultural heritance is not only about artefacts but also about the accumulated information inside the body; the gene expression.  How this information is conserved during  evolution. There is already a big shift from gene to pseudogene going on and vice versa. But how to take control of this system is not so easy.

Even if we are active to protect what we consider as cultural heritage belonging to humanity, Our effort may be completely annihilate by an unpredictable event such as a revolution, a war or a natural  disaster. I think to the French Revolution, the destruction of Niniveh and Mossul or the earthcakes of Tibet. What we can do. For many past destructions: nothing . For more recent ones we may prevent the lack of information by at least carefully recording  the present state of the most famous archaeological sites or of the content of reference museum to be able if necessary to reconstitute what disapears . We have the techniques but may be not the money... Fac-simile, even if not perfect,  is better than nothing (see the impressive results obtianed for the Chauvet caves now open to visitors). 

je suis d'accord vec monsieur connan, le fac simile ou le modèle numérique est une façon de prévenir les catastrophes naturelles et ou humaines mais le problème se pose pour le stockage des  images numériques et leur  conservation? On ne peut pas tout conserver!  et pour citer Paul Valery " disons avec lui " civilisations , nous savons que nous sommes mortelles!!.

Rita, I do not think that there is anybody in our RG group who sees CH only in terms of artefacts.  Any human behaviour in terms of sitting, walking, dancing, having fun, building homes, visiting places and a myriad of other items have to do with CH.  The gene-pool, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to grasp, but--as you suggest-- in the long run we will coop with that too.

Réponse à Sabah Ferdi. Je suis bien conscient des limites de la proposition mais il est possible d'être sélectif et de hiérarchiser ce que l'on désire réellement préserver pour les générations futures afin que la destruction si elle intervient ne soit pas sans issue. L'original ne sera jamais remplacé et les buddhas de Bamiyan reviendront-ils un jour dans leur niche?  Il en est question... L'inculture nimbé d'intolérance et de dogmatisme sont les virus contre lesquels il faut lutter car ce sont les moteurs des saccages irresponsables qui de mon point de vue font offense à ceux qui nous ont précédés et pour les quels nous devons avoir respect quand ce n'est pas de l'admiration.    

oui, il nous faut agir par tous les moyens mis à notre disposition pour ne pas rompre la chaine de transmission de nos patrimoines!  mais sommes nous immortels?ou voulons nous devenir immortels? sommes nous dépositaires? propriétaires et ou héritiers?? la notion de patrimoine est-elle  appréhendée par tous les peuples de la même façon? ce qui est patrimoine pour nous l'est-il aussi pour les autres?? alors comment faire , que faire et pour qui faire!!!

Réponse à Sabah Ferdi sur ses commentaires fort à propos. La notion de patrimoine n'est certainement pas appréhendée de la même matière par tous les peuples. La preuve criante les destructions récentes...Mais nous avons tous envie de transmettre quelque chose à nos descendants. Peut-être est-ce une façon de ne pas disparaitre à jamais et en quelque sorte d'être un peu immortel. La culture et la tolérance sont les moteurs qui portent à l'acceptation des autres systèmes de référence et de leurs réalisations et ne doit-on pas être admiratif du génie de l'homme partout dans le monde et quelque soit les régimes politiques et philosophiques sous lesquels ils prennent naissance. Gardez le meilleur de l'homme et éradiquer les systèmes dogmatiques, intolérants et obscurantistes . On doit arriver à admirer tout autant  la mosquée d'Omar à Jérusalem que Notre Dame de Paris  sans avoir envie d'éradiquer l'une ou l'autre en se référant à des théologies qui ne sont que des créations humaines ....je crois pour ma part à l'importance de ces actions qui sélectionnent ce que l'on appelle le patrimoine mondial de l'humanité. Nous sommes tous les mêmes bien que tous différents alors sachons admirer  sans arrière pensée les créations des autres.

réponse à J.Connan; oui je suis d'accord avec vous! savoir léguer à nos descendants ce qui fait la grandeur de l'homme! " le bien, le beau et le vrai"" pour citer Saint Augustin d'Hippone! et savoir utiliser nos patrimoines pour le bien de l'humanité!!

bien à vous

Réponse à Sabah Ferdi. Merci de m'avoir fait connaitre cette citation d Saint Augustin .je penche pour le vrai car le beau est difficile à définir et n'a pas le même éclairage pour chacun d'entre nous  

Considerations about "intangible heritage" Unesco´s definition, from a colombian case study

http://www.erigaie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Andrade-2013.-A-quien-representa-la-lista-representativa-de-PCI.pdf

There are interesting mistakes to be found in our researchgate questions and answers. For a starter, my first name is Jan and not January. What probably happened is that Jan was translated in another language to January

If, for example, in the first anecdote I wrote about" they needed the site" it means that they needed the ground on which the Toronto reactor was built for building a medical center. However, the quote from my anecdote says that they needed the WEBSITE, which is of course a funny lapsus because why should one need a website to build a hospital, but it would make sense when the RG question was translated into French, where the English word SITE would indeed mean Website in French. 

So reading my own anecdote which I wrote in English and which came again to me re-translated from French into English does not make any sense anymore. Cave transliterationem..

Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur

À l'impossible nul n'est tenu!! mais cette traduction simultanée reste  cocasse!!!

Since the day I launched the question "What is the future of taking care of our Cultural Heritage?", a lot has happened whereas the answers have opened also my horizon and hopefully yours too.

Nevertheless, today is the moment to rephrase the question as : "Who is going to take care of the Cultural Heritage in the Middle East in the light of what we are seeing on a daily basis on TV, Youtube, Tweets, Facebooks, News papers and hear on the wireless (Radio)?

CH has been destroyed in front of our eyes, not only the material CH that seems to get more impact than the human and animal sufferance in whose domain also CH is slowly destroyed. If nobody opened her/his mouth against what is happening here in the name of religion and in the name of the One who has created all this, we will sooner or later be left with nothing at all.

In the long run, also citizens of countries far from the Middle East will be affected, so it becomes time to act in a responsible way that will have some impact. Please, in any of your answers do take notice of elderly persons, women, children and the promising youth which will be uprooted and destroyed if we do not act, whether it concerns Christians, Muslims, Druses, Blacks, Mongols or Jews, each with their own private and socially centered Cultural Heritage. Education alone is not enough, I am afraid.

I share your dismay over what is happening to the cultural heritage of the Middle East. Of course it is not new, recalling the destruction of Mayan codices by Spanish clerics, or of Egyptian inscriptions by both native Egyptians opposed to specific past rulers, and Coptic Christians obliterating images of Egyptian gods. How does one communicate that images that may once have had religious significance, or represented "idols" are only idols if viewed as such by the observer. Destroying representations of past beliefs does not change the past. Destroying ruined cities does not undo the past. Perhaps ISIS/ISIL sees interest in Roman antiquities as of interest only to Westerners, for whom the groups sees no particular value for their interests, and they destroy in the spirit of hatred of all things Western, and, to use a colloquialism, as a way to rub our noses in it.

The sadness is also, that in a world economy, there is value in, and jobs in catering to tourism. People in Egypt, in Syria, in Iraq are vulnerable to diminishing opportunities to prosper when antiquities are threatened or destroyed. How do these destroyers explain to their people how lives will be better under such conditions? How do they explain their vision of a functioning and prosperous society?

But how do "we" act? Does the need to act belong to the people of these countries if the action is to have any lasting effect? I hesitate to say it, but I sense the US criticism of Iran for their role in opposing ISIS is short-sighted on the part of the US. But the bottom line is that I have no answers or solutions.  

Exegi monumentum aere perennius : j'ai achevé un monument plus durable que l'airain.

nous n'avons pasde réponse face à la bêtise humaine mais on peut espérer que les oeuvres de l'esprit  sont comme l'âme immortelles! et citer Ambroise de Milan:

Si tu es à Rome, vis comme les Romains; si tu es ailleurs, vis comme on y vit.

Dear Sabah, Let us suppose that I was a tourist at Tunis, yesterday, enjoying the beach. A lunatic killed 35 tourists and laughed while doing it. So the answer is not: "If you are in Tunis" live as the Tunisians", that would be too easy. 

When I write about education in such a case, then I would place the accent to contra-educated the going brainwash provided by all sorts of extremists, wherever they may be.  Am I thinking in the right direction of taking care of CH in the future?

 As academics we can only promote education and be passionate about it. The destruction of CH by extremists today is usually done with the tape & camera running for quick transmission around the world. Basically, the person shows off how little one cares about education, CH and also one's own family job if one works in tourism for example. If there was no media coverage, maybe one wouldn’t bother doing the destruction.

Since the first whole scale CH destructions of the 6th century in the Middle East area this is a tremendous improvement (hard to say it). Now it is isolated events and always on camera. It is acts of violence and governments are slow to react ( or they support violence?) and coordinate among themselves. 

Cross-breeding over the years has helped- promoted by Alexander, 4th cent. BC.