America’s archaeological heritage: protection through education

2003 ◽  
pp. 292-303
Keyword(s):  
Archaeological Heritage ◽  
Heritage Protection

scholarly journals Alexandru Popa, Frontiera Imperiului Roman din Dacia în drum spre Lista patrimoniului mondial. Pro bleme și responsabilităţi pentru cercetarea arheologică, protecția patrimoniu lui și turism / The Limes of the Roman Empire in Dacia on its way to the World Heritage List. Problems and responsibilities for archaeological research, heritage preservation and tourism

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-184
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
World Heritage ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Heritage Preservation ◽  
Unesco World Heritage ◽  
Archaeological Heritage ◽  
Entire Process ◽  
World Heritage List ◽  
The World ◽  
Heritage Protection

Today, limes is an en vogue term in Romania. Scientific research, heritage protection and, more recently, politic discourse – they all deal, directly or indirectly, with issues regarding the Frontiers of the Roman Empire in today’s Romania. In the context of nominating the Frontiers of the Roman Empire as a serial site of UNESCO World Heritage, each of the previously mentioned domains has its responsibilities towards the monument itself. In this study I focus on explaining the different understandings of the term limes. Next, I found it rather important and well-timed to discuss the main tasks and obligations of archaeological research, of the industry of tourism and of archaeological heritage protection in Romania throughout the entire process of nominating and inscribing the Limes on the UNESCO List, as well as after this process is long over.

scholarly journals Protektorátní počátky brněnské odbočky Archeologického ústavu

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Miloš Hlava
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Archaeological Heritage ◽  
Original Plan ◽  
Heritage Protection

When Karl Hucke assumed the directorship of the Moravian Museum including its Department of Prehistory in November 1941, he very soon attempted to transfer administrative authority over the archaeological heritage care in Moravia from the Institute of Archaeology in Prague in order to take control over Moravian Prehistoric research and to emancipate it from the influence of the Reichsdeutsche archaeologists active in Bohemia. His proposal presented in December of 1941 to the Office of the Reichsprotektor and to the president of Moravia (governor) conceived the transfer of the competences of the Institute of Archaeology to the Department of Prehistory of the Moravian Museum. However, the Reichsprotektor office had no interest in decentralisation of archaeological heritage protection and, therefore, Hucke’s proposal ended up being substantially reworked. Based on an idea of a Reichsprotektor office staffer, Wolf von Both, the Brno branch of the Institute of Archaeology was established in the summer of 1942 as a de facto detached institution with some autonomy. Its establishment was therefore a compromise between Hucke’s original plan and the effort of maintaining the central role of the Institute of Archaeology as stipulated by the 1941 Government decree on archaeological heritage.

scholarly journals Some Remarks on the Stormy Relationship Between the Detectorists and Archaeological Heritage in Poland

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Makowska ◽  
Agnieszka Oniszczuk ◽  
Marcin Sabaciński
Keyword(s):  
Education And Training ◽  
The State ◽  
Heritage Management ◽  
Social Awareness ◽  
Archaeological Heritage ◽  
Heritage Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
Metal Detectors ◽  
And Training

AbstractThe paper discusses the issue of the use of metal detectors in Poland in its legal and practical aspects. The possession and the use of metal detectors in Poland is legal, but to search for portable monuments a permit is required. All historical and archaeological finds belong to the State. Detectorists, whose number is estimated to over 50,000, commonly break the law by conducting illegal searches and by appropriation of the discovered objects. This paper describes legal and illegal activities of the detectorist community, giving numerous examples. The authors address the issue of prospects of cooperation between archaeologists and detectorists and comment on the attempts of the latter to depreciate archaeology and the principles of modern heritage management, as well as their rivalry with professional researchers. The authors believe that archaeologists should, therefore, speak and act for archaeology and heritage, instead of accepting the views of the detectorists. The paper also presents threats to archaeological heritage resulting from illegal metal detecting, and draws attention to the problem of low social awareness regarding the rules and needs of archaeological heritage protection in Poland. Solving these issues requires multidimensional activity, encompassing education and training, as well as the consequent prosecution of crimes against archaeological heritage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document