- Teks
- Sejarah
2.0 WHY IS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE IM
2.0 WHY IS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE IMPORTANT FOR ARCHAEOLOGY?
The main aim in assessing significance is to produce a succinct statement of significance, which summarises the heritage values of a place, site or item. The statement will then become the basis for management choices that will affect the item’s future.
The main aim of an archaeological significance assessment is to identify whether an archaeological resource, deposit, site or feature is of cultural value –a ‘relic’. The assessment will result in a succinct statement of heritage significance that summarises the values of the place, site, resource, deposit or feature.
For archaeological sites that have been assessed as containing ‘relics’ understanding the significant values is critical, because these sites are a nonrenewable resource. Like other environmental resources, they must be managed for both the present and the future. The identified values of the site or ‘relics’ (the heritage significance) will help determine which management options are most appropriate.
The Heritage Council’s Historical Archaeological Sites: Investigation and Conservation Guidelines, 1993, (‘To Dig or Not To Dig’, page 30) note the following in regard to the conservation of historical archaeological sites:
…with any site of high archaeological potential, excavation is inevitably one of the conservation policy options. Other factors are relevant to considerations of when, or if, excavation should be carried out. These include:
• whether the information likely to be obtained may be obtained by other noninterventionist means;
• whether the site has such significance that excavation may be an inappropriate option, at least for present generations. Where the cultural significance is symbolic, aesthetic or associated with sensitive environmental qualities, excavation is likely to be both uninformative and damaging. For such archaeological sites, a conservation policy directing preservation with minimum disturbance may be needed, with excavation explicitly excluded;
• whether other comparable sites have been excavated already, so that there is good reason to retain the site in question for the future;
• conversely, a site may possess archaeological remains assessed as being of such significance that it is better retained for investigation when more resources and expertise are available.
The 1993 Guidelines also note that acceptable reasons to excavate an archaeological site may include:
• that information of value will otherwise be irrevocably lost through unavoidable action, whether for conservation or other reasons. Excavations in these circumstances may be termed rescue excavations;
• that excavation is required to provide information essential for the conservation of the site — perhaps by locating features of the site that cannot be ascertained by other means, or by confirming that significant remains have survived.
Decisions concerning the information sought should be made in consultation with appropriately qualified practitioners; or
• that a strong case in academic and scientific terms is made out for immediate excavation of a selected site. This requires justification by a sound research design.
The 1993 Guidelines should be referred to for further information.
The main aim in assessing significance is to produce a succinct statement of significance, which summarises the heritage values of a place, site or item. The statement will then become the basis for management choices that will affect the item’s future.
The main aim of an archaeological significance assessment is to identify whether an archaeological resource, deposit, site or feature is of cultural value –a ‘relic’. The assessment will result in a succinct statement of heritage significance that summarises the values of the place, site, resource, deposit or feature.
For archaeological sites that have been assessed as containing ‘relics’ understanding the significant values is critical, because these sites are a nonrenewable resource. Like other environmental resources, they must be managed for both the present and the future. The identified values of the site or ‘relics’ (the heritage significance) will help determine which management options are most appropriate.
The Heritage Council’s Historical Archaeological Sites: Investigation and Conservation Guidelines, 1993, (‘To Dig or Not To Dig’, page 30) note the following in regard to the conservation of historical archaeological sites:
…with any site of high archaeological potential, excavation is inevitably one of the conservation policy options. Other factors are relevant to considerations of when, or if, excavation should be carried out. These include:
• whether the information likely to be obtained may be obtained by other noninterventionist means;
• whether the site has such significance that excavation may be an inappropriate option, at least for present generations. Where the cultural significance is symbolic, aesthetic or associated with sensitive environmental qualities, excavation is likely to be both uninformative and damaging. For such archaeological sites, a conservation policy directing preservation with minimum disturbance may be needed, with excavation explicitly excluded;
• whether other comparable sites have been excavated already, so that there is good reason to retain the site in question for the future;
• conversely, a site may possess archaeological remains assessed as being of such significance that it is better retained for investigation when more resources and expertise are available.
The 1993 Guidelines also note that acceptable reasons to excavate an archaeological site may include:
• that information of value will otherwise be irrevocably lost through unavoidable action, whether for conservation or other reasons. Excavations in these circumstances may be termed rescue excavations;
• that excavation is required to provide information essential for the conservation of the site — perhaps by locating features of the site that cannot be ascertained by other means, or by confirming that significant remains have survived.
Decisions concerning the information sought should be made in consultation with appropriately qualified practitioners; or
• that a strong case in academic and scientific terms is made out for immediate excavation of a selected site. This requires justification by a sound research design.
The 1993 Guidelines should be referred to for further information.
0/5000
2.0 MENGAPA APAKAH SIGNIFIKANS WARISAN PENTING UNTUK ARKEOLOGI?Tujuan utama dalam menilai pentingnya adalah untuk menghasilkan pernyataan ringkas makna, yang merangkum nilai heritage place, situs atau item. Pernyataan kemudian akan menjadi dasar untuk pilihan manajemen yang akan mempengaruhi masa depan item.Tujuan utama dari penilaian arkeologi penting adalah untuk mengidentifikasi apakah sumber daya arkeologi, deposit, situs atau fitur dari nilai budaya-'peninggalan'. Penilaian akan menghasilkan pernyataan ringkas warisan penting yang merangkum nilai-nilai tempat, situs, sumber daya, deposit atau fitur.Situs arkeologi yang telah dinilai sebagai 'peninggalan' memahami nilai yang signifikan yang mengandung sangat penting, karena situs ini adalah sumber daya yang tak terbarukan. Seperti sumber daya lingkungan lainnya, mereka harus dikelola untuk masa kini maupun masa depan. Nilai-nilai yang diidentifikasi situs atau 'peninggalan' (warisan signifikansi) akan membantu menentukan pilihan manajemen yang paling tepat.Situs arkeologi Dewan warisan sejarah: penyelidikan dan konservasi pedoman, 1993, ('untuk menggali atau tidak untuk menggali', Halaman 30) Catatan berikut dalam hal konservasi situs arkeologi sejarah:... dengan situs penggalian potensial, arkeologi yang tinggi adalah pasti salah satu opsi kebijakan konservasi. Faktor-faktor lain relevan untuk pertimbangan ketika, atau jika, penggalian harus dilakukan. Ini termasuk:• Apakah mungkin harus diperoleh informasi dapat diperoleh dengan cara noninterventionist lain;• Apakah situs ini memiliki makna seperti penggalian itu mungkin suatu pilihan yang tidak pantas, setidaknya untuk generasi sekarang. Dimana budaya makna simbolis, estetika atau dikaitkan dengan kualitas lingkungan sensitif, penggalian cenderung tidak informatif dan merusak. Untuk situs-situs arkeologi tersebut, pelestarian mengarahkan kebijakan konservasi dengan gangguan minimal mungkin diperlukan, dengan penggalian secara eksplisit dikecualikan;• Apakah situs dibandingkan lainnya telah digali sudah, sehingga ada alasan baik untuk mempertahankan situs yang dimaksud di masa depan;• Sebaliknya, sebuah situs dapat menguasai peninggalan arkeologi yang dinilai sebagai makna seperti itu bahwa itu lebih baik dipertahankan untuk penyelidikan ketika lebih banyak sumber daya dan keahlian yang tersedia.Pedoman 1993 juga dicatat bahwa alasan yang dapat diterima untuk menggali sebuah situs arkeologi dapat mencakup:• yang informasi yang berharga jika tidak akan dapat ditarik kembali hilang melalui tindakan tidak dapat dihindari, baik untuk konservasi atau alasan lain. Penggalian dalam keadaan ini boleh digelar sebagai menyelamatkan penggalian;• penggalian yang diperlukan untuk memberikan informasi penting untuk konservasi situs — mungkin dengan menempatkan fitur dari situs yang tidak dapat dipastikan dengan cara lain, atau mengkonfirmasikan bahwa signifikan tetap bertahan.Mengenai informasi yang dicari keputusan harus berkonsultasi dengan praktisi memenuhi persyaratan; atau• bahwa kasus yang kuat dalam istilah akademik dan ilmiah dibuat untuk segera penggalian situs yang dipilih. Hal ini memerlukan pembenaran oleh desain sound penelitian.Pedoman 1993 harus dirujuk untuk informasi lebih lanjut.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
2.0 WHY IS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE IMPORTANT FOR ARCHAEOLOGY?
The main aim in assessing significance is to produce a succinct statement of significance, which summarises the heritage values of a place, site or item. The statement will then become the basis for management choices that will affect the item’s future.
The main aim of an archaeological significance assessment is to identify whether an archaeological resource, deposit, site or feature is of cultural value –a ‘relic’. The assessment will result in a succinct statement of heritage significance that summarises the values of the place, site, resource, deposit or feature.
For archaeological sites that have been assessed as containing ‘relics’ understanding the significant values is critical, because these sites are a nonrenewable resource. Like other environmental resources, they must be managed for both the present and the future. The identified values of the site or ‘relics’ (the heritage significance) will help determine which management options are most appropriate.
The Heritage Council’s Historical Archaeological Sites: Investigation and Conservation Guidelines, 1993, (‘To Dig or Not To Dig’, page 30) note the following in regard to the conservation of historical archaeological sites:
…with any site of high archaeological potential, excavation is inevitably one of the conservation policy options. Other factors are relevant to considerations of when, or if, excavation should be carried out. These include:
• whether the information likely to be obtained may be obtained by other noninterventionist means;
• whether the site has such significance that excavation may be an inappropriate option, at least for present generations. Where the cultural significance is symbolic, aesthetic or associated with sensitive environmental qualities, excavation is likely to be both uninformative and damaging. For such archaeological sites, a conservation policy directing preservation with minimum disturbance may be needed, with excavation explicitly excluded;
• whether other comparable sites have been excavated already, so that there is good reason to retain the site in question for the future;
• conversely, a site may possess archaeological remains assessed as being of such significance that it is better retained for investigation when more resources and expertise are available.
The 1993 Guidelines also note that acceptable reasons to excavate an archaeological site may include:
• that information of value will otherwise be irrevocably lost through unavoidable action, whether for conservation or other reasons. Excavations in these circumstances may be termed rescue excavations;
• that excavation is required to provide information essential for the conservation of the site — perhaps by locating features of the site that cannot be ascertained by other means, or by confirming that significant remains have survived.
Decisions concerning the information sought should be made in consultation with appropriately qualified practitioners; or
• that a strong case in academic and scientific terms is made out for immediate excavation of a selected site. This requires justification by a sound research design.
The 1993 Guidelines should be referred to for further information.
The main aim in assessing significance is to produce a succinct statement of significance, which summarises the heritage values of a place, site or item. The statement will then become the basis for management choices that will affect the item’s future.
The main aim of an archaeological significance assessment is to identify whether an archaeological resource, deposit, site or feature is of cultural value –a ‘relic’. The assessment will result in a succinct statement of heritage significance that summarises the values of the place, site, resource, deposit or feature.
For archaeological sites that have been assessed as containing ‘relics’ understanding the significant values is critical, because these sites are a nonrenewable resource. Like other environmental resources, they must be managed for both the present and the future. The identified values of the site or ‘relics’ (the heritage significance) will help determine which management options are most appropriate.
The Heritage Council’s Historical Archaeological Sites: Investigation and Conservation Guidelines, 1993, (‘To Dig or Not To Dig’, page 30) note the following in regard to the conservation of historical archaeological sites:
…with any site of high archaeological potential, excavation is inevitably one of the conservation policy options. Other factors are relevant to considerations of when, or if, excavation should be carried out. These include:
• whether the information likely to be obtained may be obtained by other noninterventionist means;
• whether the site has such significance that excavation may be an inappropriate option, at least for present generations. Where the cultural significance is symbolic, aesthetic or associated with sensitive environmental qualities, excavation is likely to be both uninformative and damaging. For such archaeological sites, a conservation policy directing preservation with minimum disturbance may be needed, with excavation explicitly excluded;
• whether other comparable sites have been excavated already, so that there is good reason to retain the site in question for the future;
• conversely, a site may possess archaeological remains assessed as being of such significance that it is better retained for investigation when more resources and expertise are available.
The 1993 Guidelines also note that acceptable reasons to excavate an archaeological site may include:
• that information of value will otherwise be irrevocably lost through unavoidable action, whether for conservation or other reasons. Excavations in these circumstances may be termed rescue excavations;
• that excavation is required to provide information essential for the conservation of the site — perhaps by locating features of the site that cannot be ascertained by other means, or by confirming that significant remains have survived.
Decisions concerning the information sought should be made in consultation with appropriately qualified practitioners; or
• that a strong case in academic and scientific terms is made out for immediate excavation of a selected site. This requires justification by a sound research design.
The 1993 Guidelines should be referred to for further information.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- pengki
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
- Some day i wish
- you didn't need to count me out when you
- une tasse... the... croissant et... vian
- Dan akan mengubah cara berpikir kamu
- pel
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
- Terimakasih kembali,berkunjung ke indone
- pel
- Sangat bagus dan akan menghidupkan cahay
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
- bingkai
- Hope your having a good day
- sepertinya kita lebih baik menyewa dari
- bingkai
- Board
- sapu
- Dan akan mengubah cara pola berpikirmu
- sapu
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
- Menurut kamu saya tampan atau tidak ?? H
- Keyakinan mampu mengalahkan sanksi yang
