Article

Issues and Challenges in the Protection of Different Categories of Astronomical Heritage: A Report from Beijing 2012

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

On the occasion of the IAU’s General Assembly in Beijing in 2012, the Working Groups for Astronomy and World Heritage (WG-AWH) and Historical Instruments (WG-HI) of Commission 41 (History of Astronomy)—led by Clive Ruggles and Sara Schechner—held a joint science meeting concerning shared issues in the “Conservation and Protection of Different Categories of Astronomical Heritage.” Since 2008, the WG-AWH had been working with UNESCO and its advisory bodies to identify and safeguard significant astronomical sites and assist in their eventual nomination for inclusion on the World Heritage List. That initiative was restricted to fixed sites and monuments. Moveable, tangible objects, such as scientific instruments, could not be included even though their significance was often interconnected with that of immovable sites. To address this concern, the 2012 joint science meeting convened international experts in the history, scientific, and cultural value of astronomical buildings, instruments, photographic plates, archives, and meteorites in order to discuss ways to develop and coordinate integrated approaches to the documentation and protection of these valuable things. A wide range of materials was discussed. It was evident that the historical, scientific, and cultural value assigned to any particular item might differ from one community to the next, and that the question of whom or what ultimately will determine how any heritage item is treated is complex, political, and negotiated. An important point of agreement was the idea of developing a “science heritage” (rather than “architectural heritage”) approach in which the value is enhanced (rather than diminished) by changes to a facility that could lead to further scientific discoveries. It was hoped that such an approach would make observatory directors and others more comfortable with outside recognition of the heritage value of their working institutions.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.