Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage(1996)

Preface:  The Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (1996) was adopted by the 11th ICOMOS General Assembly, Sofia, Bulgaria, 5-9 October, 1996.

The Charter addresses the conservation needs of underwater cultural property; it is intended to supplement the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage of 1990. The Charter outlines fundamental principles for the conservation of the underwater heritage and discusses issues of funding, research objectives, qualifications of the team members, investigation, documentation, material conservation, management and maintenance of the site, and dissemination of information about the underwater heritage. Preservation in situ is given first preference. The Charter stresses that archaeological material must be treated during the investigation as well as during transit and over the long term. It encourages international cooperation and exchange of specialists to facilitate and improve research and investigations of the underwater heritage. It also encourages dissemination of information to the public regarding the significance of the underwater heritage and coordination and communication with concerned communities regarding proposed investigations.

The International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) was founded in 1991 by ICOMOS Australia to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world.

The committee is composed of international experts in underwater cultural heritage, representing the five geographical regions as defined by UNESCO (Africa, the Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean).

The first mandate of ICUCH was to develop a charter to guide the management and protection of underwater cultural resources. The completed document became known as the International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage and was adopted by ICOMOS in 1996.

The status of this document was confirmed in 2001 when it was incorporated as the Annex to the UNESCO International Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. It has thus become the standard guide to the ethics and practices of underwater cultural heritage management throughout the world.

DNA tests of shipwrecked jars illuminate early trade markets in the Mediterranean.

Ancient Greek ships carried more than just wine

A DNA analysis of ancient storage jars suggests that Greek sailors traded a wide range of foods — not just wine, as many historians have assumed. The study, in press at the Journal of Archaeological Science¹, finds evidence of vegetables, herbs and nuts in nine jars taken from Mediterranean shipwrecks. The researchers say DNA testing of underwater artefacts from different time periods could help to reveal how such complex markets developed across the Mediterranean.

Archaeologist Brendan Foley of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and geneticist Maria Hansson of Lund University, Sweden, retrieved DNA from nine amphorae — the storage containers of the ancient world — from sunken ships dating from the fifth to the third centuries BC.

The researchers found grape DNA — as would be expected for containers of wine — in only five of the nine jars, and olive DNA, possibly from olive oil, in six of them. Other ‘hits’ included DNA from legumes, ginger, walnut and juniper and from herbs such as mint, thyme and oregano.

Amphorae have been found in their thousands in wrecks all over the Mediterranean Sea. Some of them contain residues of food, such as olive pits and fish bones, but the vast majority of them are discovered empty and unmarked.

Foley says historians tend to assume that these containers were used mainly to transport wine — in a survey of 27 peer-reviewed studies describing 5,860 amphorae, he found that 95% of the jars were described as having carried the beverage.

Out of the darkness

To test that assumption, he and Hansson first investigated an amphora that was donated to WHOI by the French diver and explorer Jacques Cousteau, but it yielded only a Carling Black Label beer can from the 1950s.

So they gained permission from Greek authorities to test amphorae that had been held in storerooms in Athens since their retrieval as many as 20 years ago. This time, the tests were successful, possibly because the jars had been kept in the dark, protecting the DNA from the damaging effects of sunlight.

The range of ingredients found in each jar suggests that amphorae were commonly reused, and that they may have contained more complex foodstuffs than previously imagined, incorporating herbal flavourings or preservatives.

Mark Lawall, a specialist in ancient Mediterranean trade at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, says that historians have been quick to make assumptions about how the jars were used. “They just restated the common opinion without any thought,” he says. He says the team’s results fit with other archaeological and written evidence suggesting wine, oil and honey were traded, as well as fruit, fish, meat and resin.

He says the DNA approach offers “great promise for advances in terms of analysing amphora contents from archaeologically documented wrecks”, where DNA data can be combined with other sources of information about a ship and its contents.

This is indeed the team’s plan — they already have plans to analyse samples taken from a fully excavated third-century-BC wreck that was found near Kyrenia, Cyprus. Foley says he would also like to screen amphorae of different ages to build a picture of how ancient trade developed over time, pinpointing when different crops were introduced.

Theotokis Theodoulou, an archaeologist at the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities in Athens and a co-author on the paper, says there are “several thousand” amphorae held in store rooms around Greece, which could now be tested. “Even when they have been in store rooms for two decades, DNA is still on them,” he says.

The study of DNA from underwater artefacts is still in its infancy, but in theory, the stable temperatures and pH of sea water should preserve DNA well, adds Matthew Collins, a bioarchaeologist from the University of York, UK.

The approach is not necessarily limited to amphorae — it could also be used on tableware, or on small bottles and jars that might have held cosmetics or medicines, says Foley. “This opens up an entirely new view of this early market,” he says. “Now we can start to record what was actually being traded.” 

As China builds a modern armada, it is pouring money into underwater archaeology and rewriting the history of its early exploits on the high seas.

Maritime Ambitions

Even as Marco Polo was making his epic journey to the Far East in the late 13th century, Chinese seafarers were striking out in the opposite direction along seaways that extended as far as the Middle East. China was entering a period of trade and naval power that culminated with the 15th century voyages of Zheng He, a eunuch admiral who sailed as far as Africa in a 250-ship armada featuring massive baochuan, or treasure ships, that dwarfed European vessels.

Five hundred years later, China is again a naval power, building a modern armada while pressing territorial claims in the South China Sea and nearby waters. China casts its reemergence on the high seas as part and parcel of its “peaceful rise,” and memories of the past—buttressed by archaeology—are a key element of that storyline. Government officials and scholars have resurrected the once-forgotten Zheng He, for example, as a symbol of benevolent engagement, asserting contrary to many scholars’ views that the admiral’s voyages were goodwill missions.

And China is showering money on underwater archaeology, hoping to recover vestiges of its glorious maritime past. At a time when looting threatens many sites in the region, the outlay “is a question of protecting our heritage,” says Cui Yong, an underwater archaeologist at the Guangdong Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology’s Research Center of Underwater Archaeology in Guangzhou. Next month, the government will unveil a $60 million exploratory ship—China’s first dedicated to archaeological research. It is lavishing money on countries in Africa and elsewhere that are eager to work with China to excavate submerged riches. China’s program also stands out among those in Asia for not profiteering from artifacts.

But critics contend that China has ulterior motives. The burgeoning underwater archaeology program is “related to [Chinese leaders’] view of themselves, and to their power projections in places,” says Mark Staniforth, an archaeologist at Monash University, Clayton, in Australia. Several of the areas now targeted for research are the sites of international territorial disputes, and some archaeologists fear that China intends to use reclaimed patrimony to bolster its claims to disputed territories, Staniforth says: “The more cynical view would say that it is about territorial expansion.” As China uncovers archaeological treasures that promise to illuminate a key period of history, how much will the political uses of the findings distort the science?

Diving in

In a hangarlike building here on Hailing Island, just off the coast of southern China’s Guangdong province, Nanhai 1, or South China Sea 1, lies encased in silt and bathed in carefully calibrated water. The sea is a few hundred meters away, just visible through an enormous glass wall.

The Song dynasty (960 to 1279 C.E.) merchant ship foundered 56 kilometers offshore, along what was once the Maritime Silk Road. From the 10th to the 15th century, Chinese ships plied routes pioneered by Arab, South Asian, and Southeast Asian traders. Sailing west across the South China Sea and Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, they carried porcelain, silk, and tea to the west and spices, ivory, and coral in the other direction—sometimes meeting their end in choppy waters or in one of Southeast Asia’s narrow straits. Thanks to a thick blanket of silt, Nanhai 1 is one of the better preserved wrecks from the era.

In what many consider the most ambitious foray into underwater archaeology yet, a Chinese team in 2007 lifted Nanhai 1 from the sea floor intact. The $16 million operation involved easing the vessel into a specially designed 530-ton steel container and then using Asia’s largest marine salvage engineering ship to raise it to the surface (Science, 23 April 2010, p. 424). The endeavor coincided with the construction of the $24 million Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum, where the boat now rests, and a $1 million replica. Throw in at least $7.4 million more for excavations and infrastructure, and “the amount of money that [China] put in there is astronomical,” Staniforth says.

China has made big strides in underwater archaeology since dredgers off the coast of Quanzhou in Fujian province—once China’s largest port—discovered a 13th century junk in 1973. The remains of the first Chinese shipwreck ever excavated promised to shed light on Song-era shipbuilding techniques. Technicians disassembled the ship, which lay under only a few meters of mud, and raised it piece by piece, along with coins, chunks of aromatic wood destined for incense production, and other bits of cargo. But China, then in the throes of the Cultural Revolution, didn’t have a single underwater archaeologist to study the relics.

They sat largely untouched for 10 years until the Quanzhou Museum of Overseas Communication (now the Quanzhou Maritime Museum) invited Jeremy Green, a maritime archaeologist at the Western Australian Maritime Museum in Fremantle, to help determine the shape and dimensions of the hull. As far as Green knows, he was the first Westerner to lay eyes on the ship, which hinted at a wealth of wrecks from China’s maritime Golden Age awaiting discovery. But China still lacked the knowledge and funds to dive in.

Things began to change a few years later, when a British salvor in 1986 illegally exported $20 million of Ming dynasty porcelain found in the wreck of a 1752 Dutch East India Trading Company ship off Indonesia. The next year, another British salvor—this time with a legal concession—stumbled upon Nanhai 1. The back-to-back incidents were a wake-up call. Chinese authorities canceled the salvor’s concession, and soon thereafter the National Museum of China (NMC) launched an Underwater Archaeological Research Center.

The research center invited Green back to China in 1989 to lead an intensive underwater training program for Cui, then 27, and seven other curators and land archaeologists. The fledgling underwater archaeologists lacked the expertise to recover Nanhai 1, which lay buried under the sea floor beneath 23 meters of water. But 15 years later they finally had the expertise and funding for the risky operation.

China’s program “went very rapidly into overdrive because they discovered that they had sites all over the place,” Staniforth says. In 2007, researchers from NMC began salvaging Huaguangjiao 1, a Song dynasty merchant ship discovered by fishers in 1996. Then in 2009, Cui and colleagues began work on Nan’ao 1, a late Ming-era smuggling ship excavated at a depth of 27 meters—a rare find from a period in the 16th and 17th centuries when the Chinese emperor banned maritime trade.

Archaeologists weren’t the only ones discovering those sites. The sophisticated remote-sensing equipment that has helped scientists uncover new and deeper wrecks has aided looters as well (Science, 17 May 2013, p. 802). Nowhere in the world is the pressure as intense as in Asia, says Jeffrey Adams, an independent heritage management specialist in Minneapolis: “The gold rush, such as it is, is in the South China Sea.”

Some of China’s neighbors conduct underwater excavations in collaboration with commercial salvors, with duplicate relics from the expeditions then sold to fill government coffers. In cash-strapped countries like Indonesia and the Philippines, Green says, underwater archaeology programs are largely “run by the finance department.” Many archaeologists respect China for embarking on a program focused on research and conservation, avoiding—as far as observers can tell—for-profit archaeology. But some say that the country has goals beyond rediscovering its heritage.

Soft power on the high seas

One pillar of China’s program is research that sheds light on the Zheng He era. Roughly a decade ago, China marked the 600-year anniversary of Zheng He’s first voyage with a slew of cultural events, including conferences, commemorative stamps, comics, and a musical stage show. Scientists took part as well. In 2003, archaeologists in Nanjing excavated the shipyard where Zheng He’s boats were built. They unearthed two rudders that have shed light on Ming-era shipbuilding techniques. The knowledge is now being used to create a replica of one of the admiral’s treasure ships, which later this year will set sail along an old Maritime Silk Road route.

The holy grail would be the discovery of a wreck from Zheng He’s fleet. To that end, China is looking farther a field and brokering partnerships with countries whose coastal waters the admiral’s fleet reached. In 2012, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Acoustics spent 2 weeks using side-scan sonar on a mostly fruitless search for wrecks in the Gulf of Oman. The first round of an even more ambitious project recently concluded in Kenya, where archaeologists from NMC and Peking University in Beijing worked with counterparts from the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) in Nairobi to excavate sites near the route traversed by Zheng He’s fleet in 1418, some 80 years before Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope. The $3.2 million, 3-year project searched both underwater and on land. “We have found a lot of areas that have potential,” says NMK’s Caesar Bita, one of two underwater archaeologists in the country.

The effort in Kenya has its roots in unsubstantiated reports published by Western journalists in the 1990s, says Qin Dashu, who headed up the project’s land excavations. Reporters visiting islands in the Lamu Archipelago, off the coast of Kenya, met locals who claimed to have Chinese heritage. One of Zheng He’s ships had sunk nearby, the theory went, and sailors swam ashore, eventually marrying local women. Ming dynasty texts state that the admiral’s fleet reached the kingdom of Malindi, in what is now Kenya, but they do not mention a shipwreck. In 2005, however, the Chinese government sponsored a young woman from Lamu claiming to be of Chinese descent to study in Nanjing. (Her DNA has not been tested to prove this claim, Qin notes.) The prospect of finding concrete evidence of Zheng He’s voyages to Africa intrigued the wife of a member of China’s vaunted State Council, Qin says, and the government greenlighted the archaeological project.

The team uncovered intriguing material—though not entirely what officials had in mind. Searching the waters around Lamu, the archaeologists found a local shipwreck laden with pottery. Based on a preliminary analysis of a single shard of Chinese porcelain, the archaeologists believe the wreck to be from the 14th century, too early to say anything about the Zheng He era. At a second underwater site about 40 kilometers from Malindi, they unearthed another red herring: a remnant of a vessel with the telltale triangular sail shape common to local ships.

The notion of a Zheng He shipwreck remains “just a tale,” Qin says. But excavating onshore in Mambrui, a coastal site north of Malindi, his team found other evidence of China’s influence in Africa: coins from the time of the Yongle Emperor Zhu Di, who was Zheng He’s patron, along with shards of porcelain bearing the mark of Zhu Di’s imperial kiln. Alone, the coins might simply have meant that smugglers had reached Malindi. But the porcelain suggested something more, Qin says: “It’s very unusual to find an [imperial] shard in an African site. It proves that there was some official relationship” between the kingdom and China at the time.

China hopes to broker a similar project with Sri Lanka, the site of the only known inscription referring to Zheng He outside of China. Several years ago, Sri Lanka’s culture minister met with administrators from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology to discuss collaborating in underwater archaeology. But the talks have apparently stalled. Officials on both sides may be wary of exploring a dark period for Sri Lanka. In 1411, Zheng He’s armada invaded Sri Lanka and hauled a local ruler back to the Ming court, replacing him with a puppet ruler.

Geoffrey Wade, a maritime historian at Australian National University in Canberra, notes that Chinese officials cast Zheng He’s exploits as “nonexpansionist and nonaggressive, completely unlike the European colonialists.” He and others demur, citing historical accounts of Zheng He’s fleet using military force, meddling in civil wars, and imposing unequal trading terms. The armada’s intervention in Sri Lanka, Wade says, is “one of the most obvious examples of nonpeace and nonfriendship” from the era.

Political aims?

At the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Congress in Hanoi in 2009, Staniforth attended several presentations by Chinese researchers affiliated with mainland government institutions and museums. Some researchers reported on archaeological efforts in the Paracel and Spratly islands, contested archipelagos in the South China Sea. The Paracels are separately claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and the Spratlys by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Chinese underwater archaeologists are now searching for wrecks in both areas—and the tone of their reports bothered Staniforth. The thrust of the argument in Hanoi, he says, was that “these are Chinese ships, therefore this is Chinese territory.”

China is open about that agenda. Archaeological research in the South China Sea, an area rich not just in wrecks but also in oil, gas, and fishing grounds, can aim to further “national territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests,” according to materials published online by China’s Center for Underwater Cultural Heritage, a division of the State Administration of Cultural Heritage set up in 2012. No less a figure than China’s vice minister of culture, Li Xiaojie, has echoed that claim in comments published by state media. And at NMC, text for a display of artifacts from Huaguangjiao 1, discovered near the Paracel Islands, declared: “China’s sovereignty over the islands of the South China Sea has been formed over a long period of historical development.”

To beat that drum even harder, a new $160 million National Museum of the South China Sea recently opened on Hainan Island. Nearby is a planned $48 million National Underwater Cultural Heritage South China Sea Protection Base. It will be used for research and restoration of damaged relics and will “strengthen South China Sea underwater heritage protection and law enforcement,” according to the Center for Underwater Cultural Heritage’s website.

Arguments basing national sovereignty on the discovery of shipwrecks and artifacts baffle international scholars. “If the presence of Chinese ceramics were any indication of sovereignty, then the Victoria and Albert Museum in London would be part of China,” Wade says.

And they have irked China’s neighbors, who increasingly see the country as an archaeological bully. On 30 March, the Philippines filed a 4000-page arbitration brief with the United Nations, claiming that China’s so-called nine-dash line, a territorial claim that encompasses nearly all of the South China Sea, is forbidden by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. “China’s maritime territory policy is not conducive to interactions or cooperation on underwater cultural heritage between China and Southeast Asia as a whole,” says Rujaya Abhakorn, director of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization’s Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts in Bangkok. Countries in the region, he says, are now worried by rumors that “China would claim ownership of all Chinese vessels and artifacts found in Southeast Asia.”

In 2012, a Chinese marine surveillance vessel reportedly confronted archaeologists in the Scarborough Shoal, a hotly contested area of the Spratly Islands off the coast of the Philippines. Franck Goddio, an underwater archaeologist and the founder of the European Institute for Underwater Archaeology in Paris, had been exploring a 13th century Chinese wreck with a team from the National Museum of the Philippines when the ship pulled up alongside the scientists and ordered them to vacate the area, according to The Wall Street Journal. Goddio declined to comment, citing political sensitivities.

“Archaeology, especially maritime archaeology, is a common heritage of all of us,” says Sheldon Clyde Jago-on, an underwater archaeologist with the National Museum of the Philippines in Manila. “Whether Filipino archaeologists discover it, or Vietnamese archaeologists discover it, or Chinese archaeologists discover it, it’s part of a whole complex pattern of trade from so many years ago.” While he declined to comment on the Scarborough Shoal incident, Jago-on says that “doing archaeology for the benefit of bolstering claims” is “not really science if you ask me.” (China’s cultural heritage administration did not reply to faxed questions before Science went to press.)

Others defend China’s program, saying the investment in underwater archaeology makes sense given the rampant looting in the region. It also comes at a time when interest in heritage is growing among the Chinese public. “I don’t feel that there’s anything sinister happening,” says Adams, the independent heritage management specialist. “It’s just happening.”

In rare cases, foreign archaeologists are getting in on the action. For example, Damien Leloup, an archaeologist with the Explorers Club based in Beijing, spearheaded an exploration last October in and around a river near the city of Jingdezhen, the site of China’s most famous imperial kilns. Near where the river emptied into the Yangtze, he and colleagues found a wealth of well-preserved ceramics from the Song dynasty. “I am convinced there are several shipwrecks to be found within the area,” he says.

Cui, for one, has tried to insulate himself from the politics buffeting his work. Over dinner, younger archaeologists working on the Nanhai 1 excavation start a heated discussion about China’s recent clashes with the Philippines. Cui quickly silences them. Instead, he prefers to talk about the payoff for archaeology.

Just a short walk away, in 9000 square meters of pristine exhibition space, artifacts from preliminary excavations of Nanhai 1 rest in glass cases: anchors, bronze coins, and delicate ceramic pieces that were once precious cargo. Cui gestures to a paper-thin bowl impressed with an intricate floral design. “It’s rare to find ceramics in this condition” from that era, he says. So far a total of 5000 relics have been removed from the ship. Thousands more are believed to be hidden in the silt.

Nanhai 1 may be a teaser for even more splendid and illuminating relics waiting to be unearthed. Next month, China’s dedicated underwater archaeology ship will set sail in search of other wrecks. The 56-meter, 500-ton vessel contains 20 sleeping berths and can store a month’s worth of food. Cui can’t wait: “I have dreamed of using a ship like that,” he says.

The vessel’s maiden voyage: the disputed waters of the Paracel Islands.

Category

Date

1996

Promulgation

The 11th ICOMOS General Assembly, Sofia, Bulgaria, 5-9 October, 1996

Descriptions

• The Charter addresses the conservation needs of underwater cultural property; it is intended to supplement the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage of 1990.
• It outlines fundamental principles for the conservation of the underwater heritage and discusses issues of funding, research objectives, qualifications of the team members, investigation, documentation, material conservation, management and maintenance of the site, and dissemination of information about the underwater heritage. Preservation in situ is given first preference.
• It stresses that archaeological material must be treated during the investigation as well as during transit and over the long term.
• It encourages international cooperation and exchange of specialists to facilitate and improve research and investigations of the underwater heritage.
• It also encourages dissemination of information to the public regarding the significance of the underwater heritage and coordination and communication with concerned communities regarding proposed investigations.

Source

 http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/underwater_e.pdf

Download

 http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/underwater_e.pdf

References

• Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
  •  http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/underwater_e.pdf
  • Legal principles for protecting the underwater cultural heritage. http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/alex7.htm
  • International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage. http://icuch.icomos.org/the-icomos-international-committee-on-the-underwater-cultural-heritage/
  • International Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001)
    • About the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention/
    • http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/UNDERWATER/pdf/Infokit_en_Final.pdf
    • Bederman, D., 1999.  The UNESCO Draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage: A Critique and Counter-Proposal. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 30 (2), 331–354.
    • Dromgoole, S., 2003.  2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 18 (1), 59–108.
    • Carducci, G., 2002.  New Developments in the Law of the Sea: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. The American Journal of International Law, 96 (2), 419–434.
    • Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2016/03/17/underwater-cultural-heritage/
  • ICOMOS, 1998.  International charter on the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 27 (3), 183–187.
  • Tong, M.E., 1952.  Destruction of our Cultural Heritage. Science, 116 (3018), 488–488.
  • Quimby, G.I., 1966.  Underwater Archeological Techniques. Science, 152 (3718), 58–58.
  • Adams, R.M., 1968.  Archeological Research Strategies: Past and Present. Science, 160 (3833), 1187–1192.
  • Auburn, F.M., 1974.  Convention for Preservation of Man’s Cultural Heritage in the Oceans. Science, 185 (4153), 763–764.
  • Clausen, C.J., Cohen, A.D., Emiliani, C., Holman, J.A., and Stipp, J.J., 1979.  Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science, 203 (4381), 609–614.
  • Forrest, C., 2002.  A New International Regime for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51 (03), 511–554.
  • Vogel, G. 2003.  “Sweden Launches a Desperate Bid to Save Famous Warship.” Science 301 (5639): 1459–1459. doi:10.1126/science.301.5639.1459.
    • One wreck had been raised intact successfully: the Vasa, a 17th century Swedish warship that was lifted from the bottom of Stockholm harbor in 1961.
  • Flemming, N.C., 2004.  Underwater cultural heritage. Current Science, 86 (9), 1189–1190.
  • Langmoen, Iver A. 2005.  “The Norse Discovery of America.” Neurosurgery 57 (6): 1076–87. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000144825.92264.C4.
  • Curry, A., 2006.  Stone Age World Beneath the Baltic Sea. Science, 314 (5805), 1533–1535.
  • Bawaya, Michael. 2006.  “Archaeology: Digital Digs.” Nature 440 (7088): 1106–7. doi:10.1038/4401106a.
  • Lawler, A., 2009. Archaeologists Raise The Old With the New. Science, 325 (5943), 936–940.
  • Mervis, J., 2011.  Wayne Clough Wants Smithsonian Science to Escape Its Shadow. Science, 333 (6043), 694–695.
  • Warns, R., In, N., and Change, C., 2011.  Around the World. Science, 334 (6063), 1610–1611.
  • Lawler, A., 2012.  Dams Along Sudanese Nile Threaten Ancient Sites. Science, 336 (6084), 967–968.
  • Marchant, Jo. 2006.  “In Search of Lost Time.” Nature 444 (7119): 534–38. doi:10.1038/444534a.
  • Marchant, Jo. 2012. “Underwater Archaeology: Hunt for the Ancient Mariner.” Nature 481 (7382): 426–28. doi:10.1038/481426a.
  • Marchant, Jo. 2011. “Ancient Greek Ships Carried More than Just Wine.” Nature, October. doi:10.1038/news.2011.594.
    • Poulakakis, N., A. Tselikas, I. Bitsakis, M. Mylonas, and P. Lymberakis. 2007.  “Ancient DNA and the Genetic Signature of Ancient Greek Manuscripts.” Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (5): 675–80. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.06.013.
    • Foley, Brendan P., Maria C. Hansson, Dimitris P. Kourkoumelis, and Theotokis A. Theodoulou. 2012.  “Aspects of Ancient Greek Trade Re-Evaluated with Amphora DNA Evidence.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2): 389–98. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.025.
  • Hertzfeld, H.R. and Pace, S.N., 2013.  International Cooperation on Human Lunar Heritage. Science, 342 (6162), 1049–1050.
  • Jiao, L., 2010.  Unprecedented Excavation Brings Maritime Silk Road to Life. Science, 328 (5977), 424–425.
    • Nanhai 1 was saved by silt that had quickly engulfed it. But the Vasa was a special case: The harbor’s frigid, less saline waters had shielded its hull from marine worms that devour wood.
    • Sulfuric acid has infused the hull of the wooden ship Vasa, one of the largest shipwrecks ever to be salvaged intact, and is dissolving it from the inside out.
  • Pringle, H., 2013.  Troubled Waters for Ancient Shipwrecks. Science, 340 (6134), 802–807.
  •  A Look Ahead for 2014, 2014. Science, 343 (6166), 10–11.
  • Hvistendahl, M., 2014.  Maritime Ambitions. Science, 344 (6184), 572–575.
    • Thirty years ago, China didn’t have a single underwater archaeologist. Today the country is spearheading exploratory missions in its waters and beyond, with an estimated hundreds of wrecks awaiting excavation. As it makes a soft power push into Asia and Africa, China is also resuscitating the memory of the 15th century seafarer Zheng He, claiming that his voyages were peaceful, and funding projects in countries with submerged riches. But foreign archaeologists note that the outlay comes as China is pressing territorial claims in the South China Sea—and worry that Zheng He’s history is being rewritten.
  • Lawler, A., 2014.   “Sailing Sinbad’s seas”. Science, 344 (6191), 1440–1445.
  • Kintigh, Keith. 2013.  Grand Challenges for Archaeology – Crowd Sourcing Report. Tempe, Arizona: The Digital Archaeological Record. doi:10.6067/XCV8R78G30.
  • Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert D. Drennan, Ann P. Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Fredrick Limp, et al. 2014.  “Grand Challenges for Archaeology.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (3): 879–80. doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111.
  • Bawaya, M., 2015.  Salvaging science. Science, 347 (6218), 117–119.
• World Charter for Sustainable Tourism
  • Charter for Sustainable Tourism (1995)
    • http://sustainabletourismcharter2015.com/sustainable-tourism-pdf/
    •  http://sustainabletourismcharter2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CharterForSustainableTourism.pdf
    • http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/charter.html
    • https://notendur.hi.is//~stefanva/Skrar/The%20Charter%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.doc
    • http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/unwtodeclarations.1995.21.13.1
    • Hampton, M., 1995.  World Conference on Sustainable Tourism. Development in Practice, 5 (4), 365–367.
  • The 2015 World Charter for Sustainable Tourism +20.
    • http://sustainabletourismcharter2015.com/
    •  http://sustainabletourismcharter2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/World-Charter-for-Sustainable-Tourism.pdf
    • Eduardo Fayos‐Solà, Cipriano Marín and Heredina Fernández-Betancort. Rethinking sustainable tourism: Looking ahead in a shifting world. On the 20th Anniversary of  The Lanzarote 1995 Charter for Sustainable Tourism.
      •  http://www.pasosonline.org/CALLSustain_042015.pdf
      •  http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/13615/PASOS45.pdf
  • Sustainable Tourism Development in UNESCO Designated Sites in South-Eastern Europe.  http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/45338/12417872579Introduction_Sustainable_Tourism.pdf/Introduction_Sustainable_Tourism.pdf
  • Harold A. Linstone, Murray Turoff. The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications.  ebook-The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications
  • Cater, E., 1994.  Tools for Sustainable Tourism. The Geographical Journal, 160 (1), 114–115.
  • Buckley, R., 1994.  A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3), 661–665.
  • Hunter, C., 1997.  Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4), 850–867.
  • Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G., 1998.  Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature, 391, 629–630.
  • Vertebrate, T., 2003.  Gangbusters. Science, 302 (5648), 1147a–1147.
  • Lansing, P. and Vries, P. De, 2007.  Sustainable Tourism: Ethical Alternative or Marketing Ploy? Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (1), 77–85.
  • Peng, C., Ouyang, H., Gao, Q., Jiang, Y., Zhang, F., Li, J., and Yu, Q., 2007.  Building a ‘Green’ Railway in China. Science, 316 (5824), 546–547.
  • Qiu, J., 2007.  Environment: Riding on the roof of the world. Nature, 449 (7161), 398–402.
  • Zeng, N., Ding, Y., Pan, J., Wang, H., and Gregg, J., 2008.  Climate Change–the Chinese Challenge. Science, 319 (5864), 730–731.
  • Cornfield, J., 2008.  Voluntourism Rocks. Scientific American, 18 (4), 82–85.
  • Gilbert, N., 2010.  Can conservation cut poverty? Nature, 467 (7313), 264–265.
  • Donohoe, H.M., 2011.  Defining culturally sensitive ecotourism: a Delphi consensus. Current Issues in Tourism, 14 (1), 27–45.
  • Mascarelli, A., 2013.  Sustainability: Environmental puzzle solvers. Nature, 494 (7438), 507–509.
  • Buckley, R., 2014.  Protecting Lemurs: Ecotourism. Science, 344 (6182), 358–358.
  • Bawaya, M., 2015.  Salvaging science. Science, 347 (6218), 117–119.
  • Bramwell, B., 2015.   Theoretical activity in sustainable tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 204–218.
  • McKinnon, M.C., Cheng, S.H., Garside, R., Masuda, Y.J., and Miller, D.C., 2015.  Sustainability: Map the evidence. Nature, 528 (7581), 185–187.
  • Samia, D.S.M., Nakagawa, S., Nomura, F., Rangel, T.F., and Blumstein, D.T., 2015.  Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nature Communications, 6 (8877), 1–8.
• Bergen Protocol on Communications and Relations among Cities of the Organization of World Heritage Cities (1995)
  •  http://icomosubih.ba/pdf/suradnja/Bergen_Protocol.pdf
  • Relations with non-governmental organizations foundations and similar institutions. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001223/122345E.pdf
• The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994)
  •  http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf
  • Do We Really Want Authenticity? https://vincemichael.wordpress.com/tag/nara/
  • Nara Document on Authenticity – UNESCO: World Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm
  • Nara+20: on heritage practices, cultural values, and the concept of authenticity.  http://www.japan-icomos.org/pdf/nara20_final_eng.pdf
  • Bronson, S.D., 2001.  Authenticity Considerations for Curtain-Wall Buildings: Seminar Summary. APT Bulletin, 32 (1), 5–8.
  • Jokilehto J. 2006,  Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context. City & Time 2 (1): 1. http://www.ct.ceci-br.org.
  • Jokilehto, J., 2006.  Preservation Theory Unfolding. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism, 3 (1), 1–9.
  • Jerome, P., 2008.  An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2/3), 3–7.
  • Stovel, H., 2008.  Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2), 9–17.
  • Van Balen, K., 2008.  The Nara Grid: an evaluation scheme based on the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2-3), 39–45.
  • Araoz, G.F., 2008.  World-Heritage Historic Urban Landscapes: Defining and Protecting Authenticity. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2), 33–37.
  • Cameron, C., 2008.  From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2), 19–24.
  • Andrews, T.D. and Buggey, S., 2008.  Authenticity in Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2), 63–71.
  • Mitchell, N.J., 2008.  Considering the authenticity of cultural landscapes. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39 (2-3), 25–31.
  • Van Uytsel, S. and Jurčys, P., 2012. ‘Heritage and Societies: Toward the 20th Anniversary of the Nara Document and Beyond’ – Conference Report. Journal of Japanese Law, 34, 309–316.
• The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites
  • The Venice Charter (1964)
    • English:  http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf
    • English-Japanese:  http://www.japan-icomos.org/charters/venice.pdf
  • The Venice Charter (1964-2004) 40^th Anniversary. http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/
  • Matthew Hardy. 2008. The Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism, Conservation and Tradition in the 21st Century. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Conservation and Restoration: What’s the Difference? http://venice.umwblogs.org/exhibit/the-conservation-of-venetian-building-materials/conservation-and-restoration-whats-the-difference/
  • Roman, Andras (2002)  Reconstruction – from the Venice Charter to the Charter of Cracow 2000. In: Estrategias relativas al patrimonio cultural mundial. La salvaguarda en un mundo globalizado. Principios, practicas y perspectivas. 13th ICOMOS General Assembly and Scientific Symposium. Actas. Comité Nacional Español del ICOMOS, Madrid, pp. 117-119.
  • It’s time to consign the Venice Charter to history. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da1108a2-0ac8-11e5-a8e8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3xRyKjid0
  • The Venice Charter Revisited Conference. 2-5 November 2006, Venice, Italy. http://www.intbau.org/archive/venicecharter.htm
  • Matthew Hardy. The Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism and Conservation in the Postwar World (new Edition). Cambridge Scholars Publishing; new edition (January 11, 2009).
  • Jokilehto, J., 1998.  International trends in historic preservation: From ancient monuments to living cultures. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 29 (3/4), 17–19.
  • Jokilehto, J., 1998b.  The context of the Venice Charter (1964). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 2 (4), 229–233.
• Resolution on Information as an Instrument for Protection against War Damages to the Cultural Heritage (1994)
  •  http://www.international.icomos.org/publications/war_damage_1994/stockholm1994.pdf
  • http://www.iicc.org.cn/Info.aspx?ModelId=1&Id=423
  • Cultural heritage in crisis and post-crisis situations.  http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=21634&lang=en
  • ICCROM. Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict. http://www.iccrom.org/ifrcdn/pdf/ICCROM_18_ProtectingHeritageConflict_en.pdf
  • 2015. Joint Motion for a Resolution (2014-2019). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+MOTION+P8-RC-2015-0375+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
  • Stefano Manacorda. 2011. Criminal Law Protection of Cultural Heritage: An International Perspective.  http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781441979452-c1.pdf
  • Adams, R.M., 2001.  Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Collateral Damage. Science, 293 (5527), 13–13.
  • Gibson, M., 2003.  Fate of Iraqi Archaeology. Science, 299 (5614), 1848–1849.
  • O’Keefe, R., 2004.  World Cultural Heritage: Obligations To The International Community As A Whole? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53 (01), 189–209.
  • Lawler, A., 2014.  Satellites track heritage loss across Syria and Iraq. Science, 346 (6214), 1162–1163.
  • di Lernia, S., 2015.  Cultural heritage: Save Libyan archaeology. Nature, 517 (7536), 547–549.
  • Lane, E., 2015.  Scientists work to save antiquities from Islamic State destruction. Science, 350 (6267), 1485–1486.
  • Culotta, E., 2015.  Breakdown of the year: Assault on the past. Science, 350 (6267), 1464–1465.
  • Jessica Maves Braithwaite. War on Culture: The Destruction of Cultural Property During Civil Wars. University of Arizona Honors College. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/579303/1/azu_etd_mr_2015_0208_sip1_m.pdf
• Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/11/hague_convention1954/
• UN General Assembly Resolution on the Return or Restitution of Cultural Property to the Countries of Origin
  • 1993:
    • Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r015.htm
    •  http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/UNGA_resolution4815.pdf
  • 1995: Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-498.htm
  • 1996: Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-56.htm
  • Resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly about Return and Restitution of Cultural Property. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=37062&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  • Nafziger, J.A.R., 1983.  New International Legal Framework for the Return, Restitution or Forfeiture of Cultural Property. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 15 (4), 789–812.
  • Merryman, J.H., 1988.  The Retention of Cultural Property. U.C. Davis Law Review, 21 (3), 477–514.
  • Gerstenblith, P., 2000. Public Interest in the Restitution of Cultural Objects. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 16 (2), 197–246.
  • Cornu, M. and Renold, M.-A., 2010.  New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution. International Journal of Cultural Property, 17 (01), 1–31.
  • Roehrenbeck, C.A., 2010.  Repatriation of Cultural Property–Who Owns the Past? An Introduction to Approaches and to Selected Statutory Instruments. International Journal of Legal Information, 38 (2), 185–200.
• The Fez Charter (1993)
  • http://www.ovpm.org/en/key_documents
  • Organization of World Heritage Cities for Asia Pacific. http://www.owhcap.org/
  • What is OWHC? http://ehhf.eu/sites/default/files/201407/Organization%20of%20World%20Heritage%20Cities.pdf
  • Amina El Bouaaichi. 2011, Urban heritage in action in the historic city of Fez: guest houses rehabilitation models. http://www.arcc-journal.org/index.php/repository/article/viewFile/349/285
  • Birabi, A.K., 2007. International urban conservation charters: catalytic or passive tools of urban conservation practices among developing countries? City & Time, 3 (2), 39–53.
  • Mathisen, B., 2012.  East Africa World Heritage Network and stakeholder priorities. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18 (3), 332–338.
  • Minaidis, L., 2014. Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 5611–5614.
• New Orleans Charter for the Joint Preservation of Historic Structures and Artifacts (1992)
  • http://cool.conservation-us.org/bytopic/ethics/neworlea.html
  • http://www.conservation-us.org/docs/default-source/governance/new-orleans-charter-for-joint-preservation-of-historic-structures-and-artifacts-(1992).pdf
  • https://www.uvm.edu/histpres/307/neworleanscharter.html
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992
  • https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
  • 2015: Message of the executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/speech/2015/sp-2015-05-08-wmbd-en.pdf
  • https://www.cbd.int/convention/
  • Text of the CBD
    • English: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
    • Chinese: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-zh.pdf
  • Laurence Boisson de Chazournes. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cpbcbd/cpbcbd.html
    • English: http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cpbcbd/cpbcbd_e.pdf
    • Chinese: http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cpbcbd/cpbcbd_c.pdf
  • A brief introduction to the The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cbdintro.html
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1365
  • Redford, K.H. and Dinerstein, E., 1994. Biological Diversity and Agriculture. Science, 265 (5171), 457–458.
  • Kate, K. t., 2002. Science and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Science, 295 (5564), 2371–2372.
  • Balmford, A., 2005.  The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 Target. Science, 307 (5707), 212–213.
  • Hoffmann, M., et al., 2010. The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World ’s Vertebrates. Science, 330 (6010), 1503–1509.
  • Naeem, S., Duffy, J.E., and Zavaleta, E., 2012. The Functions of Biological Diversity in an Age of Extinction. Science, 336 (6087), 1401–1406.
  • Joppa, L.N., Visconti, P., Jenkins, C.N., and Pimm, S.L., 2013. Achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Goals for Plant Conservation. Science, 341 (6150), 1100–1103.
  • Fox, J.L., 1999. Delegates face many challenges negotiating Biosafety Protocol. Nature Biotechnology, 17 (2), 123–123.
  • Macilwain, C., 2000. Diversity convention in the balance. Nature, 403 (6767), 233.
  • Gewin, V., 2002.  Ecosystem health: The state of the planet. Nature, 417 (6885), 112–113.
  • Knapp, S., 2003.  Dynamic diversity. Nature, 422, 475.
  • Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M.T.K., Babin, D., Barbault, R., Donoghue, M., Gadgil, M., Häuser, C., Heip, C., Larigauderie,  a, Ma, K., Mace, G., Mooney, H. a, Perrings, C., Raven, P., Sarukhan, J., Schei, P., Scholes, R.J., and Watson, R.T., 2006.  Diversity without representation. Nature, 442 (7100), 245–246.
  • Strauss, S.H., Tan, H., Boerjan, W., and Sedjo, R., 2009. Strangled at birth? Forest biotech and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nature biotechnology, 27 (6), 519–527.
  • Macilwain, C., 2010.  World view: Disaster, unmitigated. Nature, 465 (7296), 287–287.
  • Tollefson, J. and Gilbert, N., 2012.  Earth summit: Rio report card. Nature, 486 (7401), 20–23.
  • Polasky, S., 2012.  Economics: Conservation in the red. Nature, 492 (7428), 193–194.
  • Ellison, A.M., 2014.  Political borders should not hamper wildlife. Nature, 508 (7494), 9.
• Charter of Courmayeur (1992)
  • http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Charter_Courmayeur_en.pdf
• Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (1992)
  • 1992: http://www.gdrc.org/heritage/icomos-nz.html
  • 2010 revision: http://www.icomos.org.nz/docs/NZ_Charter.pdf
  • http://www.icomos.org.nz/nzcharters.htm
• A Preservation Charter for the Historic Towns and Areas of the United States of America (1992)
  •  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1992-A-Preservation-Charter-for-the-Historic-Towns-and-Areas-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
  • http://www.usicomos.org/symp/archive/1992/docs/4943
  • http://conservacion.inah.gob.mx/normativa/wp-content/uploads/Documento146.pdf
  • English-Japanese: http://www.japan-icomos.org/charters/usicomos.pdf
  • Diane Barthel, 1989. Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analyses. Sociological Forum, 4 (1), 87–105.
  • Listokin, D., Listokin, B., and Lahr, M., 1998. The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 9 (3), 431–478.
• The Québec City Declaration (1991)
  • http://www.international.icomos.org/publications/93towns7v.pdf
  • Organization of World Heritage Cities.
    • http://www.ovpm.org/en/key_documents
    • http://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=1&pid=40
    • Minaidis, L., 2014. Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 5611–5614.
  • Bergen Protocol  on communications and relations among cities of  the Organization of World Heritage Cities. http://icomosubih.ba/pdf/suradnja/Bergen_Protocol.pdf
  • Jokilehto J. 2006, World Heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value. City & Time 2 (2): 1. http://www.ct.ceci-br.org
• International Scientific Committee on Historic Towns
  • ISC Historic Towns. http://www.icomos.org/en/what-we-do/disseminating-knowledge/publicationall/116-english-categories/resources/publications/299-isc-historic-towns
  • ICOMOS International Committee on Historic Towns 
  • 1. Statutes of the Committee on Historic Towns 
  • 2. List of Members of CIVVIH 
  • 3. The Headquarters of CIVVIH  (Andrea Gadoczi)
  • 4. The International Charter of Historic Towns 
  • 5. List of World Heritage Towns and Villages 
  • 6. Resolutions, Recommendations, Declarations on the Rehabilitation of Historic Towns 1 -22 
    • – UNESCO- Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites. Paris, 11 December 1962 
    • – ICOMOS- Resolutions on the Regeneration of Historic Urban Sites. Levoca, 20-26 June 1966 
    • – ICOMOS- First Conference on the Protection and Revivification of Centres of Historic or Artistic Interest. Cáceres, 15-19 March 1967 
    • – ICOMOS- Recommendations of the Executive Committee Concerning Special Problems relating to the Reclamation, Restoration and Development of the Potencialities of the North-African and Asian Cities of the Mediterranean Basin. Tunis, 9-16 June 1968 
    • – ICOMOS- Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings. Budapest, 25-30 June 1972 
    • – ICOMOS- Resolution adopted by the Sandefjord Symposium the Wooden Town in Scandinavian Countries. Sandefjord, 22-24 September 1972 
    • – UNESCO- Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris, 16 November 1972
    • – ICMOS- Resolutions of the Symposium devoted to the Study of “The Streetscape in Historic Towns”. Lausanne, 17-22 June 1973 
    • – ICOMOS- 1° Conferenza Mondiale del Traffico. Bologna, 10-12 June 1973 
    • – ICOMOS- UIA Seminar on the Integration of Modern Architecture in Old Surroundings. Kazimierz Dolny, 16-19 October 1974 
    • – ICOMOS- The Resolution of Bruges: Principles Governing the Rehabilitation of Historic Towns. Bruges, 12-15 May 1975 
    • – ICOMOS- Resolutions of the International Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns. Rothenburg/ Tauber, 29-30 May 1975 
    • – Europa Nostra- Charte Europeenne du Patrimoine Architectural. Amsterdam, 1975 
    • – ICOMOS- UNESCO- Recommendation adopted at the International Symposium- A New Life for Historic Towns. Prague- Bratislava, 30 September- 5 October 1976 
    • – UNESCO- Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. Nairobi, 26 October- 30 November 1976
    • – ICOMOS- Resolution “Secteurs Sauvegardés Ruraux”. Szombathely, 23-29 Juin 1977 
    • – ICOMOS- Colloque sur les “Ensembles Historique Traditionnels”. Cracovie, 15-18 October 1980 
      – Internazionale Städteforum Memorandum of Graz- To avoid Suffocating of Our Cities in Traffic Graz, 7-10 June 1990 
    • – ICOMOS- COMPTE Rendu du Colloque International “Methodes Scientifiques pour Sauvegarder la Memoire d’une Ville: problemes de la Formation”. Sofia, 28 Sept.- 1 Oct. 1990 
    • – ICOMOS- Declaración de la Ciudad de México; 25 Años de Conservación del Patrimonio: Balance y Perspectivas. Ciudad de México, 7-10 Novembre 1990 
    • – Network of World Heritage Towns- the Quebec City Declaration- Preservation of the Urban Heritage. Quebec, 30 June- 4 July 1991 
    • – Conseil de l’Europe Declaration; 7e Symposium des Villes Historiques. Istambul, 16-18 September 1992 
  • 7. Collection of Data of CIVVIH Meetings  (prepared by Tamas Fejérdy)
•  CIVVIH
  • CIVVIH historical background. CIVVIH HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.pdf
  • Annual Reports of CIVVIH. http://civvih.icomos.org/?q=node/65
  • Charters and Declarations. http://civvih.icomos.org/?q=node/6
• ICOMOS. International Charters for Conservation and Restoration. http://www.icomos.org/charters/charters.pdf
• Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics
  • 1982 version:
    • http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/34304.htm
  • 2002 Amendment:
    • http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Law-of-the-People’s-Republic-of-China-on-Protection-of-Culture-Relics-2002-10-28.pdf
    •  https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/533/18PacRimLPolyJ405.pdf?sequence=1
  • 2007 Amendment:
    • http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/china/china_lawprotectionclt_entof
    •  https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/chn/1982/law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-on-protection-of-cultural-relics-chinese_html/Chinese.pdf
    • http://www.giurisprudenza.unimib.it/DATA/insegnamenti/8_896/materiale/losier%20class%205%201.pdf
  • 2013 Amendment:
    •  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Cultural-Relics-Protection-Law-of-the-People’s-Republic-of-China-2013-Amendment.pdf
  • Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2002)
    • http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/30385/11424212483cn_regulation_implementation_2002_en.pdf/cn_regulation_implementation_2002_en.pdf
  • Cohen, J.A., 1982. The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 73 (1), 138–170.
  • Newell, P., 2008. The PRC’s Law for the Protection of Cultural Relics. Art, Antiquity and Law, 13 (1), 1–58.
  • Zhu, G., 2012. China’s architectural heritage conservation movement. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1 (1), 10–22.
  • Gruber, S., 2014. Perspectives on the Investigation, Prosecution and Prevention of Art Crime in Asia. In: S. Hufnagel and D. Chappell, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on the Detection, Investigation and Prosecution of Art Crime: Australasian, European and North American Perspectives. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Group, 221–235. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2515178
  • Huo, Z., 2015. Legal protection of cultural heritage in China: A challenge to keep history alive. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–19.  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10286632.2015.1015534
• Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China
  • Publication by the Getty Conservation Institute (2004)
    • http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Principles-for-the-Conservation-of-Heritage-Sites-in-China2002.pdf
  • Publication by the Getty Conservation Institute (2015)
    • http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Principles-for-the-Conservation-of-Heritage-Sites-in-China-Revised-2015.pdf
    • http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/china_principles_revised_2015.html
• Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics
  • Chang, K., 1962. New Evidence on Fossil Man in China. Science, 136 (3518), 749–760.
  • Stone, M., Couzin, J., and Hui, L., 1998. Smuggled Chinese Fossils on Exhibit. Science, 281 (5375), 315–317.
  • Normile, D., 2001. Internal Fights, Looting Hinder Work in the Field. Science, 291 (5502), 239+241.
  • Ding, Y. and Lei, X., 2002. China Issues Rules on Fossil Excavation. Science, 297 (5589), 1981–1981.
  • Du, L., 2004. Scientists Warn of Threats to Fossil-Rich Chinese Site. Science, 305 (5681), 172–173.
  • Stone, R., 2008. Chinese Province Crafts Pioneering Law to Thwart Biopiracy. Science, 320 (5877), 732–733.
  • Lawler, A., 2009. Archaeologists Raise The Old With the New. Science, 325 (5943), 936–940.
  • Hvistendahl, M., 2014. Maritime Ambitions. Science, 344 (6184), 572–575.
  • Eck, D.W., Gerstenblith, P., and Phelan, M., 2001. International Cultural Property. The International Lawyer, 36 (2), 607–618.
  • Moss, W.W., 1991.  The Archives Law of the People’s Republic of China: A Summary and Commentary. The American Archivist, 54 (2), 216–219.
  • Liston, J.J. and You, H.-L., 2015. Chinese fossil protection law and the illegal export of vertebrate fossils from china. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35 (2), e904791.
• ICOMOS 15^th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (Xi’an, China, 17-21 October, 2005). http://www.icomos.org/xian2005/
• Red List of Chinese Cultural Objects at Risk. http://icom.museum/uploads/tx_hpoindexbdd/RedListofChineseCulturalObjectsatRisk-English.pdf
• Sir, how much is that ming vase in the window? Protecting Cultural Relics in the People’s Republic of China.  http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_05.1_dutra.pdf
• Deschambault Charter for the Preservation of Quebec’s Heritage (1982)
  • http://www.international.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/192-the-deschambault-charter
  •  http://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/import.ocpm.aegirvps.net/files/pdf/PD04/3mEN.pdf
  • Principles for the Governance of the Heritage Conservation Sector in Canada:  Lessons from International Experience.  http://www.historicplaces.ca/media/10833/governanceforheritage.pdf
• Declaration of Dresden (1982)
  • Reconstruction in the World Heritage Context.  https://engagingconservationyork.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/reconstruction-in-wh-context-rev.pdf
• Conservation and sustainability in Historic Cities.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470759547.biblio/pdf
• The Florence Charter: Historic Gardens (1981)
  •  http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.pdf
  • http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/historic-gardens/
  • O’Donnell, P.M., 2014.  Florence Charter on Historic Gardens (1982). In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2812–2817.
  • Carneiro, A. R. S., Menezes, J. F., & Mesquita, L. (2005).  The conservation of historical gardens in a multidisciplinary context: the” Cactário da Madalena”, Recife, Brazil. City & Time, 1(2).
• Recommendation for the Safeguarding and Preservation of Moving Images (1980)
  •  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114029e.pdf
  • Walsh, J. (1974).  Soviet-American Copyright Deals-Better Where Barter Is Possible. Science, 186(4166), 805–807. doi:10.1126/science.186.4166.805
  •  Universal Copyright Convention. (1953). Nature, 171, 956.
• World Day for Audiovisual Heritage
  • http://www.un.org/en/events/audiovisualday/background.shtml
  •  http://www.girona.cat/web/sgdap/docs/declaracio_arxius_audiovisuals-2015-DEF_ENG.pdf
  • UNESCO instrument for the safeguarding and preservation of the audiovisual heritage. http://www.ccaaa.org/docs/ccaaa_heritage.pdf
  • http://www.memnon.be/Ourcollectivememory/Ourcollectivememory/tabid/119/language/en-US/Default.aspx
• The Universal Copyright Convention (1952). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/10/the-ucc-1952/
• The Universal Copyright Convention of 1971 (1971). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/11/13/copyright-1971/
• Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property (1978).
  • http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/12/30/recommendation-1978/
  •  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114032e.pdf#page=176
  •  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1978-Recommendation-for-the-Protection-of-Movable-Cultural-Property-1978.pdf
  •  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000603/060309eo.pdf
  • http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
    • English:  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114032e.pdf#page=176
    • Chinese: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114032cb.pdf#page=1
• Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property (1978).
  • Nelson, N.C., 1937.  Prehistoric Archeology, Past, Present and Future. Science, 85 (2195), 81–89.
  • Lomax, A. and Berkowitz, N., 1972.  The Evolutionary Taxonomy of Culture. Science, 177 (4045), 228–239.
  • Graham, G.M., 1987. Protection and Reversion of Cultural Property: Issues of Definition and Justification. The International Lawyer, 21 (3), 755–793.
• The SPAB Manifesto (1877). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/08/the-spab-manifesto/
• Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/11/hague_convention1954/
• Recommendation on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1964).  http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/24/illicit-import-1964/
• Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/11/03/means-1970-2/
• The Charter of Machu Picchu (1977).
  • http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/12/30/charter-of-machu-picchu-1977/
  •  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1977-The-Charter-of-Machu-Picchu.pdf
  • Le Corbusier,  Principios De Urbanismo, Barcelona: Ariel, 1975 (Titulo del original Frances: LA Charte D’Athenes, Collection Forces Vives—Editions de Minuit).
  •  The Charter of Machu Picchu, 1979. Journal of Architectural Research, 7 (2), 5–9.
  • Seidel, A., Gibson, J., Preiser, W.F.E., and Pellish, D.M., 1979.  Four Commentaries on the Charter. Journal of Architectural Research, 7 (2), 10–12.
  • Built Heritage and Sustainable Tourism.  http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/29226/InTech-Built_heritage_and_sustainable_tourism_conceptual_economic_and_social_variables.pdf
• Charter of Athens (1933). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/10/charter-of-athens-1933/.
• Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (1976).
  • http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  • http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/12/29/recommendation-1976/
  •  http://www.icomos.org/publications/93towns7o.pdf
  • English:  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114038e.pdf#page=136
  • Chinese:  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114038cb.pdf#page=1
• The Conservation of old cities as part of the cultural heritage, seen within the context of modern urbanization
• Cultural Tourism (1976). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/12/29/cultural-tourism-1976/
• The Role of the ICOMOS in Cultural Tourism at World Heritage Sites.  http://www.icomos.org/publications/93sy_tou10.pdf
• ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter (Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance, 1999).
  •  http://www.icomos.org/charters/tourism_e.pdf
  •  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1999-ICOMOS-International-Cultural-Tourism-Charter.pdf
  • http://www.whitr-ap.org/index.php?classid=1483&newsid=2316&t=show
• Resolutions of the International Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns (1975). http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/180-articles-en-francais/chartes-et-normes/384-resolutions-of-the-international-symposium-on-the-conservation-of-smaller-historic-towns-at-the-4th-icomos-general-assembly
• Resolutions of the International Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns (1975). http://www.icomos.org/index.php/en/what-we-do/disseminating-knowledge/publicationall/other-publications/116-english-categories/resources/publications/394-colloque-sur-la-conservation-des-petites-villes-historiques–symposium-on-the-conservation-of-smaller-historic-towns
• European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (1975). http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/170-european-charter-of-the-architectural-heritage
• International Charters on Conservation: The Lost C(L)auses.  http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/docs2008/CT-2008-120.pdf
• Centre de Documentation de l’ICOMOS.  http://mestrado-reabilitacao.fa.utl.pt/disciplinas/jaguiar/icomoshistorictowns.pdf
• European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (1975). http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/cultureMain/Instruments/European_Charter.pdf
• Initiative for a European Cultural Heritage Year.  http://www.dnk.de/_uploads/media/1870_2015-11-20_ECHY%E2%80%93Status%20Report.pdf
• Declaration of Amsterdam (1975). http://www.international.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam.
• Draft Opinion: Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe.  http://www.europanostra.org/UPLOADS/FILS/20150226-CommitteRegions-Opinion-CulturalHeritage.pdf
• Declaration of Amsterdam (1975). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Bostenaru_Dan/publication/200038775_The_Cultural_Value_of_the_Built_Heritage_in_the_International_Documents_Dedicated_to_the_Preservation_of_the_Cultural_Heritage/links/0d50ae560eacbe9be2e9e867.pdf
• European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (1969). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/11/02/archaeology-1969/
• European Cultural Convention (1954). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/10/european-cultural-convention/
• International Urban Conservation Charters: Catalytic or Passive Tools of Urban Conservation Practices Among Developing Countries.  http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/docs2008/CT-2008-106.pdf
• The World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/
• Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention – UNESCO.  http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1972-Basic-Texts-of-the-1972-World-Heritage-Convention-UNESCO.pdf
• The World Heritage Convention: An Overview – ICOMOS.  http://www.icomos.org/publications/93touris1.pdf
• List of World Heritage Sites in China.
  • http://orcp.hustoj.com/collections/world-heritage-list-china/
  • Anglin, R., 2013.  The World Heritage List: Bridging the Cultural Property Na- Tionalism-Internationalism Divide. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 20 (2), 241–275.
• Memory of the World in China. http://orcp.hustoj.com/collections/memory-of-the-world/
• Recommendation Concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning (1956). http://orcp.hustoj.com/2015/10/11/town-planning-1956/
• Records of The General Conference, Ninth Session, New Delhi, 1956. (Full text, original documents)  1956-12-5-Records of The General Conference, Ninth Session, New Delhi, 1956
• Revised Recommendation Concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning (27 Nov. 1978).
  • Original URL: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13134&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  • English:  1978-Revised Recommendation concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning
  • Chinese:  1978-Revised Recommendation concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning-CN
• Draft Regulations For International Competitions In Architecture, Paris, 30 August 1954, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001607/160785eb.pdf
• Revision of The Recommendation Concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning (1956).  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0002/000277/027743EB.pdf
• Community as Myth and Reality in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In: Nicolas Adell, Regina F. Bendix, Chiara Bortolotto & Markus Tauschek (eds.) Between Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice: Participation, Territory and the Making of Heritage, pp. 273-286. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Gottingen, 2015.   http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-Between-Imagined-Communities-and-Communities-of-Practice.pdf
• UNESCO, 1972.  UNESCO CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE. International Legal Materials, 11 (6), 1358–1366.
•  Universal Copyright Convention. (1953). Nature, 171, 956.
• United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1972.  UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at a National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage. International Legal Materials, 11 (6), 1367–1374.
• Walsh, J. (1974).  Soviet-American Copyright Deals-Better Where Barter Is Possible. Science, 186(4166), 805–807. doi:10.1126/science.186.4166.805
• Merryman, J.H., 1986.  Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property. The American Journal of International Law, 80 (4), 831–853.
• Merryman, J.H., 1989. The Public Interest in Cultural Property. California Law Review, 77 (2), 339–364.
• Burns, G. (1991).  Deterioration of our cultural heritage. Nature, 352(6337), 658–660. doi:10.1038/352658a0
• Blake, J. (2000).  On Defining the Cultural Heritage. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49(1), 61–85.
• Balter, M. (2000). Artifacts Prompt Tug-of-War. Science, 287(5450), 33b–33. doi:10.1126/science.287.5450.33b.   Artifacts Prompt Tug-of-War-Science
• Ahmad, Y., 2006.  The Scope and Definitions of Heritage From Tangible to Intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (3), 292–300.
• Schaaf, T. (2003). UNESCO’s experience with the protection of sacred natural sites for biodiversity conservation. In:   The Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for Biological Conservation-Paris (UNESCO)-Proceedings of the International Workshop, Kunming and Xishuangbanna, China. pp. 13-20.
• Meskell, L., 2013.  UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation. Current Anthropology, 54 (4), 483–494.
• Jokilehto, Jukka. “International charters on urban conservation: some thoughts on the principles expressed in current international doctrine.” City & Time 3, no. 3 (2007): 2.
• Auburn, F.M., 1974.  Convention for Preservation of Man’s Cultural Heritage in the Oceans. Science, 185 (4153), 763–764.

Intellectual Property