ul 2004
result it
a, like
zement,
to note
easures
me part
ness for
de user
hat one
ers and
mmetry
].
n WI,
nt de la
aris.
graphic
v for
neering
leritage
istralian
nt Publ.
f XVII
CD.
D/CAM
n, Proc.
16-23,
Future:
\ ddress,
Past -
utthaya,
fry, 4nd
Remote
1
Science,
im]
ling of
20MOS
m#histo
n]
wns and
1-04).
html]
sed 20-
HERITAGE AT RISK AND CIPA TODAY: A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF
HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION.
G. Palumbo' and C.L. Ogleby?
Director of Archaeological Conservation, World Monument Fund Europe, 34 Avenue de New York, Paris, France.
g.palumbo@ucl.ac.uk
“Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
clogleby@unimelb.edu.au
Commission V/4
KEY WORDS: CIPA, Recording, Cultural Heritage, Inventory
ABSTRACT:
Heritage documentation today is at a transitional stage. On one side the advancement of technology, which is reflected within CIPA
by the diversification of topics and issues, has improved methodologies and data integration processes. On the other side there is a
more widespread recognition of documentation as being an integral part of the conservation process, and not just an extra item to do
if time and money allow it.
The paper looks at the status of heritage documentation in situations where risk is high, the role CIPA is playing, and perspectives of
improving the way documentation is conceived and practiced by heritage professionals.
1. INTRODUCTION
Among the most dramatic events of the past couple of years, the
war in Iraq, the earthquake of Bam in Iran, and the dynamiting
of the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan are particularly good
examples of the importance of documentation of cultural
heritage, in its wider sense of collection and procurement of
information and data.
In the case of the Iraq war, US archaeologists tried to submit
lists of sites and their coordinates to the Pentagon to avoid their
bombing (a move that has been criticized by others: how can
we think about saving heritage sites and not to be worried by
the bombing of civilians?). In this case it was clear that a basic
tool was missing, that is an official inventory of heritage sites to
be used by a neutral party such as UNESCO to ask the invading
and then occupying forces to avoid damaging actions on
heritage sites. As early as 1970 UNESCO asked Member States
to prepare lists of protected sites, for the purpose of
documentation and management of cultural resources.
Unfortunately this basic and important step is still not enforced,
leaving many countries without a proper documentation system
of their cultural heritage.
In the case of the Bam earthquake, the magnitude of the disaster
and the loss of life put initially in the background the enormous
task to be initiated by the Iranian Cultural Heritage
Organization to document the extent of the damage in the
Citadel.
Although photos, plans, and some photogrammetric record
existed, most of this was kept in a building within the Citadel,
Which collapsed during the quake. Fortunately most of these
records were retrieved, but this is also an example of the risk of
archiving original documentation material in proximity or even
within the documented site.
m ES ht Yh
Photograph: Franco Fracassi, AP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1113730,00.html
5
#
KR
i E Pii
xti
Photograph: Hasan Sarbakhshian, AP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1113730,00.html
Risk preparedness also takes into consideration the treatment of
archived data and the preparation of new documentation if the
one available is not sufficient for the purpose of conservation
and possible reconstruction if the site is totally destroyed. In
the case of Bamyan, a photogrammetric record existed but not
at the detail needed for a faithful reconstruction, if such
decision will be taken by the Afghan government, and this
