TRADITIONAL TOOLS FOR RECORDING RECENT HERITAGE 
Marieke Kuipers 
Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts & Culture 
p.o. box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, 
the Netherlands 
tel.: ++31-43-388 2527 (Wednesday) 
fax: ++31-43-3884869 
e-mail: m.kuipers@tss.unimaas.nl 
Netherlands Department for Conservation 
p.o. box 1001,3700 BA Zeist 
the Netherlands 
tel.: ++31-30-6983357 (Monday) 
fax: ++31-30-6916189 
e-mail: m.kuipers@monumentenzorg.nl 
KEY WORDS: Inventory Forms, 20th Century Heritage, War-time Heritage, Atlantikwall, Maps, Volunteers 
ABSTRACT 
To record recent heritage, many methods will do, as long as they are quickly carried out and at low costs, because the general support 
is not so great as for the ancient buildings. Documentation is not only needed for proper conservation, but foremost to raise public 
awareness and to prevent demolition or disfigurement. 
1. DIFFERENT NEEDS OF DOCUMENTATION 
About five years ago (for the General Assembly in Sofia, 1996), the Dutch section submitted a proposal to found a scientific 
committee on documentation within ICOMOS, and 1 happened to be one of the authors. At that time I did not know that the issue of 
documentation has such a wide scope and such a diverse praxis. Moreover, I did not know anything of C1PA and its enthusiast 
members. In 1997 I was invited to speak in CIPA’s conference in Gotenburg about our proposal and our national Monuments 
Inventory Project (MIP) concerning the heritage of the ‘Steam period’ (1850-1940). 
During this conference and the following Outreach Workshop in Marstrand 1 learned a lot about new documentation techniques, 
especially for producing digital images of already recognized monuments and sites, and about CIPA. I discovered also that my 
interpretation and use of the keywords ‘documentation’, 'inventory’and ‘survey’ had not so much in common with yours; simply 
because my professional background and task are different: I am an architectural historian and foremost dealing with the 
identification, localisation and evaluation of built heritage, in particular the recent heritage of the 20th century, in large numbers. In 
the long chain of documentation activities I am mostly working in the initial stage, providing the base for future ‘fine-tuning’ in 
recording selected objects and sites. 
Detailed documentation can only be initiated, or financed, if these monuments have been acknowledged as such explicitly. This 
remark may seem superfluous but it is necessary to realise that the long process of recognition is not so self-evident as it is perhaps 
for you - neither because of the needed knowledge, nor because of such banal though essential issues like budget and time. 
2. DIFFERENT INITIATIVES FOR DOCUMENTATION 
Before addressing the question how to document - whether or not with digital image techniques - come the questions what to record, 
when, where, why and by whom! 
At this very moment (September 2001), a European workshop (Ariadne 5), is organised by the European Centre of Excellence 
ARCCIP (Associated Research Centre for Cultural Heritage Interdisciplinary Projects) in Prague to discuss selection methods and to 
set up databases on cultural heritage as well as to train young professionals in these matters. It is a pity that we could not combine our 
documentation efforts more effectively in this case. 
Maybe in the near future there will be another chance, for one of the experts previously involved had indicated in the poll I held 
among the ICOMOS comittees in 1998, that he is interested in CIPA activities.Another outcome of this poll was that not only the 
lack of specific technical knowledge is a problem to use advanced documentation techniques, but also lack of money. 
Also in other expert groups, like the international organisation DOCOMOMO (the acronyme of the international working party for 
Documentation and Conservation of buildings, sites and neighbourhoods of the MOdern Movement), the main questions are what 
do we want to document and whyl For a scientific answer architectural analysis is needed as well as historical and social evaluation, 
based on fieldwork, archival and bibliographical research. The aim for the documentation work, done by volunteering professionals, 
is to compose an international selection of significant specimens of the Modern Movement legacy, as a base for raising public 
awareness and as a source of information for conservation (e.g. the Budaors Airterminal near Budapest or the new capital of Brazil). 
Although a digital database would be preferable since the web has become so important, all working parties involved used uptil now 
the traditional tool of a uniform ‘fiche’ on paper (Fig. 1) accompanied by slides and photographs, due to practical and financial 
reasons. These fiches are collected in the Netherlands Architectural Institute at Rotterdam (about 600 from more than 30 countries 
world-wide). And last year an illustrated publication of this international selection was launched at the 6th international conference in 
Brasilia. Although the web is more and more used for campaigns to prevent disfigurement (e.g. Eero Saarinen’s TWA terminal at 
Washington) or to protest against demolition plans (e.g. Frans van Klingeren’s ‘agora building’ De Meerpaal at Dronten, NL), it is 
essential that a building has been published in renowned books and magazines. But the same is valid for positive cases, like the 
successful nomination of the Rietveld-Schroderhouse in Utrecht (NL) for the World Heritage List; this masterpiece is now inscribed 
since last December. 
Proceedings 18 th International Symposium CIPA 2001 
Potsdam (Germany), September 18 - 21, 2001