PL EN


2017 | 16 | 9-35
Article title

Ochrona prawna dziedzictwa archeologicznego a rzeczywiste możliwości służb konserwatorskich na przykładzie stanowisk wpisanych do rejestru zabytków w Lednogórze, Moraczewie i Goślinowie

Content
Title variants
EN
Legal protection of archaeological heritage and effective capability of conservation services illustrated through the examples of Lednogóra, Moraczewo and Goślinowo — archaeological sites entered into the register of monuments
Languages of publication
PL EN
Abstracts
EN
This paper outlines the issue of the conservation protection of archaeological heritage using the example of three sites from the communes of Gniezno and Łubowo entered in the register of monuments. The sites in Moraczewo (site 16), Lednogóra (site 8) and Goślinowo (site 4) are briefly presented. The first part presents international and national legal acts referring to the protection and care of monuments in a historical perspective. Next, operative regulations are presented from the practical side. The paper describes the scope of their execution, executive possibilities for conservation services and the problems of cooperation between administrative units at various levels in the broadly understood system of monument protection. The issue of the value of cultural heritage, still much-debated not only in the conservation but also in the scholarly milieu, is also discussed. The importance and preservation of the relics of the past in contemporary society is best illustrated by the current proceedings to receive the consent for the construction of a lignite opencast mine in Ościsłów. The investment has received wide coverage in the social media, television and the press among others due to the discovery of a megalithic cemetery, thus confirming that the value of heritage cannot be measured only by objective and standardised criteria. The issues of property and finances are considered the main problems in the protection of monuments. The responsibility for the monument lies primarily with the owner and the costs associated with the maintaining and good preservation of the heritage are often very high. This paper therefore emphasises the need for a closer cooperation between conservation services and monument owners or investors. Theoretical and legal considerations lead up to a discussion on the problem of the protection of archaeological heritage in real situations. Examples here include three sites under one of the higher forms of protection, i.e., an entry in the register of monuments, which are under threat from investments. First, the site in Moraczewo may be destroyed by a significant extension of a residential building and the construction of a car workshop. Secondly, Lednogóra is an example of an archaeological site difficult to protect by conservation services due to faulty provisions in the current local spatial development plan that was adopted almost 20 years earlier. Finally, the Goślinowo site is threatened by destruction due to the implementation of the construction of the S5 express road, a strategic investment for this part of the country. The examples discussed illustrate the diversity of activities undertaken by conservation services. However, as the above analysis demonstrates, the complexity of the problems related to the protection of cultural heritage is not limited to the possibility of applying relevant paragraphs. We often face a dilemma as to how much compromise we should make to protect as much of our archaeological heritage as possible. The first part presents international and national legal acts referring to the protection and care of monuments in a historical perspective. Next, operative regulations are presented from the practical side. The paper describes the scope of their execution, executive possibilities for conservation services and the problems of cooperation between administrative units at various levels in the broadly understood system of monument protection. The issue of the value of cultural heritage, still much-debated not only in the conservation but also in the scholarly milieu, is also discussed. The importance and preservation of the relics of the past in contemporary society is best illustrated by the current proceedings to receive the consent for the construction of a lignite opencast mine in Ościsłów. The investment has received wide coverage in the social media, television and the press among others due to the discovery of a megalithic cemetery, thus confirming that the value of heritage cannot be measured only by objective and standardised criteria. The issues of property and finances are considered the main problems in the protection of monuments. The responsibility for the monument lies primarily with the owner and the costs associated with the maintaining and good preservation of the heritage are often very high. This paper therefore emphasises the need for a closer cooperation between conservation services and monument owners or investors. Theoretical and legal considerations lead up to a discussion on the problem of the protection of archaeological heritage in real situations. Examples here include three sites under one of the higher forms of protection, i.e., an entry in the register of monuments, which are under threat from investments. First, the site in Moraczewo may be destroyed by a significant extension of a residential building and the construction of a car workshop. Secondly, Lednogóra is an example of an archaeological site difficult to protect by conservation services due to faulty provisions in the current local spatial development plan that was adopted almost 20 years earlier. Finally, the Goślinowo site is threatened by destruction due to the implementation of the construction of the S5 express road, a strategic investment for this part of the country. The examples discussed illustrate the diversity of activities undertaken by conservation services. However, as the above analysis demonstrates, the complexity of the problems related to the protection of cultural heritage is not limited to the possibility of applying relevant paragraphs. We often face a dilemma as to how much compromise we should make to protect as much of our archaeological heritage as possible.
Year
Volume
16
Pages
9-35
Physical description
Dates
published
2017
Contributors
  • Wojewódzki Urząd Ochrony Zabytków w Poznaniu
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Instytut Archeologii
References
  • Banaszak D., Tabaka A. 2006. Ostrów Lednicki: Informator, Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy.
  • Fabiszak I. 2015. Sprawozdanie końcowe (z obszaru preliminowanego) ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stanowisku Goślinowo 5, AZP 49–34/84, pow. gnieźnieński, woj. wielkopolskie, w związku z realizacją inwestycji — budowy drogi krajowej nr S-5 Żnin-Gniezno, na odcinku Węzeł Mielno-Gniezno. Maszynopis: Archiwum WUOZ w Poznaniu.
  • Fuglewicz S. 2016. System służb ochrony zabytków w Polsce a społeczna partycypacja w ochronie zabytków [w:] Założenia systemu służb konserwatorskich w Polsce, red. B. Szmygin,Warszawa, s. 51–60.
  • Górecki J. 2016. Sprawozdanie z badań archeologicznych na Ostrowie Lednickim stanowisko 1 w 2016 r. przy reliktach południowego basenu chrzcielnego oraz posadzek kaplicy pałacowej. Maszynopis: Archiwum WUOZ w Poznaniu.
  • Kępczyńska-Walczak A. 2014. Zarządzanie dziedzictwem kulturowym w społeczeństwie opartym na wiedzy, Łódź.
  • Kobyliński Z. 1999. Krajobraz archeologiczny — problem ochrony i prezentacji [w:] Krajobraz archeologiczny. Ochrona zabytków archeologicznych jako form krajobrazu kulturowego, red. Z. Kobyliński, Warszawa, s. 5–10.
  • Kobyliński Z. 2009. Własność dziedzictwa kulturowego, Warszawa.
  • Kobyliński Z. 2011. Czym jest, komu jest potrzebne i do kogo należy dziedzictwo kulturowe?, MSR, t. 7, s. 21–47.
  • Kobyliński Z. 2015. Kryteria i metody wartościowania dziedzictwa archeologicznego: aktualny stan dyskusji [w:] Systemy wartościowania dziedzictwa. Stan badań i problemy, red. B. Szmygin, Lublin–Warszawa, s. 83–109.
  • Konopka M. 2016. Ocena wartości — niezbędny etap ochrony zabytków archeologicznych [w:] Klasyfikacja i kategoryzacja w systemie ochrony zabytków, red. B. Szmygin, Warszawa, s. 57–66.
  • Kurnatowska Z. 1992. Ostrów Lednicki: Gród Mieszka I, Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy.
  • Marcinkowska M. 2014. Prawo ochrony dziedzictwa kultury jako dziedzina prawa międzynarodowego [w:] Prawo ochrony zabytków, red. K. Zeidler, Warszawa–Gdańsk, s. 42–55.
  • Meskell L. 2013. UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40 Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation, CA, vol. 54, No. 4, s. 483–494.
  • Minta-Tworzowska D. 2013. Dziedzictwo odzyskane w kontekście badań archeologicznych [w:] Via Archaeologica Posnaniensis. Źródła archeologiczne z badań wykopaliskowych na trasach dróg i autostrad, t. 6: Dziedzictwo odzyskane. Archeologia ratownicza na ziemi gnieźnieńskiej, red. D. Minta-Tworzowska, Poznań, s. 7–14.
  • Radka K. 2014. Sprawozdanie z archeologicznych badań podwodnych przeprowadzonych na reliktach mostu wczesnośredniowiecznego tzw. poznańskiego (Ostrów Lednicki — Rybitwy 3A). Maszynopis: Archiwum WUOZ w Poznaniu.
  • Radka K. 2015. Sprawozdanie z archeologicznych badań podwodnych przeprowadzonych na reliktach mostu wczesnośredniowiecznego tzw. poznańskiego (Ostrów Lednicki — Rybitwy 3A). Maszynopis: Archiwum WUOZ w Poznaniu.
  • Rączkowski W. 2006. Bezużyteczna przeszłość [w:] Komu potrzebna jest przeszłość?, red. D. Minta-Tworzowska, Ł. Olędzki, Poznań, s. 35–43.
  • Rączkowski W., Sroka J. 2002. Cudze chwalicie, swego nie znacie o różnym postrzeganiu krajobrazu kulturowego [w:] De rebus futuris memento: przyszłość przeszłego krajobrazu kulturowego Ziemi Sławieńskiej, red. W. Rączkowski, J. Sroka, Sławno, s. 7–23.
  • Shaw I. 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford–New York.
  • Zeidler K., Trzciński M. 2009. Wykład prawa dla archeologów, Warszawa.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
0860-7893
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-55e87454-75ea-4075-be28-d386cab04f4c
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.