Dear Readers! For over a year the National Heritage Board o f Boland has been conducting work associated with a verif ication o f the register o f historical monuments. In this way, we wish to assist voivodeship conservators o f monuments in bringing up to date data contained in the register o f historical monuments and preparing a resource o f information accessible on digital carriers, which is then introduced into an electronic database. An important element oj this process is devising a standard o f a contemporary description o f historical values. We would like to carry out this process upon the basis of a wide spectre o f such values as well as to benefit from experiences connected with the protection o f sites included onto the UNESCO World Heritage List. The most recent issue o f "Ochrona Zabytków" presents a fragment o f this complex problem, exemplified by an important domain o f the historical heritage, i.e. the monuments o f technology. I am firmly convinced that the rules presented in the copious article on the topic can be applied also to other domains o f the historical resource. In addition, I draw attention to the extensive gamut of assessments and the necessity o f devising such a method o f conduct that in praxis will make it possible to reach an objective assessment o f the value of historical resources and its precise description, and thus will allow a significant improvement o f the practical standards o f the protection o f historical monuments. A prominent supplementation o f the mentioned undertakings can include a f requently unnoticed area o f civic activity, which should eff ectively support the protection o f historical monuments. We discuss this question upon the basis o f experiences connected with the Foundation for the Development o f Local Democracy. The titles o f the awarded projects: Neighbours for neighbours and "Open gardens demonstrate the status and values o f local cultural space. Traditionally, we have tried to portray secrets concealed behind the walls o f numerous Polish highest rank monuments. This time, I would like to invite you to the Bernardine monastery in Leżajsk. The discovery o f murals embellishing the walls o f the novitiate celts comprises a fundamental principle o f the necessity to carry out professional research preceding all planned conservation initiatives. Under more than ten layers o f paint, for centuries patiently placed by the inhabitants o f the monastery, researchers perceived and unearthed excellent murals. Today, we may admire the beauty and expression o f the depicted figures, the emblems o f death, Satan and the angels as well as many other images carrying a stirring spiritual message. The walls o f the cells depict sprawling landscapes as well as floral and geometrical ornaments. Since interiors continue to serve the residents o f the monastery, it seems even more worthwhile to profit from our publication and to take a look into the formerly closed cells, even i f for only a moment. It gives me pleasure to invite you to become acquainted with the presented issue. I wish you very pleasant reading. R espectfu lly you rs Marcin Gawlicki Director o f the National Heritage Board o f Poland
The intention of this article is to assess the state of the register of historical monuments, the role it plays in the domestic system of the protection of the cultural heritage as well as its character and representative nature. Should it be regarded as an important protection instrument, is it shaped in a planned manner, what sort of forms does it assume, and are they an effective element of the protection system? The present-day condition of the register of monuments is the outcome of a more than 90-years long process that essentially affected its shape. The reasons for the current problems tackled by the national system of the protection of monuments should be sought in the history of the formation of this most important tool applied by conservation protection. The Polish register of historical monuments dates back to a decree issued by the Regency Council in 1918. The necessity of differentiating the collection by means of a scientific assessment of its value and the application of a classification of the monuments was noticed soon afterwards. Although work on a complete inventory of monuments, interrupted by the war cataclysm, was never finished, conservation legislation from the interwar period, especially concerning the creation of a register of monuments, should be regarded as a modern and complex treatment of assorted questions relating to protection. The conservation views that assumed shape the 1930s and the conceptions of the creation and valorisation of an inventory of monuments were never developed during the post-war period. The introduction of a classification of immovable monuments was not finalised until 1964 and the preparation and publication of a complete list of the monuments of architecture and construction, divided into five categories. In the face of numerous later negative experiences and critical opinions stemming from daily praxis and, primarily, the destruction of a significant number of monuments from the lower groups, it would be difficult to find any arguments in favour of the categorisation launched at the time. Let us note, however, that it was carried it in a totally different political system and that the assumed objectives were quite dissimilar from the attained effect. In time, the absence of a firm coordination, including administrative, of the activity pursued by the voivodeship conservators of historical monuments upon a central level, i,e. the General Conservator of Historical Monuments, with the exception of the State Service for the Protection of Historical Monuments in 1991-1996, produced a further discernible erosion of uniform principles for classifying monuments for the register, and furthered the differences and divisions within the range of the already existing resources. Meanwhile, the register of historical monuments is one of the statutory forms of protection, and daily praxis confirms that an unregistered object is deprived of all chances for effective conservation protection or for benefitting from financial aid provided by public funds. In this way, the register plays the role of the most important and, as daily activity demonstrates, in many cases the sole instrument for shaping the conservation policy. Within this context special relevance is assumed by its contents, measured not with the number of the registered objects and regional statistics, or even the correctness of administrative documents, but with the contents and representativeness of a collection assessed from the vantage point of the dimension of the cultural heritage of the whole country. The extensive Polish cultural heritage resource protected by law is composed of several collections of immovable, movable and archaeological monuments. In the presence of an almost universal general definition of historical value, formulated in administrative decisions, effective protection is significantly restricted; this factor too hinders a definition of the range and character of the planned conservation undertakings and the financing of the protection of historical monuments. In practical terms, such a state of things gives rise to a number of potential conflicts between owners and conservation offices, and favours the relativism of the assessments of historical values and the principles of conservation activity, rendered dependent upon current pragmatic needs and investment pressure; it also hampers the propagation of knowledge about the actual resources of the protected heritage. Finally, it limits the possibility of winning allies involved in protection ventures. Despite the ostensibly considerable number of monuments listed in the register of immovable monuments, the content of this collection is far from complete. The elementary criteria of historical, scientific or artistic evaluation, determined by a general statutory definition and not modified for decades, are applied in totally arbitrary manner. As a result, numerous valuable monuments with distinctive historical values still remain outside the range of legal protection, while conservation is encompassing a growing number of examples of contemporary architecture. The great differentiation of the register of monuments can be perceived upon the basis of just several select instances. Its range also contains a number of inner divisions whose justification poses a difficult task. Alongside monuments possessing supreme values that do not require any validation, we come across buildings with highly doubtful features, at times giving rise to warranted reservations concerning the presence of even elementary cultural values. The register, a theoretically uniform collection of administrative decisions devoid of divisions into categories, remained unaltered, thus forcing the conservation services to treat equally all the components of this, after all, by no means uniform collection. The possibilities of an actual impact of the voivodeship conservators of monuments upon the contents of the register, in other words, the establishment of areas and objects to be subjected to legal conservation protection, are becoming more limited. It is also impossible to perceive features indicating an actual and well-conceived influence of the voivodeship conservator of monuments upon the ultimate contents of the register. Owing to a profound crisis of spatial planning and the absence of effective instruments shaping the landscape, the register has become the most prominent form of treating the cultural environment. Its representative nature should correspond to the richness and diversity of the Polish heritage. Imperfections and errors weaken the effectiveness of the whole national system of the protection of monuments. Due to the dynamic development of studies dealing with cultural heritage, the progress of scientific theories, and the almost total disappearance of the time barrier, which used to be one of the most important criteria for delineating historical value, the very concept of the object of the conservation protection is becoming increasingly capacious. True, the number of monuments listed in the register is constantly growing, but the needs are so considerable that the attainment of a state that would fully reflect the historical resources is becoming part of a distant future. Meanwhile, the lack of cohesive criteria for assessing values, whose outcome is the non-existence of a hierarchy of the monuments, makes it difficult to establish protection standards. Different ways of solving this problem should be sought in more profound reflections about the current state, function and directions of indispensable legislation changes concerning the register of monuments, with one of the key issues being a precise and, at the same time, modern definition of the object of protection. The principles and role of the register in the Polish system of the protection of monuments must be perceived in a way different from the applied one. The philosophy of transformations has to be based on a determined conviction that we are dealing with resources differentiated as regards their contents. A suitable solution would be to seek an alternative organisation of conservation administration, together with a conception of an intentional sharing of responsibility for the fate of the recorded monuments by the government administration and local self-governments. The favourable effects of the merely outlined but necessary directions of activity will involve the introduction of order into the register, the amassment of numerous scattered entries into a single cohesive register of information about historical resources, and the creation of a collection of the most valuable national heritage monuments. The ensuing outcome will make it possible to conceive of a uniform state policy in reference to monuments representing assorted values within a wide range of research and documentation, to define forms of protection, and to finance conservation undertaking, promotion and effective administration.
The creation of a cohesive system of the protection of historical monuments in Poland was inaugurated by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage, who granted the National Heritage Board in Poland a new range of competence. The heretofore duties of this institution (formerly known as the National Centre for the Study and Documentation of Historical Monuments) were expanded by adding coordination and participation in work on periodic reports about Polish sites and objects on the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage List, the realisation of training and information programmes conducted for the sake of the protection of historical monuments, and the popularisation of knowledge about the cultural heritage. The organisational structure of the institution also underwent transformations. In order to render its work more legible and to divide the obligations and competences of its staff it was decided to establish new departments and teams of experts. The main tasks of the Department for the Strategy of the Protection of Historical Monuments include devising a conservation doctrine, studying historical monuments and their surrounding, and conducting a National Register of Historical Monuments. The Department encompasses a Workshop for Shaping the Conservation Policy, a Workshop for the Study of Historical Monuments, a Workshop for the Documentation and Registration of Immovable Historical Monuments, a Workshop for the Documentation and Registration of Movable Historical Monuments, and an Archival Material Team. The Department of Archaeology realises tasks associated with the protection of the archaeological heritage (it assumed the duties of the dissolved Centre for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage). The components of this Department are a Workshop of Archaeological Conservation, a Workshop of Archaeological Salvage Studies and a Workshop of Archaeological Registration. Specialists from the Department of Education and Promotion are engaged in educational, training and information programmes as well as in popularizing knowledge about the cultural heritage and its protection. The Department includes a team for the Promotion of the Cultural Heritage, an Education Team, and a Board Library with the largest in Poland collection of specialist publications and works on the protection and conservation of historical monuments. The Organisational Department ensures suitable organisation of work and administers the Polish part of Muzakowski Park in Leknica. The Financial Department-Team conducts bookkeeping and realises the financial policy of the Board. The statutory tasks of the National Heritage Board of Poland in particular voivodeships are implemented by Regional Centres, whose duties include cooperation with the voivodeship conservators of historical monuments, the popularisation of the idea of the protection of historical monuments, educational campaigns, and the realisation of own projects. The tasks and objectives of the National Heritage Board of Poland, discussed in this article, call for further detailed supplementation. The positive changes in the Polish system of the protection of historical monuments will depend on the involvement and activity of the whole conservation milieu.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.