Search results

1

"Ochrona zabytków w Polsce. Geneza, organizacja, prawo", Jan Pruszyński, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

100%

Krzyżanowski L.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1990

|

issue 3

171-172

2

"Ochrona i Konserwacja Zabytków" : pismo Ośrodka Ochrony i Konserwacji Zabytków

100%

Ogrodzki P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1997

|

issue 2

182-183

3

Od Ośrodka Dokumentacji Zabytków do Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa

86%

Wendlandt J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2012

|

issue 1-2

35-47

EN

By the Order no. 166 of the Minister of Culture and Art of 22 December 1961, the Centre for Documentation of Monuments was established “for the purpose of improvement of the stock-taking of monuments for the rational planning of their reconstruction and conservation”. Its tasks included the preparation of the central register, record and supplementary documentation of non-movable and movable monuments. CDM’s substantive activity was based on record cards of non-movable (ca 40,000) and movable monuments, record files of cities, historic complexes and parks, historical and technical documentation of historic objects of architecture and historic buildings as well as archival and photographic materials acquired from the then existing Administration of Museums and Monument Protection. Tasks were performed by the Centre in three research departments: the Department of Architecture and Town Planning, the Department of Movable Monuments and the Department of Archaeology and in supplementary departments: the Department of Museology, which collected and documented knowledge about Polish museums, the Department of Archives and Scientific Collections, which collected, among others, materials relating to the historical issues and conservation of monuments, and the Phototeque with a unique collection of negatives, positives and diapositives, including historic aerial photographs of historic urban complexes and spatial development layouts. This collection is particularly important, because it often concerns the objects that no longer exist. Among achievements of the Department of Publications, which existed in the Centre from the beginning, it is particularly worth noting one hundred volumes of the Library of Muse ology and Monument Protection (LMMP) devoted to a variety of topics: from legal protection of monuments, materials from conservation conferences, specialistic issues of the conservation technology, to glossaries. For many years CDM was the publisher of a number of magazines devoted to popular science: Spotkania z Zabytkami, Muzealnictwo and Ochrona Zabytków. What also existed in CDM from the beginning, was the library – one of the few libraries in Poland that had not only a collection of books on the history of art and museums, but also a collection of books on issues of stock-taking and documentation of monuments and conservation issues – both with regard to theory and practice. Within the limits of its statutory activity, the Centre kept a central record of cultural properties, determined models and established standards of record-keeping. It organised training courses for employees of Conservation Offices and Offices for Documentation of Monuments, directed priorities in the preparation of records of monuments and supervised periodically the financing of the entire record-keeping programme in Poland. For the purpose of closer co-operation with conservation services and local administration bodies, twelve Centres for Studies and Protection of the Cultural Environment were established as local centres of CDM in 1991 and 1992. In 2000, part of CDM’s competences relating to the initiation and financing of records was transferred to conservation services and the Centre became responsible only for archives and information. Until then, during 40 years of its activity, CDM had collected and co-created an imposing record documentation, which constituted a unique collection encompassing around: • 130,000 record cards of historic objects of architecture and historic buildings, • 640,000 address index cards of historic objects of architecture and historic buildings, • 600 historical & urban planning studies of cities, • 320,000 record cards of movable monuments, • 6,600 files of the Archaeological Photograph of Poland (68% of the surface of the country; 375,000 archaeological sites), • 70,000 decisions on entry into the register of monuments (all categories of monuments), • 130,000 negatives and 1,000 binders of positives in the phototeque, • 35,000 negatives, diapositives and photographs of the aerial documentation of cities and the cultural landscape, • 50 linear metres of archival materials, • 60,000 volumes of books and magazines in the library. Moreover, CDM had at its disposal materials of the State Enterprise Monument Conservation Workshops from years 1948-1988 (750 linear metres of conservation documentation, 250,000 negatives, 1,881 photogrammetries, 8 linear metres of photographs in boxes). These materials were not only used by the personnel of conservation services, but also made widely available for scientific and educational research. In 2002, two cultural institutions: the Centre for Documentation for Monuments and the Centre for the Protection of Historic Landscape were merged and the National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments was established. The Centre for the Protection of Historic Landscape was created on the basis of the Administration of the Protection and Conservation of Palace & Garden Complexes, which functioned from 1977 within the structures of the National Museum in Warsaw. Originally it engaged in the maintenance of historic parks in the divisions of the National Museum –in Łazienki Park, Wilanów, Nieborów and Królikarnia. The methods that were used there in broadly understood conservation activities, from historical research to the revitalisation of these parks, were employed to work out theoretical and practical rules relating to the maintenance of historic green layouts in the scale going beyond museum objects. In those years, there were no specialistic institutions taking care of historic parks; these shortages were particularly severe for local conservation offices, which employed mainly historians of art, architects, ethnographers and archaeologists in their structures. Only a small group of landscape architects or foresters took care of historic greens. Because of the need to support voivodeship conservators of monuments, the Administration of the Protection of Palace & Garden Complexes was separated from the National Museum and started nationwide activity as an independent entity. As far as records and documentation are concerned, the Administration’s activity was similar to that of CDM, but was carried on with regard to historic green layouts – parks, gardens and cemeteries, including former Polish cemeteries situated outside the country. Apart from that, the Administration was authorised by the General Conservator of Monuments to exercise the broadly understood heritage conservator supervision of works being performed in historic parks in Poland. The co-operation concerned both design and performance. For instance, a programme of clearing works in neglected parks was commenced, under which conservators and users received an instruction concerning the performance of basic maintenance works before proper revitalisation activities. The Administration elaborated also the rules of preparation of conservation documentation, paying particular attention to the need to carry out historical & scientific research before design works. It was also the originator of pre-design research that was called “park archaeology”. From the beginning of its activity, the Administration ran a large-scale training programme for conservation services. A design studio was also created to carry out park revitalisation projects within the scope of statutory activity. At the same time, a scientific base was created by establishing a specialised library and collecting all materials concerning the history of gardening. Research on park plants and their selection in the historical development process was also initiated. Grounds were even created for the establishment of a specialised nursery which was to prevent the spreading fashion for introduction of foreign species of trees and shrubs to historic parks through selection of native plants occurring in historic gardens. The large-scale research and record-keeping programme resulted in a series of publications, including the list Parks and historic gardens in Poland, catalogues of historic cemeteries in various provinces, a catalogue of Galician cemeteries from World War I and catalogues of Polish cemeteries in Belarus and the Ukraine. Special attention in the activity of the Administration was paid to the role of historic parks in the local environment and their importance for the cultural landscape. In this context, research on particularly endangered large-area layouts and composed landscape was commenced. As a result of the extended research zone and environment protection activities, the Administration of the Protection of Palace & Garden Complexes was transformed into the Centre for the Protection of Historic Landscape on 1 January 1994. Special achievements of CPHL include activities for the benefit of the Muskau Park in Łęknica, a park & landscape work of primary importance for the history of the world art of gardening. For the purpose of ensuring proper progress of revitalisation works, CPHL took over the administration of this facility and restored the original grandeur and importance of the park after a few years of intense work, as a result of which the park was entered into the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage list. CPHL carried on very intense training & conference activities, and materials acquired by means of them were systematically published in a few dozen volumes of the Studia i Materiały publication, which was divided into several thematic series. The National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments basically continued the tasks of both merged institutions, but focused rather on documentation works and the elaboration of methods of protection and maintenance of monuments, and direct design and field works were gradually limited. Higher importance was attached to giving opinions on various projects, including conservation projects. NCRDM became the main provider of opinions for the General Conservator of Monuments. In addition, NCRDM engaged in the preparation of materials connected with the establishment of a monument of history (including the elaboration of a draft of criteria for the application and the carrying-out of the procedure), giving of opinions on and verification of applications. It also prepared a proposal for monitoring of historic objects regarded as monuments of history and entered into the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage list. The computerisation of collections became one of the most important tasks of NCRDM. NCRDM had already commenced work on that subject in the past, but these were not complex activities aimed at creating a unified programme for all kinds of documentation. NCRDM also started to make 3D scans of historic objects for the needs of conservation services and activities. It is worth mentioning that from 2002 till 2006 NCRDM did not engage in recording of archaeological monuments, because this function was fulfilled by the Centre for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage. Its predecessor was the Centre for Rescue Archaeological Research (CRAR) established in 1995, whose primary goal was to supervise and examine areas laid out for large-area investments being designed. These activities were particularly necessary in areas through which national fast traffic roads were to run. Within the scope of CRAR’s research, a huge number of archaeological sites was examined within a relatively short time and many important scientific discoveries were made. Irrespective of the specific nature of archaeological research, which was different from research on other kinds of monuments, scientific and record documentation was being prepared, the meaning and significance of which was identical to that of documentation of monuments in general. Thus, the activities of the Centre for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage turned out to coincide in many respects with work of the National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments. As a result, both of these cultural institutions were merged in 2006. Until 31 December 2010, they functioned as the National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments, which changed its name to the National Heritage Board of Poland by virtue of the order of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage on 1 January 2011. This change involves also the adoption of new statutes, according to which the Institute is obliged to pursue tasks relating to the sustainable protection of the cultural heritage of Poland in order to preserve it for future generations through: 1. the collection and dissemination of knowledge about heritage; 2. the determination and dissemination of standards of protection and maintenance of monuments, 3. the formation of social awareness regarding the values and maintenance of cultural heritage. This shows that, apart from activities being performed so far, e.g. with regard to the collection of record documentation, the goal of the Institute is to undertake tasks on a broader social scale, especially those relating to the dissemination of knowledge on cultural heritage. This goal should be supported by activities such as the monitoring of the state of preservation and the evaluation of the heritage resource, the building and development of the nationwide geospatial database about monuments and the improvement of access to collections through their digitalisation. The Institute continues to issue opinions and expertises concerning monument-related activities to public administration bodies, but it is also obliged to carry out, upon the Minister’s order, a part of tasks of the ministry of culture resulting from the accession of Poland to the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention and, in particular, carry out works to ensure standards of protection, conservation and presentation of World Heritage sites, monitor and evaluate their condition, co-ordinate work on the preparation of management plans and supervise their implementation as well as participate in international co-operation with a view to the protection of cultural heritage. In order to implement these tasks, the Institute has the properly qualified staff and supplements its technical equipment within the limits of its financial possibilities. Some difficulty is caused by the lack of adequate place both for the expanding documentation resources and for arrangement of research workshops. The Centre for Documentation of Monuments has actually grappled with the lack of appropriate premises since the beginning of its existence; currently, after a series of organisational changes and mergers, the National Heritage Board of Poland with its rich archives and specialistic workshops is located in four separate facilities in and outside Warsaw, in accidental rooms that are completely inadequate to the kind of its activity. This means that, after 50 years of its activity, the institution is entering the new stage as the National Heritage Board of Poland without a seat that would be adequate to its name and role. Such a situation hinders the current activity of the institution and, in the first place, does not contribute to the improvement of mutual relations between employees and the building of an integrated team and causes a serious problem to a very large number of clients making use of the dispersed collections.

4

Organizacja ochrony zabytków w niektórych krajach : analiza porównawcza i propozycje nowych rozwiązań w Polsce

86%

Kowalski W.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1987

|

issue 3

188-194

EN

A proper organization of conservation bodies and services as well as co-operating institutions is one of the elements that decide of the effectiveness of monuments' protection. Different countries have adopted different, often divergent, organizational solutions, though the tasks of conservation institutions are, on the whole, the same everywhere. The author discusses the tasks of the organization of monuments’ protection in Holland, FRG, France, USA, Italy and Hungary. The solutions adopted in Poland have been presented against the background of the concepts adopted in those countries. While trying to find the answer to the question what a proper organization of the protection of cultural property should look like, the author ponders several models. He analyses, i.a., models that consist in the formation of an independent central body or conservation organizations that would operate within the structure of some ministries such as the ministry of culture, environment, internal affairs or within a constructional branch. In the final part of the article we find conclusions which show that the execution of monuments' protection in Poland calls for the creation of an effective and centrally positioned independent administrative state body which will have at its disposal an efficient system of field services. These services should be separated from field administration and perform mainly supervising and control functions and cooperate — in their endeavours — with social organizations with adequate capacities.

5

Ochrona zabytków w Danii

86%

Ambrosiewicz M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1996

|

issue 1

52-56

EN

The earliest interests in material traces of the past in Denmark date back to the mid-seventeenth century. Not until the beginning o f the nineteenth century did a special order issued by the monarch ensure protection for the first 20 monuments. An inspector o f antiquities was appointed in the middle of the nineteenth century. More than ten years later, a Church Commission was entrusted with sacral monuments. Enormous impact upon the development of social awareness o f the need for the protection of historical monuments was exerted by the Danish museums. Prior to World War I, Danish society protested fervently against the pulling down of a Renaissance building in the centre o f Copenhagen. This event had a decisive influence on the passing in 1918 of detailed regulations which constituted the foundation for the protection o f historical objects belonging to private owners. From that time, legal acts concerning the protection of historical monuments were amended upon numerous occasions. The range of protection was expanded to encompass new groups of objects. A characteristic feature of Danish solutions is the functioning o f several parallel institutions responsible for the protection o f assorted categories of objects. Sacral objects are still the domain of the Church Commission. Royal places and castles are supervised by Royal Building Inspectors. Monuments of architecture and construction as well as archeological objects (burial mounds, megalithic objects, wrecks of ships) are protected by the largest Danish institution of its sort whose functions include responsibility for historical monuments — the National Forest and Nature Agency. The fragmentation o f the conservation services produced numerous hindrances; nonetheless, such a system contains numerous positive elements, worthy of emulation. The protection of assorted categories of monuments is conducted upon the basis of programmes coordinated with state, self-government or private institutions. These programmes are implemented consistently, with proverbial Danish precision. The decentralization and fragmentation of services raise the costs of the upkeep of various conservation services. Denmark is a wealthy country and the taxpayers voluntarily carry the burden o f the maintenance of these institutions; on the other hand, the latter are subject to social control. With all certainty, our Polish authoritative system of protecting historical monuments will have to succumb to democratization and, quite possibly, assume forms similar to the Danish model.

6

Wieś Bartne w powiecie gorlickim1 – konserwatorska klęska bez happy endu

72%

Laskowski A.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2014

|

issue 1

89-118

EN

The article is devoted to a Lemko village of Bartne situated in the Low Beskids, in the valley of Bartnianka stream, between the mountain ranges covered with forest. The village has a layout characteristic for the so-called forest village, in which a road running along a stream constitutes the main axis, and there are dirt roads perpendicular to it. Bartne was founded in the 16th century on the basis of the Wallachian rights. A family of a well-known composer Dmitry Bortniansky, the court composer of Tsarina Catherine the Great, came from here and an eulogist of Lemkivshchyna, novelist Wladimir Ignatiewicz Chiljak lived here for many years. The village became famous for local stonecutters whose manufacture (roadside shrines, cemetery tombstones, handmills) was recognised in the vicinity and beyond. Among the village buildings dominate two sacral ones: the older Greek-Catholic church and the Orthodox church established in the inter-war period. The cemeteries are also important: a parish cemetery, a choleric cemetery (from the 19th c.) and a war cemetery (from World War I). The inhabitants of the village lived in houses typical of Lemkos, the so-called chyża, where both the residential and the farming part were under one roof. A chyża was accompanied by separate granaries, cellars or other outhouses (forge, cart house, etc.). Fortunately, the buildings in the village survived the operation “Vistula” which was carried out by the Communists after World War II and consisted in forced resettlement of the local population to completely culturally unfamiliar northern areas of Poland. The political thaw after the Stalin’s death allowed the return of the displaced people to their homeland and resettle the surviving farms. Bartne, which was noticed by the conservation services in the 1960s, soon became the object of thorough studies carried out by a team of researchers from Kraków under the direction of Marian Kornecki, the leading researcher of wooden architecture in Poland. In the paper that crowned the fieldwork, completed in 1978, the team postulated the entry of the village layout and its buildings, as well as the most valuable individual farmhouses, to the register of historic monuments. In the same year the relevant inscriptions were made, and Bartne was recognised as an urban and architectural reserve. According to the assumptions proposed by M. Kornecki’s team, the village was supposed to have three protection zones: 1) a strict reserve, 2) an intensified protection zone, 3) a general protection zone. Today, 35 years after the foundation of the reserve, Bartne has transformed from a typical Lemko village into a model example of a devastated cultural landscape where the still untouched nature is accompanied by a small number of preserved wooden houses as well as stone and wooden granaries, but is dominated by brick buildings that are chaotic in their layout and aggressive in their form and colours, and ignore the harmony between the human creation and the nature’s one. Conservation services suffered a spectacular defeat in Bartne. Despite the recognition of the village as a reserve – the area subject to particular protection by definition – it lost within one generation most of those values which played a decisive role when it was granted the special status in 1978. There are many reasons that caused such situation: exclusion of the local population from the process of establishing the reserve, which made them hostile to the whole idea, withdrawal of people capable of executing the initial vision, abandonment of comprehensive and coordinated protective measures, inability to initiate a dialogue with the owners of historic buildings, lack of funds for specialized repairs. In today’s Bartne only a few enclaves of historic wooden buildings and individual historic objects have been preserved, overwhelmed by new, in general ugly, brick buildings, which do not constitute a cohesive and harmonious layout anymore. The reserve de facto stopped existing. At the moment, you can only protect humble remains that have been disappearing in the recent years at an alarming pace anyway. However, a radical change of approach by conservation services and local population, an idea for proper implementation of protective measures and their management as well as a more flexible model of financing are necessary, which could be achieved with the changes in the system of monuments protection in Poland proposed in the article.

7

Dwadzieścia lat działalności ośrodków regionalnych

58%

Marcinek R.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2012

|

issue 1-2

81-93

EN

Since their foundation on the 1st of July 1991 until now, the Regional Centres and their founding body – the Centre for Documentation of Monuments have been subject to changes and transformations. On the 29th of July 1998, the Minister of Culture and Art approved the existence of 11 Regional Centres for Studies and Protection of Cultural Environment. At the beginning of 2003, CDM was transformed into the National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments, and the RCSPCEs into Regional Centres for Research and Documentation of Monuments. Yet another change of the name of the Regional Centres into Local Divisions of the NCRDM occurred in 2010. Since the 1st of January 2011, these institutions have been operating as the Local Divisions of the National Heritage Board of Poland. The idea of the interdisciplinary nature of the Centres’ personnel remains unchanged. Collecting, processing, and sharing information about the region’s heritage and cultural environment had and still has a permanent and fundamental value. In the beginnings of the Centres’ existence, it was important to make the local administration aware of the significance and value of cultural property for the development of local communities. In the mid-1990s, the Regional Centres became partners of local governments in the implementation of tasks related to the protection of monuments and the cultural environment. They cooperated with conservation services and nature conservation institutions. In 2001, a programme of field verification of the register of monuments was prepared, which was resumed thanks to directors M. Gawlicki and P. Florjanowicz, and is still being carried out presently. Modern forms of documentation were introduced. After 1995, the Regional Centres received the records and resources of the former PP PKZ (State Enterprise Monument Conservation Studios). The archives became available for the circle of researchers and students. In 2002, the Centres began cooperating with Marshal Offices creating web portals which featured verified information about cultural heritage. Cooperation with local governments resulted in the implementation of the “Programmes for the Guardianship of Monuments” and the creation of a methodological guide on the subject, among others. Problem-based conferences organised by the Centres were and still are very significant. A new form of monument protection – cultural park, was created partly thanks to the experiences of the employees of the Regional Centres. The Centres’ activity is visible when drawing up applications for monuments of history and inscriptions on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Archaeological research, and gathering knowledge about archaeological sites and finds have all the time been included in the orbit of the Centres’ tasks and interests. Since 1993, the Centres have organised the European Heritage Days. This activity results in the engagement of local governments, regional societies, PTTK (Polish Tourist and Sightseeing Society), and the media in the preparation of the EHD. For years, publishing activity in the form of cyclical publications, periodicals, and books has been carried out on a large scale. The Centres have initiated and developed projects of cultural trails, including the wooden architecture trail. Since 1992, the Centres have established cooperation with heritage institutions in Slovakia, Lithuania, and Germany (the inscription of the Muskauer Park on the UNESCO World Heritage List). The Regional Centres have cooperated with international organisations, and helped with organising international activities of the headquarters. In the 20 years of their existence, the Centres have carried out enormous work related to the documentation of the Polish cultural heritage. They have significantly contributed to hundreds of conferences, symposiums, and trainings. They have convinced local authorities that the cultural landscape and monuments attract tourists and investments. The verification of the register of monuments, which is being carried out right now, is an attempt at a systemic review of the resources and the state of protection of monuments in Poland. The Centres make up a network of the most deeply settled field agencies of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, providing access to up-to-date information from the regions, the monitoring of monuments, and the possibility to directly communicate the state politics in the regions.

8

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

58%

Błażejewska M., Olejniczak D.

Studia Lednickie

|

2017

|

vol. 16

9-35

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.

9

Z warsztatu okręgowych konserwatorów. O metodach pracy w krakowskim urzędzie konserwatorskim w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym

51%

Dettloff P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2020

|

issue 1

131-176

PL

W Polsce w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym funkcjonowała służba konserwatorska w ramach administracji państwowej. Sprawowała ona nadzór nad zabytkami i ich konserwacją, prowadziła rejestr, dokumentację i inwentaryzację zabytków, udzielała fachowych opinii, uzgadniała projekty i programy robót, wydawała decyzje. Okręgowymi konserwatorami zabytków byli z reguły architekci i historycy sztuki. Posiadali oni niezbędną wiedzę merytoryczną, często także wykazywali się wielkim zaangażowaniem i pasją. Podstawową metodą i narzędziem konserwatorów były oględziny i opis zabytków, analiza wartości i ocena stanu zachowania oraz koniecznych prac. Niejednokrotnie, wobec braku publikacji i opracowań naukowych, notatki i zdjęcia sporządzane przez konserwatorów były pierwszą formą rozpoznania i dokumentacji tych obiektów. Materiały te miały służyć pomocą konserwatorom, a także naukowcom. Przy ważniejszych zadaniach konserwatorskich zwoływano komisje. Urząd konserwatora interweniował w koniecznych przypadkach. Niekiedy wskazywał konkretne rozwiązania. Efekty działań konserwatorów z okresu dwudziestolecia międzywojennego znacząco przyczyniły się do ochrony i uratowania wielu cennych obiektów zabytkowych. Na więcej nie pozwalał niski budżet urzędu oraz niskie dotacje, jakimi dysponowano. Utrudnieniem był także zbyt mały personel (zwykle 2-3 osoby na okręg – województwo). Zadania oraz metody działania okręgowych konserwatorów były niemal takie same, jak obecnie. To wówczas wypracowano podstawowe narzędzia i system pracy przy zabytkach – aktualne i niezawodne także dziś.

EN

In Poland in the interwar period there was a monument protection service within the state administration. It supervised the monuments and their conservation, kept a register, documentation and inventory of monuments, gave expert opinions, agreed on projects and work programmes and issued decisions. District monument protection officers were usually architects and art historians. They had the necessary knowledge and often showed great commitment and passion. The basic methods and tools of monument protection officers included visual inspections and description of monuments, analysis of their value and evaluation of the state of preservation and necessary works. Often, in the absence of publications and scientific studies, notes and photographs taken by monument protection officers were the first form of recognition and documentation of these objects. These materials were to help preservation officers, but also scientists. For more im¬portant conservation tasks, special committees were convened. The Monument Protection Office intervened where necessary. Sometimes it indicated specific solutions. The effects of monument protection officers’ activities in the interwar period significantly contributed to the protection and saving of many valuable historic buildings. The low budget of the Office and the low subsidies at its disposal did not allow for more. Insufficient staff (usually 2-3 people per district – voivodeship) was also a problem. The tasks and methods of work of district monument protection officers were similar to those applied nowadays. It was then that the basic tools and a system of work on monuments were developed – up-to-date and reliable even today.

Refine search results

8 Ochrona Zabytków

1 Studia Lednickie

1 Ambrosiewicz M.

1 Błażejewska M.

1 Dettloff P.

1 Kowalski W.

1 Krzyżanowski L.

1 Laskowski A.

1 Marcinek R.

1 Ogrodzki P.

1 Olejniczak D.

1 Wendlandt J.

1 2020

1 2017

1 2014

2 2012

1 1997

1 1996

1 1990

1 1987

"Ochrona zabytków w Polsce. Geneza, organizacja, prawo", Jan Pruszyński, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

"Ochrona i Konserwacja Zabytków" : pismo Ośrodka Ochrony i Konserwacji Zabytków

Od Ośrodka Dokumentacji Zabytków do Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa

Organizacja ochrony zabytków w niektórych krajach : analiza porównawcza i propozycje nowych rozwiązań w Polsce

Ochrona zabytków w Danii

Wieś Bartne w powiecie gorlickim1 – konserwatorska klęska bez happy endu

Dwadzieścia lat działalności ośrodków regionalnych

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

Z warsztatu okręgowych konserwatorów. O metodach pracy w krakowskim urzędzie konserwatorskim w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym