256
along ICOMOS evaluation and were recommended as “not inscribed” on the World
Heritage List. So the atmosphere was not very positive and not very constructive on
the side of the World Heritage Convention. Nevertheless, some astronomers and
scientists, as Clive, remained enthusiastic and thought it would be relatively easy to
reach the World Heritage List; that what they needed were some good examples
supported by committed stakeholders.
For ICOMOS there were notable difficulties with astronomers related to heritage
at that time. The first one issued from the marginal status of archaeoastronomy
among archaeologists during the 2000s. World Heritage recognition of classical
archaeological sites was already very important on the List, coming from every
parts of the World and supporting at each time a large set of cultural evidences
issued from ancient civilisation perceived as a whole: architecture, urbanism, material life and symbolic associated value. Therefore, archaeologists had long been an
important and influential group inside ICOMOS. For them, and consequently for
ICOMOS, archaeoastronomy seemed to be a not very important branch in the global
field of archaeology. It was perceived as a contextual attribute offering complementary information about the knowledge and beliefs of past civilisations, not more. It
could not be a sufficient argument by itself to demonstrate an “outstanding universal
value” for a given archaeological site. Furthermore, and to be honest, archaeoastronomy seemed for some of us not totally serious and a bit presumptuous, either
related to an excess of hypotheses or to offering not totally convincing interpretations of celestial relationships, dealing with numerology and mania of sky influences on both human beings and nature.
A second matter of discordance was the idea that starlight at night could be a
possible World Heritage nomination. It was supported and promoted by an active
and enthusiastic group of astronomers. They thought that it was a brilliant idea,
totally international and somewhere deeply ecologist; so people that do not understand, especially inside the World Heritage community, had a somewhat rigid brain
and a total lack of imagination. Indeed, ICOMOS and other Convention advisory
bodies had notable doubts about such an idea and they thought the Convention
could not be applied to that question. Other tools were developed at that time as
“Starlight Reserves” and seemed both better adapted to the idea and more pertinent.
They thought that astronomers, even very sympathetic persons as Clive and some
others, were not aware to be totally out the scope of the WH Convention and somewhere dreamers…
An associated question rose spontaneously, as frequently when a new heritage
field emerges. Western countries had immediately site examples in their countries
related to it and possibly applicant for the WH List … The study of European astronomical observatories issued from modern science was immediately promoted,
both as monuments and evidences of the boom of astronomy in Europe and North
America. Of course, it was legitimate to pay attention to nineteenth–twentieth century modern astronomical heritage, but one of the major missions of the Convention
is to enlarge the concept of heritage to a large set of geographical areas and large
diversity of civilisations and epochs.
M. Cotte
along ICOMOS evaluation and were recommended as “not inscribed” on the World
Heritage List. So the atmosphere was not very positive and not very constructive on
the side of the World Heritage Convention. Nevertheless, some astronomers and
scientists, as Clive, remained enthusiastic and thought it would be relatively easy to
reach the World Heritage List; that what they needed were some good examples
supported by committed stakeholders.
For ICOMOS there were notable difficulties with astronomers related to heritage
at that time. The first one issued from the marginal status of archaeoastronomy
among archaeologists during the 2000s. World Heritage recognition of classical
archaeological sites was already very important on the List, coming from every
parts of the World and supporting at each time a large set of cultural evidences
issued from ancient civilisation perceived as a whole: architecture, urbanism, material life and symbolic associated value. Therefore, archaeologists had long been an
important and influential group inside ICOMOS. For them, and consequently for
ICOMOS, archaeoastronomy seemed to be a not very important branch in the global
field of archaeology. It was perceived as a contextual attribute offering complementary information about the knowledge and beliefs of past civilisations, not more. It
could not be a sufficient argument by itself to demonstrate an “outstanding universal
value” for a given archaeological site. Furthermore, and to be honest, archaeoastronomy seemed for some of us not totally serious and a bit presumptuous, either
related to an excess of hypotheses or to offering not totally convincing interpretations of celestial relationships, dealing with numerology and mania of sky influences on both human beings and nature.
A second matter of discordance was the idea that starlight at night could be a
possible World Heritage nomination. It was supported and promoted by an active
and enthusiastic group of astronomers. They thought that it was a brilliant idea,
totally international and somewhere deeply ecologist; so people that do not understand, especially inside the World Heritage community, had a somewhat rigid brain
and a total lack of imagination. Indeed, ICOMOS and other Convention advisory
bodies had notable doubts about such an idea and they thought the Convention
could not be applied to that question. Other tools were developed at that time as
“Starlight Reserves” and seemed both better adapted to the idea and more pertinent.
They thought that astronomers, even very sympathetic persons as Clive and some
others, were not aware to be totally out the scope of the WH Convention and somewhere dreamers…
An associated question rose spontaneously, as frequently when a new heritage
field emerges. Western countries had immediately site examples in their countries
related to it and possibly applicant for the WH List … The study of European astronomical observatories issued from modern science was immediately promoted,
both as monuments and evidences of the boom of astronomy in Europe and North
America. Of course, it was legitimate to pay attention to nineteenth–twentieth century modern astronomical heritage, but one of the major missions of the Convention
is to enlarge the concept of heritage to a large set of geographical areas and large
diversity of civilisations and epochs.
M. Cotte