257
The starting point of cooperation did not seem very promising, with notable possibilities of misunderstanding, but different factors played a decisive role; among
them, the character of Clive and his open mind related to the World Heritage process
played a decisive role. He early understood the existing gap between the willingness
of the Astronomy and World Heritage Working Group of IAU Commission 41 on
the History of Astronomy and the complex implementation of an international
Convention, beyond diplomatic smiles and formal approvals. Consequently, he correctly appreciated the possibility of practical help and cooperation with ICOMOS,
even if this body seemed a priori the most reluctant to his arguments.
On the side of ICOMOS, the situation related to scientific and technical heritage
at that time was a bit controversial but under rapid evolution. On one hand, technical
heritage, especially industrial heritage, achieved some notable successes in the listing process during this period. It was perceived as a promising new field of heritage
with its monumental and specific architecture bearing a new set of value related to
materialism, daily life and visible technology. Science heritage, in general, doesn’t
offer such range of obvious evidences and values and it was more complex to analyse in heritage terms. The paradigm of science heritage seems more sophisticated,
relying upon a larger set of both tangible and intangible values, focusing more on
instruments, experiments and scientific way of thinking than impressive architecture or monumental machines. So, the situation for science heritage was not so
favourable and rare nominations in the field were matters of important debates
inside the ICOMOS panel.
Nevertheless, a short number of ICOMOS advisers, I was among them, were
sensitive to the potential and to the need of scientific heritage on the WH List; but
for reaching such a goal, a new approach of scientific heritage and a complete work
of confrontation for every facet of the heritage had to be launched and studied.
Heritage of astronomy and archaeoastronomy offered to us an excellent study situation, with real possibility of interdisciplinary joint works. But human resources
seemed largely unequal: on one hand a strong group of astronomers already trained
to work together, deeply involved in the subject and willing it success; on the other
hand mainly two persons mandated by the ICOMOS board: Mrs. Regina Durighello
as director of the international secretary and myself. Regina was a key technical
support and organizer for the Thematic Study. I acted as adviser in charge of the
conformance of the different issues of the project to the World Heritage Convention
implementation, both in text and spirit.
Launching together the Thematic Study was an adventure, a rich and productive
adventure, which involved different working meetings with Clive, involvement in
conferences and permanent exchanges during 4 or 5 years. Indeed, that is still the
case today, but in a post Thematic Study way and more related to projects of nomination to the World Heritage List. An initial big question was to determine the goal
and plan of the study, and second to gather a network of authors with sufficient
individual competences related to the subject. Ambition was great even perhaps too
much, to cover both a geographical and chronological ensemble as larger as possible, without a priori limits.
Finally, A Very Fruitful Interdisciplinary Cooperation…
The starting point of cooperation did not seem very promising, with notable possibilities of misunderstanding, but different factors played a decisive role; among
them, the character of Clive and his open mind related to the World Heritage process
played a decisive role. He early understood the existing gap between the willingness
of the Astronomy and World Heritage Working Group of IAU Commission 41 on
the History of Astronomy and the complex implementation of an international
Convention, beyond diplomatic smiles and formal approvals. Consequently, he correctly appreciated the possibility of practical help and cooperation with ICOMOS,
even if this body seemed a priori the most reluctant to his arguments.
On the side of ICOMOS, the situation related to scientific and technical heritage
at that time was a bit controversial but under rapid evolution. On one hand, technical
heritage, especially industrial heritage, achieved some notable successes in the listing process during this period. It was perceived as a promising new field of heritage
with its monumental and specific architecture bearing a new set of value related to
materialism, daily life and visible technology. Science heritage, in general, doesn’t
offer such range of obvious evidences and values and it was more complex to analyse in heritage terms. The paradigm of science heritage seems more sophisticated,
relying upon a larger set of both tangible and intangible values, focusing more on
instruments, experiments and scientific way of thinking than impressive architecture or monumental machines. So, the situation for science heritage was not so
favourable and rare nominations in the field were matters of important debates
inside the ICOMOS panel.
Nevertheless, a short number of ICOMOS advisers, I was among them, were
sensitive to the potential and to the need of scientific heritage on the WH List; but
for reaching such a goal, a new approach of scientific heritage and a complete work
of confrontation for every facet of the heritage had to be launched and studied.
Heritage of astronomy and archaeoastronomy offered to us an excellent study situation, with real possibility of interdisciplinary joint works. But human resources
seemed largely unequal: on one hand a strong group of astronomers already trained
to work together, deeply involved in the subject and willing it success; on the other
hand mainly two persons mandated by the ICOMOS board: Mrs. Regina Durighello
as director of the international secretary and myself. Regina was a key technical
support and organizer for the Thematic Study. I acted as adviser in charge of the
conformance of the different issues of the project to the World Heritage Convention
implementation, both in text and spirit.
Launching together the Thematic Study was an adventure, a rich and productive
adventure, which involved different working meetings with Clive, involvement in
conferences and permanent exchanges during 4 or 5 years. Indeed, that is still the
case today, but in a post Thematic Study way and more related to projects of nomination to the World Heritage List. An initial big question was to determine the goal
and plan of the study, and second to gather a network of authors with sufficient
individual competences related to the subject. Ambition was great even perhaps too
much, to cover both a geographical and chronological ensemble as larger as possible, without a priori limits.
Finally, A Very Fruitful Interdisciplinary Cooperation…