258
This program aimed to cover different regions and different civilisations of the
World with equal treatment, e.g. a same importance for studying each case. In some
situations, it was difficult to explain to some astronomers that option because for
them astronomy started really with modern observatories and the independence of
“true” science from popular beliefs such as astrology. Obviously, many past
civilisations, and even European ones, were relied strongly both on rational observation of the sky and irrational beliefs. As we stated in the introduction: Every
civilisation looked at the Sky and built a cosmology, and as stated in the conclusion:
Astronomy is never alone and pure knowledge, but it must be understood in context.
At this step, archaeoastronomy gave us a pivotal point for credibility in two different ways, and it bore us a practical example of mutual reinforcement of our own
requirements. As already stated, at that time, archaeoastronomy needed to be
accepted as an autonomous field relying upon clear scientific assessment and methodology. The Thematic Study was a good opportunity to develop it in such a way
and to confront it to different specialists from other academic fields, especially to
develop structural relationships with other facets of archaeological methods and
results. On the other hand, for the acceptance of the Thematic Study programme by
a majority of contemporary astronomers we also needed to credibly treat the question of rational observation of the sky by different kinds of civilisations, relying on
strong studies in archaeoastronomy.
The Thematic Study of astronomical and archaeoastronomical heritage was also
ambitious related to the former ICOMOS Thematic Studies. It aimed to go beyond
a simple analysis of categories and subcategories. First thematic studies frequently
acted as a kind of pre selection of heritage themes or pre listing of remarkable
places, consequently encouraged to prepare a nomination file. We tried to go beyond
and to propose a real development of the theme of astronomical and archaeoastronomical heritage, first by a global overview of some major civilisations or epochs or
cultural situations of “indigenous people”. This did not forget the aims of the World
Heritage Convention, helping to prepare an inventory of attributes, both tangible
and intangible, and their understanding in context. It had to help to prepare conservation and valorisation of comprehensive places for visitors. Some examples of site
strongly related to the selected themes of Thematic Study were studied in the global
point of view of inventory and analysis issued from the experience of Convention
implementation. They give examples of applied methodology to astronomical and
archaeoastronomical heritage, but they are not a statement of value in anyway. Such
ambitious goals have been met, thanks to authors and to the pivotal role of Clive
acting as an efficient mediator between ICOMOS guidelines and remarks to individual authors studying field examples, with many back and forth of texts. The
introduction and conclusion of the study by Clive and myself offered a wonderful
opportunity of a joint work, exerting our mutual criticisms in a positive way and
showing progressive convergence and enrichment of our personal ideas and
concepts.
The Thematic Study works themselves were developed by a group of 40 authors
coming from around 15 different countries including Europe, Middle East, Eastern
Asia, India, Pacific, Latin America and North America. They worked during the
M. Cotte
This program aimed to cover different regions and different civilisations of the
World with equal treatment, e.g. a same importance for studying each case. In some
situations, it was difficult to explain to some astronomers that option because for
them astronomy started really with modern observatories and the independence of
“true” science from popular beliefs such as astrology. Obviously, many past
civilisations, and even European ones, were relied strongly both on rational observation of the sky and irrational beliefs. As we stated in the introduction: Every
civilisation looked at the Sky and built a cosmology, and as stated in the conclusion:
Astronomy is never alone and pure knowledge, but it must be understood in context.
At this step, archaeoastronomy gave us a pivotal point for credibility in two different ways, and it bore us a practical example of mutual reinforcement of our own
requirements. As already stated, at that time, archaeoastronomy needed to be
accepted as an autonomous field relying upon clear scientific assessment and methodology. The Thematic Study was a good opportunity to develop it in such a way
and to confront it to different specialists from other academic fields, especially to
develop structural relationships with other facets of archaeological methods and
results. On the other hand, for the acceptance of the Thematic Study programme by
a majority of contemporary astronomers we also needed to credibly treat the question of rational observation of the sky by different kinds of civilisations, relying on
strong studies in archaeoastronomy.
The Thematic Study of astronomical and archaeoastronomical heritage was also
ambitious related to the former ICOMOS Thematic Studies. It aimed to go beyond
a simple analysis of categories and subcategories. First thematic studies frequently
acted as a kind of pre selection of heritage themes or pre listing of remarkable
places, consequently encouraged to prepare a nomination file. We tried to go beyond
and to propose a real development of the theme of astronomical and archaeoastronomical heritage, first by a global overview of some major civilisations or epochs or
cultural situations of “indigenous people”. This did not forget the aims of the World
Heritage Convention, helping to prepare an inventory of attributes, both tangible
and intangible, and their understanding in context. It had to help to prepare conservation and valorisation of comprehensive places for visitors. Some examples of site
strongly related to the selected themes of Thematic Study were studied in the global
point of view of inventory and analysis issued from the experience of Convention
implementation. They give examples of applied methodology to astronomical and
archaeoastronomical heritage, but they are not a statement of value in anyway. Such
ambitious goals have been met, thanks to authors and to the pivotal role of Clive
acting as an efficient mediator between ICOMOS guidelines and remarks to individual authors studying field examples, with many back and forth of texts. The
introduction and conclusion of the study by Clive and myself offered a wonderful
opportunity of a joint work, exerting our mutual criticisms in a positive way and
showing progressive convergence and enrichment of our personal ideas and
concepts.
The Thematic Study works themselves were developed by a group of 40 authors
coming from around 15 different countries including Europe, Middle East, Eastern
Asia, India, Pacific, Latin America and North America. They worked during the
M. Cotte