Advertisement

Terminology and Criteria of the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme: New Findings and Proposals for Research

  • Lothar JordanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Heritage Studies book series (HEST)

Abstract

The chapter addresses questions of terminology and criteria of the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme (MoW) in the context of other UNESCO heritage programmes. It starts with reflecting shortly the term “heritage” and its derivations. The following sub-chapter presents novelties on the prehistory of MoW, namely on the introduction of its name, and on early relations between MoW and World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Finally, the chapter makes proposals for future research concentrating on the critical, contextual and comparative analysis of key terms and criteria of MoW and other heritage programmes. It proposes to put such research into the framework of comparative conceptual history and links such considerations to similar projects in the early years of UNESCO. To substantiate the need for such future research, the article chooses examples from the Guidelines (2002, see Edmondson, Memory of the World: general guidelines to safeguard documentary heritage [Doc. No: CII-95/WS-11rev], UNESCO, Paris, 2002) and the (Draft) Guidelines (2017, see MoW Guidelines Review Group, UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. General guidelines, approved text December, UNESCO, Paris, 2017) as basic texts.

Keywords

Heritage Terminology Criteria Conceptual history Access 

References

  1. Anon. (1989, May). Editorial. In The UNESCO Courier (p. 3). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. (1990, October).[Introductory Text]. In: Le Courrier de l´UNESCO (p. 42). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  3. Baudelaire, C. (1976). Œuvres complètes. Vol II. Texte établi, présenté et annoté par Claude Pichois. Paris: Gallimard (=Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; 7).Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, C., & Rössler, M. (2013). Many voices, one vision: The early years of the World Heritage Convention. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Cartier, G. (1989, May). Libraries to the rescue. In The UNESCO Courier (pp. 6–8). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  6. Chasmar, J. (2013, July 23). ‘Reprehensible’: UNESCO adds works of Che Guevara to World Register. The Washington Times, p. 7. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/reprehensible-unesco-adds-works-che-guevara-world-/
  7. Edmondson, R. (2002). Memory of the World: General guidelines to safeguard documentary heritage, (Doc. No: CII-95/WS-11rev). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  8. García-Esparza, J. (2018). Are World Heritage concepts of integrity and authenticity lacking in dynamism? A critical approach to Mediterranean autotopic landscapes. Landscape Research, 43(6), 817–830.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glissant, E. (1993). Tout-Monde. Roman. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  10. Glissant, E. (1997). Traité du Tout-Monde. Poétique IV. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  11. Harvey, D. C. (2008). The history of heritage. In B. Graham and P. Howard (Eds.): The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity (pp.19–36). Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, R., & Mahard, M. R. (2014). The preservation management handbook. A 21st-century guide for libraries, archives, and museums. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. ICOMOS. (1965). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  14. ICOMOS. (2011). The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments – 1931. https://www.icomos.org/en/167-the-athens-charter-for-the-restoration-of-historic-monuments. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  15. Jokilehto, J., in coop. with King, J. (2000). Authenticity and integrity. Summary of ICCROM position paper, Amsterdam 1998. http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/443/. Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  16. Jordan, L. (2011). Ein Kommentar für alle? Überlegungen zum UNESCO-Memory of the World- Programm [One commentary for all? Considerations on the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme]. In A. Hölter (Ed.), Comparative Arts. Neue Ansätze zu einer universellen Ästhetik (pp. 191–200). Heidelberg: Synchron Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Jordan, L. (2013). A first sketch of the history of the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme: Its beginnings in 1992. Pfaffendorf: Author’s Edition.Google Scholar
  18. Knobloch, C. (2001). Über die Schulung des fachgeschichtlichen Blickes: Methodenprobleme bei der Analyse des ´semantischen Umbaus´ in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft [On training the view on the history of disciplines: Methodological problems in analyzing the ´semantic transformation´ in Literature and Linguistics]. In G. Bollenbeck & C. Knobloch (Eds.), Semantischer Umbau der Geisteswissenschaften nach 1933 und 1945 (pp. 203–235) (Reihe Siegen, Vol. 144). Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
  19. Kontler, L. (2013). Concepts, contests, and contexts. In W. Steinmetz, M. Freeden, & J. Fernández-Sebastián (Eds.), Conceptual history in the European space (pp. 197–296). New York/Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  20. Langlois, J. C. (1989, May). …a fragile heritage. In The UNESCO Courier (p. 5). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  21. Leonhard, J. (2017). Conceptual history. The comparative dimension. In W. Steinmetz, M. Freeden, & J. Fernández-Sebastián (Eds.), Conceptual history in the European space (pp. 175–196). New York/Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  22. Lowenthal, D. (2015). The past is a foreign country – revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mayor Zaragoza, F. (1988, August). A legacy for all. In The UNESCO Courier (p. 4). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  24. McKeon, R. (1957). Introduction: The meanings of justice and the relations among traditions of thought. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 11, 41(3), 253–267.Google Scholar
  25. McKeon, R. (with the assistance of S. Rokkan) (Ed.). (1951). Democracy in a world of tensions: A symposium prepared by UNESCO. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. MoW Guidelines Review Group. (2017). UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. General guidelines, approved text December. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  27. Naess, A., & Rokkan, S. (1951). Analytical survey of agreements and disagreements. In R. McKeon (with the assistance of S. Rokkan) (Ed.), Democracy in a world of tensions: A symposium prepared by UNESCO (pp. 447–512). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. OED Online. (2018, December). Oxford University Press. www.oed.com. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  29. Prodan, A. C. (2017). The sustainability of digital documentary heritage. In M.-T. Albert, F. Bandarin, & A. P. Roders (Eds.), Going beyond. Perceptions of sustainability in Heritage Studies no. 2 (pp. 59–69). (Heritage Studies, No. 5). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Robertson-von Trotha, C., & Hauser, R. (2010). UNESCO and digitalized heritage: new heritage – new challenges. In German Commission for UNESCO/Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus/UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies (Eds.), World heritage and cultural diversity (pp. 69–78). Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO.Google Scholar
  31. Rokkan, S. (1951). Texts on democracy and its role in ideological conflicts. In: R. McKeon (Ed.), Democracy in a world of tensions: A symposium prepared by UNESCO (pp. 532–536). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, R., & Winkworth, K. (2009). Significance 2.0 – a guide to assessing the significance of collections. 2nd ed. Collections Council of Australia Ltd. https://www.arts.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1761/f/significance-2.0.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  33. Selicato, F. (2016). The concept of heritage. In F. Rotondo, F. Selicato, V. Marin, & J. Lopez Galdeano (Eds.), Cultural territorial systems. Landscape and cultural heritage as a key to sustainable and local development in Eastern Europe (pp. 7–12). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Senghor, L. S. (1989, May). The written word…. In The UNESCO Courier (p. 4). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  35. Steinmetz, W., & Freeden, M. (2017). Introduction: Conceptual history. challenges, conundrums, complexities. In W. Steinmetz, M. Freeden, & J. Fernández-Sebastián (Eds.), Conceptual history in the European space (pp. 1–46). New York/Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  36. Stig Sørensen, M. L. (2013). Preface. In M. Bowe et al. (Eds.), Heritage Studies: Stories in the making (pp. xv–xxii). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. UNESCO. (1950). Human rights. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  38. UNESCO. (1951). The UNESCO questionnaire on ideological conflicts concerning democracy. In R. McKeon (with the assistance of S. Rokkan) (Ed.), Democracy in a world of tensions: A symposium prepared by UNESCO (pp. 513–521). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. UNESCO. (1994). Report of first meeting of the Sub-Committee on Technology of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World Programme”, 3–4 June, Vienna. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/mow_1st_technical_sub_committee_final_report_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  40. UNESCO. (2015). Recommendation concerning the preservation of, and access to, documentary heritage including in digital form, adopted by the General Conference, on 17 November 2015, Paris.Google Scholar
  41. UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. (2017). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/. Accessed 26 Jan 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professor of Modern German Literature and Comparative LiteratureUNESCO Memory of the World Programme Chair, Sub-Committee on Education and ResearchParisFrance

Personalised recommendations