In the Netherlands we have a special category of monuments: archaeological
monuments. We do list them, but have little hope for getting a photo (unless
someone made one by accident during excavations?). Most of the time a
definition of monument is "something we can't move to museums or archives
but that has to be protected". This can even be colorings in the ground
where once a house was.
It would be helpful to explicitely tag them as archaeological in the list on
wikipedia to avoid confusion.
2011/2/25 Vicenç Riullop <vriullop(a)hotmail.com>
According to the official it is a mistake, they are
not really monuments
but archaeological sites although they are classified in the inventory as
monuments. However his selection is not based on this argument but in order
to protect homeowners and heritage sites that lack of protection in rural
areas. Some examples discarded by him:
Morever, there are some coves carved on cliffs that I can hardly consider
as monuments. Most of them were included in the inventory in 1966, and from
1998 they are managed by the Island Council. Probably they should review the
classification as monuments or archaeological sites.
Maybe it is a good idea to add whether they are publicly accessible or in
restricted areas with a warning advice.
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:42:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Provoking spolation
I am not sure I understand your explanation correctly, so let me try to
summarize and correct me if I am wrong please.
If I understand well, you say that out of the 1000 monuments, all are real
monuments, but that the government official suggests to leave out 935 of
them because they are on private property - not because it is a mistake.
I agree with him that it is important to be careful about private property
- this goes everywhere in Europe. We should make clear notices how to work
with private property, and how to ask permission of the owner. That is more
a matter of communication than a fundamental one. And even if people can't
make photos, the owners could theoretically still upload a photo, so I think
if they are real monuments, they could be in the list - maybe in a special
header with a seperate table?
2011/2/24 Vicenç Riullop <vriullop(a)hotmail.com>
We have encountered an unexpected problem with monuments of Minorca (
). There are
about 1,000 monuments, most of them of Talayotic culture (see
), possibly with an unclear
demarcation between the categories of monument and archaeological area, two
of the categories defined for Bien de Interés Cultural (
C3% A9s_Cultural). We have
contacted with the person in charge of heritage in the island council asking
for help to identify them and locate them as the online register only
contains the name and little else. His answer is that we must limit to 65
monuments that are accessible to the public. The reason is that most are
on private lands and they want to avoid spolation. He recognizes out of
the record that most are not monuments. I think they probably lack of
protection and I know the islanders are very sensitive that tourists do not
invade private lands.
As a Wikipedian I can not accept it. The register of monuments is public
information, monuments are protected by law, we can not redefine if a
monument should be in the arqueological area category and we can not limit
the information based on problems or interests of the administration. But
from WLM viewpoint, probably it is not appropiate causing problems and
perhaps it makes nonsense to suggest participants to go to inaccessible
places to take photos of ruins or caves or to suggest them monuments that we
can not correctly identify. Moroever, the amount of 65 would be within the Spanish
I am confused with this. Any suggestions?
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list