NOTES AND REFERENCES
- Matero, E Lessons from the Great House. Conditionand treatment history as prologue to site conservation and management at Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 3 (4) (1999) 203-224; Demas, M. Planning for conservation and management of archaeological sites, a values-based approach. In: J.M. Teutonico and G. Palumbo (eds) Management planning for archaeological sites; an international workshop, 19-22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles (2000); Jones, K.L. Condition reporting and monitoring of archaeological sites: the use of large-scale vertical and aerial photographs in New Zealand. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 5 (3) (2002) 131–140.
- This work has been generously funded by the PackardHumanities Institute, without whose support none of the continuing collaborative projects between ICA and NPTC would have been possible. The project has been the work of many hands, but special thanks goes to Larissa Sedikova, Head of Conservation at NPTC, for her hard work in the development and implementation of the survey and recording system, as well as for her far-sighted vision and dedication to the protection and management of Chersonesos.
- Mack, G. and Carter, J.C. (eds) Crimean Chersonesos, City, Chora, Museum and Environs. Institute of Classical Archaeology, Austin (2003).
- Mack and Carter (2003) [3].
- ICOMOS. International Charters for Conservation andRestoration. Paris, International Council on Monuments and Sites (2001). The 1964 Venice Charter does not mention condition survey by name but does allude to it as a requirement in Article 16: ‘In all works of preservation, restoration or excavation, there should always be precise documentation in the form of analytical and critical reports.’ While this only enshrines the requirement of exact recording of the conservation work carried out, any comprehensive analytical report of works of preservation would require an assessment of the condition and material makeup of the monument to be worked on, i.e. a survey of its material makeup and condition. The Lausanne Charter of 1990 does mention survey by name (Article 4, Survey) but, again, not directly in the context of the condition of the material makeup of the heritage: 'The protection of the archaeological heritage must be based upon the fullest possible knowledge of its extent and nature. General survey of archaeological resources is therefore an essential working tool in developing strategies for the protection of the archaeological heritage. Consequently archaeological survey should be a basic obligation in the protection and management of the archaeological heritage.'
- Matero (1999) [1].
- Castellanos, C. Chan Chan, Peru. In: J.M. Teutonico and G. Palumbo (eds) Management planning for archaeological sites; an international workshop, 19-22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles (2000).
- Demas (2000) [1].
- Castellanos, for example, carried out a more detailed survey ‘in areas with exposed decorated surfaces while only a general inspection was done where they were not present’. Castellanos (2000) [7].
- For a very accessible discussion of the basics of GIS and its relevance to cultural heritage, see Box, P. GIS and Cultural Resource Management: a Manual for Heritage Managers. UNESCO, Bangkok (1999).
- Sevastopol is home to the Russian and Ukrainian navy's Black Sea Fleet. The military sensitivity of the area has made it difficult to obtain accurate maps and precludes the use of GPS by civilians.
- Trelogan, J. and Eve, S. GIS at Chersonesos: new applications for conservation and site management. In: C. Williams and J.C. Carter (eds) The Study of Ancient Territories, Chersonesos and Metaponto. 2003 Annual Report. Institute of Classical Archaeology, Austin (2003) 33–38.
- For purposes of recording, each structure (wall, floor, threshold, etc.), was broken up into smaller segments that correspond, not necessarily to construction phase, but to photographic extent.