Forvaltningsmuseenes og NIKUs ansvar og roller i forvaltningen av ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

15SummaryArne Holm and Trine MyrvoldThe responsibilities and roles of the administrative museumsand Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research(NIKU) in the management of the archaeological heritageNIBR Report: 2012:30Background and research issuesThe overarching aim of this study is to illuminate the operatingconditions, responsibilities and roles of the administrativemuseums and NIKU in the management of automatically listedcultural monuments and ship finds. 1 This includes the operatingenvironment in which outreach efforts, knowledge generation andresearch into the artefacts and sites under heritage managementtake place. This forms the background for a discussion of theeffect of the operating environment on the execution ofadministrative responsibilities. The challenges facing theadministrative museums and NIKU in the performance of theiradministrative duties are also discussed in view of the advantages1 Under the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act, monuments, artefacts and sitesstemming from 1537 or before are automatically protected by law (i.e.‘automatically listed’). In the case of post-medieval sites, environments, objectsetc. which are considered of historical, artistic and cultural value, the relevantministry may issue a protection order. The ministry may grant exemptions fromprotection orders in special cases. In these cases, an assessment will be made bythe relevant authorities – usually specialists at the historical, cultural, maritimeand technical museums (i.e. the ‘administrative museums’ – forvaltningsmuseer),working together with local and county authorities and the Directorate forCultural Heritage. An exemption order may also require an archaeologicalinvestigation/excavation of the area. These investigations are known asadministrative archaeological assessments (arkeologiske forvaltningsundersøkelser).(For a translation of the Act, seehttp://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/cultural-heritageact.html?id=173106)NIBR-rapport 2012:30
16and drawbacks of the current system. At the same time, the studyalso explores what could potentially be done to enhance thecurrent management model, from the points of view of theadministrative museums and NIKU.Tripartite decision-making model in heritage managementThe manner in which exemption orders affecting automaticallylisted cultural monuments are granted is based largely on atripartite decision-making model. The responsibility of the countyauthorities derives from their role as notification authority andtheir duty to undertake the primary in situ survey or assessment.The county authorities also coordinate the opinions of the variousparties in planning applications, also when they involveautomatically listed artefacts from medieval towns and ship finds.The administrative museums and NIKU undertake the necessaryassessments and make recommendations. The ultimate decision,however, lies with the Directorate for Cultural Heritage(Riksantikvaren).The county councils do not, however, undertake on-siteinspections or studies connected with ship finds and automaticallylisted items under water. These are done by the maritimemuseums. These museums are also instructed to assess whether anaction is in conflict with a ship find or automatically listedunderwater artefact. When cases involve listed items in medievaltowns, convents, ecclesiastical buildings, castles/fortresses anddefence works/fortifications, urban sites/ruins and standingbuildings of all types, notification duty lies with the Directorate forCultural Heritage.By giving administrative museums and NIKU with specialistexpertise in archaeology the authority to act as expert bodies, itwas the intention of the decision-making procedures to take intoaccount the needs of a knowledge-based system of management ofthe archaeological heritage. Where responsibilities sit in cases anexemption order is set out in the regulation on separation ofprofessional responsibilities (Forskrift om faglig ansvarsfordeling m.v.etter kulturminneloven).Responsibility for the management of automatically listed artefactslies with the Ministry of the Environment. In allowing universitymuseums and maritime museums, which in legal terms have theNIBR-rapport 2012:30
Page 1 and 2: NIBR-rapport 2012:30Arne HolmTrine
Page 3 and 4: Andre publikasjoner fra NIBR:NIBR-r
Page 5 and 6: Tittel:Forfatter:Forvaltningsmuseen
Page 7 and 8: 2InnholdForord ....................
Page 9 and 10: 48 Rolle- og ansvarsfordeling innen
Page 11 and 12: 6SammendragArne Holm og Trine Myrvo
Page 13 and 14: 8Historisk sett har imidlertid forv
Page 15 and 16: 10Rammebetingelser og håndtering a
Page 17 and 18: 12Universitetsmuseene har også en
Page 19: 14vann, etter modell av Tromsø mus
Page 23 and 24: 18knowledge is by involving the uni
Page 25 and 26: 20of the university museums on auto
Page 27 and 28: 22management are attended to. Four
Page 29 and 30: 24see a more integrated, rounded ma
Page 31 and 32: 26kulturminner i middelalderbyene m
Page 33 and 34: 28mulighet for å finne ut om det e
Page 35 and 36: 30Det store mangfoldet i de ni inst
Page 37 and 38: 32Det heter videre at:Det er et nas
Page 39 and 40: 34Dette innebærer at det er fylkes
Page 41 and 42: 36Tabell 2.1 Forvaltningsmuseenes o
Page 43 and 44: 38Gjennom universitetsmuseenes ansv
Page 45 and 46: 40inn under Kunnskapsdepartementets
Page 47 and 48: 42−Utgifter til særskilt granskn
Page 49 and 50: 44med fra tre til syv informanter.
Page 51 and 52: 46som må være oppfylt for at utse
Page 53 and 54: 484.3 Etableringen av kulturminnefo
Page 55 and 56: 50Samisk kulturminneråd ble oppret
Page 57 and 58: 52I sin artikkel om museene i den a
Page 59 and 60: 54Et tilleggsmoment her er at unive
Page 61 and 62: 56få frem variasjonene i rammebeti
Page 63 and 64: 58Den konkrete arkeologiske utgravn
Page 65 and 66: 60−−−Konservering og innlemmi
Page 67 and 68: 62Riksantikvaren setter i tilsagnsb
Page 69 and 70: 64Grunnbevilgning/basisbevilgning f
Page 71 and 72:
66De tre sjøfartsmuseene er egne s
Page 73 and 74:
68Ved NIKU er alle arkeologiske und
Page 75 and 76:
70inneholder bare ett eller et fåt
Page 77 and 78:
72stiftelser i henholdsvis Stavange
Page 79 and 80:
745.7 FinansieringssystemetEt vikti
Page 81 and 82:
76administrasjon, renhold, datatekn
Page 83 and 84:
78−−−Institusjonsform og -til
Page 85 and 86:
80Generelt kan vi si at jo mer forv
Page 87 and 88:
82Utover de tryggere rammene rundt
Page 89 and 90:
84Mange informanter ved forvaltning
Page 91 and 92:
86Marinarkeologi har for liten tyng
Page 93 and 94:
88Tabell 6.1 Forvaltningsmuseenes e
Page 95 and 96:
90De fleste informantene vi har sna
Page 97 and 98:
92Ved et par av museene er en tydel
Page 99 and 100:
94universitetene. Universitetsmusee
Page 101 and 102:
96nivået. Dette synes å ha mer ba
Page 103 and 104:
98Sikringsarbeid er et av de områd
Page 105 and 106:
100Institusjonstilknytning ser ut t
Page 107 and 108:
102ressurser innenfor både persona
Page 109 and 110:
104utgravningene også skal bidra t
Page 111 and 112:
106de i noen grad kan styre datainn
Page 113 and 114:
108Tabell 7.1 Finansieringskilder f
Page 115 and 116:
110Det er meget vanskelig for et mu
Page 117 and 118:
112særlige finansieringer ved Univ
Page 119 and 120:
1147.3 FormidlingForvaltningsmuseen
Page 121 and 122:
116universitetsmuseenes basisbevilg
Page 123 and 124:
118kulturminnet graves ut, dokument
Page 125 and 126:
120at viktige støttefunksjoner for
Page 127 and 128:
122museene som er egne stiftelser e
Page 129 and 130:
124arkeologiske undersøkelser og i
Page 131 and 132:
126NIKU på sin side hevder å ha b
Page 133 and 134:
128LitteraturGaukstad, Even (2005)
show all

Forvaltningsmuseenes og NIKUs ansvar og roller i forvaltningen av ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?