Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe: analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Beograd
Narodni muzej
2012
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Muzeološke sveske
15 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Intangible cultural heritage - an analysis of the traditional pottery production related legislation |
| Beschreibung: | 111 S. Ill. 24 cm |
| ISBN: | 9788672691382 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV042719128 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20150909 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 150727s2012 a||| |||| 00||| srp d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788672691382 |9 978-86-7269-138-2 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)914850359 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV042719128 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a srp | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Đorđević, Biljana |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1051407206 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe |b analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje |c Biljana Đorđević |
| 264 | 1 | |a Beograd |b Narodni muzej |c 2012 | |
| 300 | |a 111 S. |b Ill. |c 24 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Muzeološke sveske |v 15 | |
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Intangible cultural heritage - an analysis of the traditional pottery production related legislation | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Kulturgut |0 (DE-588)4139819-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Kulturerbe |0 (DE-588)4033560-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Rechtsvergleich |0 (DE-588)4115712-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Kulturgüterschutz |0 (DE-588)4165975-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Töpferhandwerk |0 (DE-588)4137496-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Töpferhandwerk |0 (DE-588)4137496-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Kulturgut |0 (DE-588)4139819-1 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Kulturerbe |0 (DE-588)4033560-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Kulturgüterschutz |0 (DE-588)4165975-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Rechtsvergleich |0 (DE-588)4115712-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Muzeološke sveske |v 15 |w (DE-604)BV000017273 |9 15 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028150355 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 090512 |g 4971 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 340.09 |e 22/bsb |f 090512 |g 4971 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804174923730518016 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Intangible Cultural Heritage - An Analysis of the
Traditional Pottery Production Related Legislation
Summary
Comprehensive activities related to the safeguarding of cultural heritage
during the last several decades required that even the term cultural heritage need-
ed to be significantly broadened. It gradually developed from the exclusive care
of tangible heritage and movable and immovable cultural property, to the care of
intangible heritage treating it, however, as “spiritual” one. Only recently the need
arose for more elaborate defining and safeguarding of the intangible cultural heri-
tage.This led to introduction of those skills and crafts into the spiritual heritage
that pertain to the old traditional technologies used in production of utilitarian
and decorative objects albeit home produced or crafted by artisans. Thus “hidden
heritage”, long needed as medium for understanding the visible, material one, was
finally included in the picture. Traditional pottery production technologies belong
to this category as well.
According to contemporary museological standards the term safeguarding
both related to the proclaimed cultural property and property under preventive
conservation treatment consists of several elements. Besides physical protection
the term implies both the safeguarding of objects themselves and the knowledge
and skills which helped create these objects. This definition of safeguarding gives
new dimension to the intangible heritage issues. It becomes not only the object
of safeguarding but also those means the absence of which makes ineffective the
safeguarding itself. This means that the intangible cultural heritage is inextricably
linked to the tangible heritage and its safeguarding is the foundation of safeguard-
ing of both the immovable and movable cultural property.
The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage is the basic document that on the global level defines the intangible cul-
tural heritage and adopts recommendations for its safeguarding, protection and
revitalization. The purposes of this Convention are: to safeguard the intangible
cultural heritage; to ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of the com-
munities, groups and individuals concerned; to raise awareness at the local, na-
tional and international levels of the importance of the intangible cultural heritage
and of ensuring mutual appreciation there of; to provide for international coopera-
tion and assistance in the field. The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding
of Intangible Cultural Heritage which had been signed by 139 states parties until
December 2011 was the first step towards redefining relation towards cultural
83
heritage, by promotion of integrative and interdisciplinary approach towards the
treatment of intangible and tangible cultural heritage and their inter-connection.
The level of practical implementation of requirements the states parties accepted,
however, can be a matter of deliberation.
The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage anticipated establishing of the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage di-
vided into three categories: List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent
Safeguarding, Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity
as well as Programmes, projects and activities within the frame of intangible cul-
tural heritage safeguarding considered to best represent the principles and goals
of the Convention. When it appeared in 2008 there were only elements inscribed
in the Representative List. However, in the meantime enormous complexity of
the intangible cultural heritage field was proved. This led to introduction of two
new categories: the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safe-
guarding was transformed according to UNESCO standards into.. .THE List [...]
because the urgency is to safeguard those intangible heritage elements that are fac-
ing the danger of disappearance (underlined by A. Krause). The same standpoint
was taken by the states parties during preparation of operational directives in June
2008 but there were only 15 nominations submitted for the 2009 List of Intangible
Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding and 111 for the Representative
List (Krause 2011:11 ). By the end of the year 2011 the List of Intangible Cultural
Heritage contained 267 accepted nominations in all the three categories (90 from
2008, 91 from 2009, 51 from 2010 and 35 from the year 2011). There were 232
items out of the total number of masterpieces incorporated in the Representative
List, and 27 elements in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent
Safeguarding. The List of Intangible Cultural Heritage contains only 32 elements
related to traditional crafts in the broadest sense of the termout of the total num-
ber of accepted elements. And only one traditional pottery firing technology was
among them - that of the celadon ceramics from Longquan, China nominated
already in 2009.
Bearing in mind the variety of traditional pottery techniques developed
from the prehistory until present times and which if not adequately safeguarded
would been dangered by complete extinction one can be astonished that elements
related to pottery as a phenomenon have not been more adequately represented at
this List.
Obviously the proposers were of opinion that representative items must-
contain “exotic” and national features, which made the folklore elements prevail
over those aspects of intangible cultural heritage without national traits. And this
is the case with most of the old crafts, pottery included.
84
Pottery techniques/technologies do not bear national traits because they
are dependent only on the laws of the nature. The choice of the raw clay treatment
depends entirely upon clay’s physical characteristics.The number of variations is
rather limited, which is proved by physical-chemical analyses, ethnoarchaeologi-
cal and cross-cultural researches. Their exotic qualities, however, may be due to
particular decoration methods and can be matter of discussion but they appear not
to be appealing to the proposers.
It is even less understandable that the old crafts as well as the pottery pro-
duction are paid insufficient attention if the level of endangerment is one of the
main criteria for inscribing elements in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
The economically developed societies such as the European onesabandon their
own traditions and diversity and adopt changes dictated by globalization with-
out any selective approach. They also neglect the possibility that these changes
should not always be for the better. Therefore, in this and such Europe many of the
traditional bodies of knowledge and skills are losing the race against time which
requires fast and easy solutions. And the old crafts cannot be considered as fast
and easy solutions, they cannot boast of exclusivity. A generation or so ago, these
crafts thrived in almost every group and the technological process was more or
less the same thus making them less “exotic” and attractive. They will “reclaim”
these qualities only when it becomes too late to save them. This raises the issue
whether the states parties have correctly understood the essence of the Conven-
tion for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The Convention clearly
states that their duty is to develop “common concern about safeguarding intan-
gible cultural heritage to humanity”. And what can be of greater general interest
for humanity than the knowledge and skills that concern us all, that connect us and
which, if we remember them and return to them, can help us overcome hard times.
It is called sustainable development and it is a matter of general concern at least
on declarative level.
In addition to the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the In-
tangible Cultural Heritage the related European legislation is based on a series of
documents of the Council of Europe whose contents supplement the UNESCO
Convention, such as the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value
of Cultural Heritage for Society, European Landscape Convention or the White
Paper on Intercultural Dialogue “Living together as equals in dignity”. The old
crafts and here I have in mind traditional pottery production but also many other
crafts are not necessarily associated with national features. Their particularities
are more or less defined in relation to ethnic, religious or language distribution
in a territory and go beyond the nationality of their bearers. A good example is
the so-called Balkan female pottery (OuJinnoBnh 1951) which is not a craft but a
homecraft (ToMnh 1983: 58; TmpKOBHh 1997: 65). As the first step in mastering
the know-how and skills of pottery production it should be safeguarded along the
85
same principles as the old crafts. My opinion is that the old crafts make an ideal
frame for foundation and liaising of members of different national communities in
the sense of this Declaration.That was the reason for introducing this document in
my paper although it does not directly refer to the safeguarding of intangible cul-
tural heritage. In my opinion, however, it is inextricably linked to the conventions
for safeguarding cultural heritage and only applied together they make a whole.
Consequent implementation of the UNESCO Convention and the men-
tioned documents of the Council of Europe would certainly represent a quali-
ty step towards the protection and safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage.
However, there is an area still inadequately treated. It is the matter of knowledge
and skills essential in practising old crafts and different forms of homecraft. This
shortcoming could be overcome by adoption of the Council of Europe Draft Con-
vention on the Protection of Old and Traditional Crafts. Upon the initiative of
Serbia and supported by Parliamentary Assembly members from UK, Germany,
Spain, Cyprus, Finland and Lithuania the motion was submitted to the Council
of Europe for adoption in October 2006. This Convention suggests adoption of a
series of measures on national and European levels, which should help preserve
and revive old crafts and their products, increase the number of people practising
them as well as sustain their economic and social position. The Convention was
aimed at introducing order and preventing fiirther degradation and extinction in
this area.
Ratification of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the In-
tangible Cultural Heritage requires that the states parties systematically protect all
elements surviving within their territories. This refers also to the safeguarding of
the intangible cultural heritage for the future by implementation of different forms
of care. Care ranges from abiding by legal acts to the raising of public awareness
of the need to transfer knowledge, skills and know-how as part of identity of a
given community or group but also includes crafts that belong to us all and form
the heritage of the humanity. The importance of this Convention is confirmed by
the fact that 142 out of 193 UN member states have signed it. Surprisingly though,
the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
has not been signed by eleven European countries yet including Germany, Nether-
lands, Russia, UK and Ireland. Reasons for this remain unknown but it is obvious
that this might cause irreparable damages to the intangible cultural heritage of
these countries.
All South European countries, from the west to the east, and they are in
our focus now, committed to abide by the principles contained in the Convention
either through ratification or, and this is mainly the case, by approving or accept-
ing them. The level of implementation of the Convention though differs from one
country to another.
86
In spite of their unenviable position the old crafts still survive mostly thanks
to individual enthusiastic efforts, sometimes through organised craft associations,
which is the situation that cannot last long. Old crafts, as part of intangible cultural
heritage and significant resource of sustainability in these hard and economically
insecure times must be recognized within the national and international frame-
work and their status should be systematically defined at both levels.
Among the many and different old crafts which survived, pottery is an
utterly specific phenomenon as it represents the first synthetic material in human
history. Pottery production know-how is more than 26,000 years old. However,
it is not only for scientific research reasons that traditional pottery technologies
should be preserved. Contemporary understanding of cultural heritage, the intan-
gible one in the first place emphasizes its vitality, natural development and prog-
ress aimed at sustaining cultural diversity; deeper knowledge about it means better
understanding it, implying also the awareness of similarities and universal fea-
tures of human thought and creation in many segments of creativity. It is beyond
any doubt that these goals would be achieved by the safeguarding of traditional
accomplishments (know-how and skills) as well as by protection of its bearers
the lack of which would push into oblivion these achievements. Pottery as part
of intangible cultural heritage has only recently become subject of interest of the
broader professional community. The objects, either archaeological pottery items
or ethnographic collections, have always enjoyed protection within museum col-
lections, both public and private ones. On the other hand, production technology
has remained neglected, often lacking reliable documentation or remained com-
pletely unnoticed. Ceramic production is characterized by global knowledge and
local tradition. Nowadays, in Europe and elsewhere in the world, most different
methods of pottery production, of vessels in the first place, exist alongside of
the industrial ceramic production including both everyday usage forms and those
which are artistically oriented. The very term pottery/ceramics has broadened and
diversified allowing its application in medicine, in development of implants or in
industry including sophisticated parts of the spacecraft. It is due to its diversity,
wealth of forms and decorations, uninterrupted intensive existence in everyday
life of people across the planet that pottery deserves recognition and safeguarding
as a phenomenon of utmost importance for the humanity. This refers in the first
place to the richness of expertise applied in manufacturing pottery vessels and to
the diversity of know-how and skills, most of which are endangered by new tech-
nologies being introduced in this field.
There are many examples existing in almost every country we mentioned
that testify to the diversity of technological procedures and which deserve to be
incorporated into the UNESCO Lists: Italian majolica, Portuguese wall tiles -
azulejos, Alsatian Betschdorf and Soufflenheim pottery, exquisite craftsmanship
of Spanish wine storing pithoi - tinajas, hand-wheeled pottery in Bosnia and Her-
87
zegovina, Serbia and Croatia, pottery from Trojan in Bulgaria, techniques of Cre-
tan travelling potters - vendemarides, female pottery in Serbia and Macedonia,
Vama and Horezu pottery from Oltenia and Corund pottery from Transylvania
in Rumania, production of pokljuka (large hand-wheeled bread baking lids) in
Slavonia and many others.
Safeguarding of these forms of traditional pottery production would be
best accomplished if the principles contained in the UNESCO Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and in the Draft Convention on
the Protection of Old and Traditional Craftswould be implemented and a particu-
lar law based on these Conventions enacted.
* * *
The need for greater attention to be paid to intangible cultural heritage was
expressed in the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heri-
tage adopted by UNESCO in 2003. That need is being taken care of by UNESCO
working bodies and by national bodies of the states parties respectively. Its prac-
tical implementation proved the complexity and scope of the intangible cultural
heritage field. Consequently, this understanding led to changes and amendments
in the endeavours of UNESCO itself in order to stimulate the safeguarding and
protection of intangible cultural heritage thereby requiring more effective engage-
ments of the states parties to the Convention. The Representative List was first is-
sued in 2008 and since 2009 the List of Endangered Elements and the List of Good
Practices were established. Having in mind that there still exist shortcomings in its
implementation it seems this will not put an end to changes and adjustments of the
basically well designed system of safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage.
There is now a widespread understanding of the Representative List as a list of
exclusives (brands), which allows countries with nominations to pride on them as
on their national characteristics. However, this is in opposition to the very concept
of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and to
what it stands for. Representative List is not a list of national characteristics, albeit
it may be seen as such not only by the public, which is learning about it primarily
from the sensationalistic press but also by some experts in this field. Convention
for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage does not advocate any-
thing of the sort. On the contrary! The Convention treats only communities and
groups as bearers of particular kinds of intangible cultural heritage. These com-
munities and groups can but need not be mono-ethnic ones, especially not mem-
bers of the dominant entity within a state party. This can be proved by a number of
nominations submitted by different countries, just to mention the most impressive
one, the falconry for which the nomination was submitted by eleven countries!
The joint nomination was submitted by Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Spain,
88
Morocco, Mongolia, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Repub-
lic and United Arab Emirates. And that is actually the essence of this Convention.
A comprehensive safeguarding of ideas, know-how, customs, rituals, skills and
knowledge regardless of the territory which presently practises them. It should
not be forgotten that we are dealing here with living tradition deeply rooted in
the times when the geopolitical mapping looked quite different. They should be
safeguarded for the times when this map would certainly be changed, at least in
some parts of the world. Terms like nation and the national should therefore be
understood rather as an administrative and not as a patriotic denomination. Not
one of the already nominated elements or of the future ones can be expected to
capitulate in front of state and/or national borders or barriers. Each of these would
be either larger of the limitations or have regional, i.e. local characteristics. That is
why it is fruitless to fight over “whose song this is” issues. We would like here to
make a hint at the documentary of the same title filmed by the Bulgarian director
Adela Peeva. She filmed her documentary in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey researching the “identity” of a
lyric we know in our country under title “Your hair is blond, girl”. Nomination
of an element by a state party cannot prevent other states parties, which have an
identical element in their territories from fostering and safeguarding it. Current
propositions, however, do not provide the possibility to add countries to the ele-
ment already inscribed in the List, but such an amendment would actually mean
a qualitative step forward in the implementation of the Convention (Krause 2011 :
16).
Another issue is the relation towards old crafts already mentioned on sev-
eral occasions. They constitute a separate category which is different from the oral
tradition, performing arts, customs and ritual s, often void of the “national” charac-
teristics, which would make them attractive enough to be inscribed in the priority
lists for nominations. That is the reason why only 32 elements refer to the old and
traditional crafts out of total number of 259 items existing both on the Representa-
tive List and the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection.
There are crafts whose products are not attractive enough but which still need
protection and safeguarding. Let us just mention examples such as manufacture of
ropes, carding combs and corns used in weaving, digging of wells or repair, tin-
plating, glazing and galvanization of vessels. Draft Convention on the Protection
of Old and Traditional Crafts actually solves the issue.
The third problem occurred within the safeguarding of the so-called “liv-
ing heritage”. A sporadic trend to focus the safeguarding on bearers of the intan-
gible cultural heritage activities led to confusion in certain environs. The issue
was noted by UNESCO and it is now recommended that safeguarding should
primarily focus on activities and not on the bearers of activities.
89
The above statement may allow for the conclusion that the old crafts, i.e. the
know-how and the knowledge implied are not considered to be part of the intan-
gible cultural heritage as result of their scant national traits. The level of their en-
dangerment is also undermined and there is confusion in the systematic protection
of their bearers.
A survey of the legislative in the countries of South and South-East Eu-
rope in spite of the obvious lack of homogeneousness may give the impression
that there are certain results achieved in the safeguarding of intangible cultural
heritage, at least on the level of declarative. To assess the exact quality of the safe-
guarding of intangible cultural heritage, it might be interesting though to analyze
surveys carried out by those whose duty is to practise the protection as well as by
those who enjoy the safeguarding, i.e. the bearers of elements of safeguarding.
Such a survey could be part of a new, independent project and its results would
benefit to the quality of safeguarding and to the rational use of allocated financial
means. -
Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage should not be understood
as freezing a process in space and time, but as establishing necessary conditions
for unhindered continuation of a live activity that is not denied its right to change
and develop in accordance with modem ways of living. That is one of the tasks
official institutions that are committed to the safeguarding of the intangible cul-
tural heritage should carry out de facto and not consider it only a proclamation.
Limitations refer only to the mentioned misuses motivated by the desire to make
substantial material gains in the shortest time and without too much effort.
Pottery technologies, as well as other bodies of knowledge and skills re-
lated to old crafts make part of the living heritage which is endangered in two
ways. One is their complete extinction, when the death of the last practising arti-
san means the death of the craft. The other danger lies in unskillful adaptation of
crafts to modem life, i.e.a simplification of procedures at the expense of quality
which also cause falling into oblivion of traditional knowledge and skills.
Legislative analysis of the intangible cultural heritage safeguarding def-
initely proved the complexity of the theme which required comprehensive ap-
proach and participation of experts from different fields in solving the issues. The
need was noted for closer cooperation of those who legislate and those who benefit
from these laws; it was necessary to raise the awareness of the need for safeguard-
ing of the intangible cultural heritage but also to note positive breakthroughs both
in Serbia and in the region. It is the level of implementation of the principles of
safeguarding of the cultural heritage including the intangible one, in accordance
with UNESCO and European standards that would probably become indicators of
our preparedness for European integrations. And that is an opportunity our profes-
sion must not fail to use.
90
Садржаj
Предговор 7
Унескова Конвенция о очуван у нем атер nj ал ног културног
наслега и Листе нематерщ алног културног наслега 11
Документа Савета Европе 19
Оквирна конвенций Савета Европе о вредности културног наслега
за друштво 19
Европска конвенци/а о пределу 20
Бела куъига интеркултурног ди/алога 22
Шта je Савет Европе пропустив да yceojn? 23
Предлог Конвенцц/е о заштити старых и традиционалних заната 23
Правни оквир у земл»ама jy/кне и ¿угозападне Европе
и н»егова примена 28
Италц а, Португалщ а, Француска, IUnanuja
Прописи и ньихова примена у земл ама региона
jyroHCTOHHe Европе 37
Албанца, Босна и Херцеговина, Бугарска, Грчка,
Румунца, Словенца, Хрватска, Црна Гора
Правни оквир и н егова примена у Републици Cpónjn 55
Керамика - нематерщално културно наслеге вредно заштите 59
Summary 83
Извори 92
Литература 98
Списак и порекло илустрацща 108
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Đorđević, Biljana |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1051407206 |
| author_facet | Đorđević, Biljana |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Đorđević, Biljana |
| author_variant | b đ bđ |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV042719128 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)914850359 (DE-599)BVBBV042719128 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02381nam a2200493 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV042719128</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20150909 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">150727s2012 a||| |||| 00||| srp d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788672691382</subfield><subfield code="9">978-86-7269-138-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)914850359</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV042719128</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Đorđević, Biljana</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1051407206</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe</subfield><subfield code="b">analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje</subfield><subfield code="c">Biljana Đorđević</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Beograd</subfield><subfield code="b">Narodni muzej</subfield><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">111 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</subfield><subfield code="c">24 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Muzeološke sveske</subfield><subfield code="v">15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Intangible cultural heritage - an analysis of the traditional pottery production related legislation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kulturgut</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4139819-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kulturerbe</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033560-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rechtsvergleich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115712-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kulturgüterschutz</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4165975-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Töpferhandwerk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4137496-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Töpferhandwerk</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4137496-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Kulturgut</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4139819-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Kulturerbe</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033560-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Kulturgüterschutz</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4165975-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rechtsvergleich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4115712-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Muzeološke sveske</subfield><subfield code="v">15</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV000017273</subfield><subfield code="9">15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028150355</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090512</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">340.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090512</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV042719128 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T07:08:07Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788672691382 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028150355 |
| oclc_num | 914850359 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 111 S. Ill. 24 cm |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publishDateSearch | 2012 |
| publishDateSort | 2012 |
| publisher | Narodni muzej |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Muzeološke sveske |
| series2 | Muzeološke sveske |
| spelling | Đorđević, Biljana Verfasser (DE-588)1051407206 aut Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje Biljana Đorđević Beograd Narodni muzej 2012 111 S. Ill. 24 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Muzeološke sveske 15 In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Intangible cultural heritage - an analysis of the traditional pottery production related legislation Kulturgut (DE-588)4139819-1 gnd rswk-swf Kulturerbe (DE-588)4033560-4 gnd rswk-swf Rechtsvergleich (DE-588)4115712-6 gnd rswk-swf Kulturgüterschutz (DE-588)4165975-2 gnd rswk-swf Töpferhandwerk (DE-588)4137496-4 gnd rswk-swf Töpferhandwerk (DE-588)4137496-4 s Kulturgut (DE-588)4139819-1 s Kulturerbe (DE-588)4033560-4 s Kulturgüterschutz (DE-588)4165975-2 s Rechtsvergleich (DE-588)4115712-6 s DE-604 Muzeološke sveske 15 (DE-604)BV000017273 15 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Đorđević, Biljana Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje Muzeološke sveske Kulturgut (DE-588)4139819-1 gnd Kulturerbe (DE-588)4033560-4 gnd Rechtsvergleich (DE-588)4115712-6 gnd Kulturgüterschutz (DE-588)4165975-2 gnd Töpferhandwerk (DE-588)4137496-4 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4139819-1 (DE-588)4033560-4 (DE-588)4115712-6 (DE-588)4165975-2 (DE-588)4137496-4 |
| title | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje |
| title_auth | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje |
| title_exact_search | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje |
| title_full | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje Biljana Đorđević |
| title_fullStr | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje Biljana Đorđević |
| title_full_unstemmed | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje Biljana Đorđević |
| title_short | Nematerijalno kulturno nasleđe |
| title_sort | nematerijalno kulturno naslede analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramicke proizvodnje |
| title_sub | analiza pravnog okvira na primeru tradicionalne keramičke proizvodnje |
| topic | Kulturgut (DE-588)4139819-1 gnd Kulturerbe (DE-588)4033560-4 gnd Rechtsvergleich (DE-588)4115712-6 gnd Kulturgüterschutz (DE-588)4165975-2 gnd Töpferhandwerk (DE-588)4137496-4 gnd |
| topic_facet | Kulturgut Kulturerbe Rechtsvergleich Kulturgüterschutz Töpferhandwerk |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028150355&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV000017273 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT đorđevicbiljana nematerijalnokulturnonasleđeanalizapravnogokviranaprimerutradicionalnekeramickeproizvodnje |