Historical Interpretations Role in The of a national or international policy for Cultural Heritage Protection Essay Example for Free

Historical Interpretations Role in The of a national or international policy for Cultural Heritage Protection Essay The main difference between approaches to Cultural Heritage Protection, as discussed by Muller, namely between â€Å"object-centrism† and â€Å"functionalism† is associated with the fact that the first approach regards the cultural object and its protection as a value in its own right, while the latter focuses on the cultural object in the context of its meaning for society and its processes of acculturation and socialization. Object-centrism advocates primacy of the cultural object rather than its value, be it artistic or economic (Muller, 1998). Artworks of the past are seen as valuable treasures, and the integrity of entire set of objects produced by a certain culture has to be protected. Object-centrism scholars â€Å"focus on the primacy of the heritage object, considering that it has a value existing independently of people that should not be susceptible to any change† (Loulanski, 2006, p. 215). This approach also argues for the necessity of protection of information about a given culture, and cultural objects serve as a source of such information. Thus, while archaeology is a typical example of the philosophy of object-centrism, anthropology also fits in the picture by virtue of preserving information and data about cultures. As concerns the answer to the question which is at the heart of the debate on Cultural Heritage Protection, namely whether nation state or international community should be the guardian of cultural heritage, object-centrism only cares about the safety and integrity of the cultural object and not the nature of its stewardship. Proponents of object-centrism argue that practical value of the cultural object is hard to determine, since it might have little utility now but be of great importance for future generations. And in the light of little connection between ancient and modern societies, ancient heritage is worth preservation in it own right. However, this approach has come in for much criticism: â€Å"Although the object-centric approach seems more sensible for guaranteeing the rights of existence for all cultural heritage, and modern because it prioritizes the integrity of cultural heritage, it proves to be somewhat illogical and unrealistic† (Loulanski, 2006, p. 216). Cultural objects are inherently connected to human societies and histories, thus it is unproductive to view them outside of their natural context. Rather than regarding heritage as a set of cultural objects, it should be regarded in the light of public good it is able to create: â€Å"Increasingly cultural heritage is seen as a much broader phenomenon which can contribute to political ideals, to economic prosperity and to social cohesion† (Council of Europe, 2000, p. 3). Cultural heritage has been linked to national unity, citizenship, appreciation of diversity, cultural identity and memory, amenity, sustainable development and quality of life. Graham (2002) suggests â€Å"the concept of heritage as a social construction, imagined, defined and articulated within cultural and economic practice† (p. 1003). In my view, functionalism is a more productive approach to cultural heritage protection. However, it poses dome difficulties for historical interpretation, since it denies the idea that cultural objects have value in their own right. Each nation has its own approach to assigning value to and defining functions of cultural objects. Thus, international community might disagree with interpretations suggested by nation stares. It imperative to separate historical interpretation from other forms of interpretation: â€Å"Historical interpretation must be based on a multidisciplinary archaeological and/or historical study of the site and its surroundings, yet must also indicate clearly and honestly where conjecture, hypothesis or philosophical reflection begin† (Pathways to Cultural Landscapes, 2002 p. 5). The solution to the problem is to engage all interested stakeholders in the process of historical interpretation, be they different groups within one society or different countries in the global community.

Gods of Worship :: essays research papers

Gods of Worship Early beliefs are the origin for the standard of living today. Beliefs from long ago have adapted and evolved. Early concepts of Religion have some of the basic traits that are included in Religions even today. The most surprising fact is that many early cultures had no way to communicate with eachother but they still had many of the same beliefs and concepts. The early Aztecs and the early Greeks are perfect examples of these early cultures. Of course, this leaves many questions to be answered. What were the religious concepts of the early Greeks? What were the early concepts of the early Aztecs? How are these cultures the same?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The early Greeks appear to be quite intelligent. The Greeks had a system of gods. They had 12 basic gods, often called the Olympians, called Zeus, Hera, Hephaestus, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hestia, Hermes, Demeter, and Poseidon.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Zeus was the head of the gods. He was the spiritual father of gods and people. His wife, Hera, was the queen of heaven and the guardian of marriage. Other gods associated with heaven were Hephaestus, god of fire and metal workers; Athena, goddess of wisdom and war; and Apollo, god of light, music, and poetry. Artemis was the goddess of wildlife and the moon; Ares, god of war; and Aphrodite, the goddess of love, were the other gods of heaven. These gods were joined by Hestia, goddess of the earth; and Hermes, messenger of the gods, and ruler of science and invention. Poseidon was the god of the sea, and he ruled a group of lesser sea gods. Last but not least, Demeter was the goddess of agriculture.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Greeks had many other lesser gods to go with the 12 chief gods. Their concept of the gods is very complex. They believed their gods were immortal and controlled all aspects of nature. The Greeks acknowledged that thier well being rested on the will of the gods. The Gods severly punished mortals who showed unacceptable behavior. However, the general relations between people and gods were friendly.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Each Greek City devoted itself to a god(s). Often citizens of these citys would build temples of worship for their god(s). Children would learn about the gods in their home, and they would conduct worship inside their home. However, different parts of the home were reserved for prayer to different gods. The Greek civilization had a god for almost everything physical and emotional.

Hobbes: Human Nature and Political Philosophy Essay

Thomas Hobbes writes in his 1651 masterpiece Leviathan of his interpretations of the inherent qualities of mankind, and the covenants through which they enter in order to secure a peaceful existence. His book is divided up into two separate sections; Of Man, in which Hobbes describes characteristics of humans coexisting without the protection of a superior earthly authority, and Of Commonwealth, which explains how humans trapped in that primal ?state of nature’ may escape and, through agreements, be able to live peaceably among one another without fear of unjust actions being taken against them. I too will discuss these elements of society as Hobbes intended them to be, with special emphasis on how human nature played a role in determining most of Hobbes’ basis for his political theories. In the introduction to Leviathan, Hobbes casts a highly mechanized view of humans by theorizing that they are simply a motion of limbs and simple machines that come together to produce a living, breathing, working human. â€Å"For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer? † (Leviathan, Introduction) Although this is a depiction of how Hobbes views the dynamics of the human body, he contends that human actions work in a similar, mechanistic way. According to the text, specific wants and appetites produce within the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains (or to be more general, degrees of happiness or sadness) which must be overcome. Thus, each person is geared to act in such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being. (Leviathan, Pt. I Ch. 6) Thus, basically everything we decide to do is determined by a natural desire to avoid things that give our bodies negative feedback responses, and the opposite for things which our body tells us is good. Essentially, in this aspect Hobbes asserts that human decisions in this environment are guided only by our strongest desires at that given time and place. The idea being introduced here is pivotal. It is the notion of self-preservation; that in a state of nature in which there is no rule of law, and each man answers only to himself, people will do (an are fully entitled to do) anything they deem necessary to further their own existence. This animalistic view of human interaction yields Hobbes to conclude that each person (or grouping, such as a family) lives independently from every other person or group, and acts in their own self-interest without regard for others. Hobbes calls this a â€Å"state of war†, in which life is â€Å"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. † (Leviathan, Pt. I Ch.13) Hobbes later identifies three main causes of conflict in the state of nature which prevent man from entering into peace with one another. The first is competition, which makes people invade for their personal gain. The second is diffidence (distrust) which makes people invade out of fear; a mutual sense of insecurity forces one to anticipate an attack from someone they cannot trust (who likewise feels the same way), so pre-emptive measures are taken. This makes sense because one renders it better to be a surprisor, and not a surprisee, since being surprised meant an almost certain death. The last cause of conflict is glory, which makes people invade others for their own merit. Knowing these sources of problems, Hobbes then declares; â€Å"Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. † (Leviathan, Pt. I Ch. 13) Therefore, at this point it is safe to conclude that human nature in this sense is essentially dangerous and evil. However, assuming that all humans are rational individuals, Hobbes believes that mankind would naturally want to escape this hellish state of existence and live under agreements that ensure the rational causes of quarrel could be avoided (albeit the third cause of quarrel, glory, is noted as an irrational cause of conflict). By establishing a commonwealth, contends Hobbes, we essentially remove the structural causes of conflict and foster the conditions for humankind to prosper under its own benevolence through mutually beneficial agreements. (Leviathan, Pt. I Ch.14) Although Hobbes had indicated that the state of nature is horrific, he acknowledges the counter-argument that people might not want to leave it because they would have to surrender certain rights granted to them solely while in the state of nature. But Hobbes’ response is rather simple; for it is â€Å"the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants. † (Leviathan, Pt. 2 Ch. 17) What he is saying is that rational individuals would understand that life under a common authority would allow for better means of self-preservation, because it creates an entity that can punish people who do not play by the game fairly. Also, people would be unable to rely on their individual autonomous powers in the effort to secure livelihood and happiness. Hobbes calls the necessary central authority the Sovereign (the institutional embodiment of an orderly government), and those over whom it presides are the Subjects. Thus, Hobbes’ perception of human nature led him to develop his vision of an ideal form of rule that would govern these autonomous individuals. He believed that a sovereign power was required to keep men united, who would work to maintain the peace among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies. The people would have to make an agreement among themselves to all submit to this ruler. The people would then submit their wills to the will of their ruler who would in turn assure their self-preservation, giving the ruler absolute control over his or her subjects. Assuming the people all do submit to this higher authority, the next step is determining the most appropriate form this sovereign entity must undertake. Hobbes offers three examples of governance in the text: a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy. Although the sovereign can be a legislature or an assembly of citizens or a monarch, claims Hobbes, the commonwealth will run smoothest under a hereditary monarch, which to the reader sounds like an unusual choice given all the conditions of human nature previously mentioned. Hobbes defends this notion though, by explaining that investing power in a single person who can choose advisors and rule consistently without fear of internal conflicts yields the best fulfillment of our social needs. (Leviathan, Pt. II Ch. 19) With a hereditary monarch there is hardly any internal conflict, whereas in a democracy, aristocracy, or any other assembly of citizens there is constant conflict among individuals trying to advance their own private agendas. Logistically, Hobbes says the sovereign will exercise its authority over its subjects in the form of civil laws that are either decreed or implicitly accepted. (Leviathan, Pt. II Ch. 26) Those who violate the laws handed down will be appropriately punished by the sovereign authority. The end result of it all is the creation of the actual Leviathan; biblically, a monstrous sea creature, but in Hobbes’ scope, it was a metaphor for a fully functioning, healthy society. Just as he previously used references to the mechanistic view of how man functions to further explain the conditions of how humankind and society work in general, Hobbes employs the use of metaphor to tie it all together. Imagine the sovereign ruler as literally the head of a man, not only the point at which the ideals of the society are created, but the commander of the rest of the body. The hands and limbs are the administrators of the law, whoever they may be under the various examples of government Hobbes previously offered. The subjects of the sovereign are the cells of the body that basically construct it and make it what it is, and allow for everything else to take place. There’s no doubt that Hobbes’ view on human nature shaped the way his political theories were formed. His works were, and still are highly influential to political philosophers that followed after him, which allowed for further, more concise theories to be generated and debated. And despite the shortcomings of some of Hobbes’ philosophies (such as the feasibility of installing such a government under the premises offered), his work was revolutionary for its time and laid the foundation on which other later significant philosophers built their political ideologies.

Phillip II of Macedon Essay - 1614 Words

Phillip II of Macedon The year was 359 BC. Greece, though weary from constant internal struggling still had supreme power over the Hellenistic world. Persia, though it had suffered large setback in the Persian Wars more then a century before was still a menacing force. The Barbarian State of Macedon was led by warrior kings who aspired to be Greek, yet ruled over a feudal society that was as multicultural as any of its time. Good morning Miss Boeston and class. Todays seminar will conclusively prove to you the statement that Philip II of Macedon was responsible for the rise to greatness of the Macedonian Empire in the Fourth Century BC by examining several issues associated with Philips rule. Macedon was a weak power, with†¦show more content†¦He became well integrated into the politics and military of Greece, learning Greek political tactics and military strategy. Philip, in effect, had learned to be a Greek general. He had also seen how weak Greece was becoming with its painstakingly slow democ ratic system and the general disunity that was becoming predominant after many years of internal quarreling. Also, his time in Thebes gave him a greater understanding of the geography of Greece. He learned the strongholds, and the weak cities of Greek society, and this would prove priceless in later expeditions. When his brother died, he left his infant son, Amyntas as the heir to the throne. Philip was, therefore, made regent, and had control of Macedon. He succeeded to the throne in 359 BC in the traditional Macedonian custom -- a round of family assassinations. Macedon, at the time of Philips ascension to the throne, was not a very highly regarded northern state whose power depended upon a warrior aristocracy. The kingship rested more on personal ascendancy then institutions. Philip disposed of the young heir and immediately began implementing his plans to unite Macedon, and control the Greek world. One of Philips first and most notable achievements was the creation of the Nat ional Army. He had learned the military tactics used in the Greek army and structured his army on the model of the Theban phalanx. However, Philip only based his army on the Greek model. He made sure that the MacedonianShow MoreRelatedAlexander the Great is known as one of the most significant and most influential historical figures1000 Words   |  4 Pagesaccomplished so much, in only approximately 32 years. Alexander II of Macedon was born on the sixth day of the ancient Greek month â€Å"Hekatombaion, which corresponds to approximately July 20th 356 BC, the exact date is not known for sure. He was born in Pella, the capital of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. Alexander was the son of Phillip II the king of Macedon at the time, his mother was Phillip II’s fourth wife, Olympias. Phillip II did have seven or eight wives; Olympias was known to be the oneRead MoreAlexander The Great Impact On History783 Words   |  4 Pages Through 336 to 323 bc, Alexander was the king of Macedon. Alexander The Great always wanted to have supreme power over humans. He also led a group called the Corinthian League. This league entrusted Alexander with many military power to fight with Persia. A little while after, he proceeded to conquer the Persian Empire, making himself one of the best military leaders in ancient time. In October, 335 bc, Alexander decided to go back to Macedon and get ready for his expedition in Asia. He had numerousRead MoreAlexander the Great Essay1358 Words   |  6 Pagesway in the Greek society in the fourth century B.C? This statue is of a man named Alexander III of Macedon or more commonly known as, Alexander the Great. His father, King Phillip II, took the throne of Macedonia in 359 B.C.E and was able to turn Macedonia into the strongest military power in the entire Greek world. Macedonia was a state in the north eastern region of Greece. Alexander III of Macedon was born in 356 B.C.E in Pe lla; the ancient capital of Macedonia, Alexander grew up in the shadowRead MoreAlexander The Great : Why Is Alexander Considered Great?1669 Words   |  7 PagesALEXANDER THE GREAT Why is alexander considered great? Alexander III of Macedon or commonly known as Alexander the Great was the conqueror and king of the Persian Empire which is the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon. He was born on the 20/21st July 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia. While in reign from 336 to 323 B.C, he united the Greek city-states and led the Corinthian League. He also became the king of Persia, Babylon and Asia as well as created Macedonian colonies in the regionRead MoreSources Of Information About Alexander The Great1599 Words   |  7 PagesAlexander the great 1. Evaluate the ancient writers as sources of information about alexander the great Alexander the Great was born in the Pella region of Macedonia on July 20, 356 B.C., to parents King Philip of Macedon and Queen Olympia. Alexander the great served as the king of Macedonia from 336 to 323 BC. During his time leadership he united Greece reestablished the Corinthian league and conquered the Persian Empire, alexander was known as a conqueror during his time at the helm. He also becameRead MoreA Report On Alexander The Great Essay1269 Words   |  6 Pagesall time and an inspiration to many. Historians are finding amazing new things about Alexander to this day that continue to amaze everyone and add to his greatness. Sukh Singh Period 2 December 4, 2014 Alexander the Great Alexander III of Macedon, commonly called Alexander the Great, was one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. He was conqueror and king of Macedonia, Persia, Babylon, and, Asia. Alexander was born around July 30th, 356 B.C. and virtually conquered the world beforeRead MoreWhat Made Alexander of Macedon Known as Alexander the Great?1114 Words   |  5 PagesWhy Alexander of Macedon is called â€Å"Alexander the great† and most successfully man in conquering the world known kingdoms? The answer is easy forward. Even though today after twenty-three centuries no man has accomplished like Alexander did. Alexander the Great, the king of Macedonia is one of the greatest military Intelligence of all times. Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia. He was son of Philip, King of Macedonia, and Olympias, the princess of neighboring EpirusRead MoreAlexander IIi Of Macedonia Truly Worthy Of The Title Essay953 Words   |  4 Pagesto power followin g the death of his father, Phillip II, his kingdom of Macedonia encompassed all of the land that we know as modern Greece. For Alexander this was not enough. Phillip II is believed to have prophesized s his son’s ambitions with the words, â€Å"My son you must find a kingdom big enough for your ambition. Macedon is too small for you.† after Alexander tamed his wild buck Bucephalas at age 10. Born around July 20th, 356 BC to King Phillip II and one of his favorite wives, Olympias, AlexanderRead MoreAlexander the Great: What Made Him So Great638 Words   |  3 Pagesprepared, taught by great military minds he was able to create one of the largest empires of the ancient world. Phillip II, Alexander’s father had developed the Macedonian phalanx, evolving it from the hoplite phalanx. It was an 8 to 36 men deep rectangular mass formation made for heavy infantry soldiers. The simple Greek formation had been made more adaptable by Phillip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great. The primary unit of Alexander’s phalanx was the syntagma that was usually 16 men deepRead MoreAnalysis Of Alexander IIi The Great King Of Macedonia And Conqueror Of The Persian Empire1584 Words   |  7 Pagestried to tame it had their flesh â€Å"devoured†. When he was 13, his father Philip hired philosopher Aristotle to be his teacher. For three years Alexander learned about science, medicine, and philosophy. In 340 BC, when Alexander was only 16 years old, Phillip invaded Trace and left Alexander in charge of Macedonia. While he was in power a Thracian tribe posed a threat, and Alexander constructed an army and lead them against the rebels. Not only were the Th racian rebels defeated, but also Alexander captured