A Study on the Conservation Mechanism of Antiquities of the Indigenous People of Taiwan
碩士 === 國立臺北藝術大學 === 建築與文化資產研究所 === 100 === The second amendment of the Cultural Heritage Conservation Law was made in 2005, which brings fresh ideas and broadens the scope of the cultural heritage conservation, especially to the Indigenous cultural heritage. The research would focus on the antiquiti...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | zh-TW |
| Published: |
2012
|
| Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/39q3f5 |
| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北藝術大學 === 建築與文化資產研究所 === 100 === The second amendment of the Cultural Heritage Conservation Law was made in 2005, which brings fresh ideas and broadens the scope of the cultural heritage conservation, especially to the Indigenous cultural heritage. The research would focus on the antiquities of the Indigenous in Taiwan.
Only forty-three out of more than four hundred antiquities was appointed and included since 2005. The research analyzes the factors which influence the conservation from the property of the Indigenous antiquities and the content and practice of the Cultural Heritage Conservation Law. The author takes the forty-three Indigenous antiquities in the inclusion list for example to examine the evaluation and practice of the appointment and inclusion of the Indigenous antiquities. In addition, the author analyses and discusses the following work and the contemporary conservation of the “ carved house post with ancestral motif of Taromak Style ”, “ carved central post of Zingrur’s house of Kapian Tribe of Paiwan group ” and “ Amis carved pillar of Kakitaan ancestor house of Tafalong Tribe ” in order to find out the reasons why the inclusion of Indigenous antiquities was ineffective.
The conclusion can be divided into four points:
1.The factors which affected the inclusion of the Indigenous antiquities could be traced from the cultural heritage conservation during the Japanese Rule.
2.The conservation could only start and the reasons why the inclusion was ineffective could be discovered until the uniqueness of the Indigenous antiquities was understood.
3.It is not the law but the people who report and practice the Cultural Heritage Conservation Law influence the inclusion of the Indigenous antiquities.
4.The combination of the “material” and “people” assigns cultural meaning and value to the conservation of Indigenous antiquities.
|
|---|