| 摘要: |
| 2008年国际古迹遗址理事会发布
了《文化线路宪章》，2013年欧洲文化线路
委员会发布了《“欧洲文化线路”授予条件
修订》，2013年世界遗产委员会修订了新的
《实施<世界遗产公约>操作指南》。作为研
究“文化线路”的主要三大国际机构，在各
自发布的文件中对文化线路这一类型遗产的
“术语”和相关描述存在一定差异。对上述
机构的发布的最新文件提取关键词和核心
思想，通过比较研究，指出，ICOMOS和世
界遗产委员会的定义，是以文化线路自身的
“遗产属性”为出发点，进而详细界定文化
线路的各项本质特性；而欧洲文化线路委员
会则在近30年的研究与实践之后，逐渐重视
遗产保护与社会发展的关系，其定义以文化
线路的“社会属性”为出发点，强调文化线
路对欧洲当代社会发展的意义。充分辨析、
比较三者的核心理念，有助于深化对文化线
路概念和意义的理解。 |
| 关键词: 文化线路 国际古迹遗址理事会 欧洲文化线路委员会 世界遗产委员会，概
念比较 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20150209 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家自然基金资助项目（51178479；51108476） |
|
| Comparisons on the Concept of Cultural Routes—The Different Ideas Among UNESCO World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS and European Institute of Cultural Routes |
|
GUO Xuan,YANG Haoxiang
|
| Abstract: |
| ICOMOS released The ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes in 2008, and the
European Institute of Cultural Routes released the Rules for the Award of the “Cultural
Route of the Council of Europe” Certification Revised in 2013, and UNESCO World
Heritage Committee released the latest Operational Guidelines in 2013. As the three
main institutions in research of Cultural routes, they have their own concept of Cultural
Routes, which is different from each other in the way of naming and describing the
“Cultural Route”. With comparisons towards their main documents, it can be found that
ICOMOS and UNESCO World Heritage Centre emphasize the “heritage attribute” of
Cultural Routes, however, the European Institute of Cultural Routes gives more sight on
the “society attribute”, which reflects their experience along 30 years’ practices in research
and conservation of Cultural Routes. Bounding the three concepts together and enhancing
the understanding of Cultural Routes are important to the protection and conservation in
China. |
| Key words: Cultural Routes ICOMOS European Institute of Cultural Routes UNESCO World
Heritage Committee Comparisons of Concepts |
