The Article One Lie and Intangible Heritage

.
I was doing some reading today connected with a translation I am doing with regard to Poland becoming last month a state party to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Gripping stuff). I was reminded of what I call the 'Article one lie' whereby the no-questions-asked mob attempt to convince collectors that those dastardly "radical archaeologists' want to stop them collecting anything at all - just look what it says in article 1 they say - "POSTAGE STAMPS and everyfink". What they do not admit is that article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention defines what types of thing might come under it (and not what invariably do). So it for example excludes intangible cultural heritage which now has a convention of its own. Its Article 2 is worth comparing with the Article 1 of the 1970 one. This shows even more clearly the utter deceit of the Article One Lie used to defend no-questions-asked dealings in tangible cultural property.

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.

So basically not all contemporary sagger makers' bottom knockers' tools, or knowledge of the correct construction of the lower part of saggers are part of this heritage, but they could be. Likewise not all nineteenth century stamp collections are protected cultural heritage, but should a nation so decide to make certain examples protected by law, there is allowance for that to occur in the 1970 Convention.

[And I challenge any of those US ancient-coiney numbskulls who claim that unprovenanced (heap on a table) numismatic material can 'tell us about the past' to show us even one scrap of information from numismatic sources alone about the noble and necessary art of sagger making and the place of bottom knocking in the process. Do they get many saggers depicted on their coins?]