Next Article in Journal
How Energy Maintains Social Sustainability of Teachers’ Learning Communities: New Insights from a Blended Professional Learning Network
Previous Article in Journal
State Estimators in Soft Sensing and Sensor Fusion for Sustainable Manufacturing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Value from Development-Led Archaeology in the UK: Advancing the Narrative to Reflect Societal Changes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/su14063633
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Critical Review of Pakistani Current Legislation on Sustainable Protection of Cultural Heritage

by
Nisar Ali Khan
1,2,*,
Camillo Nuti
1,
Giorgio Monti
3,4 and
Mario Micheli
5
1
Department of Architecture, University Roma Tre, Largo Giovanni Battista Marzi, 10, 00153 Roma, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, International Islamic University, Sector H-10, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
3
College of Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China
4
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Via A. Gramsci 53, 00197 Roma, Italy
5
Department of Humanities, University Roma Tre, Via Ostiense, 234, 00146 Roma, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3633; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063633
Submission received: 8 February 2022 / Revised: 16 March 2022 / Accepted: 17 March 2022 / Published: 19 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Social Dimension of Heritage Values—Re-thinking Methodological Approaches for Heritage Management and Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper discusses the contribution of individuals and their effects on the protection and management of archaeological sites found in the British colonies at the beginning of the 19th Century. Despite all these contributions, the most important bequest is the formation of comprehensive legislation on cultural properties that are still applicable and considered essential to the historic, standing, or ruined, monuments located in Pakistan. It should be noted that Pakistan’s heritage laws are uniformly applicable to all kinds of architectural heritage, archaeological sites, and monuments, irrespective of their nature, state, and classification. This contrasts with the lack of updates and amendments of rules and guidelines for the preservation of heritage sites and monuments across the country from further damages. The paper focuses on the current architectural and heritage management rules and policies of Pakistan, which are based on the British colonial legacy with some (partial) changes introduced since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. Finally, the paper emphasizes the need for the development of advanced management policies and proposed heritage management rules for the preservation of heritage constructions, archaeological sites, and architectural monuments to establish the link between the present and past to remain for future generations.

1. Introduction

Historical Background of the Archaeological Conservation in Central Asia

Improving archaeology policies means fostering search and exploration of ancient sites, promoting protection and preservation actions of architectural remains, and management of cultural heritage. In South Asia, these policies improvements developed in the early 19th Century in the British colonies, shown in Figure 1, i.e., present Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka [1,2]. One of the basic and most significant contributions is the protection of monuments, irrespective of their religious or historical significance. Moreover, the British colonial legacy in the above-mentioned South Asian countries is noticeable in the form of exploration of extensive archaeological sites, preservation of countless monuments, and establishment of museums [3]. Formal recognition of such policies are presented by Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810, according to which, if any public structure is misused by private individuals, the government has its full right to interfere, even though no specific details about the measures to undertake were given [4].
The East India Company decided in the year 1844 to gather detailed information about nature and the existing state of monuments, planning to collect useful information about each temple and building to make an initial report that could be used further for protection and rehabilitation. However, the monuments located in present-day Pakistan were not included in the work undertaken. In 1855, some monuments were repaired including Shah Jhan Mosque and some tombs on Makli Hill, Thatta (Sindh). In 1862, prior to the appointment of Major General Sir Alexander Cunningham as Director-General of Archaeology, repair, and maintenance of ancient buildings were not covered in the financing plan. Sir Cunningham was a civil engineer who had a great interest in the preservation of monuments. Thus, he started a survey to accelerate the recording and documenting of archaeological, historical, and architectural data. Even though there were no specific rules, policies, and schemes mentioned in the archaeological survey, the survey revealed the importance of architectural heritage and monument wealth to the British government [4]. In circular No. 9 of the central government of P.W.D. (Public Work Department) dated 13 February 1873, the provincial (local) governments were given the responsibility to protect all buildings and ancient monuments of architectural and historical interest [4]. An Act was passed in 1878 to protect the sites from damages, which has never been edited or revoked. Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, soon realized the dangers of handing over the responsibility of monuments preservation to the local government and raised such issue to the central government, underlining that it could not be expected from local Lieutenant Governors to combine aesthetic culture with administration energy and that he could not consider any claims more essential and imperial than this [4].
In 1881 Major H.H. Cole was appointed as a member of the Ancient Monuments of India to compile detailed and well-classified lists of monuments in each province. He was assigned to group the monuments according to their status: those to be kept in good permanent condition, those that could be saved from further degradation, and those inevitably ruined [4,5]. These monuments were later divided into three comprehensive groups I, II, and III, which were the foundation of the classification reported in the Conservation Manual (1923) by Sir John Marshall. The initial report of Sir Cole on the conservation of monuments was printed by the Indian government (Simla–Calcutta 1881–1885). He arranged essential reports in 22 parts and took interest by himself in supervising the conservation and protection of ancient monuments.
After Cole’s tenure in 1883, the task of the preservation and maintenance of monuments returned again to the local government.
In 1899 according to an approved scheme, British India was split into five archaeological circles, which included Sindh, Balochistan, and Punjab (the present part of Pakistan). According to such a scheme, the new Director Generals were supposed to take care of the ancient monuments, their maintenance, rehabilitation, and preservation, when and where required [6]. According to the new government policy, the most important duty of the central government was towards the conservation of ancient monuments [6]. Lord Curzon, appointed as Viceroy in 1899, brought significant changes in the history of archaeological survey. His interest yielded important changes in the rules, regulations, and management policy regarding the preservation and maintenance of monuments. Before the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, in February 1899, he clearly defined his objectives about working research, improvements of archaeology, and protection of monuments [5]. It goes also to the credit of Lord Curzon to pass the ancient monuments preservation Act in 1904. His firm support laid a foundation for the development of the management and preservation policy of architectural heritage [5,6,7,8,9].
The following positive development in the archaeological history of South Asia was the nomination of Sir John Marshal as Chief General of the archaeological review of British India. His contribution towards the establishment of museums, publications, preservation of monuments, excavations was outstanding and supreme in the history of the archaeology of South Asia. The conservation rules and procedures set by Sir John Marshal and his approach towards the real world’s problems are still a source of inspiration today. His two books, “Conservation Manual 1923” and “Archaeological works code 1938”, describe all significant features of archaeological preservation and heritage management [10,11]. It is worth mentioning that Marshal’s principles of conservation were adopted and practiced by the Athens Charter of 1932 and Venice Charter of 1964 [7].

2. Pakistan’s Heritage Management

2.1. Heritage Management Pre and Post-Independence of Pakistan

Before the creation of Pakistan in 1947, South Asia was separated into diverse archaeological circles and Pakistan adopted this organizational structure for the management of cultural heritage. West and East Pakistan’s circles were the successor of colonial frontier and eastern circles, respectively, whereas two more circles known as Northern circles with their head offices were located at Lahore and Agra for the management of Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and British monuments. Later on, in 1928 and 1931, these central stations were moved to the former frontier circle and in 1946 the administration of those monuments within the Sindh Province was also shifted to the Frontier circle. Figure 2 shows the control of the British Empire on the Indian subcontinents and illustrates a clear understanding of the organizational structure for the management of cultural heritage before 1947 i.e., pre-partition. After the partition and independence of Pakistan, as shown in Figure 3, this circle was re-organized and renamed West Pakistan, and all monuments found therein were set beneath its jurisdiction [3,12].
The partition map shown in Figure 3, illustrates the two parts of Pakistan, West, and East, separated from each other with India in the center. Since the unfavorable geographical position of East Pakistan to be a part of Pakistan, yielded independence of Bangladesh in 1971, formerly known as East Pakistan, hence, Pakistan was only left with Western Circle. The country was at that point re-organized into Northern circle and Southern circle of archaeology, which favored the efficiency of the Federal Archaeological Department, especially in the field of conservation.
For advance productivity, the Northern circle of archaeology was subdivided into four territorial workplaces at Multan, Taxila, Gilgit, and Peshawar, while the Southern circle of archaeology was subdivided into two territorial workplaces in Quetta and Hyderabad. Yet, regardless of all the division and production of territorial offices, their policy was heavily influenced by the Director-General of Archaeology and Museums, whose office was in Karachi till 1998 and afterward moved to Islamabad. In 2011 an unexpected change occurred in the archaeology history of Pakistan, since the time of Sir John Marshal and Sir Alexander Cunningham: control of the 402 registered protected sites and monuments was physically handed over from the federal government to the respective provinces of Pakistan. Each province such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan established their departments of archaeology, where the provincial laws gradually adopted, with some changes, the Antiquities Act 1975 on their list of monuments and sites [3,15,16,17]. Figure 4 illustrates the territorial overview of Pakistan and its neighboring countries.

2.2. Laws of Heritage in Pakistan

As specified above, Pakistan implemented a long tradition/practice of heritage preservation from the British colonial government. The previous legacy enactment, the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (AMP Act, 1904), was a document resulting from the experience gained in the fields of archaeological survey, conservation, and protection of monuments. According to this Act, all kinds of monuments should be preserved, irrespective of their cultural and religious values [12,15,18].
At Independence, Pakistan adopted the AMP Act 1904 for the preservation and management of monuments and archaeological sites. In 1968, when the Antiquities Act was subjected to minor modifications and changes, a counseling board was formed to advise on all legacy issues and re-defined as “antiquity” all monuments dating earlier than May 1857. It also gave the authority to the federal government’s Department of Archaeology to take the guardianship of monuments in case their security is in threat or if they are on sale or in the absence of their owner. The AMP Act’s twofold “ancient monuments” and “antiquity” were replaced by “moveable” and “immovable” antiquities, with almost complete definitions [15].
The current Antiquities Act, passed in 1975 and later amended in 1990, redefined the ancient objects as older than 75 years. It prohibited new construction or excavation around protected monuments within a distance of 200 feet [3]. More regional under practice laws in different provinces include the national fund for Cultural Heritage Act (1994), which allow budgetary and scientific support for the protection and conservation projects, Karachi Building & Town Planning Regulations (2002), Punjab Heritage Foundation Act (2005), and Lahore Walled City Act (2012) [19].
Prior to the devolution of the Federal Archaeology Department into the provincial level (18th Constitutional Amendment, 2011), in the province of Punjab, the Punjab Special Premises Act (1985), the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act (1994), and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Antiquities ordinance (1997) were passed and under practice in the respective provinces [19]. Moreover, after the 18th Constitutional Amendment (2011), another major development was the act passed by the Balochistan assembly in 2014. The Antiquities Act (2014) is the first provincial act for Balochistan since the independence of Pakistan [20]. Finally, KPK passed a further Antiquities Act (2016) with minor changes with respect to the Antiquities Act of 1975 regarding penalties and defining the threshold of 100 years period to be considered as “antiquity” [19]. These provincial laws are based on the Antiquities Act of 1975 (amended in 1990), with some changes that are uniformly applicable on archaeological sites, architectural heritage, and monuments, irrespective of their nature, state, and classification [3,19,20,21]. Figure 5 shows the present map of Pakistan with the territories of its provinces with their administrative capitals whereas Table 1 illustrates the major heritage legislations of Pakistan on the national and provincial level since independence, 1947 till the current practice.

3. Institutional and Organizational Situation in Pakistan

The major improvement in 2011 was the shifting of power from the national to the provincial level. The Federal Department of Archaeology of Pakistan devolved responsibilities onto the provincials’ department, which is considered as the foremost development in the history of archaeology. 402 protected and world heritage sites under the federal government were handed over to their respective provinces, along with their staff and financial resources. As a result of these institutional reforms, the provincial governments gained more power than before. Notwithstanding, Balochistan was considered under the federal government with most of its movable antiquities protected within the Karachi Museum [3,19,20,22]. Currently, Balochistan has also established its department for archaeology and museum under the provincial government. Detail of the current archaeology departments on the national and provincial level, their goals and objectives of the departments are described in the following subsections.

3.1. Federal Department of Archaeology and Museum

In pursuance of the 18th Constitutional Amendment, rules of business, 1973 were accordingly amended and the functions/entities of the defunct Ministry of Culture were transferred to provincial governments. However, some of the organizations/functions were retained at the federal level and transferred to Cabinet Division, Inter-Provincial Coordination Division, Economic Affairs Division, Planning, and Development Division, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These functions were later assigned to the newly created Ministry of National Heritage & Integration on 26 October 2011, which was amalgamated with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 7 June 2013. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and National Heritage was bifurcated into two separate Divisions, i.e., National History and Literary Heritage (NH & LH) Division and Information & Broadcasting on 5 January 2016. The NH&LH Division was placed under the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training on 19 August 2019, which was further renamed as National Heritage and Culture Division on 10 April 2020.
The National Heritage and Culture Division has been assigned different functions and divided into different departments on the federal level, including one of them is the Department of Archaeology and Museum. The Department of Archaeology and Museum is solely responsible for the architectural monuments, museums, and archaeological sites in the capital territory of Pakistan i.e., Islamabad.

3.2. Directorate of Archaeology and Museum, Balochistan

In 2014, the Balochistan assembly passed an act that is considered significant progress after the 18th constitutional amendment (2011). The Antiquities Act (2014) is also the first provincial act for Balochistan. Before 2014 Balochistan was considered under the federal government but now as per the new Antiquities Act (2014), Balochistan has established a department “Directorate of Archaeology and Museum” on a provincial level under the provincial Ministry for Sports, Youth Affairs, Culture, Tourism, and Archive. Since the department is newly established and it is still under developing stage, however, it is responsible for archaeological survey and excavations, preservation of antiquities, and establishment of site museum in the province of Balochistan [20].

3.3. Directorate of Archaeology and Museum, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)

The Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has been functioning at the provincial level since 1 July 1992 for the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of the province. After the devolution of the Federal Archaeology Department in 2011, the Directorate of Archaeology and Museum Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is responsible for all architectural monuments, archaeological sites, and museums within the province. The key objectives of the department are; exploration and excavation of archaeological sites, conservation of historical monuments, maintenance of existing and establishment of new museums within the province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

3.4. Directorate General of Antiquities and Tourism Department of Punjab

Directorate General of Archaeology Punjab was established in 1987. Initially, an attached department of Information, Culture, and Youth Affairs Department and since October 2011, attached with the newly created Youth Affairs, Sports, Archaeology & Tourism Department. Before devolution in 2011 the Directorate General of Archaeology, Punjab was responsible for the 261 protected monuments under the “Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance 1985”. After the 18th Amendment, 149 monuments/sites were transferred from the federal government to the government of Punjab. The Directorate headquarter is in Lahore, with its sub-regional offices in Taxila, Jhelum, Multan, and Bahawalpur. The following key objectives of the department are; archaeological survey and excavations, preservation of antiquities, and establishment of site museum in the province of Punjab.

3.5. Directorate General of Archaeology and Archaeology Department of Sindh

The built heritage of all the provinces including Sindh remained under the care of the Federal Department of Archaeology and Museums, until 2011. Thus, after the devolution of the Federal Department of Archaeology to the provincial level, the Department of Antiquities was created to look after the archaeological, historical, and physical heritage of the Sindh province. The department has three wings these are heritage, conservation, and archaeology. The head office is situated in Karachi, with sub-offices in Thatta, Shikarpur, Jamshoro, Hyderabad, and Sukkur.

3.6. Department of Tourism, Sports, Culture, Archaeology and Museums of Gilgit Baltistan

The Department of Tourism, Sports, Culture, Archaeology and Museums of Gilgit Baltistan is responsible to look after the archaeological sites, architectural monuments, and museums located in the Gilgit Baltistan region. The core objective of the department is the maintenance of existing and establishment of new museums, preservation, and excavation of archaeological sites within Gilgit Baltistan. The aforementioned departments are summarized in Table 2.

4. Current and Possible Conservation Principles for Built Heritage in Pakistan

Permanent maintenance of conservation of monuments is essential for conservation of monuments [23,24,25,26]. The territory of Pakistan has a very rich history of many civilizations; therefore, it has six sites already on the list of world heritage and 18 are in the tentative list of awaiting to fulfill the pre-requisites formalities for inscribing in the list of world heritage. After the independence in 1947, Pakistan adopted the Indian-British procedure for conservation rules set by Sir John Marshal in the Conservation manual and Archeological work code. Currently, there are two main legislations in the country for the conservation of built heritage;
  • Antiquities Act 1975
  • The Punjab Special Premises Ordinance, 1985
The antiquities Act explained in detail the preservation, repairing, protection, renovation, damage, and destruction measures of the built heritage but the implementation in its true spirit is still uncertain. Lacking knowledge of people, insufficient fund, and lack of proper administrative facilities are the key causes for not updating the principles of conservation of the built heritage of Pakistan. The legislation does not allow any responsibilities on the people concerning the conservation of heritage and puts the responsibility solely on the government’s shoulder, which is also very important to update and consider. This is possible when the research institutes and International NGOs could be involved so that they could launch training programs to aware people of their responsibilities in the conservation of built heritage with the present-day challenges [27]. The documents about the past interventions of conservation on monuments are also insufficient for future references. Whereas on the other hand, the other South Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, China, Thailand had impressively improved their conservation principles and procedures matching international standards of heritage conservation. For example, the ICOMOS China conservation principles [28] could be the best possible source of inspiration for other South Asian countries on common issues. More than 300,000 sites in China are registered for conservation, among which 1268 are stated as “national priority protected sites” [28]. This is the highest level of conservation practice adopted by any South Asian country in recent years [3,15]. These documents, generally called “China Conservation Principles” are based on the local conditions and procedures for the conservation of heritage. The “China Conservation Principles” are the result of ICOMOS charters such as [23,24,25,26], and other documents focused on research, methodology of conservation, documentation, and exploration by surveys [3]. It highlights the selection of sites, their states of protection, cultural values, and their management. The following four pre-requisites are precisely mentioned for exploration and conservation of heritage sites:
  • Marking of boundaries and protected zones of sites
  • Information regarding the protected sites
  • A designated institution for management and maintenance of protected sites
  • Formation and maintenance records of the protected sites
The documents contain detailed explanations and interpretations on numerous problems such as maintenance of records for reference, methodology for conservation, provision of the master plan for conservation, maintenance and protection of sites, strengthening, restoration, relocation, and reconstruction of sites. Therefore, disregarding the difference between Chinese cultural and architectural monuments, the principles of conservation on common issues could be the best source for developing and updating the conservation principles for the built heritage of Pakistan.

Risk Management for Built Heritage of Pakistan

The risk management, protection of cultural heritage from unpredictable climate changes is still far from being fully developed and remains a challenging effort not only for developing countries like Pakistan but also for advanced countries [29,30,31,32]. Heritage sites and monuments are exposed to natural disasters, such as rain and storms, excessive growth of vegetation, fire, flooding, climate fluctuation, droughts, and earthquakes. These natural hazards can partially or completely damage the monuments. Due to flooding and excessive runoff of water, the water table rise which causes the changes of soil chemistry, hence, high possibilities of loss of stratigraphic integrity due to cracking produced by the changes in sediment moisture. Moreover, physical changes may also occur to porous building materials such as stone, brick, and mortar, due to the rising of dampness [33,34,35]. An example of the damage due to the dampness of the oldest Mughal monuments in the country is “Kamran’s Baradari” and endangers of Asif Khan’s, Jahangir’s, and Noor Jehan’s mausoleums [27]. Additionally, an unforgivable lack of risk management is observed in 1994 at the world heritage site of Mahenjo Daro. While the global mission for the protection of the site was in progress, on one rainy day the unearthed streets and houses were filled up to 1.2 m (4 feet), which caused further deterioration of burnt bricks, already affected by salinity and salts [3,16]. Since, heavy rain and storm create dampness in the structures that badly affects the strength and appearance of structural materials and components, while on the other hand during the monsoon season, the tall grass grows quickly and completely covers the excavated remains at Taxila archaeological site [3]. Excessive growth of vegetation on the site and monuments across the country could badly affect not only the foundation but the entire structure. Moreover, thermal variation due to climate fluctuation causes freeze-thaw action in the structural materials which cause the deterioration of them [36,37]. The hazardous impact of droughts, heavy rain, and flooding to the risk-prone area could be minimized by developing risk maps in terms of the proper and accurate selection of climate variables i.e., temperature variations, cumulative precipitation, and climate-extreme indices [35,38,39]. Seismic action such as earthquakes could be the most dangerous for the built heritage and it is still a constant threat for existing monuments located in the seismic prone region. The past earthquake history shows disastrous effects on cultural heritage across the globe that warn the scientific community to timely develop proper seismic risk mitigation strategies for the protection of built heritage that are prone to seismic events [40,41,42]. Since the protection approaches of cultural heritage from natural and human-made are different, however, the importance of knowledge regarding risk management policies for built heritage is underestimated [29,31]. Unfortunately, there are no proper risk management rules and regulations available to protect the built heritage from such natural hazards [32,43,44,45]. It is important to consider the effects of climate change on the built cultural heritage of the country for long-term heritage management policies. These long-term policies must be based on regular monitoring, risk assessment, and regular updating of measures for the protection of historical buildings across the country. Therefore, it is essential to take proper measures to mitigate the hazardous effects of such risks to the sites.

5. Drawbacks in the Current Heritage Legislation of Pakistan

Notwithstanding the many remarkable advancements in the legislation of Pakistan, there are still some drawbacks that are in need of further improvements:
  • The list of unprotected heritage sites and monuments is much larger than the protected heritage sites. The current Antiquities Act needs modification and improvement by the concerned provincial departments for nature, culture, and state of heritage.
  • There are no separate and specific laws for national and world heritage sites.
  • The heritage law of Pakistan is uniformly applicable to all classifications of monuments, regardless of their nature, state, and cultural values, which is an approach that needs amendments.
  • The Antiquities Act 1975 needs amendments regarding strict rules and actions against illegal constructions, excavations, illegal encroachments around protected monuments, especially in urban areas, which worsen day by day.
  • The conservation rules set by sir John Marshal need to be updated for present-day challenges such as mass gathering at the archaeological sites, new construction nearby archaeological sites, etc.
  • Lack of risk management against natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, rain and storm, fire, and excessive vegetation is still observed, therefore, it is essential to prepare proper risk management rules and measures to mitigate the hazardous effects of natural disasters to the sites.

6. Proposals for Heritage Management of Pakistan Considering the Current Legislation

Based on the current legislation in Pakistan and considering the drawbacks presented in the previous section, some actions can be proposed in view of improving the country’s cultural attitude towards the protection of its heritage:

6.1. Recognizing Social Dimension of Heritage Values

Historical sites across the country, being physical testimony of memories, are naturally endowed with cultural values, which at the same time carry meaningful social values, such as preserving knowledge, maintaining spiritual continuity, and enduring community coherence. According to some recent research, such as [46,47,48], the very existance of a historic site may generate strong emotions. Moreover, the significance of social values in heritage site management has been the object of attention [49,50,51]. Since the social value of heritage is far from being fully developed [48,52], in order to define “best practices” of heritage management in the country, it is necessary that the legislation recognizes both cultural and social values of historical sites. Social and cultural values of the built heritage of Pakistan could be recognized by taking inspiration from the latest research in the literature and international practices for the conservation of heritage sites.

6.2. Proposal for the Federal Department of Archaeology and Museum

Strengthening the economic affairs and the promotion of special studies and research on various aspects of archaeology. Conservation, strengthening, and restoration of architectural heritage need a multidisciplinary approach. The neighboring countries of Pakistan such as China and India and other South Asian countries such as Thailand and Sri Lanka have remarkably upgraded their conservation principles that match the international standards. Therefore, Pakistan should also adopt such practice to revise the long tradition/practice of heritage preservation from the British colonial government by engaging international organizations such as ICCROM, ICOMOS, their affiliated organizations, and many other International NGOs concerning the subject. Organizing courses and training for the staff both on federal and provincial levels would not only be beneficial for those who are responsible for archaeology and museums and associated with the cultural heritage departments, but it would be equally beneficial for the people’s awareness about their responsibilities and in strengthening the social dimension of heritage values in the conservation of monuments [53]. For example, the training programs and courses offered by ICCROM for conservation and cultural heritage management are the best possible useful sources to update the principles of the conservation for the cultural heritage of Pakistan. Collaborative research projects on various aspects of archaeology between national and international research institutes could play a vital role in the development of museums, also including archaeology as the course of study in the curriculum of the national educational institutes. Developing separate organizations at the provincial level, with technical experts who could prepare strict laws concerning the nature, state, and classification of the heritage sites and monuments. Poor coordination between the federal and provincial departments is observed, therefore, a national level advisory board of experts members is important to form who could oversee the progress of federal and provincial departments of archaeology and museums. The advisory board would also be responsible for timely updating the legislations and heritage management rules for the built heritage of Pakistan. The protection of archaeological heritage should be incorporated into planning policies on the national level. Strong coordination between all departments either national or provincial is the dire need of the day for efficient and effective heritage management of Pakistan.

6.3. Proposal for the Provincial Department of Archaeology and Museum

All the articles regarding conservation, restoration, and excavation of the Venice charter (1964), Amsterdam Declaration (1975), Washington Charter (1987), Cracow Charter (2000) should be adopted so that the current legislation on the heritage sites of Pakistan could be updated. Strict policies regarding the encroachment and protection of archaeological heritage should be developed for current and vicinity challenges. Lack of policies for the protection of cultural heritage, for example, Sindh festival 2014 (two weeks), an opening ceremony was planned at the sixth UN World Heritage site of Pakistan i.e., Mohenjo-Daro, which is considered one of the largest settlements of Ancient Indus Valley Civilization built around 2500 BCE. The huge mass gathering, laser, and spotlights arranged for the festival could have caused rapid decay at the site. Although this kind of activity is banned under the Antiquity Act nevertheless this shows the lack of following the policies by concerned departments to protect the cultural heritage sites of Pakistan. Therefore, strict policies to avoid mass gatherings at archaeological sites for political, traditional, and cultural events should be implemented. Moreover, lack of implementation of the land use for new construction nearby the built heritage is observed whereas on the other hand the rapid growth of population and increasing rate of new construction, due to which monuments vicinity is congesting day by day. Therefore, to avoid such an important problem, the protection of archaeological heritage should be included in policies related to land use, development, planning, and education. They should be regularly updated so that they can keep up with the latest developments in archaeology.

6.4. Proposal for the Media, Civil Societies and People

The tangible and intangible cultural heritage become old over time, therefore, it is media that preserve the relevant information and their importance for the next generations [54]. The need and significance of paying consideration to the participatory strategy in cultural heritage management are advanced in the last decades. In the present day, electronic and social media could create dominant community-based platforms that might be utilized for the conservation of cultural heritage management and offer a diverse and socio-economic environment. The theme of community participation in cultural heritage management is based on the degree of participation, engagement of communities, and methods of participation. Therefore, the significance of the support of an assortment of participants in the preservation, identification, and protection of cultural heritage could be achieved by the comprehensive usage of the internet i.e., social media [55,56,57]. Since, media, civil societies, and people are vital in highlighting and providing arrangements for the protection of archaeological sites. Local participation should be encouraged to promote and properly ensure the maintenance of archaeological sites. The value and authenticity of architectural heritage should always be preserved as a testimony capable of eliciting memories about the cultural context to which it belongs. This could be possible when electronic and social media will highlight the importance of heritage management of Pakistan and will urge the people to actively contribute to its advancement.

7. Conclusions

Historic monuments, either standing or in the form of ruins, are found all over Pakistan. They span through diverse periods of Pakistani history and are testimonies of different civilizations and cultural values that are nowadays part of the legacy of modern Pakistan. Pakistan has numerous archaeological destinations, the most famous being the Hindu sanctuaries in Tharparkar (Sindh) and Punjab, the Sultanate period landmarks in Makli Tombs, Thatta, in Multan, and Uch Sharif, the Mughal landmarks in Thatta, Multan, Lahore, the leftovers of Mahergarh in Balochistan (dating back to 5000 BCE), the Indus Valley Civilization (3300 BCE) including Mohenjo-Daro (Sindh) and Harappa (Punjab), the Buddhist Civilization (6th century BCE) including Taxila (Punjab) and Takht-e-Bahi Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). The old Silk Road (Eurasian trade route dating around 114 BCE–1450s CE). Pakistan’s heritage laws are uniformly applicable to all kinds of architectural heritage, archaeological sites, and monuments, irrespective of their nature, state, and classification. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of rules and guidelines for the preservation of heritage sites and monuments from further degradation caused by natural hazards.
There are also thousands of other archaeological sites, heritages, and monuments that still need to be protected. Therefore, keeping in view the current legislation in the country, the following conclusions are drawn:
  • Following the China conservation principles, the Venice charter of 1964, the ICOMOS charters for protection and management, and the ICOMOS principles for analysis, conservation, and structural restorations, there is an urgent need for proper guidelines and conservation legislation for monuments in Pakistan.
  • On a national level advisory board of experts, members is important to form who could oversee the progress of federal and provincial departments of archaeology and museums.
  • Proper guidelines of risk management are needed to be established, not only for the protected and registered heritage sites but also for unregistered and unprotected monuments. Their implementation should be assured so that the sites could be safe from natural hazards and be of inspiration for the present and future generations of Pakistan and the world.
  • A challenging task worth pursuing would be that of establishing specific management and conservation policies concerning the nature, state, and cultural values of heritage sites and monuments.
  • Strong coordination between federal and all provincial departments is very important for the effective heritage management of Pakistan.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.K.; methodology, N.A.K.; software, N.A.K.; validation, C.N., G.M. and M.M.; investigation, N.A.K.; data curation, N.A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A.K.; writing—review and editing, G.M.; visualization, C.N., G.M. and M.M.; supervision, C.N., G.M. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The first author acknowledges the Italian Agency for development cooperation (AICS) and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Partnership for Knowledge (PfK) 4 project, for the opportunity provided and the financial support to the study reported here.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chakrabarti, D.K. Archaeology in the Third World: A History of Indian Archaeology Since 1947; DK Printworld: New Delhi, India, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chakrabarti, D.K. Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian Past; DK Printworld: New Delhi, India, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mughal, M.R. Heritage management and conservation in Pakistan: The British legacy and current perspective. Pak. Herit. 2011, 3, 119–134. [Google Scholar]
  4. Roy, S. Indian archaeology from Jones to Marshall (1784–1902). Anc. India 1953, 9, 4–28. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marshall, J. The story of the Archaeological Department in India, Reveal. In Revealing India’s Past; The India Society: London, UK, 1939; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ramachandran, T.N. Preservation of monuments. Anc. India 1953, 9, 170–198. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ghosh, A. Fifty years of the archaeological survey of India. Anc. India 1953, 9, 29–52. [Google Scholar]
  8. Upinder, S. The Discovery of Ancient India: Early Archaeologists and The Beginnings of Archaeology; Permanent Black: New Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lahiri, N. Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilization Was Discovered; Hachette: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  10. Marshall, J. Conservation Manual Act; Supt. Gov. Printing: Calcutta, India, 1923.
  11. Marshall, J. Archaeological Works Code; Supt. Gov. Printing: Calcutta, India, 1938.
  12. Mughal, M.R. Heritage Legislation in Pakistan; The World Heritage Newsletter 16: Paris, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, C.T. Notes on the Division of South Asia. 2020. Available online: https://www.ctevans.net/Nvcc/Campus/HIS135/Notes/SouthAsia.html (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  14. Kiss, P.A. The First Indo-Pakistani War, 1947–1948; California Scholarship: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mughal, M.R. Legislations for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage of Pakistan, Karachi; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mughal, M.R. Heritage Preservation in Pakistan from the National and International Perspectives; Vanguard Books Ltd.: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ota, S.B. Archaeological Heritage Resource Management in India, In Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective; Messenger, P.M., Smith, G.S., Eds.; University Press of Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mughal, M.R. Monuments at Kunya-Urgench, Turkmenistan: Comments on Preservation Policies and Procedures. J. Inn. Asian Art 2005, 20, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  19. Iqbal, A.S.H.; van Cleempoel, K. Re-Reading the Heritage Legislations of Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development; Green Lines Bookseries on Heritage Studies; Green Lines Institution for Sustainable Development: Coimbra, Portugal, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  20. Balochistan. Balochistan Antiquities Act; ACT NO. XXIV OF 2014; Balochistan Provincial Assembly: Balochistan, Pakistan, 2014; pp. 1–17.
  21. Khyber, K.P. Pakhtunkhwa Antiquities Act; ACT NO. IV OF 2016; Sports, Culture, Tourism and Museums Department: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, 2016; pp. 1–31.
  22. Yaseen, S.M. Preservation of Archaeological Sites in Balochistan, Voice of Balochistan. 2020. Available online: https://voiceofbalochistan.pk/culture/preservation-of-archaeological-sites-in-balochistan/ (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  23. Gazzola, P. Venice Charter Italy. Proceeding of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, Venice, Italy, 25–31 May 1964. [Google Scholar]
  24. ICOMOS. International Charters for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites—Summary, No. 0. 2004, p. 53. Available online: http://www.icomos.org/charters/charters.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  25. ICOMOS. Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage; ICOMOS: Charenton-le-Pont, France, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  26. ICOMOS. Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage; ICOMOS: Charenton-le-Pont, France, 2003; pp. 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fauzia, Q. Conserving Pakistan’s Built Heritage, No. 3. 1994 by IUCN—The World Conservation Union; IUCN Northern Areas Programme: Gilgit, Pakistan, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  28. China ICOMOS. Principles for the Conservations of Heritage Sites in China (Revised 2015); ICOMOS: Charenton-le-Pont, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosa, A.; Santangelo, A.; Tondelli, S. Investigating the integration of cultural heritage disaster risk management into urban planning tools. The ravenna case study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sesana, E.; Gagnon, A.S.; Bertolin, C.; Hughes, J. Adapting cultural heritage to climate change risks: Perspectives of cultural heritage experts in Europe. Geoscience 2018, 8, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Dastgerdi, A.S.; Sargolini, M.; Pierantoni, I. Climate change challenges to existing cultural heritage policy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Khan, N.A.; Monti, G.; Nuti, C.; Vailati, M. Effects of infills in the seismic performance of an rc factory building in Pakistan. Buildings 2021, 11, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sabbioni, C.; Cassar, M.; Brimblecombe, P.; Lefevre, R.-A. Vulnerability of Cultural Heritage to Climate Change. In European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement; Council of Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  34. Grossi, C.M.; Bonazza, A.; Brimblecombe, P.; Harris, I.; Sabbioni, C. Predicting twenty-first century recession of architectural limestone in European cities. Environ. Geol. 2008, 56, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sardella, A.; Palazzi, E.; von Hardenberg, J.; del Grande, C.; de Nuntiis, P.; Sabbioni, C.; Bonazza, A. Risk mapping for the sustainable protection of cultural heritage in extreme changing environments. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Grossi, C.M.; Brimblecombe, P.; Harris, I. Predicting long term freeze-thaw risks on Europe built heritage and archaeological sites in a changing climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 377, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Grossi, C.M.; Brimblecombe, P.; Menéndez, B.; Benavente, D.; Harris, I.; Déqué, M. Climatology of salt transitions and implications for stone weathering. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 2577–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhang, X.; Hegerl, G.; Zwiers, F.W.; Kenyon, J. Avoiding inhomogeneity in percentile-based indices of temperature extremes. J. Clim. 2005, 18, 1641–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Prein, A.F.; Gobiet, A.; Truhetz, H.; Keuler, K.; Goergen, K.; Teichmann, C.; Fox Maule, C.; von Meijgaard, E.; Deque, M.; Niklin, G.; et al. Precipitation in the EURO-CORDEX 0.11° and 0.44° simulations: High resolution, high benefits? Clim. Dyn. 2016, 46, 383–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Maio, R.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R. A critical discussion on the earthquake risk mitigation of urban cultural heritage assets. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 7, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oliveira, C.S.; Ferreira, M.A.; Oliveira, M.; Mota de Sá, F. Planning in Seismic Risk Areas—The Case of Faro—Algarve. In Proceedings of the XI Congresso Nazionale ‘l’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Genova, Italy, 25–29 January 2004; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
  42. Perry, R.W.; Lindell, M.K.; Tierney, K.J. (Eds.) Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States (Google eBook). 2001, Volume 2001, p. 281. Available online: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PsLDQFC7arkC&pgis=1%0Ahttp://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/docDetail.action?docID=10039725 (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  43. Khan, M.A.; Bergami, A.V.; Nuti, C.; Monti, G.; Vailati, M.; Briseghella, B. Seismic Performance of Pakistani-Technique Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 28–30 June 2021; pp. 923–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khan, I.; Gul, A.; Shahzada, K.; Khan, N.A.; Rehman, F.U.; Samiullah, Q.; Khattak, M.A. Computational seismic analysis of dry-stack block masonry wall. Civ. Eng. J. 2021, 7, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, M.A.; Tahir, M.F.; Nuti, C.; Briseghella, B.; Bergami, A.V. Influence of brick masonry infill walls on seismic response of RC structures. Tech. J. 2019, 24, 15–23. [Google Scholar]
  46. Watson, S.; Fredheim, H. Value from development-led archaeology in the UK: Advancing the narrative to reflect societal changes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Trajković, J.R.; Milovanović, A.; Nikezić, A. Reprogramming modernist heritage: Enhancing social wellbeing by value-based programming approach in architectural design. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xu, Y.; Rollo, J.; Esteban, Y.; Tong, H.; Yin, X. Developing a comprehensive assessment model of social value with respect to heritage value for sustainable heritage management. Sustainabilty 2021, 13, 3373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pastor Pérez, A.; Barreiro Martínez, D.; Parga-Dans, E.; Alonso González, P. Democratising heritage values: A methodological review. Sustainabilty 2021, 13, 2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ramírez-Guerrero, G.; García-Onetti, J.; Arcila-Garrido, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A. A tourism potential index for cultural heritage management through the ecosystem services approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Olukoya, O.A.P. Framing the values of vernacular architecture for a value-based conservation: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wei, Q. Negotiation of social values in the World Heritage listing process: A case study on the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal, China. Archaeologies 2018, 14, 501–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van den Dries, M.H.; Kerkhof, M.J.H.; Homme, S.T. Heritage and diversity: Values in European heritage management reflected in award-winning best practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nahak, F.M. Role of media in transmission of culture. Pramana Res. J. 2018, 8, 280–292. [Google Scholar]
  55. Liang, X.; Lu, Y.; Martin, J. A review of the role of social media for the cultural heritage sustainability. Sustainabilty 2021, 13, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Pereira Roders, A.; van Wesemael, P. Community participation in cultural heritage management: A systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices. Cities 2020, 96, 102476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sandra, B. Community engagement in historical site protection: Lessons from the Elmina Castle Project in Ghana. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2015, 17, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 03633 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the World, British possessions illustrated in red. The circled area is the study area, i.e., South Asian territory including present Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Source: P.J. Mode collection of persuasive cartography, #8548. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.
Figure 1. Map of the World, British possessions illustrated in red. The circled area is the study area, i.e., South Asian territory including present Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Source: P.J. Mode collection of persuasive cartography, #8548. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.
Sustainability 14 03633 g001
Sustainability 14 03633 g002 550
Figure 2. Map of the Indian subcontinents before 1947 (AMP Act 1904 for the territories of the area, including present Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh). Retrieved 15 December 2021. Source: [13,14].
Figure 2. Map of the Indian subcontinents before 1947 (AMP Act 1904 for the territories of the area, including present Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh). Retrieved 15 December 2021. Source: [13,14].
Sustainability 14 03633 g002
Sustainability 14 03633 g003 550
Figure 3. Partition map after 1947. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Source: [13,14].
Figure 3. Partition map after 1947. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Source: [13,14].
Sustainability 14 03633 g003
Sustainability 14 03633 g004 550
Figure 4. Map of Pakistan and neighboring countries. Source: King, A. & Cole, B. (n.d.), Pakistan Map and Satellite Image: Pakistan Map with Cities, Roads and Rivers. Retrieved 18 March 2022, from Geology.com, Geoscience News and Information: https://geology.com/world/pakistan-satellite-image.shtml (accessed on 8 February 2022).
Figure 4. Map of Pakistan and neighboring countries. Source: King, A. & Cole, B. (n.d.), Pakistan Map and Satellite Image: Pakistan Map with Cities, Roads and Rivers. Retrieved 18 March 2022, from Geology.com, Geoscience News and Information: https://geology.com/world/pakistan-satellite-image.shtml (accessed on 8 February 2022).
Sustainability 14 03633 g004
Sustainability 14 03633 g005 550
Figure 5. Present map of Pakistan with provinces’ boundaries and their administrative capitals detail. Source: King, A. & Cole, B. (n.d.), Pakistan Map and Satellite Image: Pakistan Map with Provinces. Retrieved 18 March 2022, from Geology.com, Geoscience News and Information: https://geology.com/world/pakistan-satellite-image.shtml (accessed on 8 February 2022).
Figure 5. Present map of Pakistan with provinces’ boundaries and their administrative capitals detail. Source: King, A. & Cole, B. (n.d.), Pakistan Map and Satellite Image: Pakistan Map with Provinces. Retrieved 18 March 2022, from Geology.com, Geoscience News and Information: https://geology.com/world/pakistan-satellite-image.shtml (accessed on 8 February 2022).
Sustainability 14 03633 g005
Table
Table 1. Major heritage legislation of Pakistan on the national and provincial level.
Table 1. Major heritage legislation of Pakistan on the national and provincial level.
YearNational LandmarksProvincial Landmarks
1947Antiquities Act 1947 (retitled of AMP-1904)-
1960-Conservation Cell in Punjab
1968Antiquities Act 1968-
1975Antiquities Act 1975-
1985-Punjab Special Premises Act
1990Major amendment in Antiquities Act 1975-
1994-Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act
1997National Fund for Cultural Heritage ActNorth-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Antiquities ordinance
2002-Karachi Building & Town Planning Regulations
2005-Punjab Heritage Foundation Act
2011Transfer of responsibilities and power from federal to provincial governments-
2014-Balochistan Antiquities Act 2014
2016-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Antiquities Act 2016
Table
Table 2. Institutional organization of archaeology and heritage of Pakistan.
Table 2. Institutional organization of archaeology and heritage of Pakistan.
DepartmentLevelMinistries
Department of Archaeology and MuseumsFederal government confined only in the capital territory, IslamabadMinistry of national heritage and culture division
Directorate of Archaeology and MuseumsBalochistan provincial governmentMinistry for sports, youth affairs, culture, tourism and archive
Directorate of Archaeology and MuseumsKPK provincial governmentMinistry of archaeology, museums, culture, sport and youth affairs
Directorate General of Archaeology and Tourism DepartmentPunjab provincial governmentMinistry for youth affairs, sports, archaeology and tourism.
Directorate General of Antiquities and Archaeology DepartmentSindh provincial governmentMinistry for education, culture, tourism and antiquities, government of Sindh
Department of Tourism, Sports, Culture, Archaeology and MuseumsGovernment of Gilgit-Baltistan, a region administered by PakistanMinistry for tourism, sports, culture and archaeology, and youth affairs Gilgit-Baltistan
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, N.A.; Nuti, C.; Monti, G.; Micheli, M. Critical Review of Pakistani Current Legislation on Sustainable Protection of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063633

AMA Style

Khan NA, Nuti C, Monti G, Micheli M. Critical Review of Pakistani Current Legislation on Sustainable Protection of Cultural Heritage. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063633

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Nisar Ali, Camillo Nuti, Giorgio Monti, and Mario Micheli. 2022. "Critical Review of Pakistani Current Legislation on Sustainable Protection of Cultural Heritage" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063633

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop