{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011386138613861386, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005940594059405941, 'mean_word_length': 5.540453074433657, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
REGISTERS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN
MUSEUMS FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION
OF THE ACT ON MUSEUMS IN 1996

The Act on Museums of 1996 regulated
peculiar challenges faced by museums. At the same time it
separated museum preservation of archaeological heritage
from the system of the preservation of monuments. From
that moment onwards those museums whose collections
were movable archaeological heritage were obliged in their
museum procedures to comply with the regulations of two
acts: the afore-mentioned Act on Museum and the Act on the
Protection and Guardianship of Historical Monuments of 2003,
together with its implementing regulations.
The ordinance of the Minister of Culture and Art on
the standard for registering heritage items in museums
introduced quite a revolutionary change in the registering
of archaeological heritage in those institutions as for
object inventorying. The registering was to be from then
on applied only to single tangible heritage items, and not
to archaeological sites together with all the collections like in previous years. The change implied quite a lot
of organizational repercussions, including difficulties in
defining the collection’s countability and its financial worth,
or the unequivocal item’s identification. The challenges
caused are, among others, problems with the decisions how
to qualify different historic groups of scientific sources to be
entered into museum documents. This is connected with
the necessity to differentiate and define what archaeological
mass finds versus museum objects are in museum registers.
New principles of museum object identification were
introduced, and their implementation in the documentation
practice forced significant changes in the attitude to the
traditionally perceived methodology of creating information
on archaeological monuments. Furthermore, the value
assessment of archaeological monuments is questionable. It
is the lack of standards for assessing the value of this group
of monuments that is related to this issue.

