We have thus far seen that the role of archaeology within human sciences is to recover, study and interpret the remains of humankind's past. The interest for the evidences of the past can be found even in the most ancient societies, albeit with some misunderstanding, but only when archaeology became a modern science this interest became objective, free from biased, positive, or negative interpretations of the past. With modern archeology, every finding, placed in times and places of the past, has an important meaning of its own, because it offers evidence for phases of humankind's past, of its historical development of disappeared civilizations. Each object made by man, which archaeology recovers, and studies - from the most trivial tool of material culture, to the most refined masterpiece - has a basic meaning, because it concurs to the reconstruction of the social, economic, administrative, religious, ideological, scientific, literary, philosophical history of humankind. In very simple words, each work from the past is a brick which allows to build up the large, and complex edifice of humankind's history from its dawn to the modern days. The basic difference between the interest for the past of all the civilizations, which followed one another in every place, and time on our planet, and the interest for the past of contemporary archaeology as a historical science is that the first type of interest was biased, whereas the second one is objective. Since very old times, as we have seen, and until nowadays, outside the scientific vision of archaeology, the interest for the past always was and still is, either born out of appreciation, or of refusal, as concerns politics, moral, and religion: this certainly legitimate interest always provoked a judgement of value, either positive or negative, because this interest has always been related with a specific situation of who was expressing this interest. The case of contemporary archaeology is completely different, because, being a historical science, it recovers works from the remotest, or closest past, in order to build up a history of the past, as less biased and more objective as possible. At this regard, we must recall that also the historian, and the archaeologist cannot maintain they are absolutely objective, for the simple reason that they are sons of their times, and, with their methods, and procedures, they follow principles descending from the philosophical concepts of their times. Absolute objectivity in the historical reconstruction of archaeology as science doesn't exist, yet the even not perfect objectivity of the scientific procedures of archaeology is very far from the absolute tendentiousness of the political, ideological, religious, and ethic judgment of any civilization facing the cultural heritage. UNESCO was established in 1945 in order to safeguard the value of the planet cultural heritage, in order to face the firm belief that political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace, and that peace must be established on the basis humankind's moral and intellectual solidarity, a belief shared by every Country, at the end of the second of two ruinous world wars, coming one after the other in the space of less than one generation. At the end of the Second World War, UNESCO established among its basic duties that to build networks among nations in order to enable this kind of solidarity by mobilizing for education, a fundamental human right, and a prerequisite for human development, building intercultural understanding through protection of heritage and support for cultural diversity; pursuing scientific cooperation to strengthen ties between nations and societies; protecting freedom of expression as an essential condition for democracy, development and human dignity. In particular, UNESCO created the fundamental idea of a World Heritage, in order to protect sites of outstanding universal value and meaning. This basic idea of UNESCO is an extraordinary importance for three main reasons. First, it ratifies the principle that the sites acknowledged, as World Heritage certainly belong to individual Countries, but at the same time, they are a universal heritage of humankind. And therefore the individual countries must answer for them in front of humankind. Second, it ratifies the principle that as regards preservation, restoration, protection of the sites, which are humankind's universal heritage, universal interest prevails over the interests of individual Countries. Third, it ratifies the principle that all the works, and sites of humankind's cultural heritage are equal, and have the same value, and there are no works, and sites of first or second range. These principles might appear obvious or paradoxical according to perspective, or cultural biases of those who take them into account, because, they cut deep into the question of the preservation of works, and sites of the cultural heritage as concerns responsibilities, as well as choices, and duties of those who have the institutional duty to take care of the safeguard. It's quite patent that the first principle aims at preventing eventual will by the Countries in whose borders the site of universal interest is actually located: just to mention to one recent example, in the past year UNESCO repeatedly, and severely warned the Authorities of the Arab Republic of Egypt, who wished to build a panoramic highway in the region of Giza Pyramids, and they even threatened to expel Egypt from UNESCO, had its landscape crime been accomplished in one of the most suggestive historical sites of the world. In an equally clear way, the second principle aims at making rational univocal and not too different the interventions by the Countries where the sites are, for the protection of sites whose universal value is acknowledged. At this regard, we should recall that UNESCO has several times drawn Italy's attention on the fact that Venice and Pompeii should be adequately protected. In fact, both sites, Venice and Pompeii, are exposed to serious risks which Italy has to face, because precisely as in the case, in the case just mentioned of Egypt, Italy is considered the somehow temporary owner of a property, which in reality belongs to the humankind more than to Italy. The third principle establishes that cultural works, and sites of universal value cannot be ranged in scales of values belonging to the individual cultures, and to the individual Countries, according traditions, and judgments elaborated within a specific culture, or Country, because these scales may hold true for the individual Countries and their culture, but they don’t, when the judgement pertains to humankind. This means that, according to this principal, St. Sophia at Istanbul or the Taj Mahal of Agra are the same, so to say, as a Medina in Morocco or the center of Cuzco in Peru. Most of all, this implies then an individual Country, an individual government, or an individual authority are not allowed to decide to destroy one site, one monument, one cultural accomplishment, because they believe it to be contrary to their own culture, religion, ideology, because doing so, they commit a crime against humankind. After the infinite destruction of cultural heritage in every part of the world, during the Second World War, and for the spreading, particularly in the Countries where the great civilizations developed, of the destructive, illicit diggings, the UNESCO formulations of the basic principles protecting cultural heritage in every place of the planet had an extraordinary importance to impose to the governments of every Country the duty to protect the sites, monuments, works of the cultural heritage. In fact, what is absolutely meaningful and deeply revolutionary in these principles, is the declaration of the universal value of cultural heritage. Because of this declaration subtracted and released, the judgement about the value of cultural heritage from the arbitrary perspective of one or the other cultures of the planet. There is no doubt that formulations of the basic principles by UNESCO were made by personalities largely expressed by cultures of the Western World, yet the statement of the universal value of cultural heritage, to whichever time, and place the works, monuments, and sites belonged, somehow subtracted in a solemn way the judgement about those components of the cultural heritage to the will of whichever culture, or fashion, because they explicitly declared they were of universal interest. We might very summary way maintain that the deeply revolutionary nature of the declarations of principles by UNESCO, concerning the World Heritage is that they placed in an absolute, and universal sphere judgments which, until that time, had always, knowingly or unknowingly been relative and regional. His has an extraordinary importance, because we cannot forget that in history, the judgments about the aesthetic as well as about the ethic values are closely related with definite moments, and development of individual cultures: a work by Phidias was already considered immortal by the Greeks of the fifth century B.C., and Michelangelo masterpieces were admired beyond imagination during the artist’s life, and yet, they were ignored, and sometimes they still are ignored by intellectuals in China, for example. Likewise, architectural masterpieces, like the Great Pyramids of Giza, the Alhambra of Grenada, or St. Peter's at Rome are considered still today, quite in a different way, by critics and by the public, according the cultures to which they belong. Lastly, as the list of historical sites in any place of the planet, classified as belonging to the World Heritage, because they have a universal value for humankind, is an open list which is practically and symbolically increased each year, it is evident that the universal value of the individual expressions of humankind's cultural heritage should be acknowledged for every single work, monument, or site of cultural meaning, even if it is not yet been officially included in the list of UNESCO World Heritage.
