What are they doing all day in Paris anyway? www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / What are they doing all day in Paris anyway? /

List of serial sites

Page  Page 2 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next »  
Author elsslots
Admin
#16 | Posted: 8 Oct 2014 08:00 
meltwaterfalls:
I noticed Falun is missing as a serial site.

Although Falun covers several locations, it isn't an "official" serial site. It isn't described as such in the AB ev. There are more examples like this, mainly among the natural sites.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#17 | Posted: 8 Oct 2014 08:23 | Edited by: Solivagant 
elsslots:
Although Falun covers several locations, it isn't an "official" serial site


It is a nonsense of course but i fear we have to follow UNESCO definitions -multiple location sites have multiple location IDs as per the format 95-001 Dubrovnik, 95-002 Lokrum.
even there is nothing in the Dubrovnik 1994 extension evaluation that I can see that says it was thus made a "serial site" .

So we have a situation whereby 3 separate locations at Falun are a "single site" whilst 2 separate locations (no further apart ) at Dubrovnik are not!! Ah well - so be it.

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#18 | Posted: 8 Oct 2014 08:23 
Yeah there are some ommisions/ inclusions on there which don't seem coherent.

I have added a tab with the remaining sites that supposedly don't have multiple locations (Silk Route, Qhapaq Ñan, Struve Geodetic Arc)

I have also made it editable so if others want to amend it feel free, just keep in mind there isn't a track changes option on there so it is worth leaving a coherent trace of your activity.

The link again just in case my amendments have changed your view.

I'm off now, but will check in later.

Author Khuft
Registered
#19 | Posted: 8 Oct 2014 14:12 | Edited by: Khuft 
Solivagant:
So we have a situation whereby 3 separate locations at Falun are a "single site" whilst 2 separate locations (no further apart ) at Dubrovnik are not!! Ah well - so be it.


I don't think UNESCO was initially very thorough when defining serial sites. It seems that only in the past 1-2 decades this has been sth they have been focusing on.

Ultimately, it depends what you seek, Els - serial nominations as defined by UNESCO location IDs (as suggested by Solivagant), or nominations with non-contiguous geographical parts.

Anyway, difficulties abound: For "Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the South-East of Cuba" there is no map on the website, no immediate indication that it is a serial site and no distinctive location IDs. But the Advisory Bodies' assesssment mentions that it is a "group of sites" - as well as cultural landscape. The nomination file includes the geographical data for distinctive coffee plantations and for coffee plantation polygons without clear indication of what is actually really being nominated (e.g. the maps starting on page 99 of the doc mention "polygons where the coffee plantations are located", but on page 26ff all the coordinates for the plantations are included individually); probably it's necessary to read the whole document to find out whether the whole area of the polygons is part of the site, or whether only the individual coffee planations constitute the site.

There are probably other problematic sites like this one which require a deep-dive into all the documents.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#20 | Posted: 8 Oct 2014 14:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Khuft:
here are probably other problematic sites like this one which require a deep-dive into all the documents.

Thanks for that interesting example of the Coffee Plantations. Half the "fun" of course of getting into an exercise like this is the opportunity it provides to learn something new about the inscribed sites!!

Re the Coffee Planatations - I note that ICOMOS agreed "No buffer Zone needed" - UK has tried this on re Westminster etc. Perhaps we could have a "connection" for sites without a buffer zone. To avoid listing lots of sites where we just don't know because of lack of documentation/the very early inscription etc we would need to require "positive" evidence that there is no buffer zone -as per the comment in the AB eval of this site

Author elsslots
Admin
#21 | Posted: 10 Oct 2014 00:32 
The Rock-art of the Mediterranean Basin now shows 758 sites instead of a previous 722?!

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#22 | Posted: 10 Oct 2014 05:57 
I guess the 758 sites just didn't do it enough justice.

Author hubert
Registered
#23 | Posted: 14 Oct 2014 17:45 
I just noticed that the WHS list on this website now provides the number of serial components - a good idea, I think. Going through the list, I encountered a few inconsistencies and curiosities of the UNESCO website in addition to the already discussed cases of Falun or Great Wall:

Wooden Churches of Southern Malopolska: UNESCO lists nine churches on the Maps tab and provides eight maps. However, the decision document lists only six inscribed churches. There is no document of a later extension.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/731

ICOMOS recommended in the ABE the inscription of the six churches from the 15th and 16th centuries, the three other churches are from the 17th and 18th centuries.

South China Karst: UNESCO lists five locations. But these are the extensions in 2014, the original inscription in 2006 consists of seven sites in three cluster. They are not represented at all, not even as a single location!

Würzburg: I was surprised that the Würzburg Residence has two locations. The second component is the Rosenbach Park, just across the street. Probably a favourite for the prize of the shortest distance between two serial locations: 8 metres.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#24 | Posted: 15 Oct 2014 03:32 | Edited by: Solivagant 
hubert:
I encountered a few inconsistencies and curiosities of the UNESCO website in addition to the already discussed cases of Falun or Great Wall:


Another inconsistency relates to Oaxaca/Monte Alban.
The UNESCO Web site refers to "[i]three distinct cultural properties are located in the valley of Oaxaca -the historic centre of the city founded in 1529 by the Spanish, the pre-Hispanic archaeological site of Monte Albán, 4 km south-west of the town, and the village of Cuilapan, 12 km away, where the Dominicans undertook, in the mid-16th century, to build a vast monastery."[/i]
The number of "locations" is only 2 with no mention of Cuilapan
The title given to the original nomination by Mexico was "The City of Oaxaca, the archaeological site of Monte Alban and the site of Cuilapan". The AB eval commented "on the other hand it would appear unnecessarily redundant to include Cuilapan" and the site was inscribed as "Historic Centre of Oaxaca and archaeological site of Monte Alban" The listing of only 2 "locations" would (probably!!!) seem to confirm that the description reference to a third site is incorrect.

The Great Wall locations are interesting in that as few as 3 are included. We know that there is much uncertainty over just how much of "The Great Wall" has been inscribed (and have discussed it at length on this Forum! - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=1487&p age=0#msg3492 ) but this list of 3 only includes Badaling from among the several Great Wall tourist sites around Beijing which, as we have again previuosly discussed, "badge" themsleves as being "World Heritage".

I guess that keeping the Web site right - or even "using it" to flush out inconsistencies is pretty low on the World Heritage Centre (WHC) priority list. On which subject -I sent an "error notification" to the WHC Webmaster re Fraser Island (as discussed above). Previously getting a response from the WHC has been very hit or miss. I once pointed out to them that they had included on their Web site a photo of a part of Jerusalem which was OUTSIDE the City Wall to the east and that this might cause some political difficulty (!!!)- the photo was removed on that occasion and I received a short reply - but other notes to Region staff (all are listed on the Web site with e-mail addresses) have been ignored from a mere memebr of the public! On this occasion the Webmaster did reply to say that he had passed the matter on (as I would have expected) and he will let me know the outcome. We will see!!

Author Solivagant
Registered
#25 | Posted: 15 Oct 2014 08:28 | Edited by: Solivagant 
hubert:
Würzburg: I was surprised that the Würzburg Residence has two locations. The second component is the Rosenbach Park, just across the street. Probably a favourite for the prize of the shortest distance between two serial locations: 8 metres.


Have looked into this a bit more
a. Wurzburg Residence didn't have a buffer zone when first inscribed way back in 1981 and no mention was made of the site consisting of 2 "locations"
b. The Buffer Zone was established in 2010 and with it the publication of the map showing 2 separate "locations". The operational Guidelines require that the establishment of Buffer zones be treated as a "minor boundary modification" so the documentation for this was tabled for the WHC and is present in the AB eval documentation on the Web.
c. This second "location", just across Rennweg, consists of the Rosenbach Park but also, and more significantly, the Staatlicher Hofkeller, in a baroque building known as Rosenbach hof ( or "palace")
d. The Hofkeller ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatlicher_Hofkeller_W%C3%BCrzburg ) is the HQ of the Wine Estate originally owned by the Prince Bishops, later transferred to the Bavarian Crown and then in 1918 to the German State.
e. The winery aspect is an integral part of the Residence with significant elements being situated under that building http://www.deutscheweine.de/icc/Internet-EN/nav/e15/e1570693-6826-7e21-e66b-48554c41e d8b . Nb the Tunnels - another "Connection"??
f. However, it is not completely clear from the original nomination papers available on the UNESCO Web site whether this second location was originally inscribed -at least in the form in which it has emerged.
g. My judgement would be that the Rosenbach Palace almost certainly WAS included - BUT as part of the overall Residenzplatz which it faces. The 1980 AB evaluation refers to "The Residence Sq was laid out in 1765-70 flanked by the buildings of the Rosenbacher Hof (Rosenbach Court) and the Gesandtenbau (Ministers Building)". Unfortunately those buildings receive NO other mention in the Evaluation and certainly not in the definition of the site. Even more significantly, one section refers to the current uses of the Residence - "Various scientific institutes of the University of Wurzberg" etc but NO mention is made of any of them forming a part of the HQ of the Hofkeller! However, as far as I can work out, the Gasandtenbau is inscribed in the main location and currently functions (at least in part) as the Restaurant! ("Seit 1963 finden sich hier die Residenz-Gaststätten. Adresse des Gebäudes ist Residenzplatz 1. Die zugehörige Außengastronomie befindet sich hinter dem Gebäude im Hofgarten. ")
h. Whether the rest of the Rosenbach Park behind the Palace was originally included is less certain. Some parts of the Residence Gardens were certainly included but the descriptions of them are limited to the parts immediately behind the Residence bounded by the original fortress bastions and laid out formally. Much of the other "parkland" around the Residence is included in the buffer zone in the 2010 adjustment and it isn't clear why this nondescript part is included - it doesn't seem any different from the other buffer zone aspects and isn't formally laid out.
i. Quite why Germany decided to exclude the narrow strip of Rennweg and its continuation through Residenzplatz isn't clear - the AB eval includes a letter about tramways around the Residenceplatz so that may have played some part. But, having decided to do so, it was faced with what to do with the Rosenbach hof "bit" of the inscribed site. The net result seems to have been to "create" a second "location" with a bit of "park"!

Author hubert
Registered
#26 | Posted: 16 Oct 2014 17:08 
Solivagant:
e. The winery aspect is an integral part of the Residence with significant elements being situated under that building

Yes indeed, and it is a beautiful vaulted cellar. The wine cellar was constructed by Balthasar Neumann as part of the Residence. A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the cellar during a diner and wine tasting, very atmospheric between the huge old barrels. The historic cellars are under the north wing of the Residence and the entrance is in the northern courtyard. As far as I remember there is no connection between the Rosenbach Palais and the wine cellars.
The Rosenbach Palais was built in 1700 by Antonio Petrini for the Prince Bishop and it was his residence during the construction of the new Würzburg Residence (1719-744). I could not find out when it became the headquater of the wine estate „Staatlicher Hofkeller Würzburg". Today there is also a modern Enoteca/Vinothek, but this should not be mistaken for the historic wine cellar (Weinkeller) under the Residence.
http://www.hofkeller.de/hofkeller/weinkeller
http://wuerzburgwiki.de/wiki/Rosenbachpalais


Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay seems to be a comparable case of „Extension via establishing a buffer zone":
The WHS has two locations: i) Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay, ii) the ancient Mill of Moidrey.
According to the Maps tab on the UNSCO page both were inscribed in 1979.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/80/multiple=1&unique_number=1569

But the mill is not mentioned in the AB evaluation. However, nomination documents were sparse in these early years. The mill was constructed in 1806, much later than the abbey. Its significance and the connection to Mont-Saint-Michel is not clear to me. The short description on the Normandie-Tourisme website says that the mill was inscribed as WHS in 2007, which likely refers to the approval of the buffer zone in this years. But again, the mill is not mentioned in the decision document.

http://www.normandie-tourisme.fr/pcu/moulin-de-moidrey/pontorson/fiche-PCUNOR050FS000 OD-1.html

hubert:
Probably a favourite for the prize of the shortest distance between two serial locations: 8 metres.

Trier: The Cathedral and the Church of Our Lady are adjacent to each other, distance: null metres - hard to beat.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#27 | Posted: 17 Oct 2014 03:59 
hubert:
I could not find out when it became the headquater of the wine estate „Staatlicher Hofkeller Würzburg"


I see that the Rosenbacher hof is also used by the Bavarian State Office for Finance - I gather from your post that its use by the Staatlicher Hofkeller, although appropriate given the significance of the wine cellars etc in the Residence, has absolutely nothing to do with its inclusion as an inscribed element and that there is no physical connection with the Residence regarding the manufacture and storage of wine. It will have been included solely because of its role as part of the "ensemble" of the Residence Square, design by Petrini etc.
Which leaves the questions as to why
a. Rennweg had to be excluded
b. The rather ordinary park behind the Rosenbacher hof was included!
These seem likely to remain as mysteries!

Author hubert
Registered
#28 | Posted: 17 Oct 2014 11:47 | Edited by: hubert 
Solivagant:
It will have been included solely because of its role as part of the "ensemble" of the Residence Square

That's what I guess. The wine estate was founded in the 12th century and was under the rule of the Prince-Bishop until the secularization in 1814. At that time it was probably administrated from the Residence. The need for separate offices was from a later date, I suppose, when it was converted into the "Königlich Bayerischer Hofkeller" or (after the end of the monarchy in 1918) into the "Staatlicher Hofkeller".

Why is the Rennweg excluded? Maybe this has a rather simple reason: The Residence with Residence Square, the Hofgarten, and the Rosenbach Palais are owned by the "Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen", i.e. the Federal State of Bavaria. But the owner of the Rennweg is certainly the city of Würzburg. So maybe they want to keep it simple and not involve another owner just to include a few metres of the street.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#29 | Posted: 17 Oct 2014 12:19 | Edited by: Solivagant 
hubert:
But the owner of the Rennweg is certainly the city of Würzburg. So maybe they want to keep it simple and not involve another owner just to include a few metres of the street.

Interesting - I have just been reading the 2013 SOC Report in a bit more detail and came across this in one of the later tables under the subject of "Summary - Management Needs". It seems to confirm your assessment! But they appear to be going to try to do something about it - so they recognise it as a bit of a nonsense!!
4.1 Boundaries and Buffer Zones
4.1.2 - Boundaries could be improved
Action - There is concept to complete the Residence court with the street "Rennweg" to the core zone.
Timeframe - About 2018
Lead Agency (and others involved) - City of Würzburg and Bavarian Palace Department

A separate "aside" which I also noticed - I do love the idiocies one sometimes gets with these "tick box" formats!!-
"Please rate the cooperation / relationship with the World Heritage property managers / coordinators / staff of the following
Local communities / residents - GOOD
Local Municipal authorities - GOOD
Indigenous Peoples - FAIR
Landowners - GOOD
Visitors - GOOD"

I wonder who these "Indigenous People" are with whom the "relationship" is only "FAIR" - but who are not "Local Communities", "Landowners" or "Visitors"?? Germanic Gnomes living in the cellars - Nibelung dwarves perhaps?

Author hubert
Registered
#30 | Posted: 18 Oct 2014 09:19 
Solivagant:
Indigenous Peoples - FAIR

Oh great, I love that. Surely it seems to be pure nonsense. But it could also be an allusion to the Franconian patriotism. Still the people in Franconia "suffer from" the fact that they are under the foreign rule of Bavaria. This is rather humor and tradition than a serious separatism, and it can not be compared with Scotland / England and Catalonia / Spain. But there is a grain of truth in it. I'm sure if you, as an example, take a guided to the Residence and your guide is from Würzburg or Franconia, he/she will find an opportunity to emphasize the difference between Franconia and Bavaria.
And the special charm is that Bavarians never get tired of pointing out that they a different to the rest of Germany, but they have their own kind of "indigenous minority".

Page  Page 2 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next » 
What are they doing all day in Paris anyway? www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / What are they doing all day in Paris anyway? / List of serial sites Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®