Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /

Connection Queries?

Page  Page 4 of 13:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11  12  13  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#46 | Posted: 11 Sep 2011 04:28 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Solivagant:
this connection should relate to some particular merit of the natural aspects of the granite at the site


I think a lot of connections need more specific requirements. When proposing connections it seems many (myself included) often forget to add specific rules. I am not speaking specifically of the Granite Rock Formation connection, but concerning many connections that could be interpreted to include sites that were never meant to be included. One example of a connection that benifits from specific requirements is the connection Offshore of major city, which is a far more interesting connection when information relating to ferry/boat travel is included. Furthermore, I would agree with Solivigant that highlighting unique sites containing granite formations is more worthwile than any typical site.

Though I would argue Mt. Namsan's granite formations are special in the fact that they are essential to the development of Mt. Namsan as such a hub of Buddhist art and sculpture. The numerous large exposed boulders and natural walls allowed Silla architects to have a perfect canvas for their craft. The amount of granite quarried and used is exceptional. To speak of the remains (though not all granite, likely a majority) there are 122 temples (almost univerally ruins), 53 stone statues, 64 pagodas, and sixteen stone lanterns. This incredible number of important sites within the mountain that have been utilized from the unique natural environment of Mt. Namsan, enabled the Silla people to create a Buddhist paradise that has stood for over 1000 years. Nevertheless, if the requirement of the connection is entirely natural this would likely exlude Mt. Namsan.

Author Euloroo
Registered
#47 | Posted: 13 Sep 2011 09:07 
I have some queries about the Celtic History connection.

Thinking back to my school days, we were taught that Hadrian's Wall was built to defend against the Picts (and this even this is now disputed), not the Celts. And unless there's been some later addition or intervention to any of the properties, I can't see how Neolithic Orkney can have a celtic connection, since the sites were established thousands of years before the Celts entered the British Isles.

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#48 | Posted: 13 Sep 2011 10:02 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Euloroo:
defend against the Picts (and this even this is now disputed), not the Celts.

Must admit Roman history is not a strong point, but I always though the Picts were a Celtic tribe. But also were the German Limes built as a defence against celtic tribes among others (that is more of a question as I am not really up on my Ancient history)

Without investigating I think you may be correct on the Neolithic Orkney one though. Aparently the first survey in 1850's was part of an investigation of the celtic history of the islands but I couldn't find much else to link them.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#49 | Posted: 13 Sep 2011 12:14 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Same issue with Stonehenge of course as with Neolithic Orkney. Its construction significantly pre-dates the "arrival" of Celtic peoples and/or culture/language (Whatever it is we mean by "Celtic") to these islands. Any later "connection" with Celts/Druids etc etc is really mythological.

It seems that the Picts must be regarded as being within the group of peoples normally identified as "Celts"

"Limes" were against "Germanic tribes" - different from Celts who were coralled further west by that time.

Author Euloroo
Registered
#50 | Posted: 13 Sep 2011 22:53 
meltwaterfalls:
I always though the Picts were a Celtic tribe

It has been a matter of dispute but there's convincing evidence to suggest that the Picts (painted people) were pre-Celtic, descended from indigenous Mesolithic peoples URL.
That said, clearly the British Isles were predominantly occupied by Celtic tribes during the Roman occupation and there would no doubt have been interaction at the Frontiers. But I think it would be good to reference archaeological evidence to reinforce the connection.

Solivagant:
Same issue with Stonehenge

Agreed. I can't find strong evidence to link Stonehenge with Celtic people.

Author elsslots
Admin
#51 | Posted: 14 Sep 2011 13:24 
So we need to add a description to the Celts connection, which limits it to the "proper" Celts.

Is the wiki-definition good enough? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

Author Solivagant
Registered
#52 | Posted: 14 Sep 2011 16:27 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I note that the Wiki article includes this "A modern "Celtic identity" was constructed in the context of the Romanticist Celtic Revival in Great Britain, Ireland, and other European territories,"

Any Connection between Stonehenge and the Celts would relate to this "Romanticist Celtic Revival" not to any "original" Celtic connection. So I guess that Stonehenge could stay in as a Celtic connection if
a. The defintion of "Celtic" included "Celtic Revival"
b. The link for Stonehenge made it clear that the connection related solely to this revival by which Celtic revivalists adopted Stonehenge as site for neo-Druidic ceremonies which they claimed had Celtic origins
Alternatively it should be excluded and the Celtic definition written to include only
"The Celts were a diverse group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Roman-era Europe who spoke Celtic languages"

Author Euloroo
Registered
#53 | Posted: 14 Sep 2011 18:43 
Solivagant:
Alternatively it should be excluded and the Celtic definition written to include only
"The Celts were a diverse group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Roman-era Europe who spoke Celtic languages"

I'd support the wiki definition because there's fuzziness around the definition of Celtic revival and scope.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#54 | Posted: 16 Sep 2011 05:38 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Very close antipode points. Kind of a stretch based on the requirements of the connection. Off by a longitude degree.

Antipode Points - WHS which are situated approximately (within 2 degrees of latitude and longitude) opposite each other on the globe.

2 Korea Sites that are near Antipodes to a Historic City in Uruguay.
*Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes - N33 28 8 E126 43 13
*Gochang, Hwasun and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites -
Hwasun Site N34 58 0.012 E126 55 45.012

*Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento - S34 28 4 W57 51 12

Author winterkjm
Registered
#55 | Posted: 16 Sep 2011 14:19 
The exact antipode for Colonia del Sacramento is in the Yellow Sea, probably around 250 - 300km from Jeju Island. So a bit too far to be included.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#56 | Posted: 23 Sep 2011 13:36 | Edited by: winterkjm 
About a week ago I added suggestions for the antipodes, festivals, and Legend & Folk Myths connections. Maybe El's is travelling or too busy at the moment? Sorry to bother you if you are!! Just making sure you got the data.

Author elsslots
Admin
#57 | Posted: 23 Sep 2011 23:28 
I have been a bit busy indeed...
But will update this weekend

Author winterkjm
Registered
#58 | Posted: 23 Sep 2011 23:42 
No rush, take your time.

Author Euloroo
Registered
#59 | Posted: 24 Sep 2011 01:28 
Minor query on Classic Films Connection
I watched Akiro Kurosawa's palm d'or winning classic Kagemusha last night. Some great shots of Himiji Castle. Anyway I checked and it's not on the connection but another of Kurosawa's "Ran" is, so not a problem. But I did check the Internet Movie Database for Shogun which suggests it was filmed in Hikone Castle (on the Japan T-list) rather than Himiji? URL Been a while since I saw Shogun so happy to be corrected.

Author Durian
Registered
#60 | Posted: 3 Oct 2011 00:06 
Dear Els,

I found more mistake in the connection

1) Famous Suicide
The tragedy of Prince Sado was actually happened in Changgyeonggung Palace, not WHS Changdeokgung Palace. [english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/news/reports_view.php?idx=6600], the palaces are in the same area but Changgyeongung is not part of WHS.

2) Sacred Forest/Gloves
It is true that Yakusugi is a sacred tree in Shinto Belief, the question is the whole mountain of Yakusugi tree in Yakushima should be considered as Sacred Mountain category instead or not.

3) Located in the capital city
There is a connection for Seoul's COEX mall, why not put together with Seoul.

Page  Page 4 of 13:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11  12  13  Next » 
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections / Connection Queries? 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 ®