World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Countries Forum / Countries /  


Author elsslots
#1 | Posted: 31 Oct 2014 01:34 
A website visitor sent in this question. Anyone knows?

"I recently read the book by Peter Siegel - "Protecting Heritage in the Caribbean" in which he notes that three Jamaican properties - Seville, Spanish Town and Port Royal were proposed as WHS nominations. However, no work was forthcoming on this effort. Can anyone tell me who is working - or was working on this effort?"

Author Solivagant
#2 | Posted: 31 Oct 2014 03:58 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Seville, Spanish Town and Port Royal were proposed as WHS nominations. However, no work was forthcoming on this effort. Can anyone tell me who is working - or was working on this effort?

All 3 were nominated by the Government of Jamaica for the 1988 WHC. The earlier Bureau meeting postponed a conclusion . The later WHC document is here -
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the file referred to in this document which was supposed to be attached!! Nor have I managed to turn up the original Nomination Files. However the conclusions reached are described elsewhere on the Web - "when Jamaica made a submission to UNESCO's World Heritage Committee for the inclusion of three sites on the new World Heritage List: Port Royal, the seaport mostly submerged in the 1692 earthquake; New Seville, the island's first Spanish capital; and Spanish Town. Only the proposal for Spanish Town won conditional acceptance. Before UNESCO could grant full approval, it required the local government to fill potholes, lay sidewalks and make infrastructure improvements. Funding these projects has remained beyond the reach of the parish's over-stretched budget."
See -
This conclusion is confirmed elsewhere on the UNESCO web site here
For Spanish Town - Deferred -
For Port Royal - Not inscribed -
For New Seville - Not Inscribed -

Interestingly when Jamaica got round to submitting a new Tentative List in 2009 what did it do?? Well it dropped the site recommended for Deferral and brought back in the 2 not inscribed because they were only of National importance to Jamaica!!!! This was not entirely unreasonable as things have moved on a great deal in the assessment of potential WHS since 1988 -the growing profile of Underwater Archaeology for instance should give Port Royal a fair wind if it is properly presented. I fear, however, that Spanish Town remains too big a renovation job and that this explains why it wasn't put forward in the 2009 T List - when we were there some 12 years ago it was unfortunately in a very poor state but does have great "potential". It has received some money from the WMF to help preserve its historic bridge and this 2010 article blames "violence" for it not having progressed further (I don't really believe this to be the main problem!) - receiving--heritage-site .Jamaica must also have decided to put its energies/money into the additional T List site of Blue Mountains - on which it has continued after one deferral with another chance in 2015

The "website visitor" who is interested in these sites will find that "creative" Google searches using words like e.g "Port Royal", "UNESCO", "World Heritage", "Nomination" and "ICOMOS" will return results indicating what work has taken place since. Eg - Port Royal seems to have been doing some work back in summer 2012 61/Jamaica-seeks-heritage-status-for-sunken-Port-Royal.html and
There is other evidence that Port Royal is being actively progressed and is likely to be Jamaica's next nomination
a. from this CV "2012 One of three expert member of a Committee to prepare a report entitled, Port Royal, Jamaica World Heritage Site Nomination Report by Donny L. Hamilton, Ph.D., Robert Grenier, M.A., Margaret Leshikar-Denton, Ph.D. Submitted to the Jamaica National Heritage Trust"
b. Assistance money and training from UNESCO in 2012/3 in the preparation of a Nomination Dossier for Port Royal - and

The Jamaica National Heritage Trust - which looks after the sites and would be responsible for preparing cases etc ( ) provides more information on the sites and contacts to discover more if required

Author elsslots
#3 | Posted: 31 Oct 2014 14:39 
"The reason I am asking is because I am a member of ICAHM (International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management) which promote World Heritage Sites of an archaeological nature. Most recently I was able to make a contribution to the WHS nomination from the USA on the Poverty Point site. I recommend that you distribute this nomination because it shows how the state of Louisiana addressed and plans to address infrastructure needs for this state park.

There has been a change in the WHS nomination process which encourages the development of serial nominations among host nations which share a common heritage. My particular field of interest is the Spanish colonial period in the American southwest & southeast and of course the Caribbean.

I am going to Florence, Italy for the 18th ICOMOS conference to promote the idea of a series of serial (or thematic) WHS nominations for sites in the Caribbean from different host nations which share a common cultural theme. For example, the early 16th to 17th century Spanish sites in the Caribbean would make an interesting nomination which would allow a number of host nations to participate in the development of a WHS and development of a long range program of site preservation and interpretation."

Mark Barnes, Ph.D.

Author Solivagant
#4 | Posted: 31 Oct 2014 17:04 | Edited by: Solivagant 
There has been a change in the WHS nomination process which encourages the development of serial nominations among host nations which share a common heritage.

Interesting comment. This approach clearly has the potential benefit of bringing together a number of countries to develop and share heritage related expertise. It also fosters regional co-operation/friendship and strengthens the OUV of sites by providing a wider selection base unhindered by post-colonial boundaries which are likely in many cases to be irrelevant to the cultural aspect being preserved.

BUT -the record of such attempts has not, to date, been that successful. The current list is littered with examples of where neighbouring countries have been exhorted to come together either from the beginning to develop a transboundary nomination or later to agree to an addition becoming transnational - outside Europe/N America there have been remarkably few examples of "success".

There are 31 transboundary sites -
a. Of the 13 Natural 3 are in Africa, 1 in Central America, 8 in Europe/N America and 1 cross region (Russia/Mongolia)
b. Of the 16 cultural 2 are in S America, 1 in Asia 1 in Africa and 12 in Europe.
c. Of the 2 mixed 1 is in Africa and 1 in Europe.

The recent successes of Qapac Nan and Silk Roads may demonstrate the future but they did require enormous amounts of effort. China I suspect can take major credit for the success of Silk Roads - Does anyone know which countries (if any) took a similar lead for Qapac Nan??

In many truly developing countries it proves hard enough to get just 1 country to put in place the necessary management regime to satisfy ICOMOS/IUCN - let alone multiplying the difficulties across several.

Dr Barnes takes as an example early 16th/17th C Spanish Caribbean sites – Of course Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, USA (Pto Rico), Panama and Mexico (at least!) have already gained inscriptions in that domain. In retrospect it might well have been better to have had a serial nomination for Spanish Caribbean Forts or settlements but it perhaps seems a bit late now to start linking sites?

When Mexico started working on the Camino Real it avoided, for some reason, working together with USA on a trans-boundary nomination for a site which seemed to be crying out/a perfect fit for such an approach!! I wonder why? National pride? US disinterest? A recognition of the practical difficulties of working with USA and its "exceptionalism" with regard to private property etc?

The Caribbean sugar industry would seem to be another good example of a potential trans-boundary site, Cuba already has one (Ingenios) whilst Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Netherlands (Curacao) and Barbados have T List entries. Would Cuba be prepared to "assist" the creation of a "Caribbean sugar Industry" transnational site and subsume its own site in such a larger entity? And would this perhaps not miss some unique aspects of the individual sites e.g the Taino heritage in Jamaica? Is it not somewhat simplistic to look across an area as big as and with as complex a history as the Caribbean and expect a common set of OUV to emerge?

Another potential trans-boundary theme is that of Slavery/Slave revolts – Haiti already has a relevant inscribed site but Jamaica for instance has a proud Maroon history. But would these 2 different "histories" really fit well together in a single nomination?

I think the "readers" of this Forum would be interested to hear more from Dr Barnes on his "vision" for Caribbean trans-boundary sites and would very much like to be kept informed of any conclusions reached at the conference he is to attend!!

Author Khuft
#5 | Posted: 31 Oct 2014 20:42 
Does anyone know which countries (if any) took a similar lead for Qapac Nan?

My wild guess would be Peru - its portion of the Qhapaq Nan is the biggest and even has its own Twitter account.

Author Solivagant
#6 | Posted: 1 Nov 2014 03:33 | Edited by: Solivagant 
My wild guess would be Peru

This from the UNESCO site "In May 2001, Peru took the initiative of including the Qhapaq Ñan on its Tentative List. The governments of Argentina and Chile subsequently joined the initiative. In March 2002, during the first meeting on World Heritage Periodic Reporting, the focal points of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru drafted the document "Pre-Hispanic Andean roads and the routes of Tahuantisuyo", which summarized their proposals for further advancing the initiative." (Unfortunately the orginal "Rutas andinas prehispánicas y las rutas del Tahuantinsuyo" doesn't seem to be available anywhere on the Web)
It does seem that, for a trans-boundary nomination to be brought to a successful conclusion, an enthusiastic "sponsor" country is required who will stay the course for the long run - 13 years in this case!. Such a country must see some benefit in taking this role - presumably Peru knew that a "partial" nomination of the Qapac Nan would be weakened. It would appear that the enthusiastic support of UNESCO is also a prerequisite. On the other hand Mexico apparently had no such qualms about going forward on its own with the Camino Real and UNESCO made no objections.

Author elsslots
#7 | Posted: 6 Nov 2014 13:16 
"Dear friends,

Thank you so much for your great comments and ideas. I will be departing for Florence, Italy for the annual ICOMOS meetings and I will pose your comments and ideas to the good people who are most familiar with the subject matter.


Mark R. Barnes
National Park Service (retired)"

Countries Forum / Countries /

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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®