A German and a French academic visited the site in October, and - according to the article - they were satisfied.
I didn't read it quite like that - but please "correct" me if I am wrong. There seems to be a fair bit of "meat" in this nomination which it could be worthwhile our "getting up to speed" on in the coming weeks in advance of the 2018 WHC. Any further contributions of history or understanding regarding the site and its nomination will be gratefully received - on my part at least!
First - the ICOMOS "evaluation visit". As I read it
a. the report merely states that the visit was "successfully concluded" in the sense that it took place without problems - I read nothing to indicate that it did (or did not) reach a positive conclusion about the Nomination (nothing about "they were satisified")
b. there was only 1 ICOMOS evaluator not 2 - the other persons named (including the "French academic") appear to have been "support staff" provided by the Romanian "National Heritage Institute team".
I have had a look at the CVs of those involved. There seems to be a degree of "incestuousness" within the academic "world" of "Mining Heritage" with the same names appearing again and again! This could result in a more objective assessment of nominations related to this field or alternatively to a rather "cosy consensus" that all such sites are self evidently of "great" importance/OUV. I don't know (does anyone else??) if any of them were involved in the evaluation of Tarnowskie Gori - but, if so, they certainly didn't give it an "easy ride"! It seems worth pursuing the names a bit further, both because the domain of "Mining Heritage" seems very active in relation to WHS Nominations (recently and in the future) and because we rarely get the chance to see "inside" the World of AB evaluations in terms of the people involved!
In selecting Dr. Helmuth Albrecht to carry out the evaluation ICOMOS appear to have chosen a recognised guru on the subject (as well as being "one of their own"!!). This link shows that, in Oct 2013, he organised the ICOMOS workshop on "Industrial and Mining Landscapes within World Heritage Context" - http://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FreibergWorkshop25_10_2013.pdf
This is his list of publications - these include "The heritage of uranium mining in the German-Czech ore mountains
" and "The World Heritage Project Montanregion Erzgebirge / Krušno-hoří and the montanhistorical heritage - the basis for the regional identity and basis for the mediation"
. He seems to be/have been actively involved in both the Erzgebirge and Rammelsberg Nominations - though in what role I haven't been able to discover. http://tu-freiberg.de/fakult6/technikgeschichte-und-industriearchaeologie/publikation en/helmuth-albrecht
Mr Barry Gamble - a member of the Romanian "support staff" is another person who seems to make a living within the Mining heritage and academic domain. He was leader in the preparation of UK's "Cornwall and W Devon Mining Landscape" Nomination File and has subsequently written a book on the subject and carried out other "consultancies" in a range of countries including Poland - I wonder if he played a role in the Tarnowskie Gori bid? http://www.alisonhodgepublishers.co.uk/?page_id=230
This link to a page on the Nomination Website shows that he (but not Dr Cauuet below) IS a "full time" member of the Romanian Government's Nomination Team - https://rosiamontana.world/echipa/
Dr Béatrice Cauuet is a "a Toulouse University specialist in ancient mining", seems to specialise in Gold Mining and, among much else, has been a joint author of a paper on The "Mineralogy and lead isotope signature of the gold-silver ores exploited during the Roman period at Alburnus Maior (Rosia Montanà, Romania"
) - indeed she appears to have spent many years studying mining at Rosia Montana - http://univ-tlse2.academia.edu/B%C3%A9atriceCauuet
As per info above and below it appears that she is NOT a member of the Government team but HAS worked on behalf of the Mining Company on archaeological matters - hence, presumably, her inclusion among those supporting the evaluation
Which moves us on to questions about the "Controversies" and political manoevrings regarding the nomination of Rosia Montana as referred to by ajoszucs in several posts. This Wiki article provides some background - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83_Project
So we have a multinational mining company with links through Jersey to Canada wanting to carry out major mining works at Rosia Monatan and facing significant environmental objections to doing so. Such mining would (might??) also involve the destruction of historic mining buildings and galleries going back to Roman times. The company seems to have been carrying out a huge PR exercise to prove/demonstrate that its mining would be OK.
What I don't as yet fully understand is which side the various parties are actually on with regards to the UNESCO nomination and the issue of mining at the site!! This Web site - "Rosia Montana Project" seems to be a company one and claims that the company has been doing a lot of excellent work to investigate and preserve the historic mine workings as well as to present them to the public - https://www.rmgc.ro/
See "Patrimoniu". - "We invested over $30 million to bring history to light"
I have found this article from 2013 which indicates a degree of controversy within the archaeological community itself about the impact of mining and which also indicates that the Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) regards Dr Cauuet as a supporter - "The company has initiated an extensive research campaign, without precedent in the history of the Romanian archaeology, it also turned to the advice and involvement of one of the greatest world specialists in mining archaeology, Dr Beatrice Cauuet from the University of Toulouse, as regards the underground mining archaeology field, "
See - http://www.nineoclock.ro/british-expert-contradicts-wilson-mattingly-dawson-report-on -rosia-montana/
This of course raises the issue of just how "damaging" RMGC mining activities really are to the site?? Is this an example of environmentalists using "archaeological arguments" to oppose the mining which they are against primarily for environmental reasons? As for the Archaeologists - well the above link refers to David Jennings (on the RMGC "side"!) publishing arguments in Nov 2013 against Wilson/Mattingly/Dawson (NOT on the RMGC side!) - here is a reply (just 1 month later!!) by Wilson/Mattingly/Dawson replying to the reply of David Jennings!!! http://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp0057/Rosia%20Montana%20-%20Response%20to%20David%20Jenning s%20-%2019-12-2013.pdf
. This "rebuttal of the rebuttal" states that "Unfortunately in November 2013 a report commissioned by the Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC) was issued which sought to discredit the Statement of Significance and impugn our professional standards. The report, written by Mr David Jennings of York Archaeological Trust, however, contains serious inaccuracies, misrepresents our position and misinterprets the nature of our work. Consequently we feel obliged to respond......Jennings' misrepresents, misinterprets, and misquotes the Statement of Significance in order to support his contention that RMGC should be licensed to mine gold at Roşia Montană."
Incidentally it appears that, whilst being against the mining, Andrew Wilson is in favour of the nomination and inscription - and is actually cited on the Nomination Web site as being a "Supporter" - https://rosiamontana.world/sustinere-internationala/