World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



| Begin | Reply | Search |             Start | The List | Community | Blog
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2019 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 19 of 22:  « Previous  1  ...  18  19  20  21  22  Next »

Author elsslots
Admin
#271 | Posted: 29 Dec 2018 17:12 
Zoe:
Danube is an extension according to Els in her review but a forum discussion mentioned it being separate?

It is separate, quoting myself:
"The Danube Limes is nominated to become a WHS in 2019. It will be an additional site to the existing Frontiers of the Roman Empire WHS, not an extension of it. The nomination includes no fewer than 164 locations in Austria, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia. And for 2021 an extension into Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Croatia is already scheduled"

So there first will be a separate nomination, and that one will be extended 2 years later.

Author Colvin
Partaker
#272 | Posted: 29 Dec 2018 18:22 
I'm really not a fan of the separate nomination for the Danube Limes this year. If more evidence of Roman frontier architecture needs to be recognized on the World Heritage list, I'd rather see it as an extension to the existing Frontiers of the Roman Empire. This is one of those nominations that I fear sets bad precedence and dilutes the value of the list.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#273 | Posted: 30 Dec 2018 01:04 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Zoe:
nobody has talked about Normandy after that WW1 failure this year - surely they can't get that through

Hmm, if the beaches get inscribed but the WWI sites don't then something has gone very wrong with the process.

The criticisms levelled at the WWI proposal (it being about glorification of war, it opening the way for other such sites to be nominated etc.) are much more evident in the Normandy proposal, they are essentially battlefields with some more lasting bits of military hardware.

This really would open up a can of worms in terms of every country wanting to nominate their specific sites of important battles (Gettysburg, Jinan, White Mountain, Stalingrad, Hastings, Kosovo, the Boyne, Golan Heights...), best of luck to the chairperson trying to keep some of those debates on track.

Colvin:
I'm really not a fan of the separate nomination for the Danube Limes this year. If more evidence of Roman frontier architecture needs to be recognized on the World Heritage list, I'd rather see it as an extension to the existing Frontiers of the Roman Empire. This is one of those nominations that I fear sets bad precedence and dilutes the value of the list.

As ever I'm in full agreement with Colvin on this one :). I still haven't fully grasped why the Danube Limes are so different from the German Limes, in a way that Hadrian's Wall isn't different.

Have I ascertained it correctly that the Danube Limes are mostly not walls, but markers and that differentiates it from the other German Limes/ Walls in the UK?

It doesn't stick with me as the only bit of the new proposal I've seen is the Roman Wall in Regensburg (which I visited as I mistakenly thought it was part of the existing German Limes WHS)

Actually I just checked the Austrian section and I have seen some of the remains in Vienna. They are the section on Michaelerplatz in front of the entrance to the Hofburg/ Spanish Riding School (I imagine this little section of archaeological ruins may well drag up the number of visits should it be inscribed)

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#274 | Posted: 30 Dec 2018 02:43 | Edited by: Solivagant 
meltwaterfalls:
Actually I just checked the Austrian section and I have seen some of the remains in Vienna

And there are more in the centre of Budapest as well.
Which raises the question - does anyone know/remember where the "locations" we have on our map for this T List site came from? We have 6 points for Hungary and the 3 in Budapest are all to the northern end of the city.
But the UNESCO T List description is completely devoid of specific locations. Are there really only 6 in Hungary?? (similarly for the other countries involved)
I refer to this article which states ".... were researching in the Contraaquincum, at the Március 15. square, in Budapest. This is the place where the Duna Limes Visitor and Submitation Centers will be built". This location in central down town Pest has undergone significant renovation and a portion of the "wall" (or at least of Roman structures) is visible under glass as one walks around. Is it likely that a location holding a "Visitor centre" wouldn't be included? The article was from Oct 2016, so things may have changed of course.
This is another article rather earlier (2011) with photos of the square and the glass viewing etc - and also mentions the UNESCO "ambitions"

Author hubert
Partaker
#275 | Posted: 30 Dec 2018 06:30 
Solivagant:
Which raises the question - does anyone know/remember where the "locations" we have on our map for this T List site came from?

During our exercise to identify the TWHS locations back in 2017, I took care of Hungary and most of the other state parties in Southeastern Europe. Unlike the others, Hungary do not provide any specific locations in their T-list entry.
Thus, I used the following website as a source:

http://danubelimesbrand.org/sites/hungary/

Splitting the Budapest-Aquincum site into three locations was my interpretation of the rather sparse description on this website:
"Several military installations and civil settlement structures are known mainly on the right bank of the Danube under several districts of modern Budapest. The south and the west gate of the legionary fortress, the bath house and the large amphitheatre are partly preserved and still visible. The core element of the Roman site of Budapest-Aquincum is the archaeological park which includes a large open air space and a new museum building. It offers regular exhibitions, education programs and a museum store with extensive information material."

However, it is very likely that the Hungary site will include much more than only six locations.

meltwaterfalls:
Have I ascertained it correctly that the Danube Limes are mostly not walls, but markers and that differentiates it from the other German Limes/ Walls in the UK?

Indeed, the major criterion for separate WHS seems to be whether a river or a built structure was used as the border. Strangely enough, the Upper German-Raetian Limes includes also a "wet section" of about 50 km between Seligenstadt (near Frankfurt) and Miltenberg.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#276 | Posted: 30 Dec 2018 10:31 | Edited by: Solivagant 
meltwaterfalls:
The criticisms levelled at the WWI proposal (it being about glorification of war, it opening the way for other such sites to be nominated etc.) are much more evident in the Normandy proposal, they are essentially battlefields with some more lasting bits of military hardware.

Funny how Russia managed to "smuggle" its "Green Belt of Glory" on to the List!! The "full extent" of St Petersburg wasn't made clear when it was inscribed - and then Russia defined it and, lo and behold, there were all these WWII battlefield Memorials!! Too late and no real forum to do anything about it without creating a "Difficult" situation!
The Green Belt of Glory is a war memorial surrounding Saint Petersburg, Russia, commemorating the Siege of Leningrad of the Second World War. The belt consists of multiple small memorials marking the historical front line."
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt_of_Glory
UNESCO Ref No - 540-036 "The Memorial in memory of the defense of the city in 1941-1944 «the Green Belt of Glory of Leningrad»"
It would seem very much to "Cross the line"- but it wasn't even mentioned by ICOMOS when it declined to recommend inscription for the WWI Memorials and produced its discussion paper "Evaluations of World Heritage Nominations related to Sites Associated with Memories of Recent Conflicts"
I quote from that - "Up until now there have only been three properties inscribed that relate to memories of recent conflicts. These are Auschwitz, Poland, 1979, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome), Japan, 1996 and Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site, Marshall Islands (2010)."

There are of course numerous WHS where Battles or Sieges took place as well as an excessive number of forts - but it can usually be claimed that they are inscribed for other "Values" -e.g Warsaw. And most cities are likely to have a national memorial or so somewhere within their boundaries as a part of their "Urban fabric". But the "Green Belt of Glory" consists of a series of separately identified and numbered locations outside the main city area of St Petersburg whose sole function/value is as being memorials located at a place of conflict - and that being as "recent" as WWII.!!

It could come back to haunt UNESCO/ICOMOS! The "Comparison section" for the T List site of Mamayev Kurgan (Stalingrad) even mentions it - "War memorials associated with sites of battles (criterion iv)
Under this notion the component 540-036 of World Heritage Property "Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments" known as "The Memorial to Defense of the City of 1941 - 1944 "The Green Belt of Glory of Leningrad", included into the World Heritage List, should be mentioned. It is a complex of memorial constructions located at the borders of the defense of Leningrad, which commemorates strength and heroism of warriors and citizens of the city."

Author ajoszucs
Partaker
#277 | Posted: 2 Jan 2019 04:05 | Edited by: ajoszucs 
hubert:
However, it is very likely that the Hungary site will include much more than only six locations.

Yes indedd. According to the "Hungarian Limes Society" a civil group working in the preparation for the nomination paper, the whole Ripa Pannonica nomination in Hungary will include 124 different locations, including two major provincial towns (Acquincum, Brigetio), 18 military camps, late Roman fortifications, and watchtowers (most of them tracable only on aerial photogaphs only), some sections of Roman roads and two roadside stations. I couldn't find a deatled map so far, only a very schamtic one.

http://www.ripapannonica.hu/magyar/terkep.php

Anyway this w ill ba a nomination very easy to tick. Part of the ruins of Acquin cum are in the center of Budapest, under the Erzsébet bridge - and the center of the Roman town is within the borders of the city, easily reachable by suburban rail H5. (Station Acquincum). The best reconstucted provincial town of the Ripa Pannonica however is in AUstria, Carnuntum.

Author Parsons
Partaker
#278 | Posted: 4 Jan 2019 09:37 
Do people think that Mafra has a plausible chance of being inscribed? Previous attempts at inscribing more European palaces have not seemed very successful, but I am not sure if Portugal in particular has any sway over the current composition of the Committee. I will be in Portugal later this month, and using a whole day out of Lisbon to visit it (I won't have a car) seems a likely waste given its mediocre reviews. My last two visits to tentative sites just before being considered for inscription have both failed (Arasbaran and Jakarta) and I feel like this would likely be the same.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#279 | Posted: 4 Jan 2019 11:20 | Edited by: nfmungard 
Parsons:
Do people think that Mafra has a plausible chance of being inscribed? Previous attempts at inscribing more European palaces have not seemed very successful, but I am not sure if Portugal in particular has any sway over the current composition of the Committee. I will be in Portugal later this month, and using a whole day out of Lisbon to visit it (I won't have a car) seems a likely waste given its mediocre reviews. My last two visits to tentative sites just before being considered for inscription have both failed (Arasbaran and Jakarta) and I feel like this would likely be the same.

I don't have a good track record of late when it comes to guessing WHS. The WHC has gotten more permissive (Naumburg?).

We have had a discussion on the subject a while back on one of our meetups. And Iain (who doesn't count these visits anyhow, only after inscription) questioned if it's really worth the time and effort. As you experienced yourself, the likelihood is probably around 50% that even a scheduled site will not make the cut. And spending time and money on something that will not get in?

Personally, I try to pick up tentative sites if it's not too much of a hassle and detour (time, cost) OR if the site is stellar without a doubt. E.g. travelled to Plain of Jars as this is fairly sure to make the cut. Same for the Chapel in Padua.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#280 | Posted: 6 Jan 2019 07:38 | Edited by: Solivagant 
It might be useful/interesting to build up links to Nomination Files for this year's Nominations where they are available in advance of their "formal" publication. I haven't checked widely but here are a few of them
Risco Caido and the Sacred mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape (Spain)
http://descargas.grancanaria.com/cultura/patrimonio_historico/risco-caido/NominationR CSMGCmenor02.pdf
Jodrell Bank Observatory (United Kingdom)
http://www.jodrellbank.net/world-heritage-site-nomination/
Krzemionki prehistoric striped flint mining region (Poland)
Unfortunately I have only been able to discover a preface and contents to date - and you have to register for that!
https://www.academia.edu/36118494/KRZEMIONKI_PREHISTORIC_STRIPED_FLINT_MINING_REGION. _WORLD_HERITAGE_NOMINATION_POLAND?auto=download
Vatnajökull National Park - Dynamic nature of fire and ice (Iceland)
https://www.vatnajokulsthjodgardur.is/static/files/Utgefid-efni/VJP-sameiginlegt/unes co-nomination-of-vatnajokull-national-park-dynamic-nature-of-fire-and-ice.pdf
Kempen Rural-Industrial Transition Landscape (Belgium)
https://www.heritagehogekempen.be/ (Nomination, management plan etc)
Water Management System of Augsburg (Germany)
https://wassersystem-augsburg.de/sites/default/files/medien/1_stadt_augsburg_nominati on_dossier.pdf
Landscape for Breeding and Training of Ceremonial Carriage Horses at Kladruby nad Labem (Czechia)
https://www.nhkladruby.cz/data/filecache/2d/NOMINATION_DOSSIER.pdf

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#281 | Posted: 6 Jan 2019 09:05 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Apparently there is opposition in Japan to the nomination of the "Mozu - Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan".
I have come across a Web site which has been trying to mobilise such opposition. Only in Japanese - therefore we (or at least "I"!) have to rely on Google translate to make sense of it all!
https://open.mixi.jp/user/5141166/diary/1966165878
The latest entry recognises that the nomination had been forwarded to ICOMOS and that the "Battle" had thus moved on from being with the Japanese government. Instead it was trying to get people to express their opposition directly to ICOMOS to the extent of providing a "model" note -
"Example sentence
Japanese people take strong objection to World Cultural Heritage inscription of "Mozu - Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan".
Notwithstanding the "Kofun Group" is not merely ancient tumulus clusters but also mausolea of ​​present Japanese dynasty, Nomination File of "Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group" is disregarding history and traditions of a reverence for the Imperial Mausoleum entirely. It's not cultural, and it's unacceptable to Japanese citizen.
Please do not recommend UNESCO World Heritage Committee to inscribe "Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group" on the World Heritage List."


Here is an article from the UK "Independent" which describes the "opposition" but puts a slightly different slant on their "reasons" - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-mozu-furuichi-kofun-group-unesco- world-heritage-secrets-osaka-sakai-fukidera-habikino-emperors-a7917781.html

It will be interesting to see what ICOMOS makes of all this! Both the "fact" of opposition from some stakeholders but, more importantly, the implication that the sites have not been objectively studied and excavated.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#282 | Posted: 6 Jan 2019 16:00 
Recent article in addition to what Solivagant has provided.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201811090019.html

Quite a bit of information about the nomination on the official webpage, but it is striking how little is dedicated to who is in the tombs and what artifacts have been found. Is the distinctive design of the key-hole shaped tombs and their massive size enough for inscription?

http://www.mozu-furuichi.jp/en/

Author Durian
Partaker
#283 | Posted: 6 Jan 2019 23:38 
Solivagant:
Apparently there is opposition in Japan to the nomination of the "Mozu - Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan".

Being WHS does not always mean openness, it may means "no access". Okinoshima is a good example of complete ban of tourists and researchers by citing reason of preservation. So it is natural for historians and archaeologists to oppose the listing as it will be a shut door for their chance to know the truth.

Author Durian
Partaker
#284 | Posted: 7 Jan 2019 22:16 
IUCN reviews nine new World Heritage nominations for 2019

To confirm that there is no surprise additional natural site nomination this year according to IUCN

https://www.iucn.org/news/world-heritage/201812/iucn-reviews-nine-new-world-heritage- nominations-2019

Author Zoe
Partaker
#285 | Posted: 8 Jan 2019 09:37 | Edited by: Zoe 
I wonder what "Gulf of China (Phase I)" means

Additionally I am curious if the IUCN actually goes to the French islands to review them. Must be quite an effort.

Page  Page 19 of 22:  « Previous  1  ...  18  19  20  21  22  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2019 WHC

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 ®
 ⇑