I don't have a Eurocentric POV and aside from the frescos so far nothing has been a must-see place. The Korean wetlands are great but no way they reach the level of OUV that we had before. For countries now trying to get as many of their tourist places on the list as possible seems a trend that will continue. After all the state parties run the show and just seem to waste money on expensive consultants to review these places. All the state parties want to inscribe what they have on their proposals and if anyone plays the partypooper (this time Norway) they'll be blasted as such. After all, why set rules if only like 1 or 2 will try to follow them. What a farce.

Thanks @zoe, vantcj1 for less of a European perspective. I looked myself at the candidates and only chankillo striked out at me. Now I think there are plenty of good sites. And I may find several rrmote ones to be positively surprising.

But the stellar category is missing. Some are weighed down by serialisation. Karlsbad alone would better than grouped. Some are the wrong candidate for the right idea. Darmstadt can't be the best of Art Deco Vienna architecture. For China, why Quangzhou and not Shanghai? ...

German article at zeit
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/kunst/2021-07/unesco-welterbe-mathildenhoehe-kurbaeder-ethnologie-christoph-brumann-interview

The interviewed has a subtle criticism embedded in his statement that may get lost in translation.

To me, this just shows the conflicting aims we associate with the WHL. Looking at it from a travelling / tourist perspective, not all the sites are as amazing....because the WH Convention in itself doesn't care about touristic appeal. What it does want to protect are sites that represent unique facets of human culture / history or unique natural features (very abbreviated definition of OUV). A ho-hum archaeological site where there's little to see may justify inscription if it is the main / the only testimony to a particular culture (such as Arslantepe). Quanzhou's remains look to me to be justified as representative of sea trade during the Song dynasty (960-1279) - the fact that Chinese architecture has tended to favour wood construction of course means that little remains. We may not like it so much because it's not so stellar, but historically it is quite important. (BTW Shanghai is just as justified to be inscribed, but it would represent a totally different era.)

For me the main issue is not so much that they inscribe sites that are recommended as D or R - they usually get inscribed anyway one or two sessions later, with only cosmetic modifications. Why waste the money for consultants to re-write a 500 page dossier? It's rather that the list is getting more and more unbalanced, as only a few non-European countries make proposals for inscription regularly. The combination of the "1 state party - 1 nomination" rule (which favours European states) with the possibility to do transnational sites (which favours the EU, where countries are used to work together, notwithstanding Hungary's shenanigans) and the cost of preparing dossiers and having management plans in place before inscription means that many African, S & C American and Asian countries are at a disadvantage - even though their cultures would be as deserving to be on the List.

That's my opinion. We are all defined by the cultures we live in, after all. Yes, I do think the forums tend to be Eurocentric in perspective, along with the assessments in other parts of this site. I think the Asian and Latin American nominations this year are very strong. If Roberto Burle Marx were an American architect like Frank Lloyd Wright, you can bet people would be falling all over themselves praising the inclusion of that nomination.

I don't think that was always the case in the past. But other may know better. Pragmatically, get away with r and d if that effectively means inscribe.


Must have mixed it up with another colonial China site...


I think every whs traveller knows that ouv <> touristic appeal. Still, you can question the ouv of a railway built in the 20th century. Or yet another limes rotten wood watch tower.


I would disagree re assessment. The whole thread is filled with Europeans complaining about the European approach to whs. I didn't read a single comment so far re Burle. Haven't seen his work and would be curious myself. In the case of la plata you can read my glowing review of le corbusier work there.

Indeed, this is precisely what I'm getting at. Let's be honest: the idea that sites should have immense touristic appeal in order to be considered "stellar" seems like marketing especially designed for Western tourists. I am glad the convention selects sites based on historical and cultural values rather than those that superficially draw attention because of beauty and grandeur. Thank you for the post.

I will reiterate again that not everything should be inscribed because many of these sites are nominated to cash in on those lucrative tourist finances. The ICOMOS assessments are almost always fair and definitely more indicative of what a stellar site truly is. Referrals and deferrals should be left as such.


The point that I am making is that the assessments here hinge upon European notions of value, not that Europeans themselves can't be self-critical.

On Burle Marx, I must admit I'm quite looking forward to this being inscribed, but as I didn't manage to get out to visit the specific House and Garden when I was briefly in Brazil, so it hasn't had top billing for me.

I really like the work of his that I have seen, and a lot of it is already inscribed in Rio, Brasilia and Pamphula.

I think when it is inscribed it will be a good addition, but in a rather niche part of the list (one I happen to love though)

But as much as I like Burle Marx (and in fact prefer his work) the listing of his home and garden really isn't really as internationally important as the listing of the architectural masterworks of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I am quite excited about the Roberto Burle Marx nomination. This is entirely subjective, but I think that the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier are both equally hideous. But that's on me and my biased non-Western perspective. I can respect their inclusions on the list as important from the perspective of architectural history.

Thanks for all the updates yesterday — sounds like it was quite the contentious end to the session. Hopefully today they can stay on track and close to schedule; I'm not sure how many more early mornings I have in me this week!

The session will resume in a minute or two, with the first batch of:
· India - Dholavira
· Iran (Islamic Republic of) - Hawraman/Uramanat
· Japan - Jomon
· Romania - Roșia Montană
· Jordan - As-Salt
· Côte d'Ivoire – Sudanese style mosques
· France - Nice

And we're off, with Dholavira: A Harappan City

A further enhancement of the Ahmedabad hotspot if inscribed.

Chairman Tian keeps this moving.

Dholavira: A Harappan City inscribed

And now onto the Cultural Landscape of Hawraman/Uramanat, Iran

Cultural Landscape of Hawraman/Uramanat inscribed

I miss hearing poetry in the State party's responses...