"Early Christian Necropolis Pecs" is ONLY "Secular Structure Burial"
Q- How should we categorise "burial places" since such places may or may not be "religious" structures - or only marginally so? Do we count them ALL as "burial places" (and remove the word "secular"?) and only also categorise them as "Religious" if still currently so... or not at all?
As, well as being "burial places"???
No, I would not do that. Only 1 category per site. So Khoja will be Religious Islamic.
A compromise could be the introduction of the combination "Religious Structure - Burial". Probably only Skogskyrkogarden will then be remaining in "Secular Structure - Burial". But then it would loose the Islamic/Christian etc
Hmmm, the "one category per one WHS" paradigm might indeed be challenged starting from theses cases, as Solivagant
points out in the last post and as seen from the discussion, even if I udnerstand the need for a coarser distinction than, say, all specific connections like stupa (Buddhist!), painted by Tiepolo (Palace!), conquered by Chinggis Khaan (Asian!), and so on.
Could we settle about a distinction between two kinds of categories, a "qualitative" and a "factual" one, which can get combined? So, we might regard a category assigned to a WHS as actually comprised of two such elements, not necessarily both, but at least one. This would solve all problems for burial sites. Also, the shipwreck might now be a maritime
site, and so on similarly.
categories (~adjectives): Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Byzantine, Caribbean, Civilizations of Sub-Saharan Africa, Classical (other), Egyptian, Far Eastern, Near Eastern, Pacific, Phoenician, Pre-Columbian, Prehistoric, South (East) Asian, Viking, Human evolution, Non-hominid fossils (undecided, probably prehistorical and palaeontological could exist), Bahá'i Faith, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Indigenous, Islamic, Jewish, Educational, African, Arabic and Middle Eastern, Asian, Colonial, Latin American, Maritime, Medieval European, Post-medieval European, Urban continuity (?), Fauna, Flora
- we can probably be content with cultural amalgams of history + place here (but see below)
categories (~nouns): Rock Art, Urban Landscape (3 kinds), Agriculture, Transport and Trade, Urban planning, Desert, Diverse ecosystems (maybe too vast?), Eroded (?), Forest, Glaciation, Insular, Karst landscapes and caves, Marine and Coastal, Mountain, Rivers and Lakes, Volcanic and thermal (so Spas here alongside with Etna? :-D ), Burial (for prehistoric/generic/undescript sites of archaeological character, see below) Civic and Public Works, Factories and industry, Memorials and Monuments (maybe extending it to tombs and necropoleis?), Military and Fortifications, Mines, Palace, Park or garden, Residence (is there a real difference from Palace
I have put some remarks as commentary in the list above. In this system, some elements would become slightly more general, and some might need to be "repurposed". Also, we might probably get rid of purely geographical categories, since these are actually redundant given the geolocalisation of each site. I think the cultural aspect is more relevant, so we might stick to that.
But with regard to geography...
Q -How should we handle WHS in Central Asia - count them as Arabic/Middle Eastern, "Asian" or introduce a new category of "Central Asian" or ..............? The problem is that, ocne we start having a geographic split for "Urban Landscape we get dragged into the geographic issue.
Here I believe that an elegant and effcient solution would be to apply the United Nations geoscheme of subregions
. So yes, we would have Central Asian
, and rightly so!
OK, maybe some small
tweaks would be needed, like adding Siberia, or "creating" Central Europe.
* * * * *
Given all of the above, @Els
, would you mind if I jumped straight to I to categorise Italy's TWHSs? :-D