World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
About this website www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / About this website /  
 

Adding Categories to TWHS

 
 
Page  Page 2 of 16:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15  16  Next »

Author elsslots
Admin
#16 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:11 
Solivagant:
How should we handle Tombs and Mausolea?? It is difficult to see how a structure can be both "Secular" and "Religious". But when does a tomb become "Religious" .....

I agree that this is a mistake in the previous attribution of categories to WHS. Also because it regularly seems to have contributed to adding 2 categories to as site.

My 2 cents:
- Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi -> Islamic (it also had the function of a mosque + OUV = contributed to the development of Islamic religious architecture)
- Necropolis of Pecs -> Burial place, but certainly not secular (" strength and faith of the Christian communities of the Late Roman Empire")
- Tomb of Askia -> ha! this can also well be Islamic, it functioned as a mosque as well. Its description and OUV is comparable with that of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi (replace Songhai with Timurid)
- Taj Mahal -> Burial place, not secular ("Indo-Islamic sepulchral architecture")
- Tombs of Buganda Kings -> Religious (" the most active religious place in the kingdom")
- Skogskyrkogarden -> Burial (" a profound influence on cemetery design throughout the world.")

So:
- I see the difference between pure burial sites and burial sites that were (or still are) part of an active site of religious worship. The latter should be put under the religious categories.
- The "Secular Structure" before Burial makes no sense indeed, let's remove it.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#17 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:16 
elsslots:
The latter should be put under the religious categories

As, well as being "burial places"???

Author elsslots
Admin
#18 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:23 
Solivagant:
As, well as being "burial places"???

No, I would not do that. Only 1 category per site. So Khoja will be Religious Islamic.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#19 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:25 | Edited by: Solivagant 
elsslots:
No, I would not do that. Only 1 category per site. So Khoja will be Religious Islamic.

But it was built primarily as a burial place... A mausoleum....
In the, same way as the Taj Mahal.

Author elsslots
Admin
#20 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:29 | Edited by: elsslots 
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

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#21 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:49 
A problem!!
Even Skogskyrkogarden is "religious"... https://skogskyrkogarden.stockholm.se/in-english/100-years/16/
I have read more, about the Taj Mahal and that complex includes a mosque
I suspect there, is (almost?) No burial place, which is (or was) not also religious.
Agree it would be a, shame to lose the religion involved...
I feel we should concentrate on the prime purpose of the structure and then have religious sub sets??

Author elsslots
Admin
#22 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:52 
Solivagant:
prime purpose of the structure and then have religious sub sets??

Like "Burial structure - Islamic" ?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#23 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 13:54 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Or get rid of burial altogether..... Religious structure religion X.... Might be a church, a cathedral, a monastery, a mausoleum, an Abbey, a beguinage etc etc etc! But makes eg theTaj a religious structure!!

Author elsslots
Admin
#24 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 14:07 
Would this help for the Uzbek TWHS? I guess they're all Islamic religious structures.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#25 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 14:28 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Just looking at it logically - we are trying to cover 2 aspects in 1 list - the use/purpose of the structure and (where relevant) the religion using it. There are (at least) 2 overlapping uses - Worship and Burial (or both) and a somewhat greater number of religions or religious groupings including none... or not known or not relelvant or multiple . A lot of "Work" for a single list.
We can prioritise the "Use/purpose" to make a tough judgement on its prime purpose (even where this is unclear) - i.e worship or burial
But that doesn't address the religious group dimension.

How important is the "Single category" objective?? ....... a slippery slope of course once we allow it for more than Cultural/Natural.
Or are we prepared to drop one of the factors - use or religion?

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#26 | Posted: 4 Nov 2021 20:02 | Edited by: Astraftis 
Solivagant:
"Early Christian Necropolis Pecs" is ONLY "Secular Structure Burial"

Solivagant:
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?

elsslots:
Solivagant:
As, well as being "burial places"???

No, I would not do that. Only 1 category per site. So Khoja will be Religious Islamic.

elsslots:
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 + military site, and so on similarly.

- "Qualitative" 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)
- "Factual" 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...

Solivagant:
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

Author elsslots
Admin
#27 | Posted: 5 Nov 2021 01:53 
Astraftis:
Given all of the above, @Els, would you mind if I jumped straight to I to categorise Italy's TWHSs? :-D

Go ahead!

Author elsslots
Admin
#28 | Posted: 5 Nov 2021 02:08 
I am not in favor of mixing the natural categories with the cultural ones. So no Spas within volcanic/thermal.

Astraftis:
Also, the shipwreck might now be a maritime + military site

The maritime category is an Urban landscape, that would not cover a shipwreck.

Solivagant:
we are trying to cover 2 aspects in 1 list - the use/purpose of the structure and (where relevant) the religion using it.

This only seems to be a problem at the burial places. The other secular structures are really secular. So maybe we should only try to solve the religious burial place issue. And not go all the way like Astraftis suggested.

Astraftis:
- "Qualitative" categories (~adjectives): Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Byzantine,

A category always consists of 2 terms already which combine the factual and the qualitative, so for example "Archeological Site - Ancient Greece" or "Natural landscape - Volcanic". Breaking up the bond between those 2 is unnecessary.

Author elsslots
Admin
#29 | Posted: 5 Nov 2021 02:41 | Edited by: elsslots 
Looking at the list of https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/category/Burial, the main reason why these WHS are clustered is that something monumental has been created to honor the dead. It is more like a connection than a category.

Most of them could be easily re-categorized (and often already have a 2nd category attached). So the Khoja Mausoleum is an Islamic religious structure, Sammallahdenmäki a Prehistoric Archaeological site. The Stecci would become a Christian religious structure as well. The Pyramids and the Terracotta Army are archeological sites.

Any objections against dissolving the burial structures category in this way?

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#30 | Posted: 5 Nov 2021 02:48 
Republic of Korea (South Korea)
- Ancient Mountain Fortresses in Central Korea [Secular structure - Military and Fortifications]
- Daegokcheon Stream Petroglyphs [Archaeological site - Rock Art]
- Gaya Tumuli [Secular structure - Burial]
- Kangjingun Kiln Sites [Archaeological site - Far Eastern]
- Mt. Soraksan Nature Reserve [Natural landscape - Mountain]
- Naganeupseong, Town Fortress and Village [Urban landscape - Asian]
- Oeam Village [Urban landscape - Asian]
- Salterns [Human activity - Agriculture]
- Seoul City Wall [Secular structure - Military and Fortifications]
- Sites of fossilized dinosaurs throughout the Southern seacoast [Paleontology - Non-hominid fossils]
- Stone Buddhas and Pagodas at Hwasun Unjusa Temple [Religious structure - Buddhist]
- Upo Wetland [Wildlife habitat - Fauna]

*FYI - Not sure why Jongmyo Shrine (WHS) is included in both cultural and natural categories [
Natural landscape - Rivers and Lakes]

Page  Page 2 of 16:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15  16  Next » 
About this website www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / About this website /
 Adding Categories to TWHS

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 ®
 ⇑