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 /  
 

Unsatisfactory or Inadequate Categories (plus solutions)

 
Author elsslots
Admin
#1 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 04:14 
Solivagant:
Categories which themselves have proven unsatisfactory or inadequate. The question is whether there is much value to be added by making changes. We have a footprint now of TWHS. The full statistics are awaited but it is showing some aspects I would have expected - a general shape not too much different from the inscribed one.....still loads of Christian, Military and Burial sites to come.... a move towards CL Contin....vast numbers of forests...... Where will we get better insights from changing the category definitions? I would suspect that only around 5 -10% of assignments are problematic? We can now get a handle on the T List in smaller chunks than the full 1700+ even if each smaller chunk needs some "understanding" in relation to its contents.

We have a mental list of problem areas dont we. For a start
a. Insular v Marine/Coastal
b. Palace v Residence
c. Types of Forest
d. Active v Historic Volcanism
e. Post classical European Arch sites
f. Architectural v Urban planning (where sites are listed not for their "purpose" but for who designed them)
g. Geological phenomena not strictly covered by Volcanism, Karst and Erosion (and isn't Karst also "Erosion")
h. When to use Flora/Fauna instead of/as well as a landscape Categ
i. Our "structure by use" approach fails to identify any move towards modern architecture
j. Mixing "Slavery" sites with "Trade & Transport"
k ???


Author Solivagant
Partaker
#2 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 04:20 
I had updated some later aspects after you copied it ---
i. Our "structure by use" approach fails to identify any move towards modern architecture (it is worth asking ourselves I think what sort of aspects we would hope that "categorisation" would help us pull out and understand)
j. Mixing "Slavery" sites with "Trade & Transport". Aren't there enough of them to have separately - again we can find this by looking within the larger group... or have it pulled out for us by a new Category.
k ???

I suspect that many issues are irreconcilable within a framework of limited categories -we could solve 1 problem and just create another,,,, but I am not against addressing some of the issues to see if they take us anywhere.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 04:27 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A couple of other points about "presentation" of the Categories
a. Am I correct in thinking that we cannot see the assignments within the page for each T List entry on the RHS underneath "Type" as we can for inscribed sites? We need this.....??? (might be worth leaving room for "Intended Criteria" as a later exercise??)
b. On the Page per category we have "title", "scheduled" and "rating" - is there not room for for "Country" - Many T List sites are not instantly recognisable even to those who know about such things!! Or does this cause a problem with multiple country sites (For T List they are not logically linked are they??)

Author elsslots
Admin
#4 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 04:43 
Solivagant:
Am I correct in thinking that we cannot see the assignments within the page for each T List entry on the RHS underneath "Type" as we can for inscribed sites? We need this.....??? (might be worth leaving room for "Intended Criteria" as a later exercise??)

Yes we can, I implemented it this morning. See: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/tentative/id/5261# for example. It will take a while before all pages have regenerated themselves.

Author elsslots
Admin
#5 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 04:44 
Solivagant:
On the Page per category we have "title", "scheduled" and "rating" - is there not room for for "Country" - Many T List sites are not instantly recognisable even to those who know about such things!! Or does this cause a problem with multiple country sites (For T List they are not logically linked are they??)

I have this ready as well, but the query was very slow. Needs another look, or just generate it once every month or so (it will not change much after we have finished this TWHS categorizing)

Author elsslots
Admin
#6 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 06:19 
The more structural issues we had in not being able to categorize some of the TWHS:

elsslots:
Structural

Recent Archeology ones
La Cité Historique de Hamdallahi - it is archaeology in a sense, but of the most recent kind, so maybe Relict? Or just straight Civilizations of Sub-Saharan Africa
Ciudad Vieja / La Bermuda -  Archeo sites post-Columbian? Similar issue to what we had with Archeo medieval Europe – these are just of a later date but still archeological remains. 
Sites of Great Moravia -  it's an Archeological site of Medieval Europe, but we don't have a category for this. The most similar site I can think of is Bolgar. We have this as Urban landscape - Medieval European, which doesn't feel right either.

Geological ones
Baltic Klint - Baltic Klint is about the Geology and Stratigraphy of the Klint - not its Marine/Coastal location or anything about the ecosystem of that location. Needs a category like Earth History
La Brea Pitch Lake - another "Geological/Geomorphological site for which we don't have an adequate category
Abu Dhabi Sabkha - This site is about Geology/Geomorphology and not about an ecosystem. IMO we don't have a suitable Category for it
Les Alpes de la Méditerranée (Monaco + France) - (For Italy we said Mountain Marine & Coastal. For Monaco we put it aside. It is really "geological"

Pilgrimage roads
Darb Zubayda - "NOTE 1 These 3 ""Pilgrimage Roads"" have almost exactly cloned descriptions on the UNESCO Web site inclusing the same suggested criteria AND the same ""Comparison"" sites. They are described as comprising - ""Stations and Forts""...""Pools, canals and wells, and water reservoirs... along the route through the desert.... in use from the pre-Islamic period to ....the 13th century CE"".
The Comparators suggested include
The Negev Incense Rte (Which we have as a Relict CL – though the AB eval calls it a ""Fossilised CL"").
The Kii Mountain pilgrimage route (Which we have as ""CL Assoc"")
The Spanish Rte of Sant de Compost (Which we have as a Religious Structure)
Silk Roads (Which we have as ""Transport & Trade"").
All 3 ""roads"" justify the same answer – but which? CL Relict or ""Transport & Trade""? I don't know!"
Syrian Hajj Road -
Egyptian Hajj Road -

Modern architecture
Alvaro Siza's Architecture Works - "His work in Portugal includes various building types: individual houses and entire residential areas, churches, restaurants and public buildings such as schools, universities and libraries." How to choose or what else?
-> we have this one left as an isolated case, but the issue also occurs at other modern architecture sites


Author elsslots
Admin
#7 | Posted: 6 Dec 2021 06:28 
And I'd also like to discuss a Vernacular Villages category (split from the Urban Landscapes)

About this website www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / About this website /
 Unsatisfactory or Inadequate Categories (plus solutions)

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 ®
 ⇑