World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /  
 

Out or In Doubt #16

 
Author elsslots
Admin
#1 | Posted: 18 Apr 2010 04:38 | Edited by: elsslots 
(2809) Chariots
Regensburg - Thurn-und-Taxisschloss
>> I guess the ones in the museum are carriages, not traditional chariots

(2808) Built or owned by Japanese
Japanese Villa at Lushan National Park
>> By whom was it built?

(2787) Boats
Hoi An Wreck >> not part of the WHS

(2780) Cultural sites taking up an entire island
Vigan >> is not an island anymore

(2755) Tombs
Humayun's Tomb, Delhi >> we have it as a mausoleum

(2750) Cave Temples/Churches
Ellora >> rock cut architecture (not natural caves)

(2749) Cave Temples/Churches
Elephanta Caves >> rock cut architecture (not natural caves)

(2748) Cave Temples/Churches
Ajanta >> rock cut architecture (not natural caves)

(2729) Necropolises
Yinxu
>> no evidence in nomination files

(2703) Minority communities
Mesa Verde - Pueblo Peoples
>> they do not live there anymore

(2699) Contiguous National Sites
Juizhaigou and Huanglong National Parks (map on pag 19 from the AB evaluation suggests otherwise; also, I have been to both, and they are quite a distance apart)

Religious Relics
Ambohimanga >> which?

(87) Walled cities
Syracuse >> only in the past, now demolished??

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#2 | Posted: 18 Apr 2010 05:28 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Re Vigan.
The Inscribed Historic Centre never took up the entire island (which is somewhat larger) anyway. We do have a connection for Former islands "WHS which, within historical memory, (rather than in the timescales of "Geological eras"!) used to be islands but are now not separated from the surrounding land"
The definition isn't specific but implies that the inscribed site occupies what used to be the entire island.

Author Assif
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 18 Apr 2010 08:15 
Re Ambohimanga - it used to contain the royal family's relics till 1897 when they were forcibly removed by the French.

Re Regensburg - both Regensburg and Schoenbrunn display carraiges. Perhaps the connection could be broadened to include these two?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#4 | Posted: 18 Apr 2010 08:19 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Re Japanese Villa Lushan
I have searched hard but don't think it will be possible to establish exactly by whom the Japanese Villa in Lushan was built -if it was even built by an individual.
The AB evaluation states "the former Japanese villa of 1903 is in traditional Japanese wooden construction." I would regard the use if the word "former" as being significant. It is just possible I suppose that a Japanese style villa might have been built in China by a foreigner other than a Japanese - but surely highly unlikely!!!

Given the date for the building of 1903, it is worth considering the historic situation then pertaining re Japanese expansion and overseas economic activity and hence the likelihood of there being a Japanese presence in Lushan
a. Japan had won the Sino-Japanese war in 1895 and had taken Formosa. The Treaty of Shimoneseki "elevated Japan to become another foreign power in Shanghai. Japan built the first factories in Shanghai, which were soon copied by other foreign powers" (Wiki).
b. Japan had participated (at UK request and urging - in fact it provided the greatest number of troops) in the rescue of the Legations in Peking in 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion. When the "Boxer Protocol" peace agreement was signed in 1901 Japan was granted 7.7% of the reparations
c. The first Anglo-Japanese Treaty had been signed in 1902 signalling Japan's acceptance among the European powers. Only 3 years later Japan would defeat Imperial Russia.

It seems entirely plausible therefore that a Japanese person/organisation (The Zaibatsu had already emerged as favoured companies in the late 19th century) would build in Lushan in 1903. Lushan (then called "Kuling") was created by European/American expats in China as a summer retreat for them to escape the heat of the Yangtse valley. As indicated above Japan was certainly present in Shanghai further down river. Wuhan was/is the closest large city and Hankou was the port area for which European nations were granted extra territorial concessions - UK, France, Russia, Germany AND Japan. The Japanese would hardly have been likely either to foresake the pleasant climate or to miss the opportunity of social and business interaction available in Kuling!!

(PS -if there is a justified connection for "Carriages" I would favour keeping it separate from that for "Chariots". They may be similar in having wheels and being pulled by horses but their purpose, design and historic period are surely different enough to do so!)

Author Durian
Partaker
#5 | Posted: 18 Apr 2010 22:11 | Edited by: Durian 
Re Japanese Villa Lushan

Thanks Solivagant, I question the japanese villa of Lushan for a long time as I never saw its pic and do not know its current situation. I looked the Lushan History from www.huacom.org/63/background/index.htm (with help of google translate) there is no mention on Japanese at all for the year 1903, but in 1914 The japanese joined the Lushan community council and in 1920 the Japanese consul bought land to built a villa!

I'm not sure is this the same villa that mentioned in Unesco document? Maybe there were many Japanese villas in Lushan but built in European style not Japanese one, and what happen with these villas? destroyed during the war by the Japanese army or by the revenge of local chinese? I would be very surprised to see Japanese villa survive in such many hard time.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#6 | Posted: 19 Apr 2010 04:59 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Interesting and useful link Durian! I wonder if the e-mail addresses given as contacts could/would accept a query in English about the Villa?

I came across this book written by a British expat describing his experiences in acquiring land and in setting up a municipal organisation (wonderfully "British" with its committees in this far off land!) in Kuling during the period 1894-99 - there is no mention of any Japanese during that time. The role of the Missionaries is quite noteworthy - it would be interesting to know what has happened to their churches! On Page 24 there is mention of the Russians and the fact that several nationalities were involved in buying lots. On page 32 there is mention of the sale of lots for $200 (with a 25% reduction for Missionaries!!) and no indication of any restrictions by nationality in this essentially "British" concession.

http://www.kulingamericanschool.org/KASA_2009/KAS_History/Pages/KAS_Story.html#0

As the history of your link states Kuling was certainly occupied by the Japanese during the "Second Sino-Japanese War" - and was indeed relatively close to their southern front lines. Another reference I found relates to some papers about German holdings/Nationals in Kuling during that period - Germany was of course allied with Japan so its nationals would have remained and not been marched off in inhuman conditions to Labour camps and worse!
Your link's history doesn't particularly indicate that revenge attacks at the end of the war resulted in the destruction of Japanese property. My knowledge of the immediate period after the Japanese surrender is limited. - I suspect that Kuling was militarily a bit of a backwater and escaped further damage. The importance of the location to the ruling Communist elite would also have protected the foreign buildings from the depradations of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#7 | Posted: 24 Apr 2010 02:35 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A query about the inclusion of "The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes" under the "In Private Ownership" Connection.

The definition of this Connection is specifically framed as "WHS which are owned in their entirety by a private individual or company". This is a very rare sitituation with, hitherto, only 3 examples. For a number of reasons
a. Locations of OUV which meet the requirements for inscription have often been taken over by the state
b. Countries are possibly not that happy about nominating such properties
c. UNESCO is not that happy about inscribing them because of the lack of a "state" to take full responsibility
d. Private owners are often not that happy to see their properties inscribed
e. Many sites cover large areas with multiple owners

Once we allow private property within a larger site containing "mixed" ownership types to justify the connection we will need to include most Historic Centres of towns and cities, Cultural Landscapes and, in some countries, even National Parks

The definition of the connection could be extended to allow "WHS within which significant elements are within private ownership" - but such a fudge always creates problems of determining "significant"!!

Villandry is certainly a "significant" building/garden but the Loire Valley etc was inscribed as a Cultural Landscape covering over 200k hectares. The Chateaux themselves only constitute a (surprisingly) small element of the total case made in the Nomination File.

Author elsslots
Admin
#8 | Posted: 24 Apr 2010 04:03 
Solivagant:
WHS which are owned in their entirety

Ah, you're right. Again. I forgot. I will delete the connection.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#9 | Posted: 24 Apr 2010 06:22 | Edited by: Solivagant 
But you could consider Fujian Toulou for the Private Ownership Connection!.
"According to the regulations in Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the lands within the area of nominated property are owned by the peasant collectives. The Tulou buildings are privately owned by the inhabitants, and the public structures inside Tulou are owned by them collectively." (Nom File).
I guess the only problem is whether a "peasant collective" is private ownership. I would have thought it was - We would allow ownership by a private "capitalist" company as per Stoclet House (but not I would think a PLC) or even a co-operative (Some, but not all, of the Berlin Housing Estates fitted this model as I remember it). State and Church owned properties would certainly be excluded.

I also checked Kaipeng Diaolou but its Nom File shows its ownership to be somewhat more mixed :-
"The land ownership of Kaiping Diaolou and villages belong to the People's Republic of China, the traditional buildings, i.e., the Diaolou and those in the villages, are collectively and individually owned respectively, for which the property owners signed contracts with the government in accordance with the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and entrust the government with the management of the relevant sites. Residential houses are managed by their owners"
Nevertheless it is somewhat ironic that "Communist" PRC should include a "privately owned" WHS!!

Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Out or In Doubt #16

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 ®
 ⇑