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 #26

 
 
Page  Page 4 of 9:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#46 | Posted: 1 Nov 2013 03:19 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I note that Taos Pueblo has been added to the Connection for "Dependent Territories" using the AB comment "Taos Pueblo is part of a semi-autonomous Native American governed territory. "Administration of Taos Pueblo is vested in the Taos tribe."
This is an interesting aspect and may justify a connection but i don't think it justifies being called a "Dependent territory" because of that -"dependent" and "autonomous" are different statuses - let alone "Semi autonomous"!
see Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_areas_by_country

I note we have some other "autonomous" areas in this connection too (e.g Jeju). I would suggest that we should either extend the definition of this Connection to include a wider range of "relationships" within a fully sovereign state than pure "dependency" or think harder about additional types of such relationships which might justify separate Connections. But we would need to guard against regarding all internal entities in Federal States or as in UK as being dependent or autonomous or whatever!! There are a lot of different constitutional "arrangements" out there!

Author elsslots
Admin
#47 | Posted: 3 Nov 2013 04:55 
Solivagant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_areas_by_country

The list is too long for a connection (for example, all Spanish and a number of UK WHS would qualify)

Author elsslots
Admin
#48 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 11:06 
In private ownership - Crespi d'Adda
> in preparation of a trip there in December, I found out yesterday that the site has been sold to a private owner (an ex-football player and now business man); however, the extent of what he has bought is not clear to me. It seems he "only" bought the former factory, not the whole town. For inclusion in this connection, the whole WHS must be in private ownership, not just part of it (that would be common of course). Anyone out there that knows more of the extent of the deal done by Mr. Percassi?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#49 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 11:10 
elsslots:
Anyone out there that knows more of the extent of the deal done by Mr. Percassi?


This (In Italian) certainly indicates that the entire village is in the hands of his organisation
http://www.casa24.ilsole24ore.com/art/mondo-immobiliare/2013-10-11/percassi-acquista- recupera-villaggio-153406.php

Author elsslots
Admin
#50 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 11:33 
Solivagant:
This (In Italian) certainly indicates that the entire village is in the hands of his organisation
http://www.casa24.ilsole24ore.com/art/mondo-immobiliare/2013-10-11/percassi-acquista- recupera-villaggio-153406.php

I wonder how this will turn out. His company seems to specialize in creating Shopping Outlet Centers. But maybe this is just the first in a number of "private rescues" of Italian WHS. Who wants to buy Pompeii?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#51 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 13:09 
I see that the 2014 WHC will be discussing a name change from "Crespi d'Adda" to "Crespi d'Adda Factory Outlet".
Actually that could be a good way of solving the funding problem caused by the US failure to pay its dues. Just as football stadia "rename" themselves, we could have the "Emirates Grand Place Brussels" and the "Nike Taj Mahal"

Author elsslots
Admin
#52 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 14:10 
The KLM Canal Ring of Amsterdam, and the Beemster Cheese Polder

Author clyde
Partaker
#53 | Posted: 26 Nov 2013 15:45 
sorry for the sleazy joke but I can't resist it : Viagra Leaning Tower of Pisa

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#54 | Posted: 8 Dec 2013 16:04 
Purpose built Visitor Centres

Waterton Glacier.
We put in the following rule
WHS which contain a purpose-built Visitor/Interpretative Centre since inscription, or in conjunction with the inscription process.

Partly for fear that (Nearly?) every USA/Canadian NP will have a "purpose built" visitor centre but also the connection was intended to highlight where new centres were being constructed and allowed by UNESCO - something which seems to be a growing trend

It would be no big issue I guess to alter the definition to allow any purpose built VC -but we do need to "regularise" it!
If so then Carmel Caves in Israel should also be added. Built in 1989 - Nomination file

Author elsslots
Admin
#55 | Posted: 8 Dec 2013 23:57 
Solivagant:
We put in the following rule

sometimes I forget that we've set up rules for a certain connection...

but I'll delete this Waterton connection

Author elsslots
Admin
#56 | Posted: 18 Dec 2013 13:06 
Role of Women
Mount Emei - Fuhu Nunnery
>> We've a few nunneries already at "role of women"; I am turning it into a separate connection, especially for those were the women (the nuns) did not play a vital role in the ouv of the site

Author elsslots
Admin
#57 | Posted: 19 Dec 2013 00:54 
Hot springs - Yakushima
>> can you name them or point out the location? be aware that the WHS only covers a smaller inner part of Yakushima

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#58 | Posted: 21 Dec 2013 08:26 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Contiguous Sites Inscribed Twice
Mining sites of Wallonia/Nord Pas de Calais Mining Basin

These 2 sites might well be very "similar" (though interestingly they don't have exactly the same Inscription Criteria - the latter has 6 added to the shared 2 and 4) but to the best of my knowledge they are not "contiguous".

I think a few other "non contiguous" pairs have crept into this Connection recently
a. The Wooden Churches of Slovakia and Poland
b. The Missions of Argentina/Brazil and those of Paraguay
c. The Koguryo Kingdom Sites of China and DPRK
d. The Routes of Santiago of France and Spain

Now these may indeed be very similar/almost duplicated sites which one might have expected to have been nominated and inscribed as a joint exercise but the definition currently requires "contiguity"

And aren't Pienza/Val d'Orca examples of "Exact Locations inscribed twice" (or more)

We then have Ngorongoro and Serengeti - but this pair is already connected as "Contiguous National site"

I think the ptoblem is that this connection is trying to conflate 2 differing attirbutes
a. Contiguity
b. Sameness ("but actually refer to a single heritage.")

We have 3 Connections operating in this domain and they should be mutually exclusive
a. Contiguous National sites (as Currently titled)
b. Contiguous Transnational sites (Currently called "Contiguous sites inscrbied twice")
c. Sites inscribed twice or more (Currently titled "Exact locations inscribed twice") -although such sites could conceivably be a part of a trans-national site any location inscribed twice or more is almost certainly going to be within 1 country rather than transnational (though conceivably it could be a "trans-national" element which is inscirbed twice

Which leaves sites having the attribute of "sameness" as in the 2 mining sites with which I started. We certainly could introduce a new "Connection" concerned with "sameness" where this sameness isn't accompanied by contiguity but it is a slippery concept invovling a degree of subjectivity whereas "contiguity" can be objectively determined with a map! Ok - both these sites are of mining villages and towns and are geographically "close" to each other - as are the Missions of the Guarani, the Koguryo Sites and the Routes of Santiago . It could certainly be of interest to bring these together in a new connection - but how to define it to avoid bringing in a whole load of "fairly similar" and "fairly" close sites - Gothic cathedrals, Monasteries etc etc. We could say that they must be no further apart than e.g 100kms at there closest and must relate to the same historic culture and period (wihin how many years??) But there are still potential problems - ICOMOS clealry state in thier review of the Belgian mining sites for instance that it considers them different enough NOT to be considered together with that of France despite their close proximity and historic period

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#59 | Posted: 22 Dec 2013 02:49 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Moved from Location of Original Construction - Belfries - "Belfry of Kortrijk: sculpture of bell striker Manten has been taken away after the Battle of Westrozebeke in 1382 to the Notre Dame in Dijon (France)."

Sorry to be pedantic - but this Connection states "Current WHS or parts thereof originally situated elsewhere. Objects intended to be movable are not included."

(Leaving aside the issue as to whether "Jacquemarts "or "Bellstrikers" are movable or not) As per this definition, all of the other examples of this Connection have the "moved" item finishing up WITHIN the WHS to which the Connection refers. The Belfries example has the "moved item" finishing up in a site which is NOT a WHS (which doesn't meet the rule "originally situated elsewhere" since this operates from the point of view of the receiving site).

I note for instance that the Serpent column is "Connected" under Istanbul - which is where it is now but NOT under Delphi which is where it came from. But, if the Belfries example is allowed then should it not be connected under Delphi too?

A number of different "moved item" scenarios can be imagined
a. From inside a WHS but to a different location within the SAME WHS - we have a number of these (e.g Nubian monuments) but they seem to fit the existing definition
b. From a WHS to another WHS - Many of the current connections are of this type but we have only connected the site of the CURRENT location , not the original (or previous) one
c. From somewhere which isn't a WHS into a WHS - The Sphinxes at Diocletian's Palace just come from "somewhere" in Egypt and the Statue of Liberty was simply erected somewhere in Paris (not in the WHS?)
d. From what is NOW a WHS to "somewhere" else which isn't a WHS. I guess this could be divided into 2 sub-types - a "somewhere" else which is "known" or somewhere else which isn't known. The latter opens up the possibility of having "connections" for anything which is known to have once been within the WHS but now is not - an enormous number and doesn't have the potential interest of telling you where you could NOW see the item. The former has the potential interest of at least indicating WHERE this original bit of a WHS can now be seen! The Kortrijk example is of this type. Rather than extend the current definition I would suggest that we consider whether to identify a new "connection" of "Elements of WHS sites now situated elsewhere". I can't think of 3 new such sites at the moment though we would need to consider whether to include the "from" sites as in b. above as well as sites of the Kortrijk type or whether to have that also as a further separate "connection" for these! I guess it is of interest when looking at eg Volubilis to discover that some of its columns are now at Meknes rather than only discover this when looking at Meknes! We would also need to consider what to do about items which are in museums - we already have Connections for non portable objects now on display inside certain specified museums (which don't have to be WHS themselves). We surely wouldn't want to duplicate these but do we also want to allow the full range of museums around the world to be included in the "moved to" definition? In some respects it would be illogical NOT to do so if we allow non-WHS locations which are not museums.

Author paul
Partaker
#60 | Posted: 22 Dec 2013 06:08 
It is possible to have a column from other whs connection - Al-Zaytuna Mosque of Tunis & the Great Mosque of Kairouan have columns from Carthage and the Mezquita has columns from Mérida

Page  Page 4 of 9:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next » 
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Out or in doubt #26

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 ®
 ⇑