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

Author elsslots
Admin
#106 | Posted: 12 Mar 2015 12:54 | Edited by: elsslots 
Suggested is:
Sites reduced from a larger T-site:
Malpelo (Colombia), Volubilis (Morocco), Dolomites (Italy), Carmel caves (Israel), Choirokoitia (Cyprus), Thessaloniki (Greece), Pecs (Hungary), Villa romana del Casale (Italy), San Marino, Sao Cristovao (Brazil), Silk road (Kyrgyzstan), Mercury route, Torino

But we already have this connection. Shall I merge it into one? The limitation to Cultural WHS seems unnecessary. There's only a difference between "rejected" and "not put forward at all"

World Heritage Sites connected to 'Part of Cultural nomination rejected':

•Fortifications of Vauban Two sites initially nominated by France were removed from the final list: - Bazoches, Nièvre: château - Belle-Île-en-Mer, Morbihan: citadel and walls surrounding Le Palais
•Oaxaca and Monte Alban Was originally nominated to include a 3rd element - the (unfinished) Convent of Cuilapan 10 kms south of Oaxaca. In its evaluation ICOMOS stated "(Oaxaca/Monte Ablan), situated within close proximity of one to the other, are historically complementary. On the other hand, it would appear unnecessarily redundant to include Cuilapan, which is located at some distance from the others, in a nomination to the World Heritage List.".
•Puebla Was originally nominated to include the pre-Columbian site (Teotihuacan/Olmec/Aztec) of Cholula (around 10kms away). Cholula contains the remains of a pyramid often described as the "largest man made monument by volume in the World" (Wiki). ICOMOS/UNESCO didn't consider that it "paired" well with Puebla. As of 2009 the site is not on Mexico's T List.
•Santo Domingo Was originally nominated to include the archaeological sites of La Isabela and Concepcion de la Vega. La Isabela is around 200kms from Sto Domingo and is regarded as the first formal European settlement in the new world (1493 by Columbus). La Vega is around 125kms from Sto Domingo and grew from a fort built by Columbus in 1494. Whilst recognising the "evident symbolic value" of properties "so closely linked to 3 significant moments in the history of Hispaniola in the period following the discovery of the island by Christopher Columbus" ICOMOS/UNESCO was (back in 1989) "disconcerted" to "find a single proposal for 3 properties so distant from one another"! As of 2009 both rejected properties are individually listed on Dominican Republic's T List.
•Tauric Chersonese inscribed "with the exception of serial component no. 7 Cape Vinogradny"

Author Assif
Partaker
#107 | Posted: 12 Mar 2015 18:18 | Edited by: Assif 
I think it is the same and should be merged.
This connection should also include the Incense Route of the Negev and Hamiguitan.

Author Assif
Partaker
#108 | Posted: 13 Mar 2015 18:46 
We also have the two connections:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tags/tag591.html
and
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tags/tag565.html
Both San Marino and Incense Route in the Negev should be added to "Cultural sites rejected for natural criteria.

Author elsslots
Admin
#109 | Posted: 18 Mar 2015 01:50 
Cultural sites damaged by fire since inscription
Valparaiso

We already have the Feb 2007 event.
Suggested also is:
Apr 2014 + Mar 2015
But I don't believe these fires have reached the inscribed areas, have they?

Author elsslots
Admin
#110 | Posted: 12 Apr 2015 06:51 
New connection Watchtowers:

maybe we can think of a limitation, otherwise every fortress and prison will qualify

freestanding watchtowers? or ...?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#111 | Posted: 12 Apr 2015 07:22 
elsslots:
maybe we can think of a limitation, otherwise every fortress and prison will qualify


Coincidentally I had come to the same conclusion and was building up a list when I saw this latest forum post. I haven't yet been able to discover a useful subset definition. There is also an issue about a definition of a watchtower. The Svaneti AB eval for instance talks about the towers being used for observation AND defence. I have also seen photos of the little "box" type structures for just 1 or 2 people (I don't know the correct architectural term) at the corners of e.g La Fortaleza being called "Watchtowers". I suspect very few watch towers were only used for "watching" and that it will prove rather difficult to differentiate those constructed primarily for "watching" and those primarily for "defence"

Carcassonne
Pinte tower http://medieval.mrugala.net/Architecture/France,_Aude,_Carcassonne,_Cite/Carcassonne% 20-%2031.htm

Jerusalem
"The walls contain 34 watchtowers and 8 gates" (Wiki)

Derbent
"To the south lies the seaward extremity of the Caucasian wall (fifty metres long), otherwise known as Alexander's Wall, blocking the narrow pass of the Iron Gate or Caspian Gates (Portae Athanae or Portae Caspiae). When intact, the wall had a height of 29 ft (9 m) and a thickness of about 10 ft (3 m) and, with its iron gates and numerous watch-towers, defended Persia's frontier.

Malbork
"Defence system of the castle was constructed of several rings of high and thick walls separated by moats. Each ring had watch towers, gates and bridges."

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#112 | Posted: 12 Apr 2015 10:40 
What about Vauban in France?

Hwaeong & Namhansanseong in Korea?

Eseentially won't this just turn into a fortress connection?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#113 | Posted: 12 Apr 2015 10:56 
winterkjm:
fortress connection?


Which we have as a "Category" rather than as a "Connection".

Though "Category" doesn't seem to be working at the moment Els - is that another "problem" for you!! By the way how do we get to "Categories" now that it doesn't have a top level "tab"??

Author elsslots
Admin
#114 | Posted: 12 Apr 2015 13:21 
Solivagant:
Category" doesn't seem to be working at the moment

back up again!

Solivagant:
how do we get to "Categories" now that it doesn't have a top level "tab"??

you get to it via the individual sites pages, the full list is shown on the right of the individual category pages

Author Durian
Partaker
#115 | Posted: 14 Apr 2015 01:44 
Extended from original TWHS

Venice - Trocello

I am confusing with the original Italian tentative list of 1984. The list was something strange since there are sites to be nominated individually, Naples, Siena, Lucca, Vicenza, Alberobello, but Italian also proposed as the groups, for example Greek Sites in Campania and Sicily: Paestum, Posidonia, Agrigento etc., or examples of renaissance cities: Ferrara, Pienza and Urbino.

Trocello was in the Byzantine Architecture group with Ravenna, Pomposa and Pelermo Cefalu e Monreale.

I am not sure when Italian changed their tentative list and separate each site to be WHS on its own, but one thing we sure is it was happened after 1994. But regarding to Trocello of 1984 list, are we considered these sites as individual nomination or as a group? If individual this connection with Venice maybe work, but if as group, the connection is very misled.

Author Assif
Partaker
#116 | Posted: 14 Apr 2015 09:35 
You are right it looks confusing, but whenever there are either hyphens or commas it seems to me the TWHS do not build up a serial nomination but stand for their own. That is the reason for the general distinction (although it is not very solid).

Author Durian
Partaker
#117 | Posted: 15 Apr 2015 04:15 | Edited by: Durian 
Assif:
whenever there are either hyphens or commas it seems to me the TWHS do not build up a serial nomination but stand for their own


Then why the Centro Storico of Naples and Siena were not grouped together but proposed as separated sites in different items.

I think Italian 1984 tentative list is very interesting as it can be an evidence of the first attempt to inscribe sites as serial nomination based on similarities. One of the best example was Ercolano - Pompeii (item 5), the Italian grouped this two sites under Roman Residential Cities, and these two sites finally be inscribed as Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata, and the intent of hyphen was to group together.

Or the group of Baptistery of Northern Italy in Parma - Modena - Albenga - Novara and Cremona (item 14). The proposal focus on Baptistery as the group of serial nomination, and the idea of Italy to nominate just Baptistery in these 5 cities as an individual site must be a shock for ICOMOS to write OUV.

Also the groups of exceptional place with great painters nomination which focused on Giotto and Fra Angelico in Assisi and Cortona, and Piero Francesca in Siena - Florence - Borgo San Sepolcro (item 13) is another good example. The Italian used hyphen to group famous art sites in many cities painted by these 3 early renaissance artists .

Since the list is very interesting and I don't want us to reject the possibility of Italian idea of serial nomination from their document which in that time must be really a new idea. We should keep the list as original as in the document, i.e. as a group, but I will let Els to decide on this matter.

What do you think, Els?

Author elsslots
Admin
#118 | Posted: 15 Apr 2015 04:33 
Durian:
What do you think, Els?

I think it's difficult to say what was meant.
I tend to believe that the Italians wanted to nominate all separate sites, as that was the common thing to do in the early stages of the list. They clustered them in the file, but so did Greece, France and Germany for example. So no serial nominations.

Maybe we can find another source, besides this one pdf?

Author Durian
Partaker
#119 | Posted: 15 Apr 2015 05:11 | Edited by: Durian 
elsslots:
I tend to believe that the Italians wanted to nominate all separate sites, as that was the common thing to do in the early stages of the list. They clustered them in the file, but so did Greece, France and Germany for example. So no serial nominations.


No problem, Els, but can you do some change to make it more clear:

- Albenga, Parma, Modena, Novara and Cremona since the original tentative list is only for Baptistery, not the whole city.
- Change Cortona - Piero della Francisco since there is no link between city and the artist, but should be Piero Della Francesca's Siena - Florenze - Borgo San Sepolcro.
- For Cortona have to be Giotto and iI Beato Angelico in Assisi and Cortona.
- Add Villa Lante (Bagnaia) to the list of 1984 as well as Villa di Caprarola.

Author Assif
Partaker
#120 | Posted: 15 Apr 2015 08:09 | Edited by: Assif 
Villa Lante (Bagnaia) as well as Villa di Caprarola (=Farnese) are part of the current TWHS Villas of Papal Nobility in Latium.

For some examples you can clearly see the distinction between grouped nominations and single nomination. For example:
Ravenna e Pomposa - Torcello - Palermo Cefalu e Monreale
Giotto e il Beato Angelico - Assisi e Cortona - Piero della Francesca - Siena - Firenze - Borgo San Sepolero
In these two examples a distinction is made between Ravenna and Pomposa contrasted with Torcello for example, and Assisi and Cortona contrasted with Siena and Firenze. Ravenna and Pomposa appear toegether as well as Assisi and Cortona. This suggests these sites should be considered as a unit. This also suggests the other sites should not.

Therefore, some corrections:

The original title of Turin was: Torino - le dimore sabaude (which means it only concentrated on the Savoy residences and was the forerunner of the later nomination of Savoy residences.

Piazza Armerina was taken as an example of restoration of antiques, so identical with later Villa del Casale.

The original Sacri Monti was smaller than the current one (only four of them).

Pompeii and Herculaneum were two separate nominations.

Ravenna and Pomposa were a single nomination.

Certosa di Padula, Paestum and Posidonia were separate nominations.

Assisi and Cortona were a single nomination:
Giotto e il Beato Angelico: Assisi e Cortona

Caserta la Reggia and Stupinigi were a single nomination.

San Fruttuoso, Portofino and Camogli were originally separate nominations.

St. Leucio and Aquedotto Vanvitelliano were a separate nomination from Caserta later united.

Casino Vanvitelliano is a mistake. It should be the Acquedotto Vantvitelliano which is later subsumed by the WHS Caserta.

Certosa di Pavia - later extended to include the town in the current TWHS.

Contesti Lacustri - parts (Isola Bella) included in current Taormina and Isola Bella.

Villa d'Este and Villa Gregoriana were a single TWHS later reduced to the current WHS and TWHS respectively.

Spoleto and Tempietto sul Clitunno (1996) - partly included in the Longobards (church), but the rest of the historic centre remained uninscribed, so a missing former TWHS.

Mantua and Sabbionetta were originally separate nominations.

Porto di Roma and Ostia is the same: Ostia - Porto di Roma.

Capri was proposed both as a part of the Bay of Naples and separately.

Page  Page 8 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 ®
 ⇑