World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections Forum / Connections /  

Out or in doubt #27

Page  Page 3 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next »

Author kkanekahn
#31 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 13:37 
Sun temple Konarak

Sun temple Konarak is definitely single monument.
In jantar mantar, there are many instruments within one boundary. (so, no clear cut indication; I have to read the nomination dossier for detail)
Rani ki vav- I am confused whether Sahasralinga pond included or not

Author Solivagant
#32 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 13:59 | Edited by: Solivagant 
In jantar mantar, there are many instruments within one boundary. (so, no clear cut indication; I have to read the nomination dossier for detail)

Rani-ki-vav is described by ICOMOS in its evaluation as a "site"
Jantar Mantar is described as a "Group of Buildings"

Regarding Konarak - the very early evaluation documentation doesn't specify whether it is a single monument, a "group of buildings" or a "site" but it does state
"Like many Indian temples, comprises several distinct and well organized spatial units. The
vinana, or principal sanctuary, was surmounted by a high tower with a sikkara which was
razed in the 19th century; to the east, the jahanogana (or audience hall) presently
dominates the ruins with its pyramidal mass, the original effect.
Further to the east, the natnandir (or dance hall), today without roofing, rises on a high
platform. Various subsidiary structures are still found within the enclosed area of the
rectangular wall, which is punctuated by its gates and towers. "

Part of the "interest" of the connection lies in the light it shines on how ICOMOS determine what type of WHS each is - there is no clear definition beyond the case law established by ICOMOS. Using that case law Konarak would seem to be a "Group of Buildings" or a "Site".
This plan seems to show 5 separate buildings,_Orissa,_India_- _HU_version.svg

Author kkanekahn
#33 | Posted: 27 Oct 2014 22:37 
Part of the "interest" of the connection lies in the light it shines on how ICOMOS determine what type of WHS each is - there is no clear definition beyond the case law established by ICOMOS. Using that case law Konarak would seem to be a "Group of Buildings" or a "Site".
This plan seems to show 5 separate buildings,_Orissa,_India_- _HU_version.svg

Actually audience hall, dance hall (Nata mandira) and dining hall (Bhoga mandapa) are part of the temple. It should not considered as different building

Author Solivagant
#34 | Posted: 9 Nov 2014 04:11 | Edited by: Solivagant 
English Channel.
Regarding the definition of this Connection (Can we really have only just identified it??) - it seems unnecessary potentially to "downgrade" it by allowing sites up to 10kms from the Channel which could thus, in theory, have nothing much to do with it. All the ones identified so far are actually on the coast apart from Rue Belfry which is on the historic estuary of the Somme (now silted up). There is also the issue of "Estuaries" and for how far up a river does it count as "Channel". The normally accepted definition would be "as far as tidal limit"

I would suggest therefore that the definition be "Sites on the current or historic Channel coast or situated on its tidewater"

Regardless - the following should be added either with 2 or 3 elements according to how Estuaries are handled

Cornwall and West Devon Mining Districts
1215-003ii Trewavas, 1215-008ii Charlestown and 1215-010i Tamar Valley Mining District, Morwellham Port . "The Trewavas coastal enclave in the south of the Area contains some important remains that mark the sites of old undersea copper mines. The cliff-slope engine house of Wheal Prosper was acquired by the National Trust and consolidated in 1971. The dramatic cliff-side engine houses, shafts and impressive capstan platform of Wheal Trewavas are amongst the most spectacular in their situation, anywhere"... "Charlestown, designed by the foremost civil engineer of the day - John Smeaton FRS (1724-92) - is one of the finest examples of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century industrial harbour works in Britain" ... Morwellham "is some 3km below the tidal limit near Gunnislake" ..."This was the busiest inland river port west of Exeter, taking vessels up to 300 tonnes. During the mid-nineteenth century it became the greatest copper ore port in the world" (Nom File)

On a related matter which has arisen whilst looking at the Cornwall Mining site.
We have recently started showing on this Website the number of "Locations" a site has. This has raised issues about the UNESCO definition of these. The Cornwall Mining District inscription adopts a convention I hadn't previously come across - namely to have sub units of "location". So, of the 10 officially number locations 1215-001 to 1215-10, 5 actually comprise 2 locations each numbered .e.g 1215-001i and 1215-001ii

I am not suggesting we change the definition of "Location" we use on this site (The UNESCO location number) but it is another example of inconsistency of definition within the UNESCO system. In one site 2 contiguous "locations" get given 2 numbers, in another 2 inscribed locations a fair distance from each other have the same location number!! If we found 2 more sites using this "sub-location" numbering system I guess that we could introduce a new Connection - "Additional Locations not counted by UNESCO" which would enable us to highlight the true number of locations for such sites.

Author Solivagant
#35 | Posted: 9 Nov 2014 05:21 
If we found 2 more sites using this "sub-location" numbering system I guess that we could introduce a new Connection - "Additional Locations not counted by UNESCO" which would enable us to highlight the true number of locations for such sites.

It occurs to me that a better way of identifying and keeping track of "Number of location errors" is to "generalise" the existing Connection "Single Location" WHS with multiple locations" to something which covers all the situations where the UNESCO count is incorrect – whether too many or to few and whether it currently shows site or more. So-

WHS with incorrect UNESCO "Number of locations".
WHS whose Serial ID number on the UNESCO Web site which identifies the number of separate locations is incorrect because they are shown either
a. As being single locations with no separate Serial IDs but whose map and/or description clearly shows that they contain multiple (i.e 2 or more) geographically separated locations.
b. As including locations which were not actually inscribed
c. Consisting of more separate geographical locations than the number of separate Serial IDs
Show the correct number of locations where known

All the WHS already identified for the Connection are still valid. Add

Fraser Island. 1 location not 2 – 630-002 Cooloola was rejected by the WHC
Cornwall Mining etc. 15 locations not 10 - Locations 1215-003,5,6,8 and 10 each consist of 2 geographically separate locations numbered "003i" and "003ii" etc

Author elsslots
#36 | Posted: 9 Nov 2014 12:18 
to "downgrade" it by allowing sites up to 10kms

Maybe we should drop that too for the Pacific Ocean connection, though I cannot see directly how that will work out.

And similar for Atlantic Ocean: sites like Statue of Liberty, St. George, La Fortaleza, National History Park Haiti, Paramaribo, Oviedo, Altamira, Vizcaya Bridge, Sintra, Batalha, Albocaca and Belem are within some 10kms . I'd rather not add them if they have nothing to do with the ocean / are not along the coast (such as the Asturian monuments). Statue of Liberty & Belem could be argued for in favour, as they at least have a conceptual connection to that ocean.

Author Assif
#37 | Posted: 9 Nov 2014 13:39 
Re: Ocean and Sea connections

Double entries:
Sikhote Alin is now present in both Pacific and Eastern Sea connections.
We have got the same problem with Adriatic Sea and Mediterranean. All Adriatic Sea sites are repeated under Mediterranean. Wouldn't it be better to exclude at least them. Maybe also exclude sites of the Aegean Sea (the Aegean and the Adriatic are the two most prominent Seas that are geographically distinct from the main body of water in the Mediterranean).

Some of the sites missing are located directly on the shore. These are: Oporto, St. George, La Fortaleza and Paramaribo. They are as connected to the Atlantic as other sites that are already connected such as Mazagan, Olinda, Bridgetown, Grand Bassam or Angra.
As Els says, Belem and Statue of Liberty are not far from the shore and conceptually linked to it, so I would include them too.

Maybe the criteria for the Pacific too should be:
1) directly located on the shore or
2) owing OUV to it.
With these criteria in mind I am not sure about: Gusuku, Convict sites, churches of Chiloe and Gunung Mulu.

Author Solivagant
#38 | Posted: 9 Nov 2014 13:46 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A "can of worms"!
The approach we started taking with new connections some time ago was to require that the OUV of the site related in some way to the connection subject. But - A difficulty with geographical entities as large as the Atlantic Ocean (etc) is that they are so big in relation to the size of many WHS that they almost inevitably impinge on the OUV of sites which aren't that near to the ocean even let alone if they actually do or almost border onto it.

Of the current "Atlantic Ocean" connections the boundaries of Teide, Garajonay and Rabat do not actually reach the coast and the OUV doesn't (as far as I can see) directly relate to the Atlantic Ocean. But it is true that the island sites (first 2) are geographically "in" the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean creates the climate etc which leads to the Natural values. Similarly Rabat isn't inscribed for "being" a port (and its port isn't included) but it wouldn't exist if it wasn't situated by the Ocean. It could be said of course that "Ireland" or "Great Britain" or "Iceland" are "in" the Atlantic Ocean - but that wouldn't/shouldn't mean that all the sites in those islands are connected to "Atlantic". So, at what point does an island become "small" enough that a site on it which doesn't touch the coast get included? I can't yet think of a perfect answer.

We also have the problem that all the "marginal seas" of the Atlantic Ocean are, strictly, part of it - North Sea, Irish Sea for instance. I seem to remember discussions about this matter some years ago. Did we not conclude that, if a "marginal sea" has its own connection then we didn't duplicate those sites in both the Connection for the "Marginal sea" and the "ocean". However that leaves WHS in a marginal sea which doesn't have its own connection e.g Liverpool - which is on the Irish Sea (which doesn't have its own connection). Liveerpool is par excellence an Atlantic Port whose entire OUV derives from that fact. I also notice that the North Sea doesn't have its own Connection - so Greenwich, Wadden See, Bryggen (Bergen) could be so linked - and, if not, then could/should be "Atlantic".

The exact boundaries of the North Sea and Norwegian Seas would need some research but, if neither Vegaoyen or Alta (Hjemmeluftbukta), were in the North Sea and connected to it then they would have to be in the Atlantic.

No "answer" as yet but suggest some rules as a start
a. If boundary touches the Ocean coast (including the "tideway" of estuaries) then allow it
b. If not on the coast but OUV mentions it then allow it
c. Try to give "marginal seas" their own connection - and this takes precedence over an ocean - else apply to the ocean to which it belongs.

But even those 3 rules leave some problem areas!!

Author Solivagant
#39 | Posted: 10 Nov 2014 02:22 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Definitions of Ocean/Sea Boundaries
The Wiki article which discusses Ocean boundaries has a set of maps covering each Ocean in turn and showing the IHO (International Hydrographic Organisation) definition which seems to be the best one to use. On it is superimposed an alternative definition by the CIA (perhaps they know something the rest of us don't!!!) -

This is a rather nice map showing the boundaries of both the core "Oceans" and the "Marginal Seas" - .svg

The IHO version of the first maps enables the "ownership" of "Marginal Seas" by Ocean to be determined. But is not without its own "issues" - thus, for instance, Greenland Sea and Baffin Bay are assigned to the Arctic Ocean - which, both seem to be probably incorrect! Indeed the text definition of Arctic Ocean boundaries by lat/long which accompanies the map seems to exclude each of them from being a part of the Arctic Ocean.

There are still difficult cases.
Alta fjord (for the petroglyphs) is too close to the boundary of the Norwegian (= Atlantic) and Barents (= Arctic) seas for easy assignment from the above map (particularly with its projection) - Wiki's description of the fjord and this map of the Norwegian Sea confirm that it belongs there - and therefore to the Atlantic rather than the Arctic Ocean (even though it is north of the Arctic Circle and hence belongs to the "Arctic" for that Connection!) er_mit_Grenzen.png

The "Seas map" confirms that Bryggen (Bergen) is a part of the North Sea and not quite far enough North to be in the Norwegian Sea (for which we don't have a "Connection".

Kronberg Castle creates another problem - It is situated in the area of the Oresund/Kattegat - but is this North Sea or Baltic?? Wiki says of the Kattegat that it is "a continuation of the Skagerrak and may be seen as a bay of the North Sea, a bay of the Baltic Sea or—as in traditional Scandinavian usage—neither of these."!!

Stevns Klint is in a similar area. Wiki says that "The IHO defines the limits of the "Kattegat, Sound and Belts as .....In the Sound - a line joining Stevns Lighthouse (55°17′N 12°27′E) and Falsterbo Point (55°23′N 12°49′E)." This places Stevns Klint in the Baltic - where we have it (rather than the Sund by a 100 metres or so as it is situated south of the Stevns Lighthouse!

Ilullisat Fjord is another problem - does it face the Davis Strait (and therefore Atlantic) or Baffin Bay. As highlighted above the Map of Oceans shows Baffin Bay to be a marginal sea of the Arctic Ocean. I don't believe that to be the case - and the Wiki article on Baffin Bay confirms that IHO considers Baffin Bay to be a part of the Atlantic ocean so it doesn't matter whether Ilulissat debouches into Baffin Bay or Davis Strait. In fact I think it is the latter so Ilulissat is definitely "Atlantic Ocean"

Author elsslots
#40 | Posted: 25 Nov 2014 11:37 | Edited by: elsslots 
A Connection for Colonial sites was suggested.
We already have the category "Colonial"

I still prefer to have this as a Category and not as a Connection.
As with similar suggestions, there will always be sites where the Colonial aspect is not prominent but which have some colonial buildings. These are covered by "Built or owned by British/French/Dutch".

The demarcation between these 2 is not exact, I'm aware of that. There's no "Built or owned by Spanish" for example. Maybe add that connection, and that way connect all Spanish colonial sites? Same for Portuguese? We then should have a second look at the British and Dutch colonial sites, as these aren't all covered now in the "Built or owned.." connection.

Any suggestions?

Author elsslots
#41 | Posted: 12 Dec 2014 02:54 | Edited by: elsslots 
Built or owned by Spanish:
- Jesuit missions of the Chiquitos

They were built by a Swiss friar:

Although all buildings constructed during Spanish colonial times were technically "owned by Spanish", I will only add these if there's a clear link to a person or group of persons born in Spain

Need proof (a source) for these too. Unnamed Jesuits don't have to be Spaniards:

First coffee plantations (most are post-independence, but the oldest ones are from before)
Monasteries of Popocatepetl (pre-independence)
Chiloe churches (some are pre-independence)
Jesuit missions Guaranix2 (pre-independence)
Humahuaca (the colonial architecture is pre-independence)
Colonia del Sacramento (Basilica del Santisimo Sacramento)
Naples (Palazzo reale, Pontificia reale basilica di san Giacomo degli Spagnoli, Monte dei Poveri Vergognosi charitable institution, the convent of Sant'AgoStinO degli Scalzi, and the Jesuit College on Capodimonte.)
Rome (chiesa di Santa Maria in Monserrato degli Spagnoli)

Author elsslots
#42 | Posted: 13 Dec 2014 00:47 | Edited by: elsslots 
Fortified religious biuldings (Castel dell'ovo, Naples)
>> was it ever a religious building? (needs source)

Author Assif
#43 | Posted: 13 Dec 2014 07:42 
Re: Rome
Santa Maria in Monserrato degli Spagnoli is the Spanish national church in Rome.

Re: Naples
Palazzo reale: The palace is on the site of an earlier residence, which had housed the former viceroy Don Pedro de Toledo, Marquis of Villafranca. Construction on the present building was begun in the 17th century by the architect Domenico Fontana.[1] Intended to house the King Philip III of Spain on a visit never fulfilled to this part of his kingdom, instead it initially housed the Viceroy Fernando Ruiz de Castro, earl of Lemos. Wiki

Re: Colonia
Basilica del Santisimo Sacramento: The present temple dates back to 1810, when it was built according to plans by Tomás Toribio. (Wiki)

Re: Humahuaca
Posta de Hornillos: Fue construida en 1772, y fue, durante la época del Virreinato del Río de la Plata, paso obligado para los que iban de Potosí a Buenos Aires. Poco después de la Revolución de mayo de 1810, se conviritó en uno de los cuarteles del Ejército del Norte, a cargo del coronel Manuel Álvarez Prado. (Wiki)

Re: Monasteries Popocatepetl
Los misioneros encargados fueron Juan de Tecto, Juan de Ayora y Pedro de Gante, el último de los cuales aprendió náhuatl para comunicarse con los pueblos indígenas. (Wiki)

Author Assif
#44 | Posted: 13 Dec 2014 07:44 
Re: Chiquitos
Primero se fundó la Misión de San Francisco Xavier en 1691, por el jesuita José de Arce. Seguidamente se creó la Misión de San Rafael en 1696, debida a los jesuitas Zea y Herbas. Posteriormente, en 1698 el jesuita Felipe Suárez fundó la Misión de San José. (Wiki)

Could not find out about the Guaranies and Chiloe.

Author elsslots
#45 | Posted: 13 Dec 2014 11:22 | Edited by: elsslots 
The "national churches" (though an interesting phenomenon: aren't/weren't always built or owned by a person of the nation named. The German national church was founded by Dutch Merchants for example, the British is (of course!) served by the Irish and founded by Italians. I haven't checked all of the below, but I am in doubt if they fit "Built or Owned" (see also my comment on the other thread: we don't mean designed, but the owner/patron has to be of the named country).

Owned by Germans:
Vatican (Campo Santo dei Teutonici e dei Fiamminghi)

Owned by Germans:
Rome (Santa Mari dell'Anima is the German national church in Rome.)

Owned by Poles:
Rome (Santo Stanislao dei Polacchi is the Polish national church in Rome.)

Owned by the Portuguese:
Rome (Sant'Antonio in Campo Marzio is the Portuguese national church in Rome.)

Owned by the Swedes:
Rome (Santa Brigida is the Swedish national church in Rome.)

Owned by the Brits:
Rome (San Silvestro in Capite is the British national church in Rome.)

Owned by the Hungarians:
Rome (Santo Stefano degli Ungheresi is the Hungarian national church in Rome.)

Page  Page 3 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next » 
Connections Forum / Connections /
 Out or in doubt #27

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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®