World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

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

Ports and Ancient Ports

Author Assif
#1 | Posted: 14 Jun 2009 16:22 
Why seperate the two connections? If we do we could just as well do the same for theatres and ancient theatres, triumphal arches and ancient triumphal arches, sporting locations and ancient sporting locations etc.
If we do keep the two seperated Acre needs to be moved to the ancient ports connection.

Author Solivagant
#2 | Posted: 14 Jun 2009 17:36 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Sorry - my fault! I added a whole lot of extra ports and wondered if the list was getting a bit "long" and really whether there was much of a "connection" between e.g Tipasa and Liverpool so suggested that possible distinction. Your point about it being just as "valid" (or "invalid") for a number of other Connections is perfectly reasonable. There might also be problems with
a. Ports (or whatever) operating in both ancient and modern times
b. Mediaeval ports (or whatever) - are they normal or ancient!

I wouldn't die in a ditch over either approach but feel it is worth posing the question regarding at what point a "connection" loses any value by just linking together too wide a variety of "things".
Any other views?

Author elsslots
#3 | Posted: 17 Jun 2009 13:45 
I've lumped them into one connection again, it's better to do something separate about the age of WHS (a whole project all together, which I've started researching but haven't found the time to finish).

Author Assif
#4 | Posted: 18 Jun 2009 05:55 
I think Icomos divides them according to historical categories in its report of Filling Up the Gaps.

Connections Forum / Connections /
 Ports and Ancient Ports

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 ®