World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

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

Looking for a third site to make a complete connection

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

Author jonathanfr
#31 | Posted: 19 Jun 2009 07:31 
Native name / European name : Sagarmatha / Everest
Uluru / Ayers Rock
Rapa Nui / Isla de Pascua
Mosi-oa Tunya / Victoria Falls
Aoraki / Mount Cook
Rwenzori / Mountains of the Moon

Author m_m
#32 | Posted: 19 Jun 2009 22:24 | Edited by: m_m 
can the recent name changes be also included here? like the native name changes for anthony island and st lucia wetland. you can also include purnululu/bungle bungle

Author m_m
#33 | Posted: 19 Jun 2009 22:31 
wait a minute. i think this connection has some questions. technically speaking, almost all of the site will have native name vs the so-called european name. so this may not be a connection but more like a glossary or something.

Author Solivagant
#34 | Posted: 20 Jun 2009 09:52 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I agree with m_m. Many sites will be in locations which have (or have had) 2 or more names running concurrently in different languages or have been (re)named in reasonably recent times but would a list of them be that significant as background information about WHS? In my view the "Connection" interest lies in where there has been an official (as reflected in UNESCO documentation) "name change" during the "UNESCO related" life of the site (ie in the run up to inscription and thereafter) which reflects a reaction to cultural or political pressures/changes taking place in the country. (Some other alterations to site names reflect changes in the scope of the site, its inscribed criteria or how the country wishes to present it and don't have any "cultural" implications - e.g our recent discussion about Norway's motives in changing from "Røros" to "Røros Mining Town" and, potentially now, to "Røros Mining Town and the circumference"!).

There have been a variety of such purely "cultural" changes
a. A reseqencing of a bilingual name - "Mosi-oa-tunya/Victoria Falls" was "Victoria Falls/Mosi-oa-Tunya" in the documentation and WHC minutes of 1989. It isn't clear when the resequencing officially took place!
b. A series of changes which has resulted in the "extinction" of the original name - "Sgang Gwaay" started off as "Anthony Island" and officially passed through "Sgang Gwaay (Anthony Island)" before reaching its current title!
c. Complete name changes - "iSimangaliso Wetland Park" was inscribed as "Greater St Lucia Wetland Park" and was officially changed in 2008
d. The "quiet" dropping of the "colonial" part of the name - "Sagamatha" was called "Sagamatha - Mt Everest" in the nomination documents. It isn't clear exactly when/why this difference occurred but the shorter title was already used in the 1979 WHC minutes recording the inscription
e. The additon of Cultural criteria being used as a trigger for "name change" - "Uluru-Kata Tjuta NP" was originally "Uluru (Ayers Rock- Mt Olga) NP" in 1989 and the change took place on the occasion of the addition of Cultural Criteria in 1994
f. A complicated "morphing" of the name as part of boundary and other changes - so the 2 separate inscriptions from 1986 "The Westland and Mount Cook NP" and the "Fjordland NP" were subsumed within a new larger site which was called "SW NZ World Heritage area (Te Wahipounamu)" in the 1990 IUCN documentation but was officially inscribed as "Te Wahipounamu - SW NZ". This "final" name change to give precedence to the Maori aspects of the name occurred following comments made in the earlier Bureau meeting "It also suggested that the NZ authorities undertake a public awareness campaign for local people in the area on the meaning of the world heritage and propose a more descriptive name for this site"!!

This gives 6 for a Connection as defined above. There may be other name changes which Forum contributors could identify using the same definition? It is true that the names of some other sites aren't the same as the, possibly more famous, "colonial" names but the following were clearly inscribed with their "native" names and hence wouldn't fit my suggested "tighter" criteria for a Connection
a. "Chhatrapati Shivaji Station (formerly Victoria Terminus)" was used in all the documentation and was the offically inscribed title
b. "Rapa Nui" has only ever had that name given to it by Chile in UNESCO documentation with "Easter Island" only appearing in the province name
c. "Rwenzori Mountains NP" has only ever been called that since it was created in 1991 by Uganda - and was hence used quite naturally and correctly when it was inscribed in 1994. The inscription documentation always refers not only to the NP but also the full name of the mountain range as "Rwenzori", subject only to the passing comment "The Rwenzori mountains, which are known internationally as 'The Mountains of the Moon'.. "
d. "Purnululu NP" has been called this officially since it was created as an NP in 1987. Interestingly, unlike the case of Rwenzori, the title "Bungle Bungle" for the mountains within the NP has been maintained within the documentation.
PS - I also wonder whether the name change to Auschwitz doesn't represent a "Political/Cultural Name change"!

Author m_m
#35 | Posted: 20 Jun 2009 22:24 
don't forget leningrad to st petersburg, and then the moroccan towns of el-jadida and tetouan. the uk also proposed the st kilda extension under its native name, before it was deferred/referred(?) during the initial stages.

Author elsslots
#36 | Posted: 21 Jun 2009 01:40 
then the moroccan towns of ... tetouan.

Can you tell me the name change history of tetouan? I haven't been able to find it in the documents available.

Author Solivagant
#37 | Posted: 21 Jun 2009 02:37 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I think the Auschwitz name change does fit this "Connection" - as far as I understand it the change was made in response to Polish political/cultural pressure to do everything possible to ensure that the "blame" for Auschwitz was not left with them implicitly by the name/location (even though the original name adopted the German form). Or was it even further to ensure that "blame" was explicitly assigned to "Germany" with even a hint of anti-German animus? Does anyone know more about the motives and history of this name change? Did Germany accept it willingly/reluctantly/after negotiation etc? I know it took several years of discussion before the WHC accepted it.
Khuft, can you give us any background from the German viewpoint - and are there any Polish readers of this Forum?

PS. With regard to m_m's comment re UK use of "St Kilda's Native name" for the extension as per the title "St Kilda (Hirta)" used in the documentation. "Hirta" (sic) is the name of just one of the islands of the archipelago and is the one containing the cultural aspects which were part of the extensions being sought. So i don't think (??) there was a potential issue, for instance, of changing the name or incorporating an alternative to e.g reflect pressures from some Gaelic speaking group as we have seen in "native African" site titles and akin to the bilingual town and road signs you will see in the Gàidhealtachd (Gaelic speaking areas)!! The Gaelic word for St Kilda as a whole is Hiort - obviously "Hirta" as used for the main island is the anglicised version of this but it would surely have been used in its correct form if a bilingual point was being made and may well yet come one day! Given that they were only looking at cultural issues on Hirta it wasn't perhaps that illogical to include it in brackets after "St Kilda" in the ICOMOS evaluation. It was however somewhat illogical for IUCN to do the same in its evaluation since that was all about making a massive increase in the size of the inscribed area in the marine area around all the islands in the archipelago and also extending the natural criteria - again not specifically on any one island. Whether they were led to do this by the way the UK government presented things I don't know since I don't think we have access to the original nomination documents for the extension?

Author Durian
#38 | Posted: 21 Jun 2009 09:14 
Since Nepalese abolished their monarchy, we can expect to see dropping the word "Royal" from Chitwan NP soon.

Author Solivagant
#39 | Posted: 21 Jun 2009 10:27 
The change has certainly already been made inside Nepal- see (among others)

Surely UNESCO don't require a formal "name change proposal" - "Leningrad" morphed into "St Petersburg" quite quietly! So perhaps one day we will see that the name has changed on the UNESCO Web site.

I remember a wonderful series of elephant rides in Chitwan during a visit there as long ago as 1976. The coming of a Republic should have brought some change to their life too - we were told that they were only there certain months of the year as they had to walk up to Kathmandu and back every so often to take part in the Royal Durbar or similar!! Quite an elephant trek!

Author m_m
#40 | Posted: 22 Jun 2009 03:57 
Can you tell me the name change history of tetouan? I haven't been able to find it in the documents available.

the official name of the site has the appendage "formerly titawin", just like essaouira too. so this is similar to the victoria terminus. there are also those with two names like twlfenfontein and ukhahlamba. while galapagos islands is also known officially as archipielago de colon, thouse this name is more often used politically.

Author Solivagant
#41 | Posted: 22 Jun 2009 04:46 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I had had a look at Galapagos yesterday to see if it brought up anything "interesting" related to this naming issue.

a. Since 1973 Ecuador has called the Province which consists of the islands "Galapagos Province" so it appears that the "Archipelago de Colon" is (now?) solely a geographical name with Galapagos used administratively, politically etc. Presumably the world-wide fame of the name mitigates against using anything else!
b. the original AB evaluation made in 1978 joins my list of the "least informative" but it lists the site as being inscribed simply as "Galapagos Islands" - as it is still called on the UNESCO web site
c. The evaluation for the 2001 extension is more interesting - I looked particularly to see if there was any mention of the "original" English names for islands (but hadn't expected to see any!). In fact only Santa Cruz (Aka "Indefatigable") and San Crisotbal (aka "Chatham") seem get a mention at all as this extension is primarily about the marine areas.
d. There are however 2 interesting parts of the extension documentation. First, the introduction - "Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) was nominated in 1994 as an extension of the Galapagos National Park (GNP) which was inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1978." Well it wasn't inscribed as a National Park (as many WHS are in their title). Second, "IUCN recommends that the Committee inscribe the Galapagos Marine Reserve on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) under the name "Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve"." As far as I can see this was never done!!

Author Solivagant
#42 | Posted: 23 Jun 2009 04:10 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Looking a bit further into this it seems that the distinction between the inscribed site being either
a. "The Galapagos Islands" (as originally and, apparently, currently)
b. "Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve" (as proposed in 2001 by IUCN)
has 2 significant aspects
a. The islands as such do not include the marine areas which Ecuador so carefully added in 2001
b. The Galapagos National Park only covers c97% of the land area of the islands. The remaining 3% covers inhabited areas on 4 islands - particularly the ever-growing ones on San Cristobal and Isabela. Puerto Ayora on the latter has a population of over 10k - not really material for a "Natural" WHS!!
So, it is perhaps surprising that the formal name change hasn't been registered since it does, as IUCN implied, have real significance. One would have thought that UNESCO and Ecuador would also have wanted it sorted out as part of the very important ongoing attempts/actions to preserve the endangered ecosystems of the islands/marine areas - but perhaps everyone is too bothered about Dresden!!! The UNESCO WH Centre doesn't have a good record of getting its priorities regarding the allocation of its limited monitoring resources and "influential capital" correct - apparently preferring to "fritter" them on second or third ranking judgemental matters rather than on the incontrovertably important at a "world wide" level!

Author elsslots
#43 | Posted: 2 Aug 2009 11:55 
Does someone know of a third WHS to make a connection for Carmelites?

I already have:
- Carmelite Monastery in Santa Ana de los Rios de Cuenca (Ecuador)
- Santa Maria del Carmine (Church) in Florence

There's a possibility here, in a reference at another connection: Rome, Farmacia di S. Maria della Scala (17th century pharmacy to the Papal Court, above an operating pharmacy, in a Carmelite monastery).
What's the name or the location of this monastery?

Author Assif
#44 | Posted: 2 Aug 2009 12:53 
In this site you can see the list of all Roman Carmelite convents (conventi) and monasteries (monasteri) with their addresses and histories.

Author meltwaterfalls
#45 | Posted: 12 Aug 2009 13:38 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I am just trying to find a third site associated with Oscar Niemeyer.
Obviously Brasilia, he also designed the Art Museum in le Havre which is included, I'm struggling on a third. He designed the mosque in George Town but I am not sure if this is included in the inscribed area.

Whilst in the excellent museum at Jelling, there was a small section stating that the image of the engravings there is used in Danish passports. I tried a few searches but I guess good quality images of passports are somewhat restricted.
Are there any other WHS displayed in passports?

Page  Page 3 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next » 
Connections Forum / Connections /
 Looking for a third site to make a complete connection

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 ®