1 JeoR\ i 4 · . . 5t.'r !Cf-'f~~if -pJ/
• 11 ~ - ka,vw. ~-~r q)!Iii~ ( ;(),; 7of) Sn !10- ' :11 1 i/ i'(' 'J ( 5 - 1 ~ L . Pi~ • Eiir.vh ~J ~ fi(M,, (;/!,; 11o; CJk.J:' I ' ' IJJV1.0- ~v:,t-u;f,t { ,1/.- JOt/
WORLD HERITAGE
REPORT ON THE ICOMOS MISSION
TO THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
May to June 1994
Undertaken by Prof. Nevzat Ilhan and John Warren EVALUATION MISSION TO GEORGIA ON BEHALF OF ICOMOS. May - June 1994
1. Outline of the Brief and Circumstances of the MissiOn.
Following prev10us miSSions by Dr .Ernst Badstubner and Mr. Said ZuJficar, three sites among those on the State Party's tentative list were established as bemg the prime candidates for inclusion m the World Hentage List. These sites were:
1. Mtskheta City Museum Reserve u. Grouped sites at Kutaisi 111. Grouped Sites at Upper Svenati.
The evaluatiOn and precise definition of these sites were the objective of this visit.
The mission was carried out by Dr. Nevzat Ilhan and Mr. John Warren.
The mission was hosted by Mr. Petre Metreveli of the Commission of the Georgian Republic for UNESCO. It was assisted by other officers and received by the Mayor of Kutaisi, the Foreign Secretary of the Georgian RepubliC and the President of the Republic, Mr. Shevardnadze.
The miSSIOn was not able to visit, and, therefore, not able to report upon the grouped Sites at Svenati due to Jack of security m the northern part of the country. Other sites were visited as part of general mvestJgation into the tentative Jist. The following report 1s, therefore, confined to the sites at Mtskheta and Kutais1. - 2 -
2. Summary.
The evaluation consrsted of several vrsrts to the srtes, and to the relevant offices; exammation of documents; verbal exammation of procedures and processes supported by written evrdence of legrslatron; evaluatron of authentrcrty; assessment of management proposals and drscussrons on approprrate srte boundaries and buffer zones. Conservation and management proposals were assessed and the agreement of the State Authorrties was obtamed to boundary definitrons and management crrterra.
The assessment and recommendatron of the mrssron rs that the two srtes at Mtskheta and Kutarsr should be recommended for rnclusron m the World Herrtage Lrst.
3. Significance.
The State of Georgra rs a distinct ethnic grouping, havmg had rts own language and Its own church from the 3rd century AD. Its cui ture rs, therefore, specrfrc and rdentifiable, although in some aspects are closely related to parallel cultures rn the regron. It has been a drsturbed terrrtory throughout the centurres and consequently much destruction has taken place. Substantral parts of the land once occupied by Georgran people and, therefore contarnrng their monuments, do not lie w1thm the present Republic. These outlying monuments, however, are unlikely to figure rn World Herrtage evaluatrons by reasons of comparrtive rmportance m countrres such as Turkey, where they may l!e. Those which stand within the present Republic, therefore, represent the prrme reservoir of hrstoric monuments relatmg to this particular ethnrc and cultural group. On the
basrs of the documented and v1srted evrdence before It thrs present mrssion accepted that the Sites selected by the State Party and the prev1ous m1ss1on represented those most approprrate to rmmedrate rnclusron rn the World Hentage Lrst, although one site, Svenatr, cannot at thrs stage be rncluded - 3 -
as It has not been VISited by either mission. This particular site represents a trad1t10n of fortified dwellmgs contmuous from medieval times and, therefore, contammg a proportion of buildmgs of relatively recent construction. It IS an entirely separate aspect of Georgian history compared with the ecclesiastical traditiOns which reached a peak of achievement m 1Oth and 11th centuries. The Georgian and Armeman traditions m architecture m the first m!llemum run parallel courses and there was an Important cross relationship with the Byzantme and Orthodox churches by which Caucasian mfluences were carried mto the West. Scholars such as Stryzgowski have Identified here Important precedents m the evolution of western medieval bulldmg. While this report IS not the place to argue the merits of these assertions m the Caucasus the very high calibre of ecclesiastical architecture by the end of the first m!llemum may be profoundly Important m scholarly terms as well as bemg visually stlmulatmg and of the greatest s1gmficance to the Georgian na t1on.
The sites at Mtskheta and Kuta1si evaluated by this mission represent the heights of achievement of their genre and stand comparison with Romanesque architecture m any part of Europe. These sites mclude five major churches with a number of smaller ecclesiastical bu!ldmgs and secondary structures.
At Its florUit the standard form of the Georgian Church was triple apsed with the entire east end being set behind an Iconostasis. A high central drum dominated the mterior carrying a steepled dome externally. The transepts were generally short and the nave with lateral aisles would normally be no greater m length than the combmed width of the transepts and crossmg. Thus although the plan of the church approached the cross-m-square pattern the accessible mterior would be an approximate square formed by the nave aisles and transepts. In effect th1s 1s a combinatiOn of Eastern (or Synan) Orthodox and Greek Orthodox practiCe. - 4 -
By the end of the first millenrum the he1ght g1ven to the pnnc1pal structure and extended upwards mto the cupola offered proportions equ1valent to the later Goth1c cathedrals w1th s1milar but earher effect. These prototypes have prov1ded the standard form for subsequent Georg1an des1gn which has remained essentially bound to the Romanesque.
The major churches of the two sltes nommated represent the greatest ach1evements of th1s period of development. In juxtaposltwn each also contams one or more sigmf1cant early small churches clearly dlustratmg the architectural evolutwn.
Agamst th1s background the churches at Mtskheta and Kutais1 are outstandmg examples of the pinnacle of ach1evement m Romanesque architecture m the East, in terms both of isolated rural establishment and urban cathedrals. They lllustrate a s1gmficant phase m h1story. They would, therefore, quahfy under Artlcle 24A(lv) of the Operatwnal Gu1delmes.
4. Authent1c1 tv. w Subject to the deta1led evaluatwns below 1t may be sa1d that the monuments defined m the saes at Mtskheta and Kuta1si have suffered little alteratlon or damage m the1r history wlth the smgle except1on of the cathedral at Kutaisi, known as the Bagarat from the name of the monarch who built 1t. This was senously and deliberately damaged m the 17th century and stands as a rum, carefully conserved by recent repa1r and consohda tlon work.
An 1mportant feature of these churches was the1r mternal decoration. Th1s surv1ves m varying cond1t10n m the churches and has generally been carefuly stab1hsed and conserved. Some of the better mosa1cs and cycles of pamting are among the most 1mportant of the1r kmd. - 5 -
We are, therefore, satisfied that the buildings are authentiC m design, material, workmanship and m setting and that no significant or adverse reconstruction has been undertaken. Therefore these bu1ldmgs meet the Operational Guideline criteria
set out m Clause 2~B(i).
5. Protection
These two Sites, Mtskheta and Kuta1si lie within separate Mayoralties. Nevertheless they are both protected by the same national legislatiOn and criteria which devolves from the legal structure of the Soviet Umon. This legislatiOn IS currently bemg reviewed with the object of making It more specific to the circumstances of the Republic. Generally, however, the broad principles behind the conservation legislatiOn are to stand. This mission was involved m creative discussiOn over modifications to the legislation and Js satisfied that the Intentions and broad Criteria of the Operational Guidelines will be respected in the modified laws.
Two specific references are Identified below:
The first expresses the structure of the conservation beaurocracy and the second Identifies the statutes which have protected, and will continue to be used to protect the monuments identified. - 6 -
First reference
The Central Board for Protection and Utilization of Historic and Cultural Monuments of Georgia Organizing Structure
The Head of the Board,Deputy Mini rr------"'lT""------, ster of cu 1 tur e The Call ege of L.Medzmar1ashvili Scietific-Methodi the Central Board c.:.l CoLtnc i l The Chairman -the - Head of the Bo~ro Deputy Head at Deputv Head at Industrial field Scientific field Gi ,,.i GoJ-goshi dze Tama:: Natid::e
Restoration !Scientific - Construction Research Complex Comple:: Planning Commission Board
Scientific-Resear
T ndLtstr i al - !ch and D·'2signini -hterprise, Inst1tute,Director E•ri ck Factory '.. ,!. Gremel ash vi 1 i RepLtbl i c State Inspection
!13 Regional t•lu SE.'Lltn-Pr !O'Sei-VE'
!The f~es:.torati on Centre of l>Jall F'aintings
Republic Committee of ICOMOS - The Chairmen, professor Irakli Tsitsishvili
Georgian National. Commission of UNESCO, The President Alexandre Chikvaidze
General Secretary Peter Metreveli - 7 -
Second reference:
uu.j0ni])JJCr?u uun Fn6nu0oo,0 ue;o3 r?u ::?0Q0 J6ncoo0 ,'.~ 564 :LS6 8 {). 6 6r?.Jooo(!Jo- " .j0('0.j- oocoa;nu 6J8JJ5- 60JOdu('0f?
0 0Fr?fJ00QJOOU 3Ju00Jo:.
I.Ju.j0r'5a;JJ('r?U uui'5 ;-n6ni.Jt)F;o;0 I.J0ojr?u Q0Q8JGOCJ00 t\~ 653
I977 5. I4 IJJ.jrjJ"OJi'50- '' .j0L;0.j f.obJwni.J 0/.Jrjr?OOJ('- 00bOdJd(r
u0.j00(J)JJCr?I.J Jr?6Je;()6ooi.J oJ-I.J Q0 I.J..::.jvi'501JJCr?I.J oo6nu01'5a;.0 1.J0o.§r?I.J
(?0Q8JCO('J00 li~ J:S , ISSI {). 2I 0JrJor;o-" .jJI])00I.J- 8J('01JJOIJ tm8o-
This reference on the Statute Book translates as follows:
'The enactment number 534 of the Ministerial Council of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic on November 6th 1968 concerns the zone of the Mtskheta as a Museum preserve.
Enactment number 653 of the Ministerial Council of the Georg1an Soviet Socialist Republic of September 14th 1977 concerns the establlshment of the historical conservation area of Mtskheta.' - 8 -
Enactment number 369 of the Central Committee of the Commumst Party and the Georgian Ministry Council of April 21st 1981 concerns the establishment of the KutaJSJ Gelati Museum preserve.'
The missiOn did not examme these enactments but noted that the boundaries shown on the submitted plans were those attaching to the legislation.
The mission takes the view that the boundanes shown rn the national legislation exceed those required for World Heritage Site purposes and by s1te exammation and discussion with the Georgian authonues have now Identified the boundanes mutually agreed as appropnate to the World Hentage Site and buffer zones. These are attached. It is to be noted, however, that the national legislatiOn gives even wider protection. This will not be diminished by the grant of World Heritage Status.
Having mvest1gated the structure responsible for admimstering the legislation and for detailed management of the Sites the miSSion is satisfied that these conform to the standards required.
6. Conservation.
The churches, includmg to some extent the rumed Bagarat cathedral, are all rn active use as centres of worship. Effectively the church IS the tenant of the buildings but the responsibility for the maintenance and repair rests with the State as building owner. The State is, however, sensitive to the needs and wishes of the user while upholdmg Its duty to keep the buildings m a satisfactory condition. It is also apparent that the Mayor and local civic authonty at large have considerable rnf!uence on the admmistratJon and hence on the condition of the Monuments. However, 1t IS also clear that the overriding authonty IS the State advised by the CommiSSIOn for UNESCO, set up by the Republic and operated through its Foreign Office. The lmks between this orgamsat10n and the national committee of ICOMOS are close. - 9 -
The mission was assured, and can be reasonably satisfied by results, that this structure IS an effective working mechamsm which leaves the duty of Conservation and the ultimate m control in the hands of a benevolent state authonty advised by the full weight of available expertise m the country. The structural relationship between state parties is illustrated on the diagram provided. (see 5. 1 above).
The Foreign Mimster and the President, as Head of State, separately gave the mission very clear and firm assurances that It was the Republic's mtention that the histone buildings and particularly World Hentage Monuments would be firmly safeguarded and properly mamtamed and the current mtention to update the conservation legi~iahion of the Republic is evidence of that intention.
It was the miSSion's conclusion, therefore, that these monuments have adequate legal protectwn and management mechanisms to ensure their conservation and the mission, therefore, believes
that the proposal conforms to Section 2~B(ii) of the Operational Guidelines.
7. EconomiC Circumstances.
These applicatwns are made at a time when the Republic has entered into an existance mdependent of the previous Soviet Union and has suffered the effects of a senous civil war. The resultant economic circumstances are grave. The effective cessation of conservation and restoration work Is, however, unlikely to be significantly detnmental to the monuments proposed for mcluswn on the World Hentage Jist, their current state of repair bemg good, and their contmumg use for religious purposes bemg assured. - 10 -
The m1ss1on was encouraged also by d1scusswns w1th the Head of State on the bas1s that monument conservation prov1des local employment, does not requ1re expenditure of hard currency for Imported matenals and can be conducted w1th local skills and superv1s1on. Subject, therefore, to politiCal stability m the Republic the m1ss1on does not see these s1tes as bemg potentially mcluded m the World Hentage List of s1tes m danger. !CCROM techmcal a1d and cooperation could be provided for the restoratiOn of mosa1cs and frescoes.
8. Failure to complete mission.
The 1mposs1b1llty of v1s1tmg the group of Sites at Svanet1 due to danger postponed one Important component of the work of the m1ss1on. However, th1s component 1s not essential to the mcluswn of the other s1tes m the World Hentage L1st. It 1s of a different architectural and cultural type and of a different penod.
9. Relationship between the two Sites: - Mtskheta and Kuta1s1.
A watershed divides the state mto d1stmct zones; east and west, one s1te attachmg to the capital c1ty of each half.
Both nommatlons concern groups of bu!ldmgs which are prmCJpaJJy eccles1ast1cal. At Mtskheta one church stands outs1de the urban precmct promment on a hill top and two others stand WI thm the hiStOriC Cl ty.
At Kuta1s1 one church group IS extramuros and so far removed, at Gela t1, that 1t IS not w1 thm s1ght of the c1 ty although 1t 1s part of a scattered grouping of churches wh1ch effectively form a cultural landscape. The church w1thm the c1ty of Kuta1s1 stands w1thm the precmct of the Citadel, whJCh has been partially excavated archaeolog1cally but IS not of suffiCient Importance alone for mcluswn m the World Hentage List. - 11 -
However, m the v1ew of the miss10n, the relatiOnship between these churches and the presence of the cathedral withm the citadel raise the importance of the Site at KutaiSI to a World Heritage Status.
In both mstances landscape quality is Important. All the Sites are situated in dramatic landscapes with extensive views and the Impact of the buildings depends considerably on the shapes, usage and quality of the land. In consequence substantial or mappropnate intrusion mto these landscapes over qulte wide areas could have a disadvantageous effect and the wide drafting of the protective zone under state legislation Is, therefore, an Important advantage. While the miSSion's Identification of the speciflC sites and buffer zones IS conventional and adequate under present Circumstances, future consideration may be given to extending these to mcorporate other areas protected under present state legislatiOn.
10. Mtskheta (Note: this sectiOn of the report deals only with aspects specific to the slte at Mtskheta.)
I 0.1 Bnef Descnptlon.
At Mtskheta, one church (Mtskhetis Jvan) - Church of the Holy Cross - stands outside the urban precinct high on a hill top, while two great churches, Santavro and Sveti Tskhoveli cathedral stand within the historic city.
The medieval capital of Georgia at Mtskheta lies m a sharp valley at the confluence of two nvers. On its eastern and southern sides the town IS afforded natural protection by the river banks and elsewhere by a background of low ndges, one of which IS fortified as a Citadel. Withm the town Itself stands the 11th century cathedral, the Sveti Tskhoveli. This IS the - 12 -
archetypal great Georg1an church of 11th century, unaltered, contammg frescoed walls and standmg Within a fortified precmct from wh1ch the contemporary Bishop's Palace has disappeared. Skilful conservatiOn has retamed the evidence of the earlier smaller church encapsulated in the present building. Nearby stands the Santavro Monastic complex, with a small convent. A restored 4th century church stands m the shadow of a church of standard plan datmg from 11th century.
Four other early Christian or med1eval churches are to be found m the town together with other medieval fragments and substantial evidence of preh1stonc habitation. The town Itself is of modest scale and no pretention prov1dmg a simple backdrop to the major monuments.
A high fortified ndge beyond the southern arm of the river IS complemented on the east by the stark hill on which, in a fortified enclosure, Sits the domed church of MtskhetiS Jvan. A 6th century church attaches to the prmcipal church of the 11th century. As the burial place of St. Nino, the evangelist of Georg1a, this church has a certam pilgnmage value. It does not serve for regular congregational purposes although the Georgian church mamtams a contmuous presence.
The mission considers the three pnncipal sites, compnsmg five churches, to be authentic.
10.2 The churches m the town, together With their lesser confreres, are a natural group but their visual cohesiOn IS msufficient to justify the designation of a smgle Site and the two principal churches are, therefore, recommended for separate mdividual designation: likewise the extramuros church of the Jvan (Holy Rood). - 13 -
10.3 A buffer zone 1s proposed embracmg the churches m the town and the Jvan Church sufficient to protect their environs and princ1pal views. The buffer zone 1s less extensive than the zone of protection afforded by the state.
10.4 The conservatiOn of the structure and the pamtwork of the churches was considered by the missiOn to be well up to the standards expected of a World Hentage Site. Although the work is incomplete and to a small extent temporary this condition must be seen as part of the normal process of conservation.
10.5 Management proposals: The State 1s m the process of removmg old military mstal!auons and industrial plant from the valley floor particularly in the area beneath the Jvari Church. It also proposes the abolition of a guard hut near the church and in substitution the creation of a suitably s1ted and screened vehicle parking area some distance from the church. Near the Sveti Tskhovell complex 1t proposes an mcrease m the pedestnan area outside the fortified enclosure and the expropriation of some unsuitable pnvate housing close to the Santavro church and w1thm the buffer zone. These proposals seem des1rable to the miSSion, which has suggested also that there should be a more extensive programme of public mterpretatJOn and serv1ce facilities.
10.6 The m1ssion recommends the mclusJOn of the sites at Mtskheta with buffer zones as defined on the accompanymg plans. It recommends that the proposals of the Authority for the
Mtskheta Museum Reserve stationed In the town should be earned forward and augmented with interpretatiOn facilities. - 14 -
1 1• Kutaisi.
11.1 The Bagarat Cathedral stood m rum from the seventeenth century until conservation work was carried out m recent decades. The authenticity of the monument IS beyond doubt and recent conservation work has not obscured the fundamental surv1vmg elements of the structure. The precmct of the cathedral IS the anc1ent citadel of Kutaisi which stands on a high bluff above the river. While some parts of this fortification are solid and substantial a considerable part lies within gardens and roadways of a thinly populated hilltop. A programme of archaeologrcal research has been earned out across the Citadel generally revealing elements of habitation and eluc1datmg the plan of a small early church onginally a1sled and barrel vaulted. In some areas these archaeological remams will need attentive conservation. Only m the vicimty of the cathedral itself are they of v1sual significance or substantial Importance.
11.2 The monuments should be quite precisely defined, encompassmg the fortified hilltop and the slopes down which the fortificatiOns descend to the nver bank. The slopes of the hill itself, and the nver valley m which the old town lies, are an essential buffer zone.
11.3 The quality of conservation m the cathedral Itself 1s high. Part of the work on the prmcipal fortifications 1s of s1m1lar calibre but elsewhere the less s1gnificant archaeological remams have not been protected.
11.4 The m1ss10n believes that the future management of the s1te should prov1de for consolidatiOn and retention of the whole archaeological area, the removal of 'non-s1gmficant' houses from the north buffer zone area (approximately 32 m number), and the Improvement of access to all parts of the archaeological s1te w1th public safety, amemty and structural conservation in mmd. B1tummous road covermgs should be avoided m th1s area. - 15 -
11.5 Public mterpretatron and drsplay facilitres should be provided in due course and carefully consrdered proposals for car and coach parking wdl be essential.
11.6 The proposal, powerfully supported by the Metropolrtan bishop rs that the building should be repaired structurally and restored to use as a church. Such a polrcy could be justified only rf the buildings were to be serrously used as a congregational church and it would then be necessary to show that there rs no hypothetical element m the restoration. It is difficult to see how this could be achreved smce the destruction preceded the age of photography and there wrll, therefore, be no evrdence as to the exact proportions of the drum and steepled cupola. The use of appropnate but rdentrfiably modern construction might offer a solution to thrs problem.
11.7 The building rs profoundly srgnrfrcant m Georgran art and the
mrssron belreves that 1t should be included m the World Hentage Llst, subject only to appropriate recommendations as to management.
12. Kutaisi (Gelati)
12.1 The Gelati complex 1s a monastic groupmg prmc1pally of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries containmg three churches other than the monastic buildmgs and the academy, which later acted
as a refectory. Havmg been m contmuous use there IS a contmuous occupatiOnal pattern m the complex. It stands m an unsporled Situation on a hllls1de wrth extens1ve vrews and the whole qualrty of the environment 1s one With the burldings. On the steep hillside below the monastery stand the once-cultivated
terraces. The group IS totally authentiC. An Important feature
IS the range of pamtmgs carrred on the walls of the several buildmgs and the very rmportant Yrrgm and Child mosarc of the 12th century 1n the conch of the apse. - 16 -
12.2 The entrre monument can be embraced within one smgle Site. An extensive buffer zone 1s needed to protect the rnward v1ews. The State protection zone covers the entrre area.
12.3 The site rs quite d1stmct from others m the region of which several are mcluded m the State conservation zone.
12.4 Although the church 1s the effective administrator of the property as its user, the State as owner and the museums orgamsatron have the responsibility for major conservation works. These have reached the stage at which there is no need for further 1mmedrate attention although some works, such as the - overlymg roof structures are to be considered temporary. There rs sufficient ev1dence for the form of the onginal roof to allow 1ts restoration m due course. The quality of the conservation work is high.
12.5 Further proposals for this site include the extension and relocation m a suitably screened area of the car park and more controversially the reroofing of the academy building. While this can undoubtedly be done satisfactonly and without rmpact upon the remamder of the complex 1t will mvolve careful and probably acceptable conjecture as to the exact form of the umber structure to be adopted.
12.6 The mrssion was sausfred that the Site meets the critena for mclusion the World Heritage List and recommends accordingly. After mclus1on management policies as presently outlined should be pursued wrth drscretron and with appropriate emphasrs on public mterpretatron facilities. - 17 -
REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
WORLD HERITAGE SITE "' CITY- MUSEUM RESERVE MTSKHETA ''
0000000 _ SVETI TSKHOVELI Cathedral-ensemble World Heritage Site boundaries
0000000_ SAMTAVRO CHURCH World Heritage Site boundaries
000000000 - SAMTAVRO CHURCH WHS butter zone (archaeological park area) - 18 -
WORLD HER IT AGE SITE: MTSKHEL\. (,h~et one)
SVETI TSKHOVELJ CHURCH and SANTAVRO i\lONASTERY (part).
Seal~: I :2000.
To be read m conjunctJon wJth th~ followJng "h~~t. - 19 -
WORLD HER IT AGE SITE: \\TSKHETA. ( heet two) ) .., ERY (part anSANTA d ARCHA VRO E~~~~~~~AL RESERVE.
Scale 1:2000. Ith the To be r ead In conJU. nction w preceding sheet. - 20 - REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
WORLD HERITAGE SITE : tl {{ CITLMUSEUM RESERVE MTSKHETA N 0000000 _ MTSKHETIS JVARI fThe Church of the Holy Cross _Mtskheta) World Heritage Site boundaries.
scale_ 1/2000 21 -
..
(
SCALE- 1I 25.000
TERRITORIAL AREA PLAN OF KUTAISI W
G) WHS_ Gelati Monastery Complex
G) WHS_ Bagrati Cathedral @ WHS_ Bagrati Cathedral buffer zones (archaeological park areas) ATE S l ric l Protect i \' e Zone of D il g r i1 t i C i1 t he cl r i1 l i n Kutaisi- ......
;:-~ I
/ i
WORLD HERITAGE Sf TE _ K UT AJSJ
000000000- BAGRATI CATHEDRAL World Heritage Site boundaries
o o o o o o oo _ BAGRATl CATHEDRAL WHS buffer zones north and south ( archaeologica I park areas) - 23 -
I 1
KUTAISI WHS: Gelati Monastery Complex
I. fhr ''"" (".11hrdrol. Sl. .~larv (';llhc:-dr.11 oC Crrl;ui: I. ;)c,,~,An (l.,J,An. <'>.lc:'>mn 1., C?;)mn J.,J(Jnoc:-n \. 1. SL Grorg<' Church: J. Sf. ~ic:ul:J\ Church: h., b:Jc:-non 1., :JJc:':J l>n> ~- Thr Urll·lo>
The mrssron was in the Republic of Georgra from May 26th 1994 until June 1st 1994. In addition to the proposed World Heritage Sites it visited srtes In and around the capital crty Tbil!si and In eastern Georgra. The mrssron was most hospitably recerved and wrshes to express its gratitude to the Presrdent of the Republic, Mr. Shevardnadze, his Foreign Minister, Dr. Chikvardze and to the following:-
Malkhaz D. Kakabadze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Dr .P. Metre vel!, National Commission for UNESCO. Anna Lomerko, National Commission for UNESCO. Dimitri R. Gvindadze, National Commrssron for UNESCO. Prof. Irakl! Tsrtsrhv!li. Presrdent, ICOMOS National Committee. Prof. Gia Sharshmelashvil!, Revrval and Development Fund Mtskheta. Ivane Gremelashv!li, Director, 'Georgia Restoration' Instrtute. Konstantm Slovinsky, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Prof. Levan Svanadze, Kutaisr. Teimuraz losebashvrl!, Advisor, Kutarsr Town Council. Teimuraz C. Shashiashvili, The Mayor of Kutaisi. Len Medzmanashvilr, Deputy Minister of Culture.
Srgned. Srgned.
John Warren. Nevzat Ilhan.