Evaluations of Cultural Properties 2001
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.11 Rev UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 25th ordinary session (11 -16 December 2001) Helsinki (Finland) EVALUATIONS OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES Prepared by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) The IUCN and ICOMOS evaluations are made available to members of the Bureau and the World Heritage Committee. A small number of additional copies are also available from the secretariat. Thank you. 2001 WORLD HERITAGE LIST Nominations 2001 INTRODUCTION I NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES A Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List A.1 Historic towns Austria - The Historic Centre of Vienna 1 Brazil - Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás 5 France - Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs 9 Kenya - Lamu Old Town 14 Morocco - The Medina of Essaouira (ancient Mogador) 18 Portugal - Historic Centre of Guimarães 21 Uzbekistan - Samarkand - The place of crossing and synthesis of world cultures 25 A.2 Religious properties China - Yungang Grottoes 31 - The Expanded Potala Palace -Norbulingka - Jokhang Monastery Project 35 in Lhasa: Norbulingka - (Extension) Poland - Churches of Peace in Jawor and Swidnica 38 A.3 Architectural monuments and ensembles Czech Republic - Tugendhat Villa in Brno 42 A.4 Technological ensembles United Kingdom - Derwent Valley Mills 46 - New Lanark 51 - Saltaire 56 A.5 Cultural Landscapes Botswana - Tsodilo 61 Italy - Villa d'Este 66 Lao People’s Democratic Republic - Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the 71 Champasak Cultural Landscape Madagascar - The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga 76 Uganda - Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi 80 B Properties which the Bureau referred back B.1 Historic towns Georgia - Tbilisi Historic District 86 Israel - The Old City of Acre 91 B.2 Religious properties Cyprus - Painted Churches in the Troodos Region - Palaichori, 98 Church of Ayia Sotira (Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour) - (Extension) Spain - Mudéjar de Aragon (Extension of Mudéjar Architecture of Teruel) 100 B.3 Architectural monuments and ensembles Russian Federation - The Bolgar Historical and Architectural Complex 104 B.4 Technological ensembles Germany - The Cultural Industrial Landscape of the Zollverein Mine 109 Sweden - The Historic Cultural Landscape of the Great Copper Mountain in Falun 114 B.5 Cultural Landscapes Italy - The Middle Adda Valley (extension to “Crespi d’Adda”) 119 Portugal - Alto Douro Wine Region 122 Spain - Aranjuez Cultural Landscape 129 C Property which the Bureau did not recommend for inscription on the World Heritage List C.1 Architectural monuments and ensembles Latvia - Jurmala Wooden Construction (Dzintari District of Summer Cottages) 134 II NOMINATIONS OF MIXED PROPERTIES A Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List Israel - Masada National Park 137 B Properties which the Bureau referred back Austria-Hungary - Natural Site and Cultural Landscape of Fertö-Neusiedler Lake 142 Russian Federation - Natural complex "Central Sikhote-Alin" 146 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS) World Heritage Nominations 2001 1 Analysis of nominations •= individual ICOMOS members with special expertise, identified after consultation with International and In 2001 ICOMOS has been requested to evaluate 39 new National Committees; and deferred nominations of and extensions to cultural and mixed properties. •= non-ICOMOS members with special expertise, identified after consultation within the ICOMOS The geographical spread largely duplicates the trend that networks; has become apparent in recent years, with more than half the nominations coming from European countries. There is •= collaborating NGOs (TICCIH, DoCoMoMo). a marked decrease in nominations from Latin America and the Caribbean, but on the other hand there are more from Concurrently, experts were selected on the same basis for Africa: evaluation missions to nominated properties. The same procedure was adopted for selecting these experts as that Europe 29 nominations (6 deferred, 3 just described. The missions were required to study the extensions) criteria relating to authenticity, protection, conservation, 16 countries and management (Operational Guidelines, para 24(b)). Asia/Pacific 4 nominations Experts are sent photocopies of dossiers (or relevant parts 5 countries of them, where the dossiers are extensive). They also Latin America/ 1 nomination receive documentation on the Convention and detailed Caribbean 1 country guidelines for evaluation missions. Africa 4 nominations ICOMOS missions were sent to all the nominated sites 4 countries (including extensions). In the case of mixed sites the missions were organized and carried out jointly by Arab States 1 nomination ICOMOS and IUCN. IUCN experts also participated in joint missions to some cultural landscapes. It was The distribution by country from those States Parties necessary for climatic and logistic reasons to delay nominating more than one property was as follows: missions to several properties until after meetings of the 4 nominations Italy (1 extension) ICOMOS World Heritage Panel and the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. 3 nominations United Kingdom (1 deferral) The missions were carried out by a total of 33 experts from 2 nominations Austria (1 with Hungary) 24 countries and Advisory Bodies. The geographical China (1 extension) distribution of experts closely parallels that of the Georgia nominated sites, in accordance with the ICOMOS policy of Israel selecting regional experts for missions. The countries from Poland which ICOMOS experts were drawn were Belgium, Czech Spain (1 extension) Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Turkey Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, Norway, Pakistan, The Comparison with the distribution in 2000, the types of site Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, show a substantial increase in the proportion of cultural Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. In landscapes and a decrease in monuments and addition, missions were carried out by representatives of archaeological sites: ICCROM, TICCIH, and the ICOMOS World Heritage Secretariat. Monument or group 11 (28%) Historic towns/town centres 9 (23%) b Evaluations and recommendations Cultural landscapes 9 (23%) On the basis of the reports prepared by the two groups of Archaeological sites 2 (5%) experts, draft evaluations and recommendations (in either Mixed sites 4 (10%) English or French) were prepared and considered by the Industrial sites 4 (10%) ICOMOS World Heritage Panel and Executive Committee at a meeting in Paris on 29–31 March 2001. Following 2 ICOMOS procedure this meeting, revised evaluations were prepared in both working languages, printed, and presented to the Bureau of a Preparatory work the World Heritage Committee at its 25th Session in June 2001. Following an initial study of the dossiers, expert advice was sought on the outstanding universal value of the On the basis of the decisions taken by the Bureau nominated properties, with reference to the six criteria supplementary information was requested from States listed in the Operational Guidelines (1999), para 24(a). Parties in respect of several nominated properties. Where For this purpose, ICOMOS called upon the following: this information had been received at the time this volume of evaluations was sent to the printer, this has been •= ICOMOS International Scientific Committees; incorporated in the revised texts. In some cases, however, since this material had not been received by that date, oral recommendations will be given at the 25th Session of the Committee in Helsinki in December 2001 and, where possible, revised texts will be made available in both working languages. There are two slight modifications to previous ICOMOS practice in the preparation of evaluations. “Statements of significance” have been included in addition to the citations for each criterion under which properties are proposed for inscription. The evaluations also include the recommendations of the Bureau at its June 2001 meeting. Paris September 2001 including three major developments, medieval, Baroque, and Gründerzeit, in its urban pattern and its individual buildings. Vienna (Austria) The historic centre of Vienna has an imperial design in its layout and the individual monuments, and has thus become a No 1033 symbol of Austrian history. Criterion iv Vienna is directly and tangibly associated with artistic and especially musical works of outstanding universal significance. Based on ecclesiastic liturgical music since medieval times, as well as minnesang and ancient dance music, Vienna became a centre of European music as early as the beginning of the 16th century under the Habsburgs. Identification Opera, which emerged in Italy at the end of 16th century, became firmly established at the court of Vienna in the High Nomination The Historic Centre of Vienna Baroque. The Viennese Classicists (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert) consolidated Vienna’s reputation as Location Vienna the musical capital of Europe, a reputation that has continued and is expressed also in light music (Strauss) and modern State Party Republic of Austria music (Neo-Viennese School). Criterion vi Date 27 June 2000 Category of property In terms of the categories of cultural property set out in Article 1 of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, this is a Justification by State Party site. The historic centre of Vienna proposed for inclusion in UNESCO’s World Heritage List constitutes