1、World Heritage Watch Report 2021World Heritage WatchWorld Heritage WatchWorld Heritage Watch Report 2021Berlin 20212 Bibliographical InformationWorld Heritage Watch:World Heritage Watch Report 2021.Berlin 2021228 pages,with 240 photos,30 graphics and 84 mapsPublished by World Heritage Watch e.V.Berl

2、in 2021ISBN ISBN 978-3-00-069191-1NE:World Heritage Watch1.World Heritage 2.Civil Society 3.UNESCO 4.Heritage at Risk 5.Natural Heritage 6.Cultural Heritage 7.Historic Cities 8.Sites 9.Monuments 10.Cultural Landscapes 11.Indigenous Peoples 12.ParticipationWorld Heritage Watch World Heritage Watch e.

3、V.2021This work with all its parts is protected by copyright.Any use beyond the strict limits of the applicable copyright law without the consent of the publisher is inadmissible and punishable.This refers especially to reproduction of figures and/or text in print or xerography,translations,microfor

4、ms and the data storage and processing in electronic systems.The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinions whatsoever on the part of the publishers concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its autho

5、rities,or concerning the frontiers of any country or territory.The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the opin-ions expressed therein,which are not necessarily those of the editors,and do not commit them.No part of this publication

6、 may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers except for the quotation of brief passages for the purposes of review.Editorial TeamStephan Doempke(chief editor),Louise Tournillon and Michael Turner.Map editors:Martin Lenk,Andrea Martinez Fernandez Cover photos:Angel Fa

7、lls,Canaima National Park,Venezuela.Photo:Rodolfo GerstlProtests in Windhoek against oil and gas development in the Kavango basin,20 May 2021.Photo:Liz Frank,WLCLaying concrete pavements on the Acropolis of Athens.Photo:Mikhalis Karagiannis/EurokinissiMain buildings of the Vat Phou temple complex.Ph

8、oto:Martin LenkBack cover map:Martin LenkCover Design:Bianka Gericke,www.layoutmanufaktur.deDesign and layout:Bianka Gericke,www.layoutmanufaktur.dePrinted by:Buch-und Offsetdruckerei H.Heenemann GmbH&Co.KG,Berlin3ContentsI.Monuments and Sites9Stonehenge,Avebury&Associated Sites Under Imminent Threa

9、t of Major Road Construction.10Kate Fielden,Stonehenge AllianceMaltas gantija Temple:Threat to One of the Worlds Most Ancient Buildings.14Dawn Adrienne-Saliba,Malta-ARCH/Astrid Vella,Flimkien gal Ambjent AjarMdinas Citadel Fortifications,Malta,in Urgent Need of Protection .19Jorg Sicot,Flimkien gal

10、Ambjent Ajar The Acropolis of Athens in Peril.21Tasos Tanoulas,Acropolis:SOS Threats to the Churches of the Virgin and St.George of the Gelati Monastery and their Wall Paintings.28Manana Tevzadze,ICOMOS GeorgiaThe Current State of Archaeological World Heritage Sites in the Idlib Governorate,Syria.31

11、Ammar Kannawi,Idlib Antiquities CenterChinese-style Pavilions in Front of Jokhang Temple Shows China Disregards Tibetan Heritage.42International Campaign for TibetII.Historic Cities45All Seems Lost on Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City WHS.46Gerry Proctor,Engage LiverpoolOkhta Cape:Archeological Sit

12、e Extending from the Stone Age to the XVIII Century in Urgent Need.of Support and Recognition.49Elena Minchenok Continuing Destruction of Historic Buildings in Vienna .54Herbert Rasinger,Initiative Stadtbildschutz Wien The State of Venice and its Lagoon with Reference to the Recommendations of the A

13、dvisory Mission of January 2020.57Franco Migliorini,Tutta la Citt Insieme!Protecting Valletta,Manoel Island andMarsamxett World Heritage .61Astrid Vella,Flimkien gal Ambjent Ajar The Bypass Road of Gjirokastra Short-term Effects vs.Sustainable Solutions.65Kreshnik MerxhaniHow to Preserve and Protect

14、 Ancient Aleppo .70Louay Dakhel,Conservation ArchitectOld Aleppo and the Challenge of Reconstruction and Restoration .74Anonymous14Nea Church in Old City in Jerusalem:A Chance to Emphasize the Citys Multi-faceted Heritage?.75Chemi Shiff,Emek Shaveh Historic Cairo:A Diminishing Historic Urban Landsca

15、pe.79Anonymous Lamu Old Town is at a Critical Point of Losing its Outstanding Value and Heritage Status.83Mohamed Athman,Save LamuIII.Cultural Landscapesand Mixed Properties 87Hope that Some of the Threats to the Kujataa UNESCO World Heritage Site Could Subside.88Niels Henrik Hooge,Friends of the Ea

16、rth Denmarks Uranium GroupThe Lake District:World Heritage Site and Favourite Off-road Destination.93Fritz Groothues(LakesWatch and Lake District Green Lanes Alliance)The Curonian Spit:In Danger of Losing Its Outstanding Universal Value.96Alexandra Koroleva,Ecodefense!RussiaThe World Heritage Upper

17、Middle Rhine Valley Faces Multiple Threats.100Klaus Thomas and Elke Greiff-Gossen,Rheinpassagen Citizens InitiativeSemmering Railway and Surrounding Landscape in Danger:Incessant Water Inrushes .105Christian Schuhbck and Josef Lueger,Alliance For NatureGovernment Tourism Development Continues Threat

18、ening Transboundary Lake Neusiedl.107Zoltn Kun,Wildland Research Institute/Christian Schuhbck,Alliance for NatureNatural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region:Death by a Thousand Cuts.111Sonja Dimoska and Daniel Scarry,Ohrid SOSUpper Svaneti World Heritage is in Danger.117Nato Tsintsabadze,ICOMO

19、S GeorgiaSiwa Oasis:a Forgotten Heritage Under Threat.122Insaf Ben Othmane Hamrouni,cumene StudioThe Ahwar of Iraq:Persisting Threats and Paths to Protection.127Toon Bijnens and Salman Khairalla,Save the Tigris CampaignThe State of the Sacred Conservation Zone of the Vat Phou Cultural Landscape,Laos

20、.130Martin Lenk,Consultant on Nature ConservationRaising Local Voices,Supporting Local Concerns in Balis World Heritage Site.135Wiwik Dharmiasih,Universitas Udayana5IV.World Heritage Properties and Indigenous Peoples 139Canadas“Call to Action”for Wood Buffalo National Park has not Fully Materialized

21、.140Mikisew Cree First NationChaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Landscape at Grave Risk Because of Oil Drilling.143Paul F.Reed,Archaeology SouthwestThe Need to Prevent the Future Degradation in the Yagul and Mitla Caves of Oaxaca.150Guadalupe Yesenia Hernandez Marquez,PreservambCanaima National Park

22、:Relentless Mining on the Rise.154SOSOrinocoKoutammakou a World Heritage Property to be Completed.159Ibrahim Tchan,Corps des Voluntaires Beninoises UNESCO Must Protect Present and Future World Heritage Sites From Oil and Gas Pollution in Africas Eden.162Andy Gheorghiu,Saving Okavangos Unique Life(SO

23、UL)Alliance Komodo National Park:The Only Home of Komodo Dragons in Peril.166Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia(Friends of the Earth Indonesia)/Sunspirit for Justice and PeaceV.Natural Properties 173Doana Dries up Surrounded by Environmental Problems.174Juanjo Carmona and Teresa Gil,WWF SpainBiaowiea

24、 Forest World Heritage Site:What is Next After the 2020 Relief?.178Tomasz Pezold Kneevi,WWF PolandEuropes Last Ancient,Primary and Old-growth Forests Under Threat of Destruction.181EuroNatur Foundation(Germany)/Agent Green(Romania)/WOLF Forest Protection Movement(Slovakia)/Protection and Preservatio

25、n of Natural Environment in Albania(Albania)The Never-ending Story:Gold Mining in the Virgin Komi Forests World Heritage Property.185Irina Panteleeva,Mikhail Kreyndlin and Alexandra Pilipenko,Greenpeace RussiaResorts as the Greatest Danger for the Western Caucasus World Heritage Property.187Irina Pa

26、nteleeva,Mikhail Kreyndlin and Alexandra Pilipenko,Greenpeace RussiaIle-Alatau State National Natural Park:Development or Destruction?.190Valeriy Krylov,Sergey Kuratov and Nataliya Medvedeva,Ecological Society“Green Salvation”Major Weakening of Lake Baikals Protection Regime in 2020.194Eugene Simono

27、v,Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition(RwB)/Mikhail Kreindlin,Greenpeace Russia Dam Construction is Threatening the Landscapes of Dauria .198Vadim Kirilyuk,Daursky Nature Reserve/Andrey Petrov,Greenpeace Russia/Eugene Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition A Resort Pr

28、oject and Ocean Disaster in the Volcanoes of Kamchatka World Heritage Property.202Irina Panteleeva,Mikhail Kreyndlin and Alexandra Pilipenko,Greenpeace Russia6Selous Game Reserve Where Do We Go From Here?.205Gnter Wippel,uranium networkBangladesh Must Halt High Carbon,Highly Polluting Industries Nea

29、r the Sundarbans .209Sultana Kamal,National Committee for Saving the SundarbansThe Australian Climate Crisis and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.212Earthjustice/Environmental Justice AustraliaAnnex 215The Authors.2167PrefaceIt is in the nature of our World Heritage Watch mission to alert

30、to risks,while there may be time for precau-tionary and corrective action.This years World Heritage Watch Report has 49 contributions,almost 20%more than last years.Should we be happy about that?On the one hand,yes,since it shows that more civil society actors than ever find it useful to have their

31、information shared in our publication.And of course no,because the number of World Heritage sites at risk never seems to decline.And how many others are out there that we have not heard of because there is no one to write a report?Numbers can tell only part of the story,however.We also call for an o

32、verall strengthening of the precau-tionary agenda for the World Heritage.Some risks and constraints seem to be calling for systemic upgrades rather than site-by-site action alone.The World Heritage system on global,national and local level needs quick response capabilities and systemic strengthening

33、:decision-making based on technical expertise alone and a full appreciation,transparent and participatory management,an active civil society,reliable financing mechanisms,and a prominent position in educational curricula in all of the Conventions member countries.To realize these goals,the World Her

34、itage system is in dire need of funds.UNESCO itself suffers from being structurally underfunded.Likewise many sites face severe constraints for funding their protection and up-keep,and last not least the local communities deserve a perspective of sustainable development and a fair share of the benef

35、its derived from World Heritage sites.The World Heritage system is also in vital need of active and vigilant people on the ground.To protect sites locally,and to fight for their upkeep at the time of budget definitions and spatial planning,World Heritage would need to count on many more directly eng

36、aged,committed and knowledgeable civil society actors.To achieve that,the existence of our global network for World Heritage still needs to be more well-known in order to inspire the formation of such groups on the local and national levels.Recently we have begun to increase our visibility in the so

37、cial media,hoping that young people around the world may discover their enthusiasm for something so much worthy of our engagement.Since World Heritage sites,and the challenges they are exposed to,are so diverse we should also link up with the diverse international campaigns focused on thematic chall

38、enges.The present report gives some graphic examples.Beyond nature conservation,there are cases related to phasing out fossil fuels,tackling climate change,keeping rivers free-flowing,supporting the rights of indigenous peoples,struggling against uranium mining and pesticides,and more.By linking up

39、with some of the big international NGOs working in these fields we can hope to establish the World Heritage as a field of activity recognized as important as these other global concerns.We would also greatly benefit from a global NGO that would advocate for cultural heritage.While there are about te

40、n global NGOs fighting for concerns related to biodiversity and climate change,there is none that would alert the world when the most important monuments and historic cities on our planet are at risk.Dont the Acropolis of Athens,Stonehenge or the Taj Mahal monuments which have truly inspired the who

41、le world over many centuries deserve the same support from civil society as the Serengeti or Lake Baikal?Could anyone imagine a world without them?They have become archetypes images that structure the way we perceive the world.Hopefully World Heritage Watch can help making civil society movements fo

42、r cultural heritage as strong as those for natural heritage one day.The contributions of this years WHW Report underline again that much could be lost if people dont stand up for it.8World Heritage Watch is a network of values,commitment and communities,something that is of great im-portance especia

43、lly to young people.We all understand that in our globalized world we are on the path to becoming global citizens.The World Heritage our common heritage presents a unique platform to make these ideas a reality in our lives across coun-tries and continents,and this gives us hope that the active en-ga

44、gement of young people for world heritage increases chances that the sites designated by UNESCO can be preserved be-yond present generations.Berlin,May 2021Maritta Koch-Weser,President Stephan Doempke,Chair 9I.Monuments and Sites10 I.Monuments and SitesStonehenge,Avebury&Associated Sites Under Immin

45、ent Threat of Major Road ConstructionKate Fielden,Stonehenge Alliance 1The UK Government intends to widen the A303 road with an“Expressway”dual carriageway across the Stonehenge half of the World Heritage Site(WHS),placing part of the new road in a short tunnel.A brief description of the WHS,conside

46、red by UNESCO to be“a landscape without parallel”,is given in World Heritage Watch Reports for 2018 and 2019,along with an ex-planation of the road project and its impacts.2 For ease of ref-erence,a map of the scheme is reproduced here(Fig.1).Examination of the road schemeHighways Englands scheme wa

47、s formally examined by a panel of five senior planning inspectors(the“Examining Authority”)from April to October 2019.Three post-examination consulta-tions were held by the Secretary of State:on the Development Consent Order(DCO)documents and a major new discovery of a part-circle of massive pits ce

48、ntred on Durrington Walls henge in the northeastern sector of the WHS3 The Examining Author-itys report and recommendation were presented to the Sec-retary of State for Transport on 2 January 2020.The Transport Secretary delayed his decision4 which was published,along with the Examining Authoritys r

49、eport,on 12 November 2020.The DCO was granted despite the Examining Authoritys rec-ommendation that consent should be withheld,principally on cultural heritage grounds.The Examination was mainly conducted in writing.Interested Parties submitted representations on the Examining Author itys specified

50、topics and written questions.There were site visits and several hearings which gave opportunities for individu-als and Interested Parties to enlarge on their written evidence and to address the Examining Authoritys further questions.The process was not very satisfactory,since scheme support-ers rare

51、ly addressed points raised by objectors who were them-selves unable to cross-examine scheme supporters.The appli-cation documents and all written evidence to the Examination can be seen in the Examination Library under“Documents”on the Planning Infrastructure website.5 Supporters of the schemeThe sc

52、heme applicant,Highways England,is a UK Govern-ment-owned company.The principal scheme supporters are the Governments Department for Digital,Culture,Media and Sport(DDCMS)and key heritage bodies Historic England(His-toric Buildings and Monuments Commission(England),funded Fig.1:Stonehenge WHS showin

53、g proposed A303 Expressway,tunnel and junctions.Graphics:Amesbury Museum and Heritage TrustI.Monuments and Sites 11by DDCMS);English Heritage(a charitable limited company whose sole share-owner is Historic England);the National Trust(an independent charity with major land holdings at Stone-henge sub

54、stantially donated by public subscription)and the lo-cal planning authority,Wiltshire Council.These bodies have di-rect or indirect managerial and/or commercial interests in the WHS.All apparently agreed with Highways England that the overall impact of the scheme on the WHS would be“slight ben-efici

55、al”.They do not accept that it would breach the UK Gov-ernments obligations under the World Heritage Convention.Objections to the scheme Among those organisations and individuals participating in the Examination as objectors were ICOMOS-UK,the Council for British Archaeology,a consortium of archaeol

56、ogists(independ-ent specialists in the archaeology of the WHS),the WHS Officer,the Avebury civic Society and the Stonehenge Alliance.Specialists giving expert evidence on behalf of the Stonehenge Alliance covered planning policy,cultural heritage,landscape,biodiversity,geology,hydrogeology,tranquill

57、ity,vibration,trans-port issues,carbon impact and value for money.6 The scheme was shown not to conform with national,local and Management Plan policies for the WHS.The project is unlikely to achieve claimed transport and eco-nomic benefits.The National Audit Office,the UKs inde-pendent public spend

58、ing watchdog,has thrown doubts on the cost-benefit methodology used by Highways England and estimated the cost of the scheme to be between 1.5 and 2.4bn at 2016 prices.7 Tranquillity at the henge would not improve with the num-bers of visitors allowed.The potential for archaeological damage arising

59、from vi-bration during tunnel boring was accepted,along with no tested method of addressing it.Highways England withheld hydrogeological data and was unable to convince our expert that there would be no prob-lems with contamination of groundwater and/or ground set-tlement in association with the tun

60、nelling process in ground rock known to contain fissures and sinkholes.It was pointed out by ICOMOS-UK that Highways England,in using ICOMOS guidance8 in respect of the WHS,had incorrectly balanced harmful impacts in parts of the WHS against benefits the scheme would bring to other parts.9 It was se

61、en by objectors that this approach had led to under-estimation of the damage overall to the WHS.Archaeological concernsSpecialist archaeologists raised concerns about the necessarily limited nature of archaeological evaluation and excavation for the scheme,owing to restrictions on time and cost.Eval

62、uation work had already revealed burials and potential settlement re-mains within the areas of intended road engineering.Most ev-idence of prehistoric activity,in the form of worked flint and artefacts,is in the topsoil:even so,useful information can be gained by careful sieving of this layer so tha

63、t the chronology and distribution of diagnostic material can be plotted.Such a time-consuming exercise is only worthwhile if the percentage of sieving is high an impossibility within the timeframe of the project.Evaluation work in the western new road cutting area of the WHS has already shown potent

64、ial evidence of settlement of the period just before and contemporary with the construc-tion of Stonehenge.Furthermore,topsoil retained for landscap-ing in the final stages of the scheme will contain archaeological material jumbled and out of context in re-location.International adviceThe Report to

65、and Decision of the 2019 World Heritage Com-mittee meeting10 were made known to the Examining Author-ity during the Examination.The Committee had again advised that the scheme would impact adversely on the Sites OUV and integrity and encouraged the State Party not to proceed with the project in its

66、current form,urging extension of the tunnel beyond the western boundary of the WHS.The Examining Au-thoritys attention was drawn to the recommendations given in reports of advisory missions to Stonehenge in 2017 and 201811 which had also suggested pursuit of less damaging options than the scheme as

67、proposed.This well-informed advice over some years has been consistently disregarded.The State Partys February 2020 State of Conservation Report12 simply says that“alternative longer tunnel solutions at the western end of the WHS would not secure sufficient additional benefits to justify the additio

68、nal costs.”The Examining Authoritys conclusions13The Examining Authoritys Report(ER)condemns the scheme for its seriously harmful impacts on the OUV,Integrity and Au-thenticity of the WHS.It noted that“potentially serious loss of assets could occur because of the civil engineering excavation works”(

69、ER 5.7.308);“the aesthetic and spiritual damage would Fig.2:A303 Stonehenge Examination Pre-Inquiry meeting,1 April 2019.Photo:Kate Freeman12 I.Monuments and Sitesbe profound and irreversible”(ER 5.7.313);and“the new Long-barrow Junction would,in the view of the ExA,dwarf all other individual featur

70、es,including the Stones”(ER 5.7.243).The Ex-amining Authority drew attention to“the harm to the overall assembly of monuments,sites,and landscape through major excavations and civil engineering works,of a scale not seen before at Stonehenge.Whilst the existing roads could be re-moved at any time,sho

71、uld a satisfactory scheme be put for-ward,leaving little permanent effect on the cultural heritage of the Stonehenge landscape,the effects of the proposed Long-barrow junction would be irreversible”(ER 5.7.247).Amongst its observations about impacts on the cultural herit-age,the Examining Authority

72、stated:“the effects of the Proposed Development on WHS OUV and the historic environment as a whole would be significantly ad-verse.Irreversible harm would occur,affecting the criteria for which the Stonehenge,Avebury and Associated World Herit-age Site was inscribed on the World Heritage List”(ER 5.

73、7.326).Civil society activities and next stepsThe Stonehenge Alliance continues to campaign against the road scheme,mainly via social media owing to Covid-19.Kate Freeman,our social media lead,has engaged widely through our Facebook,Twitter and Instagram platforms,reporting news and relevant topics

74、of interest,including a series of videos pro-duced by supporters giving views on the A303 scheme of lead-ing archaeologists,historians and others such as musician Harry Shearer of Spinal Tap and WHW Chair Stephan Dmpke.Reg-ular updates and relevant background material,including a log of widespread m

75、edia coverage of the campaign,are posted on our website.In February 2020,our worldwide petition was handed in to the UK Government at 10 Downing Street when it stood at 50,000 signatures.The petition14 has since reached c.200,000 signa-tures,around one third of which are from 147 countries(Fig.4).Ou

76、r efforts have been conspicuously ignored by the politicians.In case there might be a decision to proceed with the scheme,individual supporters of the Alliance set up Save Stonehenge WHS,an independent,limited company,to make it easier to mount a legal challenge.Following the Transport Secretarys de

77、cision,the company ap-plied for a judicial review in December 2020.A crowdfunder appeal 15 has been set up to cover the costs of the legal chal-lenge.Over 60,000 has already been generously donated by supporters towards a target of 80,000.A three-day High Court hearing will take place in June 2021,i

78、n advance of the World Heritage Committees meeting in July16 The outcome of the hearing should be known later this year.What could the World Heritage Authorities do to help?The Stonehenge Alliance and supporters have been constantly encouraged by the response to the A303 Stonehenge scheme proposals

79、of the World Heritage Centre,its specialist advis-ers and the World Heritage Committee.We are naturally dis-appointed that their principal direction has so far been disre-garded by the UK Government but until the work actually goes Fig.3:Image of planned western tunnel entrance.The cutting,through p

80、rehistoric cemetery and settlement remains,would be 1011m deep and 60m wide including its sloped grassed embankments.Photo:Highways England Fig.5:“Live streaming of Stonehenge for everyone forever?”After a satirical image published by Heritage Action in online Heritage Journal,6 November 2020.Fig.4:

81、Handing in the petition to 10 Downing St.on 19 February 2020.Photo:Chris ToddI.Monuments and Sites 13ahead on the ground,there is still a chance for a change of mind.We believe that such an about-turn might be achieved,were the World Heritage Committee to place Stonehenge,Ave-bury and Associated Sit

82、es on the List of World Heritage in Dan-ger.We respectfully request that this option might be consid-ered at the 44th Committee meeting.International condemna-tion would send shock waves to the UK heritage sector and perhaps persuade the UK Government to listen to UNESCO.References1.The Stonehenge A

83、lliance is supported by Ancient Sacred Landscape Network;Campaign to Protect Rural England;Friends of the Earth;Rescue,The British Archaeological Trust;Transport Action Network and many individuals world-wide.https:/stonehengealliance.org.uk/.2.Kate Fielden,“Stonehenge,Avebury and Associated Sites u

84、nder Threat of Road Construction”,World Heritage Watch Report 2018(World Heritage Watch,Berlin 2018),pp.156159:http:/world-heritage-watch.de/wp-con-tent/uploads/2018/06/2018-Report-WHW.pdf;and“Stonehenge,Avebury and Associated Sites Still Under Threat of Road Construction”,World Her-itage Watch Repo

85、rt 2019(World Heritage Watch,Berlin 2019,pp.138141:https:/world-heritage-watch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/World-Herit-age-Watch-Report-2019.pdf.3.Gaffney,V.et al.2020“A Massive,Late Neolithic Pit Structure associ-ated with Durrington Walls Henge”,Internet Archaeology 55.https:/doi.org/10.11141/i

86、a.55.4.4.Secretary of State for Transport,Decision Letter,12 November 2020:https:/infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR-STON%20-%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Decision%20Letter.pdf.5.National Infrastructure Planning:A303 Stonehenge:https:/in

87、frastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-west/a303-stonehenge/.6.For a summary of the Alliances case(26 September 2019),see https:/infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/pro-jects/TR010025/TR-Stonehenge%20Alliance%20-%20Sum-mary%20of%20Case.pdf.

88、7.National Audit Office,“Improving the A303 between Amesbury and Ber-wick Down”,Report,20 May 2019,pp.4 and 6:https:/www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Improving-the-A303-between-Amesbury-and-Berwick-Down.pdf.8.ICOMOS,Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Her-itage Proper

89、ties,Paris 2011.http:/openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/266.9.ICOMOS-UK,Deadline 4 Submission-Written Summaries of Oral Rep-resentation,21 June 2019,paras 89:https:/infrastructure.planninginspec-torate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR-ICOMOS-UK%20-%20Written%20Summaries

90、.pdf.10.UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies,State of Conservation Report to World Heritage Committee WHC/19/43.COM/7B;and Committees Decision 43 COM 7B.95:https:/whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3975.11.UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS Joint Advisory Mission Reports 2017 and 2018:see under“

91、Mission Reports”at https:/whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/documents/.12.DDCMS,Stonehenge,Avebury and Associated Sites State of Conservation Report,4 February 2020:see under“State of Conservation Reports by States Party”at https:/whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/documents/.13.Planning Inspectorate,“A303 Amesbur

92、y to Berwick Down Examining Au-thoritys Report of findings and Conclusions and Recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport”,2 January 2020:https:/infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR-STON%20%E2%80%93%20Final%20Recommenda-tion%

93、20Report.pdf.See also Stonehenge Alliance blog“The A303 Stone-henge Examiners recommended refusal.Why?”Posted 23 November 2020 at https:/stonehengealliance.org.uk/a303-stonehenge-examiners-recom-mended-refusal-why/.The blog includes excerpts from the ExAs Report alongside plans and images of the sch

94、eme.14.https:/stonehengealliance.org.uk/our-campaign/petition/.15.https:/ press release“Legal claim issued in campaign to save Stonehenge site from road tunnel project”:https:/www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-releases-2020/December-2020/Legal-claim-issued-in-campaign-to-save-Stonehenge.14 I.Monuments a

95、nd SitesMaltas gantija Temple:Threat to One of the Worlds Most Ancient BuildingsDawn Adrienne-Saliba,Malta-ARCH,Astrid Vella,Flimkien gal Ambjent AjarThe gantija Temples(Fig.1)are celebrated as among the old-est,most majestic freestanding structures of the world.Origi-nating circa 3,6003,200 BCE,the

96、y are beautiful in scope,sub-lime in stature,and form a central icon of Maltas archaeolog-ical heritage.The walls of these two adjacent temples at times reach a staggering height of over 7m(Trump 2003),a feat that is awe-inspiring even today,let alone during Maltas Late Ne-olithic.gantija is among M

97、altas six ancient temple sites that have received distinctive UNESCO World Heritage protection(Heritage Malta 2021),yet its immediate environs and skyscape are under threat.Threat to GgantijaA proposal to build a five-storey block of 31 flats and 20 under-ground garages less than 200m from gantija(F

98、ig.2)has been submitted by developer Emmanuel Farrugia(Schembri 2021).Interrupting this view with a high,modern building would be a major disruption to the ancient skyscape,particularly prob-lematic as such views have been destroyed elsewhere in Malta.Although the developers have not,as required,sub

99、mitted a photomontage of their proposed development(Sagona,2021),such a building would extend above the iconic temple skyline(Fig.3).The development threatens not only the local and international visitors enjoyment of the site and obstructs vital archaeologi-cal research into Late Neolithic Malta.As

100、 the southern edge of the Xagra plateau is unique for its concentration of prehistoric sites(Santa Verna,Xagra Circle,TaGesu,as well as gantija),the preservation of this view is particularly important.Addition-ally,the building would be situated upon high ground near the same level as the 18th centu

101、ry Ta Kola Windmill and the 19th century basilica,causing both eyesore and cultural upheaval.Fig.1:gantija Temple.Photo:Heritage Malta 2021Fig.2:The proposed block is in direct visibility of the temple.Source:Galea-Debono 2021 I.Monuments and Sites 15Worse,the project would also require destruction

102、of a tradi-tional vernacular building and require 1,100 square metres of excavation for the basement-level garages,resulting in the re-moval of untouched soils that highly likely contain archaeologi-cal evidence.Although the land managed by Heritage Malta may itself re-main untouched,the archaeology

103、,as recorded by the Cam-bridge Gozo survey and the FRAGSUS Project(Fragility and Sustainability in Restricted Island Environments),extends well beyond those boundaries.Important information regarding gantijas larger archaeological context,notably the rich soils which sustained the prehistoric inhabi

104、tants,would be reduced,as would the opportunity to learn more about the Neolithic settlements.Over the past month,this proposal has garnered over 1,800 ob-jection letters to the Planning Authority,“drawing international press condemnation as a tragedy and a sign of pure greed”(Vella 2021).Official o

105、bjections from Maltas Environment and Resources Authority and the Superin-tendence of Cultural Heritage have been filed.The mayor of Xagra publicly stated:“This application appears to violate plan-ning policies and runs counter to everything that the temple stands for”(Kington 2021).Heritage Malta h

106、as been taking action with regards to this threat to gantija:“As part of a National Agency directly responsible for the protection of the Megalithic Tem-ples of Malta UNESCO World Heritage Site,we have already submitted our objections to the proposed development in question through the official lega

107、l channels”(Stroud 2021).This project has an im-pact on the wider ar-chaeological landscape,extending beyond the immediate temple and into the threatened area.Malone,the leader of the FRAGSUS project that in-vestigated Late Neolithic archaeological data in Xagra warns:“This nar-row lane is wholly un

108、suit-Fig.3:In its proposed position,the block would loom high over the temple.Source:Kington 2021Fig.4:Geophysical surveys conducted near the threatened area.Graphic source:Brogan,et al.2020able for large-scale development;road access is already com-promised and dangerous”.FRAGSUSs Stoddart also mai

109、ntains that surface and geophysical surveys all around the proposed area have unearthed valuable archaeological deposits.In Vol-ume II of the recently published FRAGSUS study of prehistoric Malta,archaeologists conducted Ground Penetrating Radar and electrical resistivity surveys that point to impor

110、tant remains found in gantijas immediate environs some situated di-rectly in the area threatened by this proposed development(Fig.4).As the FRAGSUS team notes:“Geophysical survey in the ol-ive grove to the northeast of the site enabled a small trench to be excavated to test anomalies.Excavations in

111、two further locations found evidence for additional megalithic structures surrounding the southern aspect of the site and provided im-portant insights into the nature of the environs,notably the horticultural soils,of the main temple structure”(Brogan et al.16 I.Monuments and Sites2020).The photo ab

112、ove(Fig.5)shows the top of a wall be-ing excavated.The significance of these finds needs immediate analysis any development in this area runs the risk of de-stroying critical vital information.Although Emmanuel Farrugia,the developer who submitted the application,claims that no rock cutting on the s

113、ite would take place(Kington 2021),it is the remains within the soil and even the soil itself that is of most concern.Deep soil is rare in Malta and protects ancient artefacts and biofacts(Stoddart 2021).Stone tools,pottery,human and animal remains,mac-robotanical and palynological remains,mollusc s

114、hells,evidence of running water such remains are very likely situated within the soil near the olive grove and can yield irretrievable infor-mation about this ancient civilization.Additionally,gantija is uniquely situated over a geological fault and major spring.Dis-turbance of the surroundings woul

115、d likely affect groundwater flow,further disturbing the archaeological information con-tained near the olive grove soil.Last August a prehistoric mass grave containing human remains and grave goods was discovered close to this area.FRAGSUS archaeologists note that as the area is dense with such earl

116、y rock cut tombs,they expect further tombs to be encountered in the development area.Suspiciously,during this find,the Su-perintendent of Cultural Heritage was publicly noted as having difficulties“with the boom in the construction industry as the cultural monitor had not grown in tandem to keep up

117、with it”(Arena 2020).Shortly after this statement,the Superintendent was removed without explanation,prompting an outcry of ac-ademics,who published an open letter to the Heritage Minister(Delia 2020).Fig.5:Exploratory Trench near an olive grove.Photo source:Brogan et al.2020This area needs to be pr

118、eserved and studied,not destroyed be-cause a developer wishes to build flats.As Malone states,“No amount of archaeological recording or intervention can miti-gate such a loss”.MALTA-ARCH elaborates:“We need to send a message to the Planning Authority that their task is to protect this nations land a

119、nd ancestral heritage not facilitate those who would destroy it.All must be held responsible for their ac-tions.We simply cannot allow this temples environment,one which has been preserved for over 5,500 years,to be destroyed in a matter of seconds with a stroke of a callous pen”(Adri-enne-Saliba 20

120、21).Buffer Zone issuegantija has been granted high OUV status through UNESCO due to its“originality,complexity and striking massive pro-portions”(UNESCO 2007).Therefore,the temple is subject to the Cultural Heritage Act(2002),which provides for it to be protected by a surrounding buffer zone,and“sub

121、ject to wide-ranging restrictions of building development”.However,the extension of this buffer zone is left in the hands of the na-tional government.UNESCO admits the problematics:“An im-portant challenge is to establish more rigorous control aimed at mitigating visual impact caused by building dev

122、elopment in the vicinity of the buffer zones”(2007).The 2009 Management Plan for the Megalithic Temples of Malta that covers gantija also admits that development plan-ning in Malta“is relatively weak in terms of mitigating visual impacts and protecting view sheds.As a result,megalithic sites located

123、 close to buffer zones have often sustained a negative visual impact caused by building development in the vicinity.In order to prevent a further deterioration of the setting of these monuments,more rigorous control aimed specifically at miti-gating visual impact is required”.The Buffer Zone establi

124、shed in 2014 skirts the faade of the development site which is just 22m from the olive grove excavation area(Fig.4)and the evi-dence of additional megalithic structures(Fig.5).The 2015 report on the Megalithic Temples of Malta to the In-ternational Council on Monuments and Sites proposed a buffer zo

125、ne of 33 hectares(Fig.6).The report references contentions regarding these zones,resulting in ICOMOSs recommendation“that details of all these contentious proposals should be sub-mitted to the World Heritage Centre together with the out-comes of the review of the Local Plans”.The World Heritage Comm

126、ittee then adopted decision 38COM 8B.53,including a directive to“strengthen the site-specific development limita-tion(particularly height limitation)”.They further emphasized that height limitations should not impact gantijas view shed,which should be“protected from the adverse impact of future deve

127、lopment”.Maltas Planning Authority is supposed to take into consider-ation the recommendation of the Environment Resources Au-I.Monuments and Sites 17thority and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage in consul-tation with Heritage Malta all of whom have objected to this development.However,Maltas

128、 PA increasingly does not con-sider these recommendations;this year has seen an onslaught of works throughout the islands causing environmental and cultural degradation.In some cases,developers start proceed-ing with works without even a permit.Recommendations and requestsWe request that gantijas ma

129、nagement plan should be strengthened,and buffer zone regulation must be specific about height,volume,and facades of buildings.Caroline Malone,who created the Stonehenge/Avebury listing for UN-ESCO,recommends that“the buffer zone be strengthened for lines of sight,as this is standard practice for oth

130、er listings”.The buffer zone should also be redefined on the ground in the light of fresh scientific research,most prominently the work of the FRAGSUS project,since the original listing of gantija.We also request a moratorium on permits within a significantly ex-tended protective buffer zone.Maltas

131、NGO,Flimkiengal Ambjent Ajar(FAA),has been lead-ing the drive for Constitutional Reform for years,specifically re-questing“that a separate chapter is added to the Constitution specifically dealing with the protection of Maltas heritage,en-vironment,archaeology and historic landscapes in such a way t

132、hat this protection is ensured and enforceable by the necessary structures,administrative resources and effective legal reme-dies”(FAA 2019;Vella 2019).This reform is long overdue.FAA maintains that the proposed development violates a pleth-ora of Maltese planning regulations and policies.It violate

133、s the very heritage protection enshrined in Clause 9 of Maltas Con-stitution:“The State shall safeguard the landscape and the his-torical and artistic patrimony of the Nation”.In view of the fact that the Planning Authority has approved other developments on archaeological sites in violation of plan

134、ning and heritage regulations,we call on UNESCO to impress upon the Maltese Authorities that granting a permit would not just seriously jeop-ardize gantijas standing,but also threaten lesser-known un-protected sites,such as tal-Qares in Mosta,which is being bull-dozed over as we write this(Adrienne-

135、Saliba 2021).In order to protect our archaeological and cultural heritage,we call for Clause 9 of the Constitution to be made enforceable in a court of law presently such legal action is not possible,which is unconscionable.Fig.6:If the extension of gantijas Buffer Zone proposed by ICOMOS in 2015 wo

136、uld have been accepted,the planned construction site would be within its borders,but it is just outside the one presently in force.Map:UNESCO/ICOMOS 2015/Andrea Martnez18 I.Monuments and SitesReferencesAdrienne-Saliba,Dawn.2021.“Threat to gantija:Object Now.”MaltaTo-.mt.March 4,2021.https:/.mt/comme

137、nt/letters/108114/threat_to_gantija_object_nowAdrienne-Saliba,Dawn.2021.“Trading Archaeology&Civilization for Shop-ping.”THINK.University of Malta.March 5,2021.https:/www.um.edu.mt/think/trading-archaeology-civilization-for-shopping/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trading-archaeology-civ

138、ilization-for-shopping Arena,Jessica.2020.“Neolithic Mass Burial Site Discovered in Xagra.”Times of Malta.August 10,2020.https:/ French,Sean Taylor,Jeremy Bennett,Ein W.Par-kinson,Rowan McLaughlin,Simon Stoddart,and Caroline Malone.2020.“gantija.”In Temple Places:Excavating Cultural Sustainability i

139、n Prehistoric Malta,16991.University of Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeologi-cal Research.Camilleri,Patricia.2021.Archaeology Society,Malta President“Conversation with the Archaeology Society,Malta.”Phone Conversation,April 10,2021.Council of Europe.1992.“European Convention on the Protectio

140、n of the Ar-chaeological Heritage(Revised);Details of Treaty No.143.”Treaty Office.1992.https:/www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/143.Debono,James.2021.“Five-Storey Block Looms over gantija Tem-ples in Gozo.”MaltaT.mt.March 3,2021.https:/.mt/environment/townscapes/108085/f

141、ivestorey_block_looms_over_gantija_temples_in_gozo.Delia,Julian.2020.“Academics Concerned over Replacement of Cultural Her-itage Superintendent:Flag Inexplicable Decision Urge Culture Minister to Reconsider.”Times of Malta.November 13,2020.https:/ FAA.2019.“CHANGE MALTAS CONSTITUTION to SAFEGUARD OU

142、R HERITAGE and ENVIRONMENT.”FlimkiengalAmbjentA-jar.2019.http:/faa.org.mt/.Galea Debono,Fiona.2021.“Heritage Malta,Watchdog,Local Council Join Protest to gantija Apartment Plans:UNESCO Will Be Looking into the Mat-ter.”Times of Malta.March 5,2021.https:/ Malta.2018.“gantija Temples-Heritage Malta.”H

143、eritage Malta.July 31,2018.https:/heritagemalta.org/gantija-temples/.International Council on Monuments and Sites.ICOMOS 2015.“Megalithic Temples of Malta(Malta).”Kington,Tom.2021.“Flats Will Mar Temple in Malta Older than Pyramids.”www.thetimes.co.uk,April 5,2021,sec.world.https:/www.thetimes.co.uk

144、/article/flats-will-mar-temple-in-malta-older-than-pyramids-wpndlkk5t.Ministry for the Environment,Climate Change and Planning.2009.“The Man-agement Plan for the Megalithic Temples of Malta.”https:/Environment.gov.mt/MegalithicTemples.Sagona,Nicoline.Manager of Gozos Heritage Malta sites2021.“gantij

145、a Dis-cussion.”Phone Conversation,April 8,2021Schembri Orland,Kevin.2021.“Proposed Apartment Block near gantija Temples Raises Concerns for Heritage Watchdog,Xagra Council-the Malta Independent.”W.mt.March 4,2021.https:/.mt/articles/2021-03-04/local-news/Proposed-apart-ment-block-near-gantija-temple

146、s-raises-concerns-for-Heritage-watch-dog-Xagra-council-6736231534.Stoddart,Simon.2021.“gantija Heritage Threat.”Phone Conversation,April 6,2021Stroud,Katya.2021.Heritage Malta Senior Curator“An Important Matter Re-garding gantija.”Email,April 9,2021.Times of Malta Staff.2021.“Beyond Shocking-Archaeo

147、logists Slam Devel-opment Plans near gantija.”Times of Malta.March 4,2021.https:/time- H.2003.Malta:Prehistory and Temples.Sta Venera:Midsea Books.UNESCO World Heritage Centre.n.d.“Megalithic Temples of Malta.”UNESCO World Heritage Centre.https:/whc.unesco.org/en/list/132/.United Nations Educational

148、,Scientific,and Cultural Organization UNESCO.2007.“Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.”Christchurch,New Zealand:World Heritage Committee.United Nations Educational,Scientific,and Cultural Organization UNESCO,and Intergovernmental Committee for the Protect

149、ion of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.2019.“Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.”UNESCO.Paris:World Heritage Centre.https:/whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/.Vella,Astrid.FlimkiengalAmbjentAjar Coordinator 2019.“New Press Re-lease.”Email,March 22,2019Ve

150、lla,Matthew.2021.“Gozitans Turning against Overdevelopment,Say NGOs in Warning on Speculative Greed.”MaltaT.mt.April 6,2021.https:/.mt/environment/environment/108792/gozitans_turning_against_overdevelopment_say_ngos_in_warning_on_speculative_greed.World Heritage.n.d.“Outstanding Universal Value.”Wor

151、ld Heritage.https:/worldheritage.gsu.edu/outstanding-universal-value/#:text=According%20to%20UNESCO%2C%20%E2%80%9COutstanding%20Universal.I.Monuments and Sites 19Fig.1:Location of the proposed hotel construction just below the Mdina bastion.Photo:Google Earth/FAAMdinas Citadel Fortifi cations,Malta,

152、in Urgent Need of Protection Jorg Sicot,Flimkien gal Ambjent Ajar The fortified city of Mdina(Citta Vecchia)has been included in Maltas Tentative List for inscription as a UNESCO World Herit-age Site in 1998,owing to its historical,architectural and cul-tural significance.The Superintendence of Cult

153、ural Heritage of Malta declares the site to be in close vicinity of scheduled archaeological remains,namely:a)The remains of a Roman Wall and structural remains,b)a Scheduled Railway Tunnel,which runs partly underneath the site,and c)a Rostrum(Loggatal-Palju)in immediate proximity of the site.An 81-

154、room hotel has been proposed parts of which will extend into areas of this archaeologically sensitive site.Furthermore,excavations and construction as proposed in the process will impact the Mdina fortifications,bastions,glacis and complex buttressing system including the historical retaining wall w

155、ithin the site.Integrity and authenticity of the Mdina site(Citta Vecchia)Mdina is situated high above terraced fields,thus dominating the rural skyline.The terraced fields surrounding the imposing bastion walls have been carefully engineered to strengthen the bastions.Mdina contributes greatly to t

156、he glorious heritage of the Maltese Islands with its original setting of Baroque palaces and churches and so it deserves every degree of protection pos-sible to ensure its survival for the benefit of both future genera-tions and national pride.The urban form it was built upon is the one still standi

157、ng to the present day.The history of this township has been archaeologically docu-mented to date back to the Bronze Age,even though no major structural remains pertaining to this period have been located yet.The arrival of Phoenician colonizers on the Maltese Islands in the 8th Century BC gave added

158、 impetus to this particular set-tlement,which developed in importance far more than any of the surrounding Bronze Age settlements.By Hellenistic/Early Roman times 5th to 1st Centuries BC the township had de-Citta Vecchia)Hotel20 I.Monuments and Sitesveloped tremendously,covering an area which is con

159、siderably larger than the current extent of Mdina as visible today.The defenses of Mdina were entirely re-modeled in the mid-dle-ages in conformity with the medieval defensive practices of the period this included the use of dry ditches,square and round towers,barbicans,drawbridges etc.Most of these

160、 me-dieval defenses are no longer visible,but survive as part of the towns archaeological record.The Rabat and Mdina areas have also being proposed to be designated as an Area of Archae-ological Importance,and an Urban Conservation Area due to their historical and architectural character.Detailed de

161、scription of the investor project The developer proposes construction of a five star hotel with 81 guest rooms spread over 4 terraced floors and 1 receded floor,ancillary facilities(restaurants,conference area,two pools at roof level,landscaping works,entrance forecourt and service areas.The propose

162、d development intends to construct a part of the hotel around the existing bastion wall found within the site,and thus directly impacting the protected historic fabric.A 1.5 meter buffer zone around the bastion wall is being pro-posed;however this intervention disrespects and suffocates its signific

163、ance.The development proposal will have a huge impact upon the skyline of the tentative Mdina World Heritage Site and the over-all setting and approach.Views and vistas are to be preserved and strengthened,since this development involves a site which is immediately contiguous to the Mdina Fortificat

164、ions.It pro-poses a large built-up footprint and it involves excavation on the site,which includes large tracts of archaeological and his-torical remains.The proposed project violates the Outstand-ing Universal Value of the Property No presentation,geological analysis or survey is available,de-taili

165、ng specific types of archaeological heritage on the site.No systematic approach to the integration of archaeological herit-age(visible or underground)has been undertaken,no acknow-ledgement of archaeological heritage as Mdinas spatial and de-velopment resource is given.The protection of archaeologic

166、al heritage is not regulated specifically.There is a symptomatic lack of interdisciplinary cooperation be-tween experts(archaeologists,conservators,urban and spatial planners),and other participants in the complex issue of pre-serving architectural/archaeological heritage in an urban con-text,as wel

167、l as the failure to recognize archaeological heritage as a non-renewable spatial resource.Development Proposal Status The proposal is currently under review by the Planning Author-ity of Malta Case No.PA 08734/18,and a recommendation for approval of the application has been given.No works have begun

168、 on site.The final approval is likely to be voted on 29 April 2021.Demands from the Maltese authorities 1.To conduct a detailed analysis of the site in question,and to establish the archaeological heritage within it.2.To ensure that a Content and Spatial Reinterpretation of the archaeological herita

169、ge must be included in any develop-ment proposal in proximity of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.3.As a Best Practice in World Heritage,to enforce integral ac-tions in any development proposal in proximity of a UNE-SCO World Heritage Site,be it tentative or nominated.4.To conduct an analysis of urban i

170、ntegration with immova-ble archaeological heritage,and the relation between urban planning and in situ preservation of archaeological heritage.5.To ensure the enforcement of interdisciplinary cooperation between experts(archaeologists,conservators,urban and spatial planners),and other participants,a

171、nd to preserve ar-chitectural/archaeological heritage in an urban context.6.To adopt an Action Plan for Mdina,with a Buffer Zone in-cluded,based on the principles of prevention and prepared-ness,and enforceable by law.7.To adopt a formal recognition of archaeological heritage as a non-renewable spat

172、ial resource.Fig.2:A rendering of the proposed hotel shows that it will obscure views of the Bas-tion.Source:www.pa.org.mt I.Monuments and Sites 21The Acropolis of Athens in Peril Tasos Tanoulas,Acropolis:SOS At the end of October 2020,on one of my frequent visits to the Acropolis,I was taken by sur

173、prise witnessing that the whole of the plateau was in the process of being paved with reinforced concrete,covering over much of the face of the living rock.Official statements which followed the first criticisms of these works justified these extensive interventions as ostensibly noth-ing more than

174、a repair and upgrade of the older pathways to accommodate people with disabilities,but the sheer scale of the work makes clear that the primary plan is to accommodate even larger crowds of summer tourists.Objections were expressed about the materials being used,the extent of the works and the aesthe

175、tic impact of the interven-tions,which appear to compete with and diminish the archi-tectural and sculptural achievements of the monuments,and in general devalue the archaeological site as a whole.The older pavement was planned for and achieved the aesthetic integra-tion with the surrounding rock su

176、rface and,also,“reversabil-ity”,which means that it could be completely removed without problems(see Fig.1 and 2,p.23).The new installation has nothing to do with the older imple-mentation.It is made of concrete reinforced with metal mesh,the removal of which in the future will require the use of me

177、-chanical means and,in practice,will cause injury to the rock(see Fig.3 and 3a,p.24).Already,on the surface of the rock west of the Parthenon,abrasions and cracks were caused by the recent removal of the massive foundation of the crane that had been erected at this place(see Fig.4,p.24).The area and

178、 volume of the construction are incomparably larger than that of the old one,and the geometric configura-tion with straight contours and clean prismatic edges is com-pletely foreign to the environment of the archeological site and the monuments.The entire surface of the ancient pathway is covered,an

179、d the boundaries of the new construction suffocate the outline of carvings from monuments of antiquity.The pal-impsest of the Acropolis rock,which is a monument in itself,is now covered with a“raster”,leaving the four standing monu-ments in a suffocating loneliness and,at the same time,elimi-nate th

180、e access to the connective tissue between the remains of the monuments from which the foundations are mainly saved(Brauroneion,Chalkonthiki,Archaios Naos of Athena,etc.).The monuments lose their vital environment that allows both experts and ordinary visitors to perceive the archaeologi-cal site as

181、a unit(see Fig.5 11,p.2425).These interventions were also criticized for being irreversible and for the damage they have already caused to remains of ancient architecture(see Fig.12 17,p.26)and to the rock it-self(see Fig.4),as well as the predictable but apparently un-planned for consequence that t

182、he type of concrete and its final coating with waterproofing chemicals will cause flooding and other problems for the rainwater drainage systems.Rain in December 2020 caused flooding across the archaeo-logical site of the Acropolis,a consequence of the new paving which had already been predicted by

183、the critics.Outcry against the new pathways intensified when images of the waterlogged monuments became public.At the same time,it also emerged that the configuration of the new pathways would not ulti-mately fulfil the stated justification of accessibility,which was allowing the independent movemen

184、t of wheel-chairs and peo-ple with disabilities.One would expect a more careful and thoughtful handling of the situation by the Ministry of Culture.On the contrary,the President of the Committee for the Preservation of the Acro-polis Monuments announced that the above works represented just the firs

185、t phase of an even larger and more radical transfor-mation of the site:new platforms would be constructed,in the form of earth terraces,on different levels supposedly replicating those of the ancient terraces in the 5th century BC.The objec-tive would be to restore,according to his own judgement,the

186、 configuration of the ground level in the 5th century BC,and the“correct appearance”of the monuments.This levelling will bury the surviving vestiges of the ancient buildings in between the major monuments(see Fig.1820,p.2627).Objections were,then,expressed that the installation of all these new buil

187、dings and interventions would erase any sense of historic unity and continuity,imposing modern forms for which there is no sufficient evidence,while simultaneously cutting off access to the important archaeological vestiges surviving in situ.22 I.Monuments and SitesIn addition to all these problems

188、raised by essential theoreti-cal,scientific and practical issues,all these new constructions underway,not to mention the future ones,have been imple-mented by entirely circumventing international and national Greek legal frameworks and institutional standards.To the general outcry,the Ministry of Cu

189、lture and the propo-nents of these projects answered with a sudden distraction.In-stead of continuing the projected works on the Acropolis pla-teau,they moved activity on the west slope of the rock.On February 2,a proposal of the Committee for the Preservation of the Acropolis Monuments characterize

190、d as urgent,was brought for discussion to the Central Archaeological Council of the Min-istry of Culture.The professed purpose of the proposal was the“restoration”of the west access of the Acropolis,something that would“render back”the“monumentality”and“authen-ticity”of the Monument,while,at the sam

191、e time,“would solve problems regarding the management of the traffic of the vis-itors”(phrases in quotation marks are from press releases of the Ministry of Culture).The proposal was approved by general vote,even though the Central Archaeological Council examines and decides only on completed studie

192、s,and not mere propos-als.In this case too,the normal procedure was sidestepped.More specifically,a press release of the Ministry of Culture and Sports declared that a flight of new marble steps will be constructed,modeled upon a Roman flight of steps of the 1st century AD.The result will be a stepp

193、ed square starting at the lower end of the west slope of the Acropolis and ascending up to the west front of the Propylaia,which will allow crowds of tourists to enter in between the columns and pass through the monument in order to,finally,get to the Acropolis plateau(see Fig.20).The passage of tou

194、rists through the Propylaia will cause congestion on the way in and out of the Acropolis pla-teau,and will endanger the safety of the monument while overcrowding of visitors will persist and,in fact,will become more acute.It has not been explained why the 1st c.AD phase has been chosen for the“recon

195、struction”of the west access of the Acropolis,while for the Acropolis plateau,the 5th c.BC has been chosen.It seems that these choices are aiming at a selec-tive image of“Ancient Glories”!It is certain that these new interventions will change dramati-cally the form of the Acropolis Monument,and its

196、content in the international consciousness.They do not respond to the in-ternationally recognized and established principles concerning the preservation,conservation and safeguarding of antiquities.On the contrary,they equal the devaluation,concealment and degradation of the greatest archaeological

197、and artistic treasure that has been bequeathed to modern Greece,in whom human-ity entrusts its safeguarding.The Acropolis is a UNESCO World Heritage Monument,answer-ing the highest possible number of Criteria,that is,five:Criteria(i)(iv)and Criterion(vi).I believe that four of these criteria will be

198、 irrevocably eliminated,as will be explained:Criterion(i):The Athenian Acropolis is the supreme expression of the adaptation of architecture to a natural site.This quality will be annihilated when the living rock of the Acropolis plateau and the ancient traces on it will be com-pletely covered by a

199、gigantic surface of horizontal terraces in new material.Similar will be the fate of the rock and the pre-served ancient traces at the western slope before the Propylaia,which will be covered by a stepped staircase,also in new mate-rial.This intervention will result in the degradation of the natu-ral

200、 landscape,and a devaluation of the rock as a natural monu-ment in its own right,as a natural fort.Criterion(iii):From myth to institutionalized cult,the Athenian Acropolis,bears a unique testimony to the religions of an-cient Greece.It is the sacred temple from which sprung fun-damental legends abo

201、ut the city.Beginning in the 6th century BC,myths and beliefs gave rise to temples,altars and votives corresponding to an extreme diversity of cults,which have brought us the Athenian religion in all its richness and com-plexity Covering completely the living rock and the traces that are pre-served

202、on its surface,will eliminate this criterion,by making inaccessible the evidence of the primitive cults on the Acrop-olis,related to chthonic deities that is,deities born from the earth.These cults and the relevant traces on the rock were very important testimonies of the autochthony of the Athenian

203、s,a quality of which the Athenians were very proud.They claimed that being born by the land of Attica,made them superior to the Spartans who were immigrants from the north.Criterion(iv):The Athenian Acropolis is an outstanding exam-ple of an architectural ensemble illustrating significant histori-ca

204、l phases since the 16th century BC.This criterion will also be abolished,since the new massive structures on the plateau and the west slope of the Acropolis will demand raising the existing ground level,often by more than 3 meters.For the support of the steps and the consolida-tion of the extensive

205、new structure,massive and densely distrib-uted foundations will have to be built,which will have to rest on the rock and on antiquities and will cover over and conceal permanently antiquities of many historical periods,both before and after the 1st c.AD.Criterion(vi):The Athenian Acropolis is direct

206、ly and tangibly associated with events and ideas that have never faded over the course of history.I believe that this criterion will be also essentially damaged.The massive new structures,in their incongruous,aggressive new-ness,by depriving humans of the tangible elements from the past,will inactiv

207、ate the creative ability of the mind and memory to recreate those events and ideas.I.Monuments and Sites 23In addition,the authenticity of the Acropolis hill will be irrev-ocably damaged since the new interventions,being totally a modern irreversible structure,are in contradiction to the Venice Char

208、ter.The lockdown imposed because of the corona virus pandemic served as a smokescreen for the completion of the first phase of the works which was the paving of the pathways with re-inforced concrete.These activities were covered with secrecy.Considering the damages to the living rock and to ancient

209、 structures which have been documented in photographs be-fore the lockdown(see Fig.12 17),it is inevitable to suspect that all this secrecy was to conceal actions which would cause even more criticism.One has to keep in mind that,if the sight of the recent armed concrete pathways on the Acropolis is

210、 a shock to an objective visitor,they represent only a tiny portion of the future project that has been announced.The recent works on the Acropolis and those planned for the future are inscribed in the frame of policies which are inter-ested not in the welfare of the monuments but in their eco-nomic

211、 potential.There is no doubt that the accommodation of people with disabilities was simply a pretext for works really meant to serve the burgeoning tourist industry of recent years and the resultant need to move large numbers of visitors within limited space and timescales.Any structural implementat

212、ions that would replace the existing ones for the accommodation of the tourists,including people with disabilities,should not re-construct structural phases responding to completely different functions and demands of past times.They should reflect the philosophy and the principles of our era.However

213、,the solution to the problems from the growing number of visitors is not the ever-increasing accumulation of more material structures on the Acropolis.The first sound and feasible decision that should have been taken a long time ago,should be about the control of the number of visitors:tourists shou

214、ld not come all together in torrents between the four or five peak hours;on the con-trary,visits should be arranged by appointment and be distrib-uted during the whole length of the opening hours of the site.Depriving the Acropolis of its quality as a well-established doc-ument of the diverse cultur

215、al expressions of both the historic period that created it and the historic periods that followed,preserving the successive traces of each,will irrevocably erase its historic unity and continuity,thus degrading it to a common piece of public property that could be easily expropriated for the profit

216、of individuals.Considering all the above,I beg UNESCO to immediately Take action to stop activities on the Acropolis.Put the Acropolis on the List of World Heritage in Danger.Require a Tourism Plan for the Acropolis before any future activity on the site.Photographic Documentation All photos by Taso

217、s Tanoulas unless otherwise indicated.Fig.1:The Acropolis rock between the Propylaia and the NE corner of the Parthe-non cleared from the disjecta membra in 1977.View from the top of the east front of the Propylaia.Fig.2:The Acropolis rock between the Propylaia and the NE corner of the Parthenon jus

218、t before the completion of the paving of the Panathenaic way under the direction of John Travlos,1977.View from the top of the east front of the Propylaia.24 I.Monuments and SitesFig.3:The area in front of the east front of the Propylaia,in the process of being paved with reinforced concrete,coverin

219、g over the face of the living rock,October 29,2020.View from the top of the east front of the Propylaia.Fig.3a:The area in front of the east front of the Propylaia,in the process of being paved with reinforced concrete,covering over the face of the living rock,October 29,2020.View from the northeast

220、 corner of the platform.Above left,the west end of the Parthenon.Fig.4:The area in front of the west front of the Parthenon,view from the west steps of the monument.An impact drill is breaking the massive concrete foundation of the crane that had been erected in this place.Metal panel close the view

221、 from the outside.Fig.5:The platform in front of the east front of the Propylaia,looking east,March 22,2021.The Parthenon on the right,the Erechtheion on the left.FIG.3 and FIG.3a show this area under construction.I.Monuments and Sites 25Fig.6:The platform in front of the east front of the Propylaia

222、,seen from the south-east,March 2021.Photo:Nikos Kazeros Fig.7:A view of the north Acropolis wall from the south,March 22,2021.In the lower level the cement pathway serving the elevator that is accessible by means of the metal bridge on the left.On the right,the Erechtheion.Fig.8:On the left,the pat

223、hway along the north side of the Parthenon,showing a high vertical border to the north,March 2021.Above right,the east front of the Pro-pylaia.Photo:Nikos Kazeros Fig.9:The south border of the pathway discussed in the previous picture,framing the irregular outline of the living rock,March 22,2021.On

224、 top of the picture,the north colonnade of the Parthenon.Fig.10:View of the cement platform in front of the east front of the Parthenon,looking from the northern end to the south,March 2021.Above right,the southeast corner of the Parthenon.Photo:Nikos Kazeros Fig.11:View of the cement platform in fr

225、ont of the east front of the Parthenon,looking from the south end to the north,March 22,2021.Above left,the east front of the Parthenon.26 I.Monuments and SitesFig.12:The red arrows indicate the projecting parts of a poros block,projecting from the wall of a Byz-antine cistern,into which parts of th

226、e original poros ashlar masonry had been incorporated in a remote past.2020Fig.13:The red arrows indicate the same poros block,cut back ln order to provide a uniform vertical sur-face,thus facilitating the installation of a massive re-inforced concrete foundation.2020Fig.14:Preparation of the formwo

227、rk in front of the wall shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5.2020 Fig.15 and Fig.16:Two views of the completed formwork,after the installation of the metal reinforcement,be-fore being filled with cement.This massive iron and concrete structure is closely surrounded by ancient structures.2020Fig.17:The upper sur

228、face of the completed foundation appears on the right half at the bottom of the picture,below the massive metal posts supporting the bridge.It seems to be a thin layer of concrete,but it really is about two meters deep.Fig.18:Digital photomosaic plan of the Acropolis pla-teau.Source:Greek Ministry o

229、f Culture and SportsI.Monuments and Sites 27Fig.19:Digital photomosaic view of the Acropolis plateau,indicating the new pathways.The light green and most of the light red areas have been completed in reinforced concrete.The orange and light purple are to be constructed.Source:Greek Ministry of Cultu

230、re and Sports Fig.20:A conjectural representation of the Acropolis plan in the 2nd century AD by Manolis Korres superposed on the digital photomosaic plan of the Acropolis depicted in Fig.17.It shows the final arrangement of the Acropolis plateau and the west access of the Acropolis at the west end(

231、far left in the image)after the completion of the whole pro-ject.It is obvious that if this happens,practically all of the Acropolis plateau and the west access will be covered with new structures.Source:Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports28 I.Monuments and SitesThreats to the Churches of the Virgi

232、n and St.George of the Gelati Monastery and their Wall PaintingsManana Tevzadze,ICOMOS GeorgiaGelati Monastery is situated near the city of Kutaisi located in West Georgia.It had been listed on the World Heritage List since 1994 together with the Bagrati Cathedral until the ma-jor boundary modificat

233、ion in 2017,which excluded the Bagrati Cathedral from the WH property boundaries.An initial conser-vation plan for Gelati Monastery was prepared in 2008,while in 2017,a more comprehensive document the Gelati Mon-astery Conservation and Management Plan was elaborated.The plan was based on a number of

234、 studies analyzing its state of conservation,and set priorities for action.For over a decade,the churches of the Gelati monastery have been having moisture problems,also noted in a number of UN-ESCO expert reports.In response,conservation works on the stone and wall paintings took place on the churc

235、hes of the Ge-lati monastery intermittently between 20032016.Due to the continuous deterioration of the facing stone and the wall paint-ings caused by a complex of water infiltration reasons,it was decided to launch a major roof replacement project.Rehabilita-tion of the roofing started in 2013 and

236、was completed in 2019.The works were co-funded by the Georgian Government,the US Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation,and the World Bank.While the UNESCO WHC and ICOMOS International have pos-itively evaluated the Gelati Monastery Conservation and Man-agement Plan,no technical evaluation has b

237、een obtained from them by the State Party regarding the roof rehabilitation pro-ject.As noted in the background,UNESCO reports have contin-uously referred to endangered wall paintings in both churches since 2010.The only technical evaluation from ICOMOS Inter-national that exists for the site is for

238、 the structural reinforce-ment of the dome drum of the main church.Chronology of Recent Events In February 2020,the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia(NACHP)learned that due to frost,damages incurred on the newly rehabilitated roof of the Church of the Virgin which led to

239、water infiltration in the West arm and was damaging the wall painting.An initial damage assessment report by the expert team of the NA-CHP dated March 2020 informed wider professional circles of the situation.In early summer,the roof of the damaged western arm was covered with blue all-purpose tarp,

240、and NACHP started elab-orating a project for temporary roofing.In August the NACHP opened a wider professional discus-sion in the form of council meetings where all concerned parties were invited.ICOMOS Georgia participated in these meetings,too.The State Party informed the UNESCO World Heritage Cen

241、-tre about the happenings and submitted a report contain-ing information on the state of conservation of the Church of the Virgin;While the topic has been in the news since the spring1,in October a facebook page“Save Gelati Monastery”was launched by individual wall painting restorers.The page serves

242、 to collect relevant material and inform the wider pub-lic about developments.2 Also in October,ICOMOS Georgias expert board published its comments on the state of conservation of the site follow-ing a field visit.1 https:/bit.ly/3nQvw2c(Radio Liberty article,accessed 16.01.2020)http:/ifactimereti.g

243、e/gelati-new;http:/ifactimereti.ge/gelati2/2 https:/ Church of the Virgin of Gelati Monastery.Photo:ICOMOS Georgia I.Monuments and Sites 29 Temporary segmented roofing was installed under the dome,covering parts of the roofs of the cross arms in September.3 Temporary segmented roofing was completed

244、in November.Wall painting assessment and monitoring is ongoing.Scope of Damage and Future ThreatsDamage resulting from water infiltration in both churches of the Monastery Complex the Church of the Virgin and the Church of Saint George,are most evident on the facing stones and the wall painting.Whil

245、e a large portion of the roof tiles made from white clay have been broken and cracked,specific areas and reasons of water infiltration in the interior still remain the subject of further study.The other half of the tiles which were made of red clay have not cracked,but water infiltration is still ev

246、ident under them,too.Water infiltration damaged the wall painting in the interior.Ac-cording to the on-site assessment and monitoring report con-ducted by specialists from NACHP,the following condition was observed:“The salt efflorescence has been detected as a main cause of deterioration,which is r

247、elated to the water infiltration through damaged roofs and environmental conditions of the interior.Salt crystallization cycles have caused cohesion and adhesion 3 https:/agenda.ge/en/news/2020/3772(accessed on 15.01.2020)failures of paint and plaster layers,loss of repair materials ap-plied during

248、previous interventions in the XX century as well as small wall painting fragment pieces from the original technol-ogy.Bioactivity has also been observed.4”The problem is further intensified by the fact that the response from responsible authorities the Ministry of Science,Educa-tion,Culture and Spor

249、t and the NACHP-has been extremely slow.Time,which was precious in the wake of the cold sea-son,was wasted by the NACHP,and the temporary roofing was completed only at the end of November.The general impression of the professional civil society observ-ing the situation is that the State Party does n

250、ot acknowledge the degree of complexity of the problem.This is evident by the fact that the executing organization has been asked to commis-sion a new batch of replacement ceramic tiles.Presently,there is no complete interior scaffolding in either of the affected churches.Only the Church of the Virg

251、in has in-4 Information on the State of Conservation of the Church of Virgin of Gelati Monastery WH Property,Georgia submitted by the State Party to UNESCOFig.2:Damages of the facing stone on the Church of the Virgin.Photo:ICOMOS GeorgiaFig.3:Damages of the facing stone of the Church of the Virgin.P

252、hoto:ICOMOS GeorgiaFig.4:Open joints between the wall surfaces and the dome.Photo:ICOMOS GeorgiaFig.5:Open joints between the wall surfaces and the roof construction.Photo:ICOMOS Georgia30 I.Monuments and Sitesterior scaffolding on the south wall of the west arm.This is preventing the wall painting

253、conservators from assessing the damage in the entire interior of both churches and undertaking long-term condition monitoring as well as preventive conserva-tion measures such as removal of salts and local consolidation of the wall paintings.The discussion on installing a temporary roofing on the ch

254、urch of St.George is only beginning now.Despite continuous re-quests by civil society,and recommended also by ICOMOS In-ternational in its December 2020 Technical Review in response to the Hazards Mitigation Short Term Action Plan submitted by NACHP to the WHC,installation of a complete temporary ro

255、of-ing is not under consideration by the State Party.The Root Causes If examined carefully,the root causes for such dramatic results for a heritage site like Gelati,lie in the inadequate management system for cultural heritage preservation of Georgia,and pre-cisely the management of World Heritage P

256、roperties.This is-sue has been discussed for decades now,and while there were some improvements,the system still remains ineffective.This reality is manifested in the state of conservation and manage-ment challenges of all three World Heritage Properties in Geor-gia,also featured in the World Herita

257、ge Watch Reports of 2017 and 2018.55 world-heritage-watch.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-Report-WHW.pdf,https:/villa.org.pl/villa/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/WHW-Report-2017.pdf(accessed 18.01.2021)ConclusionDue to the complex nature of the problems,the study and anal-ysis of the situation requir

258、es ample time before any decision can be made on further treatment.Meanwhile,the structure needs to be covered with a complete temporary shelter to prevent it from further damage and to enable specialists access.At the same time,an interior scaffolding needs to be installed ur-gently,to allow proper

259、 monitoring of the state of conservation of the wall painting as well as implementation of preventive conservation measures on the effected murals.To conclude,it is of utmost importance that an international multidisciplinary team is convened,tasked to study the complexity of reasons and make recomm

260、endations on remedial action.I.Monuments and Sites 31The Current State of Archaeological World Heritage Sites in the Idlib Governorate,SyriaAmmar Kannawi,Idlib Antiquities Center1The Jabal Al-Zawiya RegionJabal al-Zawiya forms the southern part of the lime massif ex-tending through northwestern Syri

261、a,and within this wide sec-tor in Idlib governorate there are two archaeological parks:Park No.4 which includes the sites of Al-Bara,Wadi Marathon(Wadi Martaoun),Majalia(Mujleya),Petrasa(Btirsa),Bashila(Bshilla),Shinsharah(or Khirbet Hass),Rabia Baouda,Dallouza(Dallouz)and Serjilla,and Park No.5 whi

262、ch extends on the eastern slope of Jabal Al-Zawiya and includes the villages of Re-wiha(Rouweiha)and Jarada(Jerad).1 The Jabal al-Ala(Upper Mountain)RegionIn Jabal al-Ala,the highest mountain of the lime massif,there is Archaeological Park No.6 which includes the villages of Qalb Lawza(Qalb Loz),Kef

263、ir(Kfeir)and Karkabiza(Qirqbiz).1 This report as well as the survey were undertaken by the Idlib Antiquities Center under the scientific supervision of Prof.Dr.Abdalrazzaq Moaz and funded by The Gerda Henkel Foundation,GermanyFig.1-4:The area of the Ancient Villages of Northern Syria(upper right).Ar

264、chaeolog-ical Park 4(lower left)and Archaeological Park 5(lower right)can be found at the bottom of this map between Dschebel Zawiya and Maarat an-Numan.Archaeologi-cal Park 6(upper left)can be found straight north,at the northern end of Dschebel al-Ala.Fig.1: I.Monuments and SitesArchaeological Par

265、k No.4The archaeological villages of Jabal al-Zawiya and the villages of the park in particular,have witnessed many emergency changes as a result of the ongoing war in Syria since 2011.They suffered from various types of damage according to the military varia-bles on the ground.The following is a su

266、mmary documentation of the current state of the park villages:1.Al-BaraDuring the war years,starting 2011 and until the date of writing this report,the ancient village was subjected to a wide range of damages,the most serious of which was the breaking of stone for reuse and sale for modern construct

267、ion(Fig.1).Bulldozing using heavy machinery led to the destruction of entire archae-ological and architectural landmarks in addition to damages from vandalism,secret digging,urban encroachments(Fig.2)and the use of some of the archaeological sites buildings as military barracks and shooting fields(F

268、ig.3AB).At present,Al-Bara has become a site of clashes between the regime and op-position forces.digging and bulldozing in it,as happened in Al-Bara,but the site was bombed by Russian warplanes in 2020,which caused some damage to the western end of the site(Fig.4 AC).2.SerjilaThe Serjila site is di

269、stinguished by its huge buildings that have preserved their status as they were before the Syrian war,and did not suffer major damage,as they were used at the begin-ning of the population displacement in 2014 and 2015 as places of residence(camps).After 2016 some of its buildings were used as milita

270、ry headquarters.This contributed to the lack of Fig.4BFig.1Fig.3AFig.2Fig.3BFig.4AI.Monuments and Sites 33Fig.6BFig.6A3.RabiahInfringements can be identified by military presence,secret ex-cavation and recent urban additions to the site(Fig.5).4.The village of PetraInfringements can be identified by

271、 urban sprawl and se-cret digging(Fig.6 A-B).5.Shansharrah villageDuring the war,the site turned into a camp for the opposition factions.The site was subjected to several air strikes,in addition to barrel bombs and shells.We observed the presence of pits and trenches that are used to protect against

272、 bombing,in ad-dition to the use of earth buildings carved out of rock(Fig.7).6.Bashila villageThe site has been exposed to many violations,including secret drilling and stone cutting(Fig.8 A-B).Fig.4CFig.5Fig.7Fig.8AFig.8B 34 I.Monuments and Sites7.A return villageThe site was subjected to acts of

273、vandalism with the aim of ex-cavating the antiquities,as many random pits appeared on the surface of the site and others near the foundations of some buildings(Fig.9 AB).9.Dallouza villageThe site was not exposed to serious violations during the con-flict in Syria due to its isolation and its distan

274、ce from modern housing.10.Wadi MarathonThe nature of the Wadi Marathon site,which includes caves carved into the rock,prompted some military groups to use the site as a military headquarters.There was no documentation process for it during the previous period.Archaeological Park No.5Park No.5 extend

275、s in Idlib governorate and includes two vil-lages,Rewiha and Jerada.1.Rewiha villageInfringements can be identified from breaking down ancient stones,modern housing,using some of the sites buildings as temporary housing or livestock shelters,or military presence.With the advent of the year 2020,this

276、 area has become threat-ened.This site has become on the line of fire and armed clashes,and the Syrian regime forces were able to control the site and turn it into a military barracks(Fig.11 AD).8.Majella villageInfringements can be identified from secret digging,stone crushing,and urban encroachmen

277、t Fig.10 AB).Fig.9BFig.9AFig.10AFig.10BFig.11AFig.11BI.Monuments and Sites 352.Jerada villageThe archaeological identity of this site has been preserved by the local population,but this did not prevent the presence of some encroachments such as cutting ancient stones,oc-cupation with modern building

278、s,and secret illegal digging(Fig.12 AB).Archaeological Park No.6 The Jabal al-Ala is one of the main mountains that form the limestone block in northwestern Syria and includes many Ro-man and Byzantine archaeological villages.Three sites were chosen to form Archaeological Park No.6 in addition to ot

279、her gatherings in the rest of the Limestone Massif:Qalb Lozeh,Ke-fir and Karkabiza,with an area estimated at 160 km.The Qalb Lozeh Church is considered the most important land-mark in this park(Fig.13A).Despite ists historical and architec-tural importance,it has been subject to neglect and abuse ov

280、er the past period due to the neglect of the site by the local com-munity as a result of their sensitivity to the conflict,as they are from the Druze religious minority,in addition to the displace-ment of a large number of residents of the village and the entry of large numbers of displaced persons

281、and immigrants.Qalb Lozeh Church did not suffer major damage during the conflict period in Syria,as in some other locations.What helped was the fact that the church was located in the middle of the modern village and relatively far from the areas of war and con-flict.However,its location in the mids

282、t of a modern residen-tial complex exposed it to unfair exploitation for a period of time,and some collateral damage was reported of the building.Damages can be identified as follows:Fig.11DFig.11CFig.12AFig.12BFig.13A36 I.Monuments and Sites The use of the church as a barn for animals.The church wa

283、s transformed between 2014 and 2017 into an animal pen for raising cows and sheep by one of the displaced arrivals from Aleppo governorate.Fig.13 BC indicates that these encroachments remained superficial and did not harm the structural and architectural elements of the Church.With the efforts of th

284、e Idlib Antiquities Center,and in coopera-tion with the local council in the village,we were able to re-liberate the church and prevent it from being used as a hangar(Fig.13 DE).In addition,traces of some digging and bulldozing were de-tected in 2017 below the southern facade of the church,and these

285、 pits reached the bottom of the foundations(Fig.13 F)in addition to the presence of a group of small pits in the nave,the largest of which is near the apse on the side of the northern gallery(Fig.13 G).As for vandalism,the church did not witness deliberate acts of vandalism,especially for its rich d

286、ecoration,and it pre-served well the decorative elements,but we noticed the presence of vandalism on the upper row of the two-row staircase leading to the apse,where the stone tiles were re-moved and remained in the vicinity of the apse.The stone tiles were returned to their sites in order to save t

287、hem from being lost without being linked to the mortar pending a sta-ble restoration in the future(Fig.13 HI).In March of 2020,and as a result of the military developments in southern and eastern Idlib,a group of displaced people from the western countryside of Aleppo entered the church and took the

288、 archaeological building as a center for the establishment of a temporary school,where they installed metal panels to Fig.13CFig.13BFig.13EFig.13DFig.13FFig.13GI.Monuments and Sites 37close the windows and openings,starting from the openings in the wall of the apse and the western door of the church

289、(Fig.13 JK).Ducts with plastic pipes were also dug to create a drainage net-work.It starts from the apse and extends outside the church below the southern faade to reach a deep excavated pit op-posite the facade of the church from the west as a cistern to collect sewage water.Many water tanks were p

290、laced inside and around the church(Fig.13 L).In addition to fixing metal elements on the ancient walls by applying pressure without drilling holes in the ancient walls(Fig.13 M).This attack caused a major rejection by the towns-people,and in cooperation with the Idlib Antiquities Center,the dangerou

291、s infringement was stopped through a large popular campaign with the help of the people,and the situation was restored to what it was previously(Fig.13 E,N-O).As for the second site in the park,Qaraqebiza,which is located northeast of Qalb Loze,about 1 km away,which has turned Fig.13HFig.13IFig.13JF

292、ig.13KFig.13LFig.13M38 I.Monuments and Sitesduring the conflict period into the headquarters of an oppo-sition faction until 2016,when the site was vacated from the military presence.Despite this encroachment,the site still preserves its authentic-ity to an acceptable extent,and the effects of encro

293、achments on it can be mitigated with time,as most of them are super-ficial and can be removed in the future,except for the expo-sure of many archaeological faades to light and medium gun-shots that destroyed parts of them and distorted the decora-tive elements and fragmented surface of archaeologica

294、l stones(Fig.13 PS).Perhaps the southern faade of the church(the most impor-tant building on the site)was the most affected building by this encroachment,as the outer faade of the wall surround-ing the church was deformed,in addition to the upper half of the southern wall of the church faade,where t

295、he decoration of the lintel above the western door was lost while the lintel it-self was damaged.The eastern door has the same faade to a lesser extent.As for the secret drilling,there are pits of shallow depth and a number that are spread on the site and have not caused much damage(Fig.13 T-V).Fig.

296、13NFig.13OFig.13PFig.13RFig.13QFig.13SI.Monuments and Sites 39However,in the spring of 2020,the site was used as a camp to accommodate people displaced from other parts of Syria.Dozens of makeshift tents were established within the site(Fig.13 WX),and housing continued for a period of three months u

297、ntil the Idlib Antiquities Center was able to evacuate the site.No real damages were recorded on the site as a result of the establishment of the temporary camp(Fig.13 Y).The site of Al-Kefir is located in an isolated and uninhabited area northwest of Qalb Lozeh.It preserved its general shape throug

298、hout the years of the conflict in Syria and remained spared from modern housing and relatively far from the camps of the displaced,which preserved the sites buildings and its en-vironmental surroundings.Nevertheless,we observed some en-croachments,such as secret digging,as many illegal pits were spo

299、tted at the site which are spread over many buildings.They are relatively shallow pits that damaged the surface layers and some foundations(Fig.14 A-B).Fig.13TFig.13UFig.13VFig.13YFig.13XFig.13W40 I.Monuments and SitesThe most important of these pits were in the square of the church on the south sid

300、e and below the apse of the church on the northern outside,where it revealed the foundations of the apse and the bases of the pillars.In addition to the church,pits are spread more widely in the western neighborhood of the site,and these pits revealed some of the walls,foundations and contemporary r

301、eservoirs(Fig.14 C-D).In Kefir,we notice the use of many of the sites buildings as pens for raising goats and sheep by the residents of the neigh-boring village of Qalb Loza(Fig.14 E-F).But this use was not an unfair use and did not cause real damage to the site.Walls of rubble were added to the sur

302、face of the site with clay mortar Fig.14AFig.14BFig.14CFig.14DFig.14EFig.14FI.Monuments and Sites 41to fill the openings and some crumbling walls.There were no recent additions that harm the public view.ConclusionThrough the current report,we note the extent of the damage suffered by the archaeologi

303、cal villages registered on the World Heritage List,but we confirm that most of these damages did not cause serious concern that these villages were left out of the cultural and archaeological landscape that is distinctive to them and which contributed to their inscription in the List.We hope that th

304、e recent changes will not affect the current state of these ancient villages and make the situation worse.We also hope that the local people will return to their villages near the archaeological sites,so that the area will be a perfect example of the patterns of coexistence between man and his histo

305、rical and environmental surroundings.RecommendationsIn order to preserve the World Heritage sites mentioned in this report on the current situation and to stop the damage at this point,we hope that UNESCO will work on preparing a letter of recommendation regarding the preservation of these sites and

306、 disseminating its content to all the active forces on the ground in Syria,not just the Syrian government,but including all of Russia and the Turkish Republic and remind them of the ne-cessity to exclude these WH ancient villages from the bombing and battles,especially in Jabal Al-Zawiya within the

307、Archaeo-logical Parks No.4 and 5,in particular when we know that the archaeological villages and their surroundings in these parks are almost empty of people at the present time.As for the archaeological villages located in Archaeological Park No.6,we hope to create a support program for the lo-cal

308、councils,especially the local council in the village of Qalb Loza,which belongs to the villages of the archaeological park,to preserve the three sites and spread awareness among the local population of the importance of preserving antiquities in the area,especially after the positive role which they

309、 played to rescue Qalb Loze Church.We also hope to provide technical support and training for ar-chaeological teams working within the framework of the lo-cal community,headed by the Idlib Antiquities Center,to play the role of observer of the archaeological parks over the en-tire limestone block ar

310、ea,to prepare regular reports on the sta-tus of the archaeological parks,and to work to preserve them,spread awareness among the local community and involve it in the conservation process.Finally,we ask UNESCO to instruct international humanitarian organizations operating in northwest Syria not to b

311、uild camps and equip service facilities for these camps within the archeo-logical areas.(This happened recently in several archaeological sites in Mount Barisha,which are located outside the villages of the Archaeological Park.)42 I.Monuments and SitesChinese-style Pavilions in Front of Jokhang Temp

312、le Shows China Disregards Tibetan HeritageInternational Campaign for TibetThe Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace,Lhasa,consists of three components:the Potala Palace(in-scribed in 1994),the Jokhang tem-ple(inscribed in 2000),and the Norbulingka area(the Dalai Lamas former Summer Palace,inscribed

313、 in 2001).1On 28 April 2020,at the end of a three-month ban on accessing the Barkhor area due to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,local Tib etans re-turned to circumambulate the 1,300 year-old Jokhang temple,one of Tibets holiest temples.Upon their return,many noticed the construc-tion of two new Chinese-sty

314、le pavil-ions in front of the Jokhang temple.The Tibetan blogger,Tsering Wo-eser(based in Beijing),first collated images and reported on the new constructions in May 2020.2 Subse-quent photographs captured in Au-gust 2020 and posted by Woeser indicate the construction has been completed.In an articl

315、e,Woeser noted the two large Chinese-style pavilions did not accord with Tibetan traditional 1 Facebook post by Tsering Woeser,7 May 2020,https:/ Radio Free Asia,5 May 2020,评论|唯色：疫情期间赫然出现在大昭寺前的两座中式碑亭(上)(Pinglun|wei se:Yiqing qijian heran chuxian zai dazhao siqian de liang zuo zhongshi bei ting shang

316、;Comment|Woeser:Two Chi-nese-style stele pavilions that appeared in front of the Jokhang Temple during the epidemic part 1),https:/www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weise/ws-05052020104015.html.Fig.2:Construction of two pavilions in Chinese style over the three steles in front of the Jokhang temple.Sourc

317、e:Tsering Woeser,7 May 20204Fig.1:The square in front of the Jokhang temple in summer 2014.Source:Tsering Woeser,7 May 20201I.Monuments and Sites 43building styles,obstructed the facade of the Jokhang entrance,and were located in the same position where three historically significant stone steles(st

318、one columns with commemorative in-scriptions)stand3:41.The Tang China and Tibet Treaty Stele:Inscribed in Tibetan and classical Chinese,the stele was erected in 823 AD to mark a border agreement between the Chinese and Tibetan empires.2.The Smallpox Stele:erected in 1794 by the Manchuminister statio

319、ned in Tibet.3.Third Stele:believed to be erected by Tsongkhapa in 1409 following repairs to the Jokhang Temple.While it may be argued that the pavilions were designed to pro-tect the historic steles from damage,it is evident that the size and Chinese-style of the pavilions were not designed to main

320、-tain architectural consistency with the Jokhang temple.5In correspondence with the World Heritage Centre,Interna-tional Campaign for Tibet(ICT)raised concerns about the new construction and requested more details about the construc-tion site,as well as its effects on the Outstanding Universal Value

321、 of the Jokhang Temple.As of 13 April 2021,no substan-tial reply has been received.3 English translation of Tsering Woesers article,High Peaks Pure Earth,3 June 2020,“Shocking:During the Epidemic,Two Chinese-Style Pavilions Appear in Front of the Jokhang Temple(Part 1)”By Woeser,https:/highpeakspu-

322、Facebook post by Tsering Woeser,7 May 2020,https:/ Facebook post by Tsering Woeser,3 September 2020,https:/www.face- recent construction activity is not an isolated case.China has repeatedly pursued unapproved or inconsistent develop-ments across the heritage site.In 2014,it was discovered that Chin

323、a had begun construction of two large shopping malls(the Barkhor and Shenli Mall)before seeking comment from the World Heritage Centre,in non-compliance with 172 of the Operational Guidelines.6 Not only was Chinas report not forth-coming about the details of the construction,but it was later discove

324、red that the height of the malls were also in contraven-tion of the State Partys regulations.Chinas more recent response to the February 2018 fire that engulfed a part of the Jokhang Temple highlighted the seri-ous lack of transparency in heritage management.It was not until ICT pressed the UNESCO W

325、orld Heritage Centre on the absence of Chinas 2019 state of conservation report,that a two-page executive summary was released on 28 January 2020(one month after the required date).The two-page summary described minimal fire damage to the temple and noted a Joint Reactive Monitoring mission was rece

326、ived at the property on 8-15 April 2019.7 While ICT welcomed the news of the Mon-itoring mission,we were disappointed that no details of the visit were publicized.For example,details of the restoration and conservation plan were not released,nor photographs or maps.It is important to note,at a more

327、fundamental level,China has repeatedly failed to show that the heritage site is under com-petent and responsible management.Since 2003,China has failed to provide clear definitions of the propertys buffer zone boundaries.Requests for conservation plans have also been outstanding since 2007.Recommend

328、ationsGiven the lack of transparent reporting,the failure to provide a conservation plan and map of the inscribed area(with pro-tected and buffer zones),and recent evidence of new con-structions in the heritage site,the Committee should invoke more serious measures,such as consider inscribing the si

329、te as a World Heritage in Danger.As per 179 of the Operational Guidelines,8 the lack of conservation policy,threatening effects of regional planning projects,and the significant loss of his-torical authenticity are at least three criteria that the property satisfies for inscription on the List of Wo

330、rld Heritage in Danger.6 UNESCO,2014,Historical Ensemble of the Potala Palace,Lhasa,https:/whc.unesco.org/en/soc/2811.7 UNESCO,2019,Summary of the State of Conservation by the State Party:Executive Summary,Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace,Lhasa,https:/whc.unesco.org/document/180372,page 1.8 Wo

331、rld Heritage Centre,July 2012,Operational Guidelines for the Imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention,United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation,https:/whc.unesco.org/archive/op-guide12-en.pdf,paragraph 177-179.Fig.3:September 2020:Construction of the two Chinese-style pav

332、ilions has been completed.Source:Tsering Woeser,3 September 2020544 I.Monuments and SitesTo allay the genuine concerns of Tibetans and those interested in the preservation of the historical and cultural authenticity of the heritage site,we welcome efforts to promote greater trans-parency,with partic

333、ular regard to details(including photos and maps)of the 2019 fire damage,and a restoration and conserva-tion plan for the property.Given historical issues related to unapproved development plans,the exclusion of traditional Tibetan designs and mat-erials,as well as the exclusion of Tibetan residents,artisans,pilgrims and religious community from the management of the property,we recommend the Comm