World Heritage List Sites in Canada and Egypt: Meeting the Criteria for Outstanding Universal Value

7/24/2019 World Heritage List Sites in Canada and Egypt: Meeting the Criteria for Outstanding Universal Value

1/17

World Heritage List Sites in Canada and Egypt: Meeting the Criteria forOutstanding Universal Value

Debborah Donnelly15200636

University College DublinWorld Heritage ConservationOctober 15, 2015

Wadi Al-Hitan, Egypt (photo D.A. Donnelly 27 March2015)


2/17

D.A. Donnelly 1

Introduction

The UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) includes both cultural and natural properties around

the globe that are established as meeting the concept of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)

eligible for international recognition and protection by being examined and analysed for

specific criteria. This essay will look at the main actors involved in all aspects of thedetermination, as well as how specific case studies from Canada and Egypt have met or are

attempting to meet the components necessary to achieve and maintain listing.

Outstanding Universal Value

According to the UNESCO Operational Guidelines (2015a, Para. 49) Outstanding Universal

Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend

national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all

humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to

the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription

of properties on the World Heritage List.

The idea of Outstanding Universal Value is inherently optimistic and has producedphilosophical debates regarding both universalism and cultural relativism (Cave, 2015).1But

as we have seen in recent decades the perception of universal appeal has been challenged

by those that would seek out and destroy monuments and sites that most would consider

having significant cultural or natural value. While one can argue that the majority rules, this

has not prevented groups like the Taliban, Islamic State or even big corporations and

governments from destroying habitat or blowing up statues and sites in Afghanistan, Mali and

Syria.

Following the latest destruction in Syria of the Arch of Triumph at Palmyra, UNESCO Director-

General, Irina Bokova stated, this new destruction shows how terrified by history and culture

these extremists are, because understanding the past undermines and delegitimizes the

pretexts they use to justify these crimes and exposes them as expressions of pure hatred andignorance, (Silo, 2015).

The current Canadian government for example, sees no problem in subsidizing the tar sands

(Anderson, 2014) and removing protection of inland waterways (McDiarmid, 2012). So while

many would see these latter actions as counterproductive to fostering natural heritage

protection, it shows that some do not, therefore the use of the term universal needs to be

understood as a generalisation.

It is unlikely that all interested parties and their respective cultural traditions, religious beliefs,

or economic priorities could be represented in a single list of sites. What UNESCO attempts

to do with the World Heritage List is to gain consensus on and provide guidelines and

recommendations for maintaining particular worldwide sites that have significant value

according to a set number of criteria.

Components

There are several things that must be taken into consideration when reviewing a proposed

site for inclusion on the list. These include an assessment against a set of 10 criteria as well

as ensuring that the site is authentic and is of sufficient integrity, as well as being an excellent

1Cave (2015) refers to a paper by Jokilehto, J. (2006) that discusses these concepts thorouhly.


3/17

D.A. Donnelly 2

representative, and fulfilling the requirement for diversity. All of these will be explained

below.

Criteria

The criteria designated by UNESCO include the following descriptions for both Cultural and

Natural sites. According to UNESCO (2015a, Operational Guidelines, Para. 77) Cultural

Criteria include items (i) to (vi); Natural Criteria include items (vii) to (x).

i. Represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

ii. Exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a

cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental

arts, town-planning or landscape design;

iii. Bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization

which is living or which has disappeared;

iv. Be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological

ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

v. Be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use

which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the

environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversiblechange;

vi. Be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with

beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance.

vii. Contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and

aesthetic importance;

viii. Be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the

record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of

landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

ix. Be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological

processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and

marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

x. Contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation ofbiological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding

Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Authenticity

Authenticity speaks to the accuracy and academic confirmation of all cultural features

specified in any nomination. According to the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2015a,

Paragraphs 79-86), authenticity is a requirement for ensuring that cultural sites, as listed under

criteria (i) to (vi), can show their cultural values are truthfully and credibly expressed through

a variety of attributes including:

- Form and design;- Materials and substance;

- Use and function;

- Traditions, techniques and management systems;

- Location and setting;

- Language, and other forms of intangible heritage;

- Spirit and feeling; and

- Other internal and external factors.


4/17

D.A. Donnelly 3

It is notable that under authenticity (Para 86), the reconstruction of archaeological remains

or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. Reconstruction

is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on

conjecture. So hypothetical reconstructions based on similar sites is insufficient

reconstruction should be done only to the limits that the archaeological or historical record

justifies.

Integrity

Integrity is a requirement for all sites, both natural and cultural, and is described fully in the

Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2015a, Paragraphs 87-95). The purpose is to ensure that

sufficient attributes, including geographic space is included to protect the boundaries of the

site and includes all necessary components to satisfy the description expressed in the

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, and that the conditions have been assessed

regarding the potential or actual adverse effects of development and/or neglect. All should be

presented in a statement of integrity.

Representation

The concept of representation is that the sites listed will be extraordinary examples, the best

example of its kind (Cave, 2015). This is done by presenting a comparative analysis withother properties in the wider global or regional context (UNESCO, 2015a, Operational

Guidelines, Para 122, and Annex 5 Explanatory Notes 3.2) as part of the justification for

inscription.

Diversity

The goal of the WHL is to have a representative list of both cultural and natural sites that

demonstrate a diversity of ecosystems and cultures.

Annex 4 of the Operational Guidelines on Authenticity in Relation to The World Heritage

Convention (Nara Document) promotes diversity by stating, The diversity of cultures and

heritage in our world is an irreplaceable source of spiritual and intellectual richness for all

humankind. The protection and enhancement of cultural and heritage diversity in our worldshould be actively promoted as an essential aspect of human development.

Key Actors

The international World Heritage Committee (hereafter the Committee) is composed of 21

members of State Parties to the Convention, and one of their main functions (UNESCO,

2015a) is to determine which cultural and natural properties of Outstanding Universal Value

shall be listed or removed from the World Heritage List.2

The Secretariat, who is appointed by the Director General of UNESCO and is responsible for

documentation of the Committees meetings is also an actor and, shall have the responsibility

for the implementation of its decisions, (UNESCO, 1972, Article 14). This means the tracking

and follow-up with State Parties to carry out what is necessary as bound by decisions of theCommittee.

Advisory Bodies to the Committee include the ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property), ICOMOS (the International Council on

Monuments and Sites), and IUCN (the International Union for Conservation of Nature).

2!perational "uidelines Chapter #.$ %he &orld 'eritae Coittee #tes 2. a) and c)


5/17

D.A. Donnelly 4

ICCROM functions are mainly to carry out research, technical assistance and training on

conservation for cultural heritage sites. They also monitor the conservation status of WHL

cultural sites and provide technical guidance to the Committee.

Both ICOMOS (cultural) and the IUCN (natural) evaluate properties for inclusion on the list as

well as promoting the conservation of sites.

State Parties are those countries3who have agreed to follow the World Heritage Conventionand who nominate sites as well as implement any decisions by the Committee. The

organisations which fall under this heading can include not only the federal government

department(s) responsible for submitting a site to UNESCO to be recognised, but also

state/territorial/regional/provincial and municipal government departments and agencies that

will have more direct responsibility for supplying scientific documentation and plans for

protection and maintenance of the site.

The Duty of Protection of the sites falls under the responsibility of the State Parties (UNESCO,

1972, Article 4) of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and

transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1

and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.

Although it should be noted that under the Convention (UNESCO,1972), Article 7 stipulatesthat international protection of the world cultural and natural heritage shall be understood to

mean the establishment of a system of international co-operation and assistance designed to

support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage.

So the State Parties are not necessarily alone in their sole capacity to protect monuments and

sites.

Others

This section includes particular academic and scientific experts, consultants and educational

institutions that may provide more detailed information on the integrity and authenticity of a

site, or conservation recommendations. Other stakeholders like agencies, NGOs, private

organisations, and property owners (UNESCO, 2015a, Para 40) also have the right to question

the conservation and protection of any site, and many environmental groups and First Nations

councils also contribute information and data on sites for governmental reports.

Case Studies

The following case studies were chosen because they provide a diverse representation on the

differences of WHL sites, and have been personally visited by the author. The cultural sites,

the Klondike and the Theban necropolis were chosen for the fact they are described under

different criteria, and because the Klondike is only tentatively listed it is a good example to

show the process and considerations for attaining inscription. The natural site Wadi Al-Hitan,

was chosen specifically to contrast sites within Egypt.

Canada

Parks Canada is the State Party Representative to the Committee, and is responsible for either

full or shared management of 12 of the 17 Canadian WH sites.4The other five sites are

managed by municipal or provincial authorities (Parks Canada, 2015).

The Canadian site is on the Tentative List and Parks Canada is the nominating party of record.

*Currently there are 1+1 tate -arties. (Cave and eussie, 2015)/ Cultural and + atural ($C!, 2015) Canada has also subitted properties on the %entative 3ist.


6/17

D.A. Donnelly 5

WHTL-1941 The Trondk-Klondike

Fig. 1 Winning photographs of the T-K World Heritage 2015 Photograph Contest under the

categories of 1) sense of place, 2) people and culture, 3) activities and traditions (Parker,

2015)

The Klondike was first submitted and included under the Canadian tentative list in 2004 under

criteria (iv) and (v) with the following description. The transboundary serial cultural

landscapes in First Nations traditional territories, including the Trochk fishing camp, and the

Chilkoot Trail,5the Klondike gold fields and the historic district of Dawson, illustrate life before,

during and after the Klondike Gold Rush of 1896-1898, the last and most renowned of theworlds great 19th century gold rushes, (UNESCO, 2015).

The proposed justifications for the Klondike claim are described on the Parks Canada website

(2015) as follows:

Criterion (iv): The Klondike is an outstanding example of a landscape which illustrates

exceptional adaptation and innovation by First Nations people for thousands of years, up to

the present day, in responding to a challenging environment;

Criterion (v): It is an outstanding example of a mining landscape which includes the resource,

transportation, supply, administrative and institutional components.

Actors involved with the nomination include the Trondk-Klondike Wold Heritage Site

Nomination Committee, Trondk Hwchin First Nation, the Government of the Yukon,Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, City of Dawson, Dawson City Chamber

of Commerce, Dawson City Museum, Klondike Visitors Association, and Parks Canada

(Trondk-Klondike, 2015). Submission was first added to Canadas Tentative List in 2004,

and since 2010 the T-K Advisory Committee has been actively involved in completing

documentation and necessary assessments to fulfil requirements as demonstrated in the

timeline below (Trondk-Klondike, 2015 Project History).

54ccordin to the % 7orld heritae site (%r8ond9klondike, 2015), the nited tates 7as not ready to

approve the 4erican portion of the Chilkoot %rail so that section ay not be included in the final noination.


7/17

D.A. Donnelly 6

Currently the project is in Stage Two, developing the nomination, including refining the sites

values and physical boundaries for inclusion on the WHL to ensure that the site meets

appropriate authenticity and integrity requirements. The nomination should be followed byStage Three, evaluation by either ICOMOS and/or the IUCN, and Stage Four the World

Heritage Committee Assessment (Trondk-Klondike, 2015).

The boundaries for the project should be defined under a statement of integrity and according

to Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2015a, Para 89), properties nominated under criteria (i)

to (vi) like Trondk-Klondike should ensure the physical fabric of the property and/or its

significant features should be in good condition, and the impact of deterioration processes

controlled.

While the description would already include many of the preserved buildings and both the SS

Keno and the gold fields, including the dredge (shown below), the entire town of Dawson City

may also include more recently restored buildings, so consideration of meeting restoration

requirements for the WHL need to be affirmed with any new construction projects.


8/17

D.A. Donnelly 7

Fig. 2 Klondike Dredge and Sign Dawson City, Yukon (Donnelly, 2013)

During recent reconstruction of the CIBC building (shown below) in Dawson City, the site has

yielded a stack of cancelled cheques from 1899 to 1903, from just after the time of the Gold

Rush (CBC News, 2015). The cheques can be used to help confirm the authenticity of the site

and hopefully the reconstruction of this particular building will meet the provisions under theOperational Guidelines Para 86 referenced in the section on Authenticity above.

Fig. 3 The historic

Canadian

Imperial Bank of

Commerce

(CIBC) building

on Front Street,

Dawson City

(Donnelly, 2013)

Because final nomination documentation for T-K and a draft map of the proposed territory to

be included is not yet available, and referencing footnote 5 above, the suggested area is still

very large and under the current description should easy satisfy the requirements for integrity.


9/17

D.A. Donnelly 8

For representation and diversity there is one other World Heritage listed Gold Rush site

globally, Ouro Preto in Brazil,6which was established in the 18thcentury and is listed under

differing qualifying criteria and a vastly differing culture.

Fig. 4 Modern mine near Dawson City (Donnelly, 2013)

Egypt

Wadi Al-Hitanwas inscribed as a natural property on the WHL in 2005 under criterion ( viii)

as the most important site in the world to demonstrate one of the iconic changes that make

up the record of life on Earth: the evolution of the whales. It portrays vividly their form and

mode of life during their transition from land animals to a marine existence. It exceeds thevalues of other comparable sites in terms of the number, concentration and quality of its

fossils, and their accessibility and setting in an attractive and protected landscape, (UNESCO,

2015).

Wadi Al-Hitan is a palaeontological site in the Al Faiyum Governorate, and is listed as a Special

Protected Area within the Wadi El-Rayan Protected Area, under decree 2954 by Prime

Minister Kamal Ganzouri in 1997. It is managed under the regulations of Law 102/1983 on

Nature Protectorates.7The Nature Conservation Sector (NCS) of the Egyptian Environmental

Affairs Agency (EEAA)8, is responsible for the management, protection and conservation of

the entire site (Egyptian Ministry of Environment, 2012, Law 4, Article 5).

The nomination was submitted by the Arab Republic of Egypt Ministry of Higher Education,the Egyptian National UNESCO Commission, and the Egyptian National Man and Biosphere

(MAB) Committee (UNESCO, 2005). It stated the following reasons (summarised here) for

submission and subsequent acceptance for inclusion on the WHL:

It represents a major stage of evolution of whales.

6#t 7as inscribed in 1+/0 under criterion (i) and (iii) ($C!, 2015, !uro -reto).:eference the $yptian ;inistry of the $nvironent (1+/*)/%he $$44 falls under the $yptian ;inistry of $nvironent http


10/17

D.A. Donnelly 9

The site is famous for its excellent preservation of archaeoceti(an extinct sub-order of

whales) from the Eocene. There are at least 4 species on site, with the two most

common whales being the Basilosaurusisisand the Dorudonosiriswhich both contain

small hind legs and carnivorous teeth.

It contains the largest number of fossil Eocene whales anywhere in the world.

The site also contains fossil sirenians9and other vertebrates as well as fossil mangrove

and palm trees. The Whale Valley also exhibits significant ancient geomorphic and physiographic

features, indicative of past geographical, geological and ecological features.

(UNESCO, 2005 Nomination)

Because the Whale Valley falls within the extended area of the Wadi El-Rayan Protected Area

it is sufficiently large enough10to present the fossils in situ with the surrounding geology (see

Cover Photo), which speaks to the integrity of the site (UNESCO, 2015, Wadi Al-Hitan,

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value).11

Fig. 5 UNESCO sign at Wadi Al-Hitan

(Donnelly, 2015)

The author visited the site in theSpring of 2015. It is easily accessible

by car from Cairo within about 3.5

hours. The site is overwhelmingly

unique and hauntingly beautiful but

since the Revolution here in 2011 and

the lack of tourists it is apparent that

both maintenance and security had

decreased on the site. The welcome

sign for this UNESCO site was just

lying in the dirt (photo to the left).

These actions threaten the overall

integrity of the site.

The on-site museum was closed and

during the couple of hours it took to

walk around the site there were no

visible security guards, and people

were easily touching and picking up

the fossils. There appeared to be

some areas that had contained fossils

which were now empty.12

+irenians are sea co7s ? anatees and duons (@onin, 201*) 7hich evolved fro !ld &orld species.1020,051 ha accordin to the &'3 listin ($C!, 2015)114 retroactive !A for &adi 4l'itan 7as adopted in 2012 (*6 C!; /$).12#t is unsure if they 7ere oved offsite for protection or had been looted.


11/17

D.A. Donnelly 10

Notable is that the last State

of Conservation report for

the site was issued in

2010,13 before the

Revolution (UNESCO,

2015).

Fig. 6 Basilosaurus

skeleton Wadi Al-Hitan

(Donnelly, 2015)

Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis

Ancient Thebes (which includes Luxor and Qurna) was inscribed to the WHL in 1979 under

criteria (i), (iii) and (vi) as follows:

(i). Thebes, the city of the god Amun, is renowned for its temples whose imposing ruins are

the glory of Karnak at Luxor. These truly colossal complexes which have been enlarged

numerous time comprise some of the most fascinating realizations of Antiquity the "Hypostyle

Hall" of Karnak begun by Seti and completed by Ramses II (measuring 102 meters in width

and 53 meters in depth, covers a surface of 5,000 square meters; its roof is supported by 134

columns, those of the central nave measuring 20,40 meters with a diameter of 3,40 meters);

the temple and the colonnade of Amenophis III at Luxor, one of the most refined masterpiecesof Egyptian architecture (14th century B.C.). The Theban necropolis relinquish nothing in

importance or beauty to these monuments: it suffices to note the tombs of the Valley of the

Kings (1,500 B.C. to 1,000 B.C.) among which is that of Tutunkhamun, the Valley of the

Queens, where, among others, Nephertari, wife of Ramses II, and Tuy, his mother, are

entombed; and finally at Deir-El-Bahari (western Thebes) the funerary temple of the queen

Hatshepsut with its immense porticos, it superimposed terraces flanking the mountain and its

frescoes which trace her voyage to the country of Punt.

(iii). The few examples which remain among these splendid monuments serve to attest to the

antiquity, the unique and unequalled character of these monumental Theban ensembles.

(vi). The monumental and archaeological complex of Thebes with its temples, tombs, and

royal palaces; its villages of artisans and artists; its inscriptions; its innumerable figurative

representations, as valuable from an aesthetic as from a documentary point of view, constitute

the material witness of the aggregate history of the Egyptian civilization from the Middle

Kingdom to the beginning of the Christian era. Moreover, the texts and the paintings are the

source of information concerning the people and cultures of neighbouring countries: Nubia,

1*http


12/17

D.A. Donnelly 11

the country of Punt, Libya, as well as Syria and the Hittite and Aegean civilizations. (UNESCO,

2015, Thebes, ICOMOS Mission Report 2008)

The site is massive14and includes tracts on both the West and East sides of the Nile including

the Valley of the Kings, Valley of the Queens, and Luxor and Karnak Temples. The number of

tombs and temples in this expanse is innumerable and new archaeological excavations are

still bringing finds to light.15Ownership of the property is national, regional and private, but if

anything significant was found outside of the inscribed area, the boundaries could relatively

easily be extended.

Fig. 7 Deir el-Bahari (Hatshepsuts temple) from above (Donnelly, 2015)

The entire area is managed by the Supreme Council of Luxor under the authority of the

Governor. This is the regional office of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (Ministry of State

for Antiquities16) who is the responsible governmental body for the management and

conservation of the property, and the site is protected under Antiquities Protection Law 117/83

(Egyptian Ministry of Culture, 2010).

While reporting from the Egyptian Government on Thebes has been more consistent here17

than at the natural site Wadi Al-Hitan, the latest decision document from the WH Committee(UNESCO, 2015, WHC-15/39.COM/7B, pg. 85) clearly iterated that it has not received

14ccordin to $C! (2015, 4ncient %hebes, @escription) the property encopasses soe ,*+0 ha 7ith a

ha buffer Bone.15#ncludin the potential ne7 discovery of hidden roos in %ob A 62 of in %utankhaun (%he %eleraph,

2015).16-reviously the ;inistry of Culture.1tate of Conservation reports 7ere filed in 1++/, 2001, 2006, 200, 200/, 200+, 2010, 2012, 201* and 2015

($C!, 2015, 4ncient %hebes, @ocuents)


13/17

D.A. Donnelly 12

sufficient information from Egypt regarding the preparation and adoption of an integrated

management plan and considers this constitutes a threat to the integrity of the property. The

Committee went on to request the State Party to invite a Reactive Monitoring mission to the

property to assist in elaborating the terms of reference for the development of an integrated

management plan.

Fig. 8 Karnak Temple (Donnelly, 2015)

Conclusion

Analysis of the Canadian tentatively listed Trondk-Klondike cultural site illustrates the

ongoing process for attaining inscription on the WHL. They have been on the tentative list

since 2004, but only succeeded in gaining tacit approval from the community and local

government to proceed with the nomination in 2010. The documentation for nomination

including the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, and authentication and integrity

definitions is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. In addition to communicating with

the numerous stakeholders involved and attempting to gain acceptance with the United States

of America for the Alaskan portion of the Chilkoot Trail, the project is a daunting one. The

challenging environment and cost and access for reconstruction materials is also a concern

for ensuring the project meets WHC requirements. It is also notable that tourism in winter is

very limited to almost non-existent, save for the annual dog-sled races like the Yukon Quest.

The opportunity to gain inscription would ensure that this important and unique cultural site is

preserved for future generations. While it does not necessarily compare to the grandeur and

antiquity of Ancient Thebes, it does have its own inherent cultural value that demonstrates the

value of diversity in the WHL.


14/17

D.A. Donnelly 13

Notable for the Egyptian sites is that due to the significant loss in tourism since the Revolution

in 2011, it appears that focus on maintaining or progressing plans for some of the sites has

been delayed. It is recommended that a review of many Egyptian sites, especially those that

are not as frequented by tourists, be undertaken by the WHC to ensure that management

plans are being prepared and followed to ensure they are being properly protected. The

responsibility for preservation and protection of the sites listed on the WHL still currently falls

on the State. However, the landmark trial of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi for the destruction of ninemausoleums and a mosque in Timbuktu is currently being undertaken by the International

Criminal Court (Neuendorf, 2015), and may provide further guidance on liability and

responsibility in its outcome.


15/17

D.A. Donnelly 14

Reference List

4frican &orld 'eritae ites (2011) Wadi Al Hitan Whale Valley EgyptonlineD

http


16/17

D.A. Donnelly 15

@onnelly, @. (2015) U2ECO sign at Wadi Al)Hitan-hotoraphD -ersonal collection ? taken 2

;arch 2015.

@onnelly, @. (2015) Wadi Al)Hitan -hotoraphD -ersonal collection ? taken 2 ;arch 2015.

$yptian ;inistry of Culture (2010) (a. 2o< 11= o# 1>*: As A8ended y (a. 2o< * o# !%1%

@ro8ulgating the Anti-uities @rote,tion (a., onlineD 1 February 2010,

http* #or 2ature @rote,toratesonlineD 3ast

odified 1+ 4uust 2001, http. / !ct 2015D.

$yptian ;inistry of $nvironent (200+) (a. 2u8er & o# 1>>& @ro8ulgating the Environ8ent (a.

A8ended y (a. 2o< > #or !%%> onlineD 3ast odified 1/ 4pril 2012, http. / !ct 2015D

Jokilehto J. (2006) EConsiderations on authenticity and interity in 7orld heritae conte>t8, City

Ti8e, Aol. 2 (1)< 1, onlineD http


17/17

D.A. Donnelly 16

$C! (2005) &orld 'eritae canned oination 11/6 ? &adi 4l'itan (&hale Aalley) onlineD

http

Documents

World Heritage List Sites in Canada and Egypt: Meeting the Criteria for Outstanding Universal Value