October 10th, 2018 — arrival of participants

10:00–15:00 Registration of participants | Desk: Sighișoara Hotel (str. Școlii nr. 4-6), hotel lobby

16:00–18:00 Sighișoara city tour by Dr Christoph Machat | Meeting point: in front of Hotel Sighișoara

October 11th, 2018 — conference day

Venue: Sighișoara City Hall (str. Piața Muzeului, nr. 7)

08:30–09:00 Registration of participants | Desk: Sighișoara City Hall

OPENING SESSION

09:00–11:00

Opening remarks:

• Sergiu Musteață, project director

• Ovidiu-Dumitru Mălăncrăvean, Mayor of Sighișoara

• Ștefan Bâlici, director of the National Institute of Heritage

Key speakers:

• Colleen Swain (USA), World Heritage, Our Heritage: A community process for World Heritage management

• Ákos Capdebo (Hungary), Citizen participation in the revitalization of Budapest

• Stephan Doempke (Germany), World Heritage Watch: Strategic goals, achievements and challenges after four years

11:00–11:30 Coffee break

Venue: National Information Centre (str. Turnului, nr. 1)

SESSION 1: STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVATION AND SAFEGUARDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES

Chair: Colleen Swain

11:30–11:50 Irina Iamandescu (Romania), Implementation of the World Heritage Convention — Why Romania is different?

11:50–12:10 Adrian Crăciunescu (Romania), Removal and reconstruction in conflict with authenticity and integrity — cases in the world heritage list

12:10–12:30 Sergiu Musteață (Romania), The state of conservation and periodic reporting — a way for better preservation and sustainable development of the World Heritage Sites

12:30–13:00 Discussions

13:00–14:30 Lunch | Restaurant Hotel Sighișoara (str. Școlii, nr. 4-6)

SESSION 1: STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVATION AND SAFEGUARDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES (cont.)

Chair: Ștefan Bâlici

14:30–14:45 Andrea Chiricescu (Romania), Who are the real stakeholders of a nominated UNESCO site? A glimpse into the contextualisation of a rather scientific approach to World Heritage nominations

14:45–15:00 Ioan Opriș (Romania), Frontiers of the Roman Empire (FRE) — World Heritage Site.

A survey of the Lower Danube sites in Romania for the tentative list

15:00–15:15 Vitalie Bodolică, Tiberiu Potârniche, Cătălin Dobrinescu (Romania), Protection of underwater cultural heritage in national and international legislation

15:15–15:30 Natalia Dănilă-Sandu, Paula Vartolomei, Loredana Axinte, Cristi Cureleț (Romania), The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in conservation of historical monuments

15:30–15:45 Anca Filip (Romania), Religious heritage: use, protection, conservation and sustainable development

15:45–16:00 Discussions

16:00–16:30 Coffee break

SESSION 2: WORLD HERITAGE SITES – MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Chair: Adrian Crăciunescu

16:30–16:50 Capdebo Ákos (Hungary), The Organization of the World Heritage Cities — an example of collective effort for better preservation

16:50–17:10 Christoph Machat (Germany), World heritage sites in Transylvania: “Sighișoara” and the “Villages with fortified churches”

17:10–17:30 Franz Humer (Austria), Cristian Găzdac (Romania), From ruins to living history in a Roman metropolis on the Danube. The Archaeological Park Carnuntum — European Heritage Label Award

17:30–17:50 Alexandru Popa (Romania), The Frontiers of the Roman Empire in Eastern Dacia. Preliminary results of research conducted in the context of the Romanian National Limes Program

17:50–18:10 Iozefina Postăvaru (Romania), Monitoring policies, programs and regulations on the UNESCO site "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania"

18:10–18:30 Iosef Kovacs (Romania), The medieval fortifications of Sighișoara, authenticity and integrity

18:30–18:50 Discussions

19:00 Dinner | Restaurant Casa cu Cerb (str. Școlii, nr. 1)

October 12th, 2018 — Conference day

Venue: National Information Centre (str. Turnului, nr. 1)

SESSION 2: WORLD HERITAGE SITES — MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (cont.)

Chair: Christoph Machat

09:00–09:20 Aurora Pețan (Romania), The Dacian Fortresses of Orastie Mountains — problems and challenges in managing the most complex World Heritage Site in Romania

09:20–90:40 Marius-Mihai Ciută (Romania), The Dacian Fortress of Căpâlna. Looking for lost time: 1999–2018

09:40–10:00 Mihaela Turk (Romania), Cultural heritage — a resource for community sustainable development

10:00–10:20 Adina Popescu (Romania), The new perspective over Heritage in a dialogue with the present

10:20–10:40 Irina Arpentii (Moldova), The Warsaw’s historic centre reconstruction and community involving

10:40–11:00 Dragoş Gheorghiu, Livia Ştefan (Romania), Immersing into the past. An augmented reality method to link tangible and intangible heritage

10:40–11:00 Discussions

11:00–11:30 Coffee break

SESSION 3: WORLD HERITAGE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES — CONSULTING, INVOLVING, PARTICIPATION

Chair: Stephan Doempke

11:30–11:45 Daniel Salinas Córdova (The Netherlands), Promoting heritage conservation through international volunteering? A look into UNESCO’s World Heritage Volunteer Initiative

11:45–12.00 Anna Gaynutdinova, Eugene Sosedov (Russia), Inclusion vs. Exclusion. Overcoming undemocratic contextual issues in integrating communities to Heritage management and preservation

12:00–12:15 Andrea Martínez Fernández (Germany), Old Havana: community participation, gentrification and inequality

12:15–12:30 Elena Belokurova, Dmitry Vorobyev (Russia), Promotion of the World Heritage Values in St. Petersburg and Other Cities of Russia

12:30–12:45 Friederike Hansell, Claudia Grünberg (Germany), Communicating (World) heritage values through community empowerment — the case of the World Heritage nomination Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region

12:45–13:00 Discussions

13:00–14:30 Lunch | Restaurant Hotel Sighișoara (str. Școlii, nr. 4-6)

SESSION 4: CULTURAL TOURISM, DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, AND HERITAGE — PROMOTION, VALORISATION, USE/REUSE OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES

Chair: Cristian Găzdac

14:30–14:45 Călin Neamțu, Răzvan Mateescu, Vitalie Bârcă (Romania), Promoting and capitalizing on the vestiges from Sarmizegetusa Regia by modern multimedia methods

14:45–15:00 Marian Coman, Aurora Pețan (Romania), Promoting the Dacian Fortresses of Orăștiei Mountains through digital technology

15:00–15:15 Cristina Claudia Popescu (Romania), Cultural Tourism, Digital Technology, and Heritage at the Monastery of Horezu

15:15–15:30 Marius Alexianu (Romania), The heritage of salt — a challenge for UNESCO regulations

15:30–15:45 Valerii Kavruk, Marius Alexianu, Roxana Curcă, Ștefan Caliniuc (Romania), The archaeological heritage of salt in Romania. Towards World Heritage inclusion

15:45–16:00 Discussions

16:00–16:30 Coffee break

SESSION 5: HERITAGE, EDUCATION AND FUTURE

Chair: Irina Iamandescu

16:30–16:50 Faidon Moudopoulos Athanasiou (United Kingdom), Does history matter? Understanding and managing natural and cultural values intertwined — a key aspect for heritage professionals’ training

16:50–17:10 Elena-Loredana Cozma (Romania), Media monitoring of the World Heritage Sites in Romania

17:10–17:30 Dumitru Rusu (Romania), Analysis of modern socialist heritage in the Republic of Moldova through four case studies

17:30–17:50 Valentina Voinea (Romania), Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski (Poland), Răzvan Pantelimon (Romania), Pilgrimage and archaeological research in the Cassian Cave

17:50–18:10 Rob Wanner, Douglas Comer (USA), Scanning the surface: applications of air and space borne imagery in the management of World Heritage sites

18:10–18:30 Discussions

18:30–18:50 Final conclusions

19:00 Dinner | Restaurant Hotel Sighișoara (str. Școlii, nr. 4-6)

October 13th, 2018 — Study trip day

09:00 Departure | Meeting point: in front of Hotel Sighișoara

09:00–13:00 Fortified Church Biertan by Dr Christoph Machat Ațel Church by Dr Christoph Machat

19:00 Lunch | Ațel (former Evangelical parish)

14:00–19:00 Sibiu

19:00 Dinner | Restaurant Casa cu Suflet, Sighișoara

October 14th, 2018 — Departure day

09:00–12:00 Hotel check-out

7

World Heritage, Our Heritage: A community process for World Heritage management

Colleen Swain

The San Antonio Missions World Heritage site is a serial inscription that refers collectively to five frontier mission complexes and a geographically separated ranch, founded during the early 18th century by Franciscan missionaries along the San Antonio River. This site was inscribed because of the tangible remnants of the interweaving of cultures, the Spanish colonial and the indigenous peoples that can be seen in a variety of elements, such as the decorative elements of the churches, the architecture, and the substantial remains of the water distribution systems (acequias) that remain in operation today. These mission complexes formed the foundation of the modern city of San Antonio. Now a city with a population of 1.4 million people, San Antonio is the second largest in the State of Texas and the seventh largest city in the United States of America.

Throughout history, the San Antonio Missions have always been a collaborative effort, bringing together unlikely allies. In 1978, it was the unusual partnership of the Archdiocese of San Antonio (the Church) and the United States of America Government that allowed four of the five missions to become a National Park. In 2006, a nine year community led effort to seek inscription onto the UNESCO World Heritage list began involving the State of Texas, City of San Antonio, National Park Service, Archdiocese of San Antonio, San Antonio Conservation Society and the community.

On July 5, 2015, San Antonio’s five Spanish colonial missions were inscribed onto the prestigious World Heritage List by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The San Antonio Missions - Missions San José, San Juan, Concepción, Espada and the world renowned Alamo –represent the only World Heritage Site in Texas and one of just 23 in the United States. This multi-faceted, collaborative community process has been identified by the U.S. government as a best practice that is currently being used as the model for other potential sites.

According to an economic impact study completed by the County in 2013, if leverage properly, UNESCO World Heritage status can be a catalyst for socio-economic change, with anticipated increased visitation and tourist spending. Tourism is one of the United States largest economic generators and spurring an additional $1.2 trillion in other industries. Travel is also an important industry in Texas. The gross domestic product (GDP) of the Texas travel industry is second only to oil and gas production and related manufacturing in Texas. For San Antonio, the impact is anticipated to be significant as tourism is one of the city’s top five industries, providing 1 in 8 jobs and more than $13.6 billion annually. Currently, the San Antonio area is visited by 34 million visitors each year and the City anticipates increased visitation and tourism to all five missions. By 2025, the World Heritage Site economic impact on San Antonio and Bexar County is expected to generate up to $105 million in additional economic activity, growth of 500 to 1,000 extra jobs, and up to $2 million in local hotel tax revenue, if we do nothing.

8

In order to prepare for this increased activity and to maximize the benefits of the designation, the City solicited input from the community to develop the World Heritage Work Plan. The work plan, created through a public symposia series in 2015 and 2016, identifies specific tasks and deliverables, which includes the following categories: management and oversight, infrastructure, wayfinding, transportation, beautification, economic development, land use, and marketing and outreach. The work plan is a dynamic document and items may be added to the work plan as a result of additional public input.

The City established the World Heritage Office on April 1, 2016, in order to promote the San Antonio Missions by maximizing the economic impact of the World Heritage Site designation and enhance the experience for visitors and residents through the implementation of the World Heritage Work Plan and related projects within the approximately 5,755 square-acre World Heritage Buffer Zone. It should be noted that the City does not own the site, which are owned by the National Park Service, the State of Texas and the Archdiocese and a large role of the office is coordination amongst the many property owners within the buffer area. While the office works to coordinate, promote the San Antonio Missions and balance development, investments made throughout the World Heritage Site must accomplish two things: (1) First and foremost, improve the quality of life for residents, and (2) Enhance the visitor experience for tourists and guests who come to San Antonio all while remaining authentic to our heritage and culture.

Since establishment of the office, almost $33 million has been secured for infrastructure projects which include streets, sidewalks, traffic and pedestrian improvements, $5 million for a comprehensive signage and wayfinding program, $5 million for a community cultural/heritage center, $1.2 million for public art projects, $600,000 for the development and promotion of legacy businesses, and $1.5 million in the development of projects that celebrate, educate and inform the community about the significance of World Heritage. Visit San Antonio launched a marketing campaign that unifies World Heritage branding and has resulted in an advertising equivalency of $16 million. However, even with all this investment, our biggest challenge remains development pressures from the temptation to capitalize too much on the visitors and that San Antonio is expected to grow by 1.1 million people by 2040, almost doubling our population.

While the Missions are protected by federal, state and local laws, we continue to work with the community to establish a unified vision for the buffer area. It was through a collaborative community inclusive process that our community achieved World Heritage status and it will be a continued coordinated effort to maximize the benefits of designation, while ensuring development surrounding our Missions is respectful of the surrounding neighbourhoods, and businesses. This presentation will document the stewardship and commitment of the City and our partners, as well as demonstrate that continued community feedback will lead to sustainable tourism and economic growth, balanced development and resiliency.

9

Citizen participation in the revitalization of Budapest

Ákos Capdebo

The Municipality of Budapest City provides for the protection of the World Heritage area of Budapest by different activities of the office work with the effective involvement of the inhabitants. The preservation of the architectural heritage is of great importance from various aspects with special regard of the panorama of the river Danube protected as World Heritage as well as the different requirements of Andrássy Avenue and its buffer zone.

Heritage Protection Assistance — A Success Story

The System of Heritage Protection Assistance was established by the Municipality of Budapest in 1993, accessible to proprietors and users of buildings under municipal or national protection. The sum available within the annual budget is distributed by the decision of the Municipal Assembly according to the proposal of the City Planning Department. Successful applicants may receive assistance in the form of a non-refundable grant up to 50 % of the total costs.

The success of this form of support is unique; in certain neighbourhoods it establishes a veritable ‘movement for renewal’. Wherever a house is beautified with municipal assistance, sooner or later neighbours will wonder if they should do the same. Many houses resubmit applications in successive years and have new reconstruction work done from the money awarded. If the gateway can be restored out of the money available this year, next year there may be new assistance for the repair of the window frames, and perhaps the plastering of the façade may be repaired and painted in the third. In other words, tasks can be phased and this is a tremendous advantage. The current financial situation of the house can be considered, and on this basis the most urgent work can be undertaken first.

A further secret of success is that municipal protection entails few obligations and great advantages. Naturally the building authority does not permit their demolition, but the owners stand a good chance of applying for assistance aimed at the preservation and restoration of the original condition. In addition, the City Planning Department of the Mayor’s Office offers significant professional assistance. (This help may extend from ensuring harmonisation of the budget and plans and their sound financial and professional foundations, up to the shades of colour to be applied to the façade and to selecting the appropriate solutions in building technology.)

The application system of the Heritage Protection Assistance is capable of ‘mobilising’ twice or three times as much money as the sums spent by the Municipality for renovation, and of putting it into the service of the reconstruction of buildings and hence of the city. Nor is it a matter of indifference to the owners that the enhanced value of their renovated buildings (in the case of a renewed façade, for instance) may equal five or six times the original sum of assistance.

From time to time the good examples of the Heritage Protection Assistance are displayed in publications to the citizens and also to the politicians proving that the money invested in the system was worthwhile.

10

Two other publications for the citizens in heritage issues:

The City Planning Department of Budapest Municipality has prepared a leaflet „Window Renewal Guide” for the inhabitants to convince them not to replace their historical windows when there are good methods to keep the old windows and to upgrade them in energy-efficient ways. Another publication was made in cooperation with the Budapest Technical University about the possibilities of energy-saving in the historic town-core.

World Heritage Watch: strategic goals, achievements and challenges after four years

Stephan Doempke

The World Heritage Committee routinely receives information about the state of conservation of WH properties from State Parties or ICOMOS or IUCN mission reports. While State Party Reports are often incomplete, outdated or even incorrect, Advisory Missions suffer from being too short and understaffed in order to fully grasp the local situation. The author will show that the observations of civil society must be brought in as a checks and balances in order for the WH Committee to have a full understanding of the dynamics that affect World Heritage Properties.

For many years, UNESCO has been requiring the participation of local communities in all procedures of the World Heritage Convention - from tentative lists and nominations to management and monitoring. However, State Parties remain reluctant to implement this - both on site level and on Convention level.

In response to this situation, World Heritage Watch has been founded as a global network of civil society actors whose goal is to contribute to the safeguarding of World Heritage Sites by bringing information to the attention of the WH Committee, and to strengthen the role of civil society in the proceedings of the World Heritage Convention. Based on practical experience from the field and four years of the organization's activity , the presentation will explain what civil society has achieved, suggest where the challenges are and how they can be met, and provide an unvarnished outlook on the future of the World Heritage Convention.

11

Removal and reconstruction in conflict with authenticity and integrity — cases in the World Heritage list

Adrian Crăciunescu

Moving heritage was never a problem of engineering. From technical point of view, when heritage became a doctrinal issue, everything was technically achievable already. Present understanding of built heritage is more and more connected to the place where such heritage was constructed and still, less and less related to its materiality. Salvaging Abu Simbel in the early sixties overexposed this issue of deep link between a monument and its place. It was of such magnitude that even contributed directly to the World Heritage Convention. After more than half a century, due to new technologies and due to many changes in the way heritage is perceived, it appears that concepts of "place" and "reconstruction" tend to become less and less restrictive, to the point that the core concepts of World Heritage - "authenticity" and "integrity" - may become very difficult to assess at a certain moment. At least one position on Romania's heritage in the World Heritage List is affected by the possibility of "dismantling, transfer and reinstatement at a suitable location" stated by the Granada Convention for the protection of architectural heritage of Europe. The wooden churches are movable by tradition, and this aspect is better reflected in the revised principles of Venice Charter reflected in ICOMOS Australia's Burra Charter and, more recently, in Nara Document on Authenticity. But having already so many precedents, where could we anymore trace a border line between acceptable and non-acceptable of such transfers and reconstructions in respect of authenticity and integrity? If such a line can be traced, does this mean then that a principle may be negotiable? Can it be properly set in a clear regulation or methodology?

The state of conservation and periodic reporting — a way for better preservation and sustainable development of the World Heritage Sites

Sergiu Musteață

By approving in 1972 the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO has established a frame of protection for cultural and natural heritage and the “World Heritage List”, which it considers as having outstanding universal value. After ten years, the state parties and experts started discussions for mechanism of implementing this Convention and reporting to the UNESCO, based on Article 29 ”…give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which state parties have adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention, together with details of the experience acquired in this field.” A consensus was reached in 1997 and according to Article 113 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, states

12

Parties should provide periodic reports – “…in the context of the implementation of the Convention, the World Heritage Committee has established a process of Reactive Monitoring and a process of Periodic Reporting”.

Romania owns eight proper�es forming part of the World Heritage Li� (two natural and six cultural sites). The reports concerning the situa�on of the World Heritage Sites in Romania are done periodically, but mo� are ju� a formality without any �rategic development and su�ainable management plans. There is a significant discrepancy between the visibility and importance given to the sites included on the World Heritage Li�. These problems could be prevented through beter monitoring and management methods, while regional coopera�on could be a driver for iden�fying the be� ways to do so at a regional level.

In my presenta�on I will debate the problem of the quality of the Reports done by Romania during la� decades and how the Periodic Reports and Reports on State of Conserva�on could be used for beter management and su�ainable development of the World Heritage Sites.

Who are the real stakeholders of a nominated UNESCO site? A glimpse into the contextualisation of a rather scientific approach

to World Heritage nominations

Andrea Chiricescu

Romania is one of the countries that is currently preparing the documentation of inscribing the Limes found on its territory on the UNESCO Tentative List, in the context of the growing interest, at an international level, in expanding the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site. The Romanian Ministry of Culture has already established a National Limes Comission, whose funding is mainly oriented towards researching the yet not researched parts of the Dacian Limes, mapping its sites and drawing up all the necessary documentation for a successful bid. One of the greatest challenges consistes in matching the UNESCO requirements with the Romanian reality. In the given context, the presentation discusses the different stakeholders of such an initiative, both those already considered and also those not yet involved in the drafting of the nomination. Based on lessons learned by other countries who have already inscribed segments of the Limes in the UNESCO Heritage List and giving some small-scale examples of both implemented and proposed projects on how to work with different stakeholders according to content and context, the presentation argues the importance and necessity of such a communication and cooperation between the institutions drafting the nomination and different categories of stakeholders already in this very early stage of preparation.

13

Frontiers of the Roman Empire (FRE) — World Heritage Site. A survey of the Lower Danube sites in Romania for the tentative list

Ioan Opriș

The Moesia Inferior border of the Roman Empire in Romania (nowadays Dobrudja) is a continuous riverine frontier that lasted—according to written sources or archaeological investigations—between 1st–7th c. AD. Its turmoiled history meant a continuous effort of construction and reconstruction, under perpetual armed pressure. This limes Scythicus has fortifications of all known Roman types, from legionary ones (castra, at Troesmis), castella, turres and burgi, along the final sector of the Danube. The fortifications line up on the right bank in dominant positions and watch the natural fords of the river. A via militaris is strategically uniting all these fortifications, following the course of the Danube in its final section, before flowing down to its Delta and the Black Sea. All this segment between Durostorum (Silistra/Ostrov) and Halmyris (Murighiol) covers the last 370 km of the river before it flows down to the Black Sea.

Sixteen sites have been selected so far for the tentative list for the right bank of the Danube in nowadays Dobruja. Further three sites (Drobeta, Hinova and Sucidava) on the left bank from the southern and southwestern part of Romania attach the list of the Danubian frontier sites. Our contribution will focus on the sites themselves, criteria taken into consideration and justifications of the exceptional universal value for selected sites.

Protection of the underwater cultural heritage

in national and international legislation

Vitalie Bodolică, Tiberiu Potârniche and Cătălin Dobrinescu

The protection of the cultural heritage has been and still is the chief mission of specialised international organisations and national institutions whose attributes include its protection and preservation. The underwater cultural heritage records moments from all historical periods and constitutes the common legacy of all humanity. Present estimates indicate a number of over three million sunken ships in the world's seas together with numerous submerged settlements or traces of habitation. These submerged dwellings can be considered time capsules. With the advent of new technologies allowing for exploration of the seafloors, the underwater patrimony has attracted the attention of treasure hunters and unfortunately, it is subject to theft, destruction as a result of random recovery actions and it is a constant element of illegal commerce of cultural goods. To avoid such situations the emergency adoption of an international legal instrument became necessary with the purpose of protecting and preserving the underwater cultural patrimony in the interest of the entire humanity.

14

A sensitive category of the submerged heritage is represented by the ships sunk during the two World Wars, many of these with hundreds of human victims. The World War I ships fall under the definition of an archaelogical site while ships sunk during the Second World War are considered funerary monuments of war.

Among the good examples of underwater cultural heritage preservation we can mention the Wasa wreck in Sweden which attracts over 750,000 visitors every year; the Underwater Archaeological Museum in Bodrum, Turkey; the Mary Rose wreck Museum in Portsmouth, Great Britain with more than 4 million visitors every year, and there are many more examples.

This study proposes to present the evolution of the national and international legislation created to protect the submerged patrimony and to identify the legal and juridic gaps in the national legislation with a view to create proposals which could potentially improve the steps taken to protect the underwater cultural assets found in the sea and in the interior waters.

The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in conservation of historical monuments

Natalia Dănilă-Sandu, Paula Vartolomei, Loredana Axinte, and Cristi Cureleț

The outstanding value of the eight historic monuments of Northern Moldavia, due to the exceptional elegance of their architecture and harmony of the chromatic palette of their mural paintings, as well as to the complexity of the religious themes displayed on the facades and interior walls, their authenticity and good state of preservation in spite of the harsh weather conditions, led to their acknowledgement as common universal patrimony.

In Suceava County there are eight monuments enlisted within the World Heritage List. The inscription of these monuments was made according to criteria (i) and (iv).

Together with the prestige of being affiliated with other universal values of humanity, came the responsibility of preserving their authenticity. Monitoring these monuments is a key point for their preservation, in order to determine the degradation factors occurred, and to adopt the best solutions for stopping or at least for slowing down the degradation processes. Because of this, a periodical monitoring of the state of conservation is required as an undertaking in preventing situations that may threaten the integrity of these monuments.

The monitoring team from Suceava County is formed basically from restorers of mural and wood paintings. However, the Department for Monitoring UNESCO Monuments from Suceava County, which is part of the Regional Restoration Laboratory of Bucovina Museum, may and are working in collaboration with other specialists (biologists, chemists, physicists, historians, restorers of other specializations etc.) depending on the complexity of the issues involved.

15

Religious heritage: use, protection, conservation and sustainable development

Anca Filip

The cultural heritage in Romania inscribed on the World Heritage List is represented also by religious heritage — active places of religion and worship. The active use, protection and conservation of this heritage rise specific contemporary issues. The Orthodox monasteries and churches: Churches in Moldavia, with their outstanding outer mural paintings, exhibiting a coherent and unitary iconographic program in complete cycles of religious themes, with great artistic value, Wooden Churches of Maramureș, Monastery of Horezu, in Wallachia, the largest monastic establishment in Romania, are active places of religion, gathering a great number of people during offices, especially at the major celebrations. They are also places of pilgrimage at the relics of saints, attracting a great number of pilgrims. Also on WHL, Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania, raised by Transylvanian Saxons, are developed around fortified churches. Although they lost their defensive role in the late 18th century and most of the Transylvanian Saxons no longer live in Romania, these Evangelical churches continue to be used as places of worship, being the focus of community life.

An interesting case is represented by the Cultural Monastic Landscape Vânători Neamț, proposed for inclusion in the Tentative List for WHL, an ensemble of monasteries and hermitages in use as active places of religion, developed beginning with the 15th century around Neamț Monastery, the cultural and spiritual center of the region, the “Great Moldavian Lavra” and a masterpiece of the Moldavian style. The Cultural Monastic Landscape Vânători Neamț represents an outstanding manifestation of continuous monastic Christian orthodox life, developed in settlements with organized community life, placed in a vast forestry territory. In this area, comprising a high density of monastic settlements interconnected, the kenobitic (gr. koinobiakos) monastic life is developed in historic and new monasteries and hermitages of monks — e.g. the historic Neamț Monastery, Secu Monastery, Sihăstria Monastery, Sihla Hermitage, Vovidenia Hermitage, Pocrov Hermitage - or nuns - Agapia Veche Hermitage. The idiorrythmic (gr. idios rytmos) monastic life is developed in monasteries of nuns with monastic villages: the historic Văratec Monastery (where are living over 400 nuns) and Agapia Monastery (where are living over 300 nuns), which represent the biggest monastic communities of nuns in the orthodox world. In the high hills of this area, in the forests, in isolated places there are hermits living an anachronistic monastic life. The scenery and also the setting of the monasteries and hermitages is represented by the Vânători Neamț Nature Park, protected as a natural area. The symbiosis between the monastic and natural life represent an outstanding example of harmonious interaction between man and nature, characterized by the balanced management of natural resources and sustainable development, which must be protected.

16

The Organization of the World Heritage Cities — an example of collective effort for better preservation

Capdebo Ákos

Following is a survey of the ongoing projects ran by the Organization of the World Heritage Cities (OWHC):

- Projects Database: This database was created to give access to both, OWHC city members and general public, to projects and solving problems propositions that were undertaken or experienced by cities with an urban heritage on their territory.

- City2City (C2C) is a program intended to provide practical assistance to the cities that are members of the Organization and that have specific challenges or difficulties related to the management of world heritage.

- ‘Case Studies’ is an ongoing voluntary contribution program on the practices of world heritage cities, built around ten major urban issues.

- Solidarity Day of the World Heritage Cities: the Organization of the World Heritage Cities was created on September 8, 1993, in Fez (Marocco). In commemoration of this big event, September 8 was declared “Solidarity Day of the World Heritage Cities” and all these cities are welcomed to commemorate it every year by organizing different activities that aim at highlighting their uniqueness.

- The Jean-Paul-L’Allier Prize for Heritage: every two (2) years, this prize is awarded by the Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC) to one of its member cities in good standing. The award highlights an achievement related to the conservation, enhancement or good management of a living urban ensemble or property within an urban context thanks, in part, to the commitment of its local communities

- Mayors&Heritage: This program gives us the opportunity to interview Mayors of cities belonging to the Organization of World Heritage Cities. These interviews make it possible to learn a little more about the political career of each Mayor and on their role in the protection of heritage. In addition, they contain general information on their cities

- International Video Production Competition – “My City, Our World Heritage” announced for young people in 2 age categories.

- The distance-training program is intended for municipal managers of World Heritage cities. It takes the form of video capsules of a maximum time of 20 minutes, created by the participating city and its heritage specialist.

- Youth on the Trail of World Heritage program consists in pairing schools located in World Heritage cities and making it possible for groups of young people aged between 15 and 18 years old to get acquainted with the notion of World Heritage. Pairings allow students of different cities to exchange their ideas, knowledge and work related to this subject. The students thus become aware of the

17

universal value of their heritage and the challenges involved in the management of heritage on the international level.

- Little Stories of World Heritage Cities is an outreach program that consists of making pupils of a primary grade aware of the world heritage of their city. To do so, the pupils of a class ask one or more oral questions related to heritage and the OWHC answers them under the form of a video capsule of 3 to 5 minutes that is put online on our YouTube channel.

Some examples for regional youth projects ran by OWHC in the Central and Eastern European Region:

- Two international school projects supported by the OWHC have been recently organised in the Central and Eastern European Region. In both projects 4-pupil groups (aged 10-11 or 17-18 respectively) participated from 4-5 cities and got to know one another’s heritage.

- The primary school educational seminar “The Mirror of our History is in the World heritage Cities” took place on 14-18 May, 2018 in Banská Štiavnica with the participation of Banská Štiavnica, Budapest, Krakow and Kutná Hora.

- The secondary school educational seminar “Facing Modern Challenges and Youth Involvement” was held on 31 May-4 June, 2018 in Krakow with the participation of Banská Štiavnica, Budapest, Riga and Vienna.

-The drawing contest „World Heritage – a Youthful Vision” has been organised by the Municipality of Banská Štiavnica since 1995 and is for children from the World Heritage Cities. Awarded works exhibition opening takes place in June in Banská Štiavnica, later the exhibition is hosted by other World Heritage cities.

World Heritage Sites in Transylvania: “Sighișoara” and the “Villages with fortified churches“

Christoph Machat

Both positions, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1999 are related to the built heritage of the German population, the Transylvanian Saxons, which was recorded in the framework of an ICOMOS German-Romanian exhaustive inventory project, the documentation being used for the nomination dossiers. Both also belong to the built vernacular heritage — thus “filling a gap” inside the WHL. The small city of Sighișoara preserves the initial medieval town planning conception, connecting the upper with the lower town, the medieval fortifications and most of the typical houses with their gateways, telling about the initial status as “farming citizens” (Ackerbürger). Management problems are related to maintenance and consolidations works, but also to traffic and tourism problems. The „Villages with fortified churches“ is the result of enlarging the former position of the Biertan fortified church (inscribed 1993) by different types of church fortifications in the historic German settlement areas—Calnic, Valea Viilor, Biertan, Saschiz, Viscri, Prejmer—and including also the fortified church

18

of Darjiu as one example for the Hungarian Secui fortifications. Most of the management problems are related to the fact that in all these settlements the entire villages—also in Biertan—are included in the core area protected by the WHL.

From ruins to living history in a Roman metropolis on the Danube. The Archaeological Park Carnuntum — European Heritage Label Award

Franz Humer and Cristian Gazdac

Located between Vienna and Bratislava, Carnuntum is by far the largest archaeological landscape in entire Central and Southeastern Europe. Nearly the entire ancient Roman city once spanning 10 square metres is still preserved underneath the fields and vineyards of Petronell Carnuntum and Bad Deutsch-Altenburg.

The Federal State of Lower Austria not only set new international scientific standards but it also designed a model in regards to land use planning and archaeological monument conservation how to shape future concepts destined to balance history, spatial planning and economy.

As there was no continuous settlement here after the end of antiquity – unlike many other locations on the Danube border (Regensburg, Passau, Linz, Vienna, Budapest) – most of the Roman city has not been built upon. This is an absolute stroke of luck from an archaeological and historical preservation point of view. That is why research and excavations have taken place in Carnuntum for 160 years. Small areas of the ancient city can be seen today in the Archaeological Park Carnuntum. However, this must be seen in a broader context: the attractions of this unique region, only 40 km east of Vienna, with its combination of untouched nature (National Park Donau-Auen, Nature Park Mannersdorfer Wueste, Nature Reserve Devin/SK), culture (Celtic and Roman excavations in Carnuntum, Höflein, Bruckneudorf, Devin/SK, Rusovce/SK, the medieval town of Hainburg, baroque castles in Marchfeld, picture Haydn) and exquisite viniculture (e.g. Göttlesbrunn, Höflein, Arbesthal, Prellenkirchen) cooperate very closely with one another.

Synergy effects and potential for development are thus released in science, monument preservation, regional development and tourism.

For this reason, the Archaeological Park Carnuntum was established in several stages from 1988 onwards by the Province of Lower Austria. In 1996, a private operating company with limited liability was founded to provide efficient marketing. Today, the Archaeological Kulturpark Niederoesterreich-Betriebsges.m.b.H. (AKP), together with the Province of Lower Austria (Land NOE) as owner of the open excavations, is concerned with conserving, presenting and marketing these monuments.

In the interests of the public the archaeological heritage is also exploited more economically: by restoring old excavations, with new research excavations and partial or full reconstructions, which give visitors a better approach to ancient times; furthermore, by involving the public more closely when investigations can be observed “at close hand”, and the presentation of finds in museums and

19

special exhibitions. To this end new presentation techniques and multi-media systems are used to communicate this information, including mobile phone application for VR.

As a unique archaeological landscape Carnuntum does not not only preserved, maintained and presented according to national and international guidelines for the preservation of monuments, but also creates an attractive recreation area in the region with educational and enjoyment factors, which is marketed on several levels, where economic viability and commercial aims are not forgotten.

The Frontiers of the Roman Empire in Eastern Dacia. Preliminary results of research conducted in the context of the National Limes Program

Alexandru Popa

The visible and invisible traces of the Roman Frontier in Dacia have been, for quite a long time, one of the most representative archaeological sites in Romania, and especially in Transylvania. On one hand, the roman frontier in Transylvania, also known as Limes, symbolises a border between the Greek-roman world and the local civilisations found in the regions north of the Danube. On the other hand, we rather deal with a large contact zone between the two parts of the antique oicumena.

Romania decided to join the international initiative known as Frontiers of the Roman Empire (FRE) UNESCO site by inscribing on the UNESCO Heritage List the components found on its territory - the Dacian Limes and the segments of the Danubian Roman Border. The activity of preparing the nominations is conducted by several institutions. Along with the National Heritage Institute (Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului), that is responsible, by tradition, of all the UNESCO nominations in Romania, the activity also involves the National History Museum from Bucharest, the National Museum of Transylvanian History from Cluj-Napoca and the National Museum of Eastern Carpathians from Sf. Gheorghe. The National Limes Commission has been established to coordinate all the undertaken activities and to assure a proper communication between the above-mentioned institutions, both inside the national partnership and with the international partners. The Ministry of Culture also founded the National Limes Programme, to “urgently adjust the considerable gaps that are currently set between member countries of this project and our country in regards of inscribing this important monument of the Antiquity in the UNESCO heritage list”.

Through this presentation my goal is to bring forward the latest results of the interdisciplinary researches conducted on the eastern sector of the Roman Border in Dacia.

20

Monitoring policies, programs and regulations on the UNESCO site "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania"

Iozefina Postăvaru

The site "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" was registered in WHL in 1999 as an extension of the site "Biertan", on the basis of Criterion (iv), as an exceptional example of a type of an architectural ensemble illustrating a significant stage in the history of humanity.

The protection and management of the historical monuments registered in the WHL benefit in Romania from a set of legal regulations that assign responsibilities to all levels from government to local administration, government, communities and owners. However, unlike most of the signatories to the World Heritage Convention, no bodies dedicated exclusively to this activity have been set up in our country.

The protection and management of a UNESCO site comprising 7 localities, with 5 different county administrations, located in various geophysical, economic and social frameworks, each comprising, besides the fortified church, houses and households, traditional institutions, technology, circulations and watercourses, plantations and historical arrangements is an impossible task to accomplish without concerted efforts. Under these circumstances, the coordination of protection and management by governmental and non-governmental bodies is beneficial to the protection of Romania's heritage as part of the World Heritage.

We are presenting aspects of the policies, programs, regulations on the site "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" as they have been resulted from the National Heritage Institute’s activity of monitoring.

The medieval fortifications of Sighișoara, authenticity and integrity

Iosef Kovacs

The historic centre of Sighişoara is composed of a fortified site spread over a steeply sloping plateau and dominated by City Hill and the Lower Town with located at the foot of the hill. The site boasts a certainly peculiar urban configuration due to the settlement’s adaptation to the landforms. The organic relation between the human habitat and the natural setting lies in the outstandingly picturesque singular shape, rising above the whole Târnava Valley scenery.

The city, that developed during the Middle Ages, fulfilled not only a commercial function due to its placement at the crossroad of important commercial routes, but it had a military role as well, due to its strategic location. The initially small settlement, developing on the hill plateau, was fortified with a wall stretching across the two plateaus of the hill and it had 14 defence towers, of which only 9

21

towers survive. The wall dates from the 15th–16th centuries, and it shows marks of distinct building phases, made possible by changes in the military defence techniques.

In Sighişoara, the original fortifications are kept up to 90%, when compared to other medieval urban centres in Transylvania, urban centres like Sibiu, Braşov, Cluj — where the original fortification structures are only fragmentary (Sibiu 30 %, Braşov 45 %, Cluj 15%), defining the urban image and morphology.

The physical condition of the Towers and the precinct walls highlight distinct characteristics along the 930m line. The diversity of the problems in the fortification belt lies in the field conditions, the climate, the age of the fortifications and not lastly, their current function.

The Consolidation, restorations, the enhancement and maintenance, these are the actions that will fulfil the main objective of conserving the authenticity and the integrity of the medieval fortifications of Sighișoara, in the protection and management program of the UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Dacian Fortresses of Orastie Mountains — problems and challenges

in managing the most complex World Heritage Site in Romania

Aurora Pețan

The Dacian Fortresses of Orăştie Mountains is an ensemble of monuments situated in a mountainous area, in the South-West of Transylvania. Each of the six fortresses is located on a mountain peak, and during the Dacian Kingdom (1st century BC – 1st century AD), when they experienced their maximum blossom, the access to them was through a network of ridge roads. This network was abandoned after the Roman conquest (at the beginning of the 2nd century AD) when the area was emptied and kept under control. During the next centuries, the fortresses and settlements around them have been covered by dense forests, and the access to them has become increasingly difficult. The ruins were rediscovered by the authorities at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the first attempts to investigate and promote them were hampered by their location.

This situation has not changed much in the coming period. The modern archaeological research has been limited by the difficult access, and the tourism in the area has developed very slowly. The illegal excavations have flourished for the same reason, because watching over a so hard-to-reach area has remained an unsolved issue so far.

These difficulties, as well as some problems related to the property regime of the terrains on which the monuments are situated, and a certain unwillingness from the part of the central and local administration, have led to an unusual situation: today these monuments still lack administration (except for Sarmizegetusa Regia – Grădiștea de Munte) and a management plan, and as a result they are experiencing permanent degradation and do not benefit from a satisfactory promotion.

The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the problems and challenges that hinder the management of these monuments, but also to identify possible models or solutions.

22

The Dacian Fortress of Capalna. Looking for lost time: 1999–2018

Marius-Mihai Ciută

Having a ”peripheral” position within the Dacian fortresses included on the UNESCO list in 1999, the Dacian fortress of Căpâlna (Săsciori village, Alba county) did not benefit from the mediatization of its ”sisters” in Hunedoara County. This may be one of the reasons why the measures taken by the responsible actors directly involved in the administration and protection of this fortress did not reach the required level of the UNESCO monument visiting card. The nearly 20 years since its listing on the world list of monuments meant a period when the site was frequently "visited" by poachers of archaeological sites for the purpose of hunting treasures.

The author of this paper presents the evolution of the last 20 years of the monument, from the perspective of the member of the judicial investigation team (task force) involved in the recovery of the artefacts stolen from this site and trafficked on the black market of antiquities, but also from the perspective of the archaeologist and man concerned with the fate of cultural heritage.

Beyond the official, formal and unclear statements of the entities involved in the management of this monument, whose condition to degrade over the last 20 years, it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that, while listing within UNESCO becomes a increasingly difficult, the abandonment of such a monument can be interpreted as a crime against humanity.

Cultural heritage — a resource for community sustainable development

Mihaela Turk

The self-standing village — A concept of capitalizing on heritage and local resources. Its purpose is the sustainable development by highlighting the cultural and natural heritage of local communities in Romania, while its principles are as follows: (1) Projects are chosen together with locals and respond to real needs; (2) There is a partnership with local authorities; (3) The projects are implemented with the local community; (4) Traditional, local produced materials are used; and (5) The skills of locals are refined through courses. The objectives are to protect and preserve material and immaterial cultural heritage: houses and households, fortified churches, religious worshipers, cultural landscapes, traditional crafts, techniques and practices.

23

The new perspective over Heritage in a dialogue with the present

Adina Popescu

In the 21st century, the degree of development of a city is measured by it’s cultural effervescence. In Sighisoara, unfortunately, we are facing the danger of destroying the heritage. The negative examples of heritage aggression are primarily related to the lack of quality of the newly built architecture, due to the indifference , the lack of culture and the education. So, there is a need to invest in culture and education, that could radically change the way people relate to the world, to the environment.

There is a need to create a cultural hotspot in Sighisoara that could become emblematic for the dynamics of the urban mindset, as contemporary art, innovative artistic practices are sine qua non factors in our era to accredit the prestige of an active and important city. At this moment there is a lack of a contemporary culture in Sighisoara which would integrate and potentiate the exceptional historical heritage of the city, which had a major cultural, economic and political development in the context of historical Transylvania. The similar beneficial examples in Cluj, Timisoara, Sibiu, Bucharest have changed the mapping of these centers on the cultural map of Europe, giving them an extra international prestige.

The attraction of creative forces in the area, the flow of artists, the valorisation of their creations would, implicitly, lead to the influx of a sophisticated tourism, especially of the younger age, adapted to the aesthetics of the visuals in everyday life.

Cotemporan's view would highlight the heritage site in an original way, bringing in a meaningful dialogue the old with the new, heritage, cultural heredity and collective memory with the contemporary artistic act and new creative practices.

The Warsaw’s historic centre reconstruction and community involving

Irina Arpentii

The pioneering and unique effort of reconstruction in Warsaw was recognized by public opinion in 1980, when Warsaw’s Old Town was selected as part of UNESCO's World Heritage. After August 1944 it was destroyed more than 85%. Before the war, the Faculty of Warsaw Technical University had documented much of the city’s architectural heritage. As an act of moral resistance during the German occupation, faculty and students collected images of old Warsaw, developed schemes for rebuilding it and then hid the documents in a monastery outside the city.

24

To rebuild the historic centre of one of the biggest cities in Poland and the most important testimonials of Polish culture is a question of the national identity, as a symbol of elective authority and tolerance. The Historic Centre of Warsaw is an area subject to legal protection and conservation based on Polish legislation. Education and raising awareness of the significance of Warsaw’s reconstruction in the post-war history of Poland and Europe is an important aspect of effective management for the future of the property.

After the end of the war, faced with the choice of redevelopment in a contemporary style or restoration, the citizens of Warsaw, supported by the new Polish Government, began a campaign to reconstruct and restore the Stare Miasto in its historic urban and architectural form. During the next five years after war, the reconstruction campaign resulted the restoration of the Old Town, churches and palaces on this area and market-place.

The reconstruction works included the recreation of the urban plan, the Old Town Market, townhouses, the circuit of the city walls, the Royal Castle, and important religious buildings. The Archive of the Warsaw Reconstruction Office, housing documentation of both the post-war damage and the reconstruction projects, was inscribed in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register in 2011. The rebuilding of the Old Town continued until the mid-1960s. The entire process was completed with the reconstruction of the Royal Castle, opened to visitors in 1984. The urban layout was retained, along with the division of the street frontages into historic building plots; however, the properties within these quarters were not rebuilt, thus creating communal open areas for residents.

The reconstruction was a major contribution to the changes related to urbanization and conservation of urban area and development. Maintaining the functional dimension of the Old Town as a residential quarter and venue for important historical, social, and spiritual events is a significant aspect of its integrity.

The process of reconstruction Warsaw Old Town means that the whole nation is building its Capital, and also for its locals, as residential, but with historic meaning. The Warsaw’s historic centre reconstruction serves us up today a good example for rebuilding an urban area, conservation and maintaining the functional dimension.

Immersing into the past. An augmented reality method to link tangible and intagible heritage

Dragoş Gheorghiu and Livia Ştefan

Currently, heritage is not addressed as an undivided whole, but rather segregated into 2 categories: material heritage and intangible heritage. A holistic approach to heritage should address both categories, i.e. the material and the immaterial, whenever the available data allows it. Therefore, from an educational perspective, both heritage categories should be presented in their original, organic joining, in order to deliver to the public an image as explicit as possible of the culture of past societies.

25

This endeavor is possible with current IT and digital technologies such as Mobile Augmented Reality (MAR), which make possible the overlap of digital and real world information, by taking advantage of the technical capabilities of smartphones and tablets (e.g. mobile communication, GPS receiver, front camera, gyroscope).

The use of MAR allows for the display of information in relation with a topic, in an engaging and efficient manner. During the last few years the authors have experimented with the MAR method in order to augment the archaeological information of some heritage sites (Gheorghiu & Stefan 2014; 2018) and have documented their experience with both material and immaterial heritage in the present paper.

In the case of heritage sites, MAR technology can enhance the information corresponding to a defined Point of Interest (POI) by superposing the intangible heritage (e.g. technologies) on the architectural, physical remains of a site. This palimpsest of information representing an augmentation of existing data produces an immersive mood similar to the one experienced when exploring art works or virtual worlds.The immersion is generated by a rich information which places the user at the center of a new reality. In the case of MAR, the newly created reality is a combination of real and digital content.

A case of the augmentation of the image of the Past could be overlapping re-enactments describing the use of technologies on the physical remains of a heritage site.

The current paper refers to such an augmentation of cultural information on the Kallatis site, whose ruins, today mostly covered by the modern town, do not offer sufficient information on the complexity of the Greek civilization. The implementation of the MAR application consists in defining several POIs of the important local archaeologic discoveries, which can trigger (for the visitors using our application) an augmentation of the historical site with images and videos of re-enactments. Thus, for example, at the sites where Tanagra figurines have been discovered, the visitors can watch both theatrical scenes with characters dressed in ancient costumes, reproduced after the figurines’ costumes, and the modelling of such statues.

The authors propose and demonstrate that a mobile MAR application can constitute a modern method for providing visitors an immersive and holistic experience for understanding the local heritage, and for preserving it. The discussion will also cover the subject of how such MAR applications can be rendered more accessible to the broader public.

Promoting heritage conservation through international volunteering? A look into UNESCO’s World Heritage Volunteer Initiative

Daniel Salinas Córdova

Acknowledging the important connection between young people and heritage, in the last two decades a series of programmes have been developed within UNESCO, one of them being the World Heritage Volunteers (WHV) Initiative, launched in 2008 by the World Heritage Centre in collaboration

26

with the Coordinating Committee for International Voluntary Service (CCIVS) as part of the framework of the UNESCO World Heritage Education Programme (UNESCO WHC/CCIVS 2012). Its main goal, to “mobilize and involve young people and youth organizations in World Heritage preservation and promotion.” (WHC 2018), falls in line with the growing realisation of the vital importance there is in enabling the next generations to appreciate the value of maintaining heritage and to include them in the work of heritage protection and maintenance.

One of the programme’s objectives is to “raise awareness among young people, volunteers, local communities, and other stakeholders of the need to protect and promote World Heritage”, and is primarily focused on the personal development of young participants and their attitude towards heritage by the use and application of non-formal education tools that allows them to learn new skills and express ideas. The heritage sites themselves as well as local communities are also taken into account, as another goal of the project is to foster cooperation between stakeholders of the heritage site and establish new partnerships between site managers, communities and local authorities.

The initiative’s main functioning form is through ‘action camps’ organised by local youth organisations, NGO’s, heritage or education related institutions, and based on World Heritage Sites where ten to thirty national and international volunteer participants work together on a concrete project in a timeframe of two to four weeks, carrying out concrete actions, comprising both hands-on preventive conservation activities and awareness sessions on issues related to World Heritage, as well as other activities carried out together with local communities.

In its ten years of existence, the initiative been successful in growing and expanding; so far 3500 volunteers have participated in 359 action camps, which have been held in 61 countries around the world in cooperation with 122 local organizations and NGOs.

In this paper I will critically analyse the World Heritage Initiative, its objectives and approach, and engage in the discussion on whether the kind of volunteering the WHV promotes is in fact beneficial for improving the management and conservation of World Heritage and the communities directly associated with it, or if it is just a way of ‘alternative’ or ‘cultural’ tourism for the volunteers.

This will be exemplified in the case study of the ‘Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl’ World Heritage Site in central Mexico (declared in 1994), were a nearly a dozen of WHV projects have taken place since 2010. I will inquire into which of the objectives of the WHV initiative have been met and how have these projects helped in the educational and awareness rising endeavours about the importance and value of World Heritage. This summer a new action camp will take place in five of the monasteries, in which I will be participating as camp coordinator, so this paper will also serve as a way of presenting some results and internal critiques on the development and implementation of a specific WHV project.

27

Inclusion vs. Exclusion. Overcoming undemocratic contextual issues in integrating communities to Heritage management and preservation

Anna Gaynutdinova and Eugene Sosedov

The article presents the retrospective of various initiatives of engaging of local communities in heritage preservation and management taking place in Russia over the last decades though concerning not only World Heritage properties. It gives the analysis of its sources, locations and developments.

Authors represent the observation of the initiatives of engaging of local communities in heritage preservation and management took place in Russia over the last decades. Most of these initiatives were started as spontaneous activity of local inhabitants in the majority of cases located in historic cities, “science towns” (usually small cities simultaneously built at sites free from any previous development for the purpose of providing accommodation for the families of scientists employed by one the scientific institutions established in USSR during latter part of the 20th century) or in “museum-towns” (towns where the museum is a core enterprise). It is indicated in the article that these initiatives explored different facets of the phenomena and reached various results. Later some of the activities government had supported, some had become privately steered regular events.

Authors also focus on current Russian socio political context, for instance, reducing of basic democratic institutions concerning participation of local communities in cultural heritage management and pushing them out from preservation field itself on both state and local levels and its consequences. They also mark issues of the context the most pressing of which are compatibility with authorities and stakeholders, lack of funding and inequalities of participants of heritage management relationships. Article also raises a point of acknowledgement of heritage as indisputable value and valuable resource which required maintenance and care in Russian society.

Noting the success of some government initiatives in promoting cultural heritage and importance of privately steered regular events engaging public into heritage preservation and maintenance authors emphasise the main role of non-government non-profit organisations and private funds in encouraging and engaging communities in the heritage management and preservation.

Article introduces resume of activity of VOOPIK one of the oldest and most influential players on the field of heritage conservation in Russia and it’s methods and practice of involvement of local inhabitants into the preservation process by for instance establishing dialog between them and authorities and representing their interests, engaging in volunteering works of conservation, providing expert supporting and its results.

The article also presents the summary of more then 20 years long practice of engaging of local community in conservation of WHS “Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands” from the period before it was enlisted. It also presents the analysis of projects which had wined the Russian National Competition “Cultural Mosaic of Small Towns and Villages” holding up by Timchenko Foundation. These projects supposed to offer a comprehensive solutions to step up

28

communities engagement into management and sustainable development of heritage (both tangible and intangible) and contributions to culture-enabled local growth. Therefore the article contains the observation and analysis of local communities and/or individuals initiatives, methods and practices of involving their neighbours into management and sustainable development of local heritage.

Old Havana: community participation, gentrification and inequality

Andrea Martínez Fernández

In the summer of 2016, the Havana’s Historian Office and the Cultural Heritage Management research group of the Complutense University of Madrid carried out a field study and survey of the inhabitants of Old Havana. The objective was to identify the problems and necessities of the respected people but in relation to their Cultural Heritage. Archaeology and heritage, my main field of research, may not, at a first glance, seem a possible agent of inequality, however at times this is far from the truth. Heritage can be considered a simple management of objects, however our main intention within this field is to work with the local communities, permitting the detection of cultural heritage development and management strategies carried out in Havana. The results of these studies have proven to have mostly positive consequences, but also had negative on many of the people living there. Gentrification, the growing distance between lower and higher class alongside mass tourism, have become agents of inequality in the city; also appearing as key points to be analysed within this speech. Havana’s heritage management plan has been for decades a paradigm of community involvement and participation. The locals living in the city are aware of the importance of their heritage, they value it and it’s part of their lives. But there is also a growing scepticism among World Heritage Status of the city, the increasing mass tourism and the priorities on the restauration of buildings. A survey was carried out among different neighbours in the city that faced different realities and paradigms when it came to the nature of their heritage and the management of it. The survey focused on the perception of the people on the situation, not only their opinion on how the heritage was being managed but also on how it influenced their lives. Topics such as the World Heritage status of the city were also important in the interview, and led to many different answers, both positive and negative. The views on the World Heritage defined basically two very different realities: the proud Havana, the one where the development is bringing benefits (cultural, economical, aesthetical…) and the sceptic one, the ones that wonder how a mess such as Old Havana could be heritage of humankind, when it’s not local heritage. All these issues will be highlighted in my presentation along with a meticulous description of the methodology.

My participation within this research project was as an undergraduate student. Within this speech I would like to share my experiences and viewpoints on the different dynamics and inequalities represented in these areas based on economic data, the change of Old Havana’s urbanism, heritage management plans, anthropological observations, the shift in international relations as well as the opinion of Havana’s inhabitants and their perception of the situation.

29

All of these agents will be taken into consideration alongside the frame of cultural heritage and material culture studies.

Promotion of the World Heritage values in St. Petersburg and other cities of Russia

Elena Belokurova and Dmitry Vorobyev

The presentation will reflect the experiences of the local communities, social movements, civic initiatives and NGOs in St. Petersburg and other cities of Russia as well as in some other post-Soviet countries, aimed at the promotion and raising awareness of local populations about the World Heritage value in their cities. These efforts are needed, because the outstanding universal values of the historic centers of St. Petersburg and other cities are threatened by illegal construction, misguided urban planning, neglect and a lack of public attention; churches and cultural landscapes suffer from poor restoration, development pressure and an unregulated tourism boom. These effects are often possible because the local population has no knowledge about the UNESCO World Heritage status and its implications. As a result, they are not sufficiently able to speak out for the protection of their site, and do not know how the status of world cultural heritage can help them. Moreover, the population has little understanding of both the cultural value for their own community and what it means to be a World Heritage in general, leading to an insufficient realization of the potentials in the status of world cultural heritage.

Therefore, civil society organizations and initiatives, which deal with the protection of cultural heritage, try not only to organize pressure of the governments and business, but also to promote shared values of world heritage sites and to improve understanding of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention among the broader public.

The presentation will analyze the experiences with different methods and ways of the value promotion:

- Collection, production and dissemination of audiovisual materials about the World Heritage sites both on-line and off-line;

- Seminars about the regime of the World Heritage Convention which governs the sites for multipliers, such as activists, tour guides, teachers, youth groups and journalists working on heritage;

- Consultation Meetings with other NGOs and experts working in other fields such as climate change, nature conservation, urban planning, sustainable development, human rights, good governance, business, construction and development etc. for understanding common interests and implementation of common actions;

- Organization of exhibitions, public actions and discussions;

- Annual prizing to the best and worst architect solutions for the world heritage buildings and landscapes;

- International cooperation, networking and exchange for the promotion of world heritage values in different cities and sites.

30

Some of these methods were applied by the civil society activists from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia within the international project “Strengthening Common Engagement and Mutual Support in Raising Awareness of World Cultural Heritage Values” implemented in the 2017 within the World Heritage Watch network with support of the German Foreign Ministry. The project showed that the collection and dissemination of materials is important, but difficult task, because the people are overwhelmed by the information in general, and only very interesting and up-to-dated pieces of information can be asked by the people. Moreover, it should be presented in very modern ways by using the latest technological achievements. Some of the most successful examples will be shown during the presentation.

The seminars with multiplayers have demonstrated different focuses and interests of different target groups. Thus, the tour business is interested in getting new ideas for more attractive presentation of the city history, sights and current city life. The school teachers are interested in more lively and children-friendly presentation of the local history and needs for the world heritage protection. The local community, business and administration are interested in more sustainable development of the city and urban structure, which requires more sustainable understanding of the world heritage values in the community in general. Therefore, the search for innovative methods of presentation and promotion of values for different target groups within the local comminutes is needed and worth for the international and interregional exchange.

Communicating (World) heritage values through community empowerment — the case of the World Heritage nomination Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region

Friederike Hansell and Claudia Grünberg

The nomination process of the Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region has provided a framework for the empowerment of people on both sides of the Saxon-Bohemian Ore Mountains and is a driving force to education and lifelong learning. In January 2018, after nearly 18 years of work, the nomination file was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in Paris.

In 2017, a EU-funded project was launched to further enhance the local engagement. The EU project specifically also addresses the needs from a World Heritage perspective and is part of the overall sustainable development strategy within the future World Heritage management. The project includes the establishment of a transboundary education strategy, the implementation of capacity building activities, teacher training programmes as well as school projects. The aim of the project is to further strengthen the relationship of the Saxon and Czech communities with their mining heritage, to create awareness about its meaning for their own identity and its global value as well as to create responsibility and capacities for the safeguarding of the common mining heritage. The presentation aims to introduce the different activities of the project partners and the desired outcome.

31

Promoting and capitalizing on the vestiges from Sarmizegetusa Regia by modern multimedia methods

Călin Neamțu, Răzvan Mateescu and Vitalie Bârcă

Internet of things is a concept that would revolutionize all aspects of daily life in the near future, from industry to social and cultural life. Information technology has evolved swiftly from hardware and software points of view, the assimilation degree by the population of latest multimedia technologies being increasingly higher, while the term during which a technology matures, both technologically as well as in market terms is gradually smaller. Within this context, the cultural institutions must adopt such technologies and use them to promote heritage elements in the on-line environment, not only for reaching a higher number of consumers but also for adapting to the new culture and art consumer profile.

This paper presents a series of last generation applications and equipments that may be successfully used in promoting the cultural heritage. Case studies include scanned artefacts and 3D reconstructions of the monuments in the site of Sarmizegetusa Regia, a monument on the UNESCO List of World Heritage Sites together with other five Dacian fortresses (Bănița, Costești-Blidaru, Costești-Cetățuie, Piatra Roșie and Căpâlna). We present here the results obtained following the use of several hardware tracking systems, augmented virtual reality applications and haptic devices. One of the important aspects, when attempting to make enhanced on-line use of a heritage good is the extent to which it is accessible and reusable by various categories of users, either specialists or the general public. Digitalizing a good in the cultural heritage is the first step for ensuring the broad access via the on-line medium, the quality of this process ensuring the electronic format artefact legitimacy and credibility, which means that it should be an electronic duplicate truthful to the real artefact. This way, they may be digitally preserved and used in various manners.

Digitalizing artefacts and the digital reconstruction of houses, appurtenances, workshops, temples and fortifications and the set up of virtual tours ensure incursions in the daily life as resulted from the archaeological finds yielded over several decades. This process results in quick promoting of this cultural heritage and its international capitalizing. All this completed by a database in the form of an open web platform in order to manage the 3D models, which may be later completed by other scanned 3D models, is the way to proceed for as many as possible monuments and artefacts.

The galloping evolution of society and continuous changes of the world we are living in, with increasingly higher requirements and demands, is also mirrored by the cultural heritage, whose state and protection represents, as we all know, a significant indicator of the development level of the society and its educational and cultural degree. In this context, highlighting the artefacts and monuments, regardless their identity or religious affiliation, via modern methods and techniques like those mentioned above, should become international priority.

Through the use of these technologies, the cultural heritage may become in a short while one of key pillars in building an open and tolerant society, while the cultural legacy, because of the

32

possibilities for each and everyone to access the provided benefits, would contribute to the durable development of humanity. Today, it is increasingly obvious that this way only, the cultural heritage would be well known and represent indeed the legacy of the precursor generations.

Promoting the Dacian Fortresses of Orăștiei Mountains through digital technology

Marian Coman and Aurora Pețan

The project Călăuza Dacică (The Dacian Guide) represents an ensemble of digital products whose converging aim is to promote the Dacian history and civilization, and in particular the Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains.

Since these monuments are part of the World Heritage, their promotion is considered a national priority. Unfortunately, this promotion is deficient, and the means of information for visitors are non-existent, except for Sarmizegetusa Regia, where information boards have been recently placed and audio-guides can be rented.

Due to the increasing interest of the public towards these monuments, our project aims to fill in the information gap and to provide the interested people and especially the visitors with scientific information presented in an attractive and interactive form.

The main element of the project is an application for mobile devices, which can be used as a guide for visiting the six UNESCO heritage sites.

The application will provide information structured on three levels: (1) general information about the ensemble of the Dacian fortresses; (2) information about each fortress, including today images, archive photos, drawings, 3D reconstructions, and documentation related to the artefacts discovered during the archaeological research campaigns; and (3) the actual visitor guide, which will include detailed descriptions of the elements of each site, selectable through an interactive site map where the user's real-time position will be marked when they visit the archaeological site. For each item, current and archive photos and detailed 3D reconstitutions will be included.

The application will be expanded in the future with additional modules that will improve visitor’s experience, as an audio-guide, interactive 3D models of fortresses and an enhanced reality mode that will allow the visitor to visualize on their mobile device the reconstituted model of the monument integrated into the current landscape.

The application will be accompanied by a website (a section of www.dacica.ro) which will contain additional information to the one provided by the application.

33

Cultural tourism, digital technology, and heritage at the Monastery of Horezu

Cristina Claudia Popescu

The Monastery of Horezu was inscripted among the first World Heritage Sites from Romania in 1993. It is one of the few areas in Romania where UNESCO recognised two universal values: that of the buildings and of the Brancovan art associated with them and that of the local crafts, the Horezu ceramics. Despite this fact, BBC didn’t include it among Romania’s top five World Heritage sites from a touristic point of view. This may also be due to it being quite far from any other sights.

The motivation for registering the Horezu site as a World Heritage Site was not only the preservation of the buildings (and crafts) but also their wider knowledge and appreciation. As a member of the World Heritage Convention, Romania has the duty of ensuring that its natural and cultural heritage sites are presented and passed on to future generations. The promotion of the Hurezi site has the purpose not only of attracting visitors, but also of creating means by wich they can interract with the heritage, both in digital and physical form.

The inscription of Horezu in the World Heritage Sites list shifted the focus concerning the value of the place from the religious worship to the uniquenes of the buildings and the related works of art, to the crafts of the people (imaterial heritage) and the history behind them. But there is a slight conflict between national or local stories concerning Hurezi monastery (from Horezu) and a broader, and more relaxed global story.

A little effort should be made in order to establish a good approach for telling the story of the Horezu site. The content of this story should be created through a collaborative entreprise and not through a monologic point of view (that of Historical Monuments, that of the Church, that of art history, etc.). For such purposes the whole Brancoveanu story needs to be rewrited.

The presence, on the stonework of Dionysus’s foisor / arbour, of the heraldic coats of arms of both Moldavia and Wallachia is often thought to symbol the idea of romanian national unity. It seems rather a memento of the influence of the Cantacuzine family wich ruled in both these principalities, as the byzantine eagle suggests. The connection of Horezu with the Cotroceni ensemble, due to their common Cantacuzine foundation, should also be remembered as it brings to present the story and the influence of this ruling family.

One of the best on-line resources documenting the Hurezi ensemble remains a Wikipedia page as it gives a more comprehensive overview on the subject. This page offers future opportunities to make free, updated and relevant descriptions and interpretations of the works belonging to the Horezu site. A collaborative environment like Wikipedia is a good tool for integrating different site-related information that you cannot otherwise integrate. 3D modeling also favors the integration of site-related information. Modeling tools are often used for the interpretation and communication of cultural heritage.

34

In this context a number of high-fidelity 3D models of objects and environments from Horezu could improve the communication and the promotion of the site. Alternative models could be created in order to show the evolution of the site in time.

For the creation of 3D models, it is possible to use as a starting point the scanning of plaster models existing in the University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Exhibition Centre. They are easily accessible and easier to handle, but faithfully reproduce the original items. The availability of on-line 3D models would be very useful for promoting the Horezu site and even for integrating it into informal education platforms that could include, among other things, computer games that precisely integrate these 3D models and encourage the interaction and knowledge of the young and specialized public (from high schools or art schools, architecture, history) as well as non-specialized.

For telling the story of the ties of Horezu with the Cotroceni ensemble, the plaster models of UAUIM's Exhibition Centre could also be helpful.

With the help of Augmented Reality the plaster models or altered buildings such as Dionysie arbour could be linked to a 3D reconstruction that can be visualized in real time. The 3D model could be made to interact with the viewer by inserting certain areas that open up: historical information, historic photographs, links to external resources, social media links, etc.

For the creation and dissemination of the 3D models of the Horezu site, a group of academics and partners could be created. These 3D digital models could used both online or in the classrooms (of UNA, UAUIM, etc.) for certain visualisation projects.

The Horezu site needs a supplementary appeal for foreign tourists in particular. For not interfering with the life of the monastery or with the preservation of the site, the development of digital (a museum of 3D models, integrated documentary pages on the Wikipedia or other sites) and physical ways of interacting with the heritage (reconstruction of ornamental elements, stone carving and pottery workshops), as well as appealing stories is necessary. These efforts should be located in the town of Horezu and would help to create a new identity for the local community, one wich could be tied to other forms of tourism: ecoutourism, gastronomic tourism.

The digital presentation of the site could benefit from the voluntary work of people already involved in associations tied to the cultural heritage: learning institutions, associations, museums, web sites, etc. Such an entreprise could create opportunities for the better education of the romanian public and could also encrease the interest shown by the mass-media and by foreign tourists for this exceptional site.

35

The heritage of salt — a challenge for UNESCO regulations

Marius Alexianu

The concept of World Heritage includes Cultural and Natural Heritage, as well as Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage. With this classification, the heritage of salt is confronted by a particular situation — it can be divided into two parts: Natural Heritage and, respectively, Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage, since Cultural Heritage implies per se Natural Heritage.

Another challenge is that with salt as an universally spread element, it is hard to establish which of the “works of man or the combined work of nature and of man” can be considered as having “Outstanding Universal Value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view”.

The heritage of salt has by default a “national and/or regional importance”. This is why it in the framework of the world salt Mixed Heritage, we must give prominence to those sites in which the oldest techniques for exploitation are found. Obviously, as time passes, this chronological hierarchisation can witness dynamic changes.

The archaeological heritage of salt in Romania.

Towards World Heritage inclusion

Valerii Kavruk, Marius Alexianu, Roxana Curcă, and Ștefan Caliniuc

The importance of the archaeological heritage of salt in Romania has been increasingly expounded upon, both by the public and specialists from various fields. Nevertheless, work is still needed for a full appreciation from a scientific, social, cultural, economic, etc. point of view. In this regard, a particular issue arises with respect to its presentation as a genuine and unique point of reference for World Heritage.

Salt has been a crucial element for the history of mankind. As such, its cultural legacy is present across the world. Some of the best known salt heritage places include the Añana salt valley (Spain), Hallstatt (World Heritage site — Austria), the Wieliczka royal salt mine (World Heritage site — Poland), the Uyuni salt flats (World Heritage site — Bolivia), the “world’s oldest town” Provadia-Solnitsata (Bulgaria), the Dead Sea (Israel/Jordan), Lake Retba (Senegal), the Great Rann of Kutch (India), the saltworks of the Bogotá savanna (Colombia), the Old Salt Route (Germany), the Sečovlije saltpans (Slovenia), the Guérande salt marshes (France), etc.

This paper presents the salt heritage of Romania, with emphasis on its archaeological facet, in order to conceptualize and individualise it as a repository of outstanding value from the historical and anthropological point of view.

36

Does history matter? Understanding and managing natural and cultural values intertwined —

a key aspect for heritage professionals’ training

Faidon Moudopoulos Athanasiou

Recently research has been preoccupied by an effort to bridge the gap between the management of natural and cultural values. This debate is evident within the World Heritage managerial discourse but also in the wider context of Heritage Management. Many scholars have demonstrated that the division between natural and cultural values is in many cases artificial, having its roots in the thought of western post-industrial revolution academia.

This contribution argues that understanding the historical context according to which legislation regarding cultural landscapes is formed and implemented is a useful practice for heritage professionals. Understanding how these processes affect the values of any given site leads to better management. To elaborate the argument, the contribution draws from the case of Zagori, a mountainous landscape consisting of 46 traditional villages in NW Greece, both part of the Vikos-Aoos UNESCO Geopark and on the UNESCO tentative list for World Heritage status (since 2014).

Ongoing landscape archaeological research (authors’ PhD project), together with social anthropological analyses suggest that traditional communities in the framework of the Ottoman world (15th – early 20th centuries) dwelled in a landscape in which the natural and cultural values of the place were intertwined. Natural resources were given cultural values in the context of traditional economy. Animals were known by cultural-specific, instead of scientific, names and the forests were never subject only to natural values but were defined by the economic activities that were performed in them — or their absence. Vice versa, cultural values, e.g. love or migration, were expressed through features of indigenous flora and fauna.

After the liberation of Janina (February 1913), Greek legislation on natural landscapes changed, together with the concepts of forest management. The concept of National Parks was introduced in Greece (1938) with the nomination of the first two of the kind (Mountains of Parnassos and Olympus). Emphasis was placed to the protection of natural values. The same year in Zagori, a prominent folklorist from the local communities was arrested by the forestry department because he was performing illegal, but culturally appropriate, practices in the forest. Careful investigation of archival documents followed by historical research, reveals that within the framework of the Greek nation state, culturally significant practices that used to shape the cultural landscape were no longer permitted. The above situation damaged the integrity of the landscape and also created a large conflict between the state and local stakeholders. Learning from bad practices in the long historical run is important for professionals’ education in terms of values analysis and attitudes towards stakeholders.

In 1974 Zagori became a National Park, a form of legislation that put a tombstone to most culturally significant activities on the wider landscape. Through interventions in the local and nationwide media, local stakeholders tried to lobby policy makers and regain their access to the

37

forest, a debate that led to some extreme tension. Stakeholders argued in print that within the ottoman empire communities were allowed to hold their land under communal management but when the Greeks arrived, the state took those lands away, suggesting that they were betrayed by the Greek administration. Furthermore, they provided counter- arguments for the management of this landscape, suggesting the creation of hydraulic power stations in rivers by transforming the nature of the old watermills, an initiative that today would have been interpreted as a sensible suggestion for sustainable development, but in the 1970’s it was rejected by the authorities.

In sum, this contribution aims to expose a conflict related to the management of natural and cultural values through time and the sustainability of a cultural landscape, following a historical perspective. The analysis focusses on how a cultural landscape, now interpreted as significant for World Heritage nomination, was poorly managed diachronically by the Greek state in a top down approach that led to a bipolarisation between natural and cultural values. We will research economic and state-ideological factors behind these policies and investigate the communities’ reaction during this transformation. It is suggested that such case studies are valuable educational material for heritage professionals because they offer a multi- facetted toolkit reaching out to values analysis, legislation and stakeholders while promoting critical thinking.

Media monitoring of the World Heritage Sites in Romania

Elena Cozma

The paper presents the first results of the mass-media monitoring process on the issue of the UNESCO cultural and archaeological heritage from Romania. The analysis relies on the articles published in the printed and electronic media in the period 2017–2018 concerning the cultural and archaeological heritage of Romania listed in the UNESCO World Heritage list.

In 2017, 106 articles have been published on this topic, of which 57 in the local press and 39 in the national press. The articles were assigned according to the respective UNESCO monument treated. As of April 2018, no articles has been published in a local paper in the current year. The preliminary analysis shows that in most counties—with the exception of Hunedoara—there is an almost total lack of interest for the UNESCO heritage of Romania.

38

An analysis of socialist modernist heritage in Romania and the Republic of Moldova through case studies: utilitarian buildings and industrial facilities

Dumitru Rusu

The ”Socialist Modernism” Project is part of an initiative by B.A.C.U. Association (Birou pentru Artă și Cercetare Urbană). Our approach is focused on protecting built heritage in the former socialist bloc. In that respect, we campaign for the preservation of buildings that are specific to the socialist modernist period (1955-1991), by protecting, monitoring, researching and preserving the most valuable architecture of the time, including monuments, buildings, parks, squares, whole neighbourhoods, laid-out green areas etc.

The architecture of the socialist period, more precisely the modernist tendencies in 1955-1991, are a specific trend in the evolution of architecture in the former socialist bloc. There is increasing international awareness for this trend, as indicated by the creation of scientific communities (the SocHeritage Platform, part of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee for the 20th century), by approaching socialist architecture themes in doctoral studies at various universities and by creating active online communities, reuniting people interested in what was designed and built during that time in socialist countries. The „Socialist Modernism” research program initiated by B.A.C.U. is therefore part of a larger context of raising awareness for the value of architecture in former socialist countries in the second half of the 20th century, so far ignored by the international historiography and research community.

The chosen period of time in our study was set by historic events that led to this new architectural tendency. At the time, the approach was inspired by modernist architecture, which came to the capitalist states in Western Europe with a set of principles, such as ”form follows function” (mass-produced materials, industrial aesthetics, simplcity and clarity of shape, no useless details etc.). In socialist countries, modernist trends first influenced the professional sphere, and through that influence they were able to penetrate borders and the limits imposed by ideology. In 1955, a decision of the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party announced that ”useless stylistical elements” in architecture would be abandoned. It followed Nikita Khrushcev's appeal, made one year before at the Unional Conference of Builders, Architects and Workers in Construction Materials Industry, Construction Machines Industry, Planning and Research".

The current orientations regarding built heritage in Romania and the Republic of Moldova are the preservation of local cultural identity and the coherent management of the existing built patrimony. The listed heritage of Romania and the Republic of Moldova includes a variety of objectives, from prehistoric settlements to 20th century buildings, but those from the socialist period are systematically ignored. One of the actions initiated as part of our program was to launch procedures in order for buildings from representative industrial ensembles in Romania and the Republic of Moldova to be classified as Historical Monuments. They are the ones presented in these case studies: Buzau – the Sugar Factory (1965), Bucharest – the Worsted Mill (1965) and Chisinau – the Fashion House (the '70s) among others.

39

Although the age of the buildings is an important criterion in establishing historic value today, the architectural features of these buildings, their planimetric and structural coherence are enough to qualify them as highly valuable. Also, they point out to the socialist constructive doctrine, being representative for the way light and heavy industry buildings of the time were built and standardized.

Another argument for listing these buildings as historic monuments is the observation that liberal policies promoted by both countries over the last decades have badly neglected the socialist architectural and urban heritage of the cities. A whole series of very valuable buildings are not on the Historic Monuments Register/List and are in a menacing state of decay. In such a context, listing socialist modernist buildings and starting restauration programs for them (first of all for those most decayed, which need urgent protection) must be the next step in saving the built heritage of both countries.

Pilgrimage and archaeological research in the Cassian Cave

Valentina Voinea, Bartłomiej Szmoniewski and Răzvan Pantelimon

Within the Romanian-Polish Research Project, entitled “Study of the Prehistoric and Early Mediaeval Settlements in the Casimcea River Valley in Central Dobrudja” was resumed the research of the caves from the Cheile Dobrogei area, including the Cassian Cave. The results of the archaeological investigations undertaken in this cave and her surroundings confirm the epigraphic and literary information, from the writings of Saint John Cassian.

The authors of this paper propose the location of the native places of St. John Cassian—vicus Casiani, villa rustica (property of Cassian family)—in the area located between the Cassian Cave and the actual Cheia Village. The monks among whom grown up St. Cassian, according to his own testimony, might have lived as hermits in the caves or shelters which are very common in the Cheile Dobrogei – Cassian area, a space suited to a monastic or/and an ascetic life.

The scientific researches demonstrates that pilgrimages in this area may be confirmed by historical knowledge and historical reality. The monks inhabiting the actual St. Cassian Monastery, raised on the peak of the calcareous rock in which is situated the Cave, offers today a good example of preserving and protecting on the cultural heritage — the paths and the entrance to the cave were realized through their effort.

40

Scanning the surface: applications of air and spaceborne imagery in the management of World Heritage sites

Rob Wanner and Douglas Comer

Data collected from airborne and satellite platforms are now a standard tool for archaeological prospection. This paper examines the practical application of two specific types of such data – Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) – to archaeological heritage management at World Heritage sites. The paper is focused on two recent cases which have involved Cultural Site Research and Management (CSRM, Inc.): the nomination of Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape in Moldova for inscription on the World Heritage List and the detection of landscape disturbance at the Nasca Lines in Peru. In the case of Orheiul Vechi, the analysis of LiDAR and multispectral data for the core area revealed numerous structures and features on the archaeological landscape, many of which had not been discovered previously. In the case of the Nasca Lines, SAR data collected over Peru’s Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa World Heritage Site was used to detect and measure landscape disturbance threatening world-renowned archaeological features and environmental services. This paper suggests a path forward for utilizing SAR and LiDAR data as well as other air and spaceborne imagery at World Heritage sites.

41

List of participants

Alexianu, Marius — “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania, email: alexianumarius@yahoo.com

Arpentii, Irina — Representative of Solidarity Fund PL in Moldova, National Committee ICOM Moldova, email: irynaarpentii@gmail.com

Belokurova, Elena — German-Russian Exchange, Russian group within the World Heritage Watch, St. Petersburg, Russia, email: elena.v.belokurova@gmail.com

Bodolică, Vitalie — Museum of the National History and Archaeology, Constanţa, email: bodovitalie@gmail.com

Bâlici, Ștefan — director, National Institute of Heritage, Romania, email: stefanbalici@yahoo.com

Bârcă, Vitalie — Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca branch, email: vitalie_barca@yahoo.com

Caliniuc, Ștefan — “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași, email: stefan.caliniuc@gmail.com

Capdebo, Ákos — The Organization of the World Heritage Cities, email: capdeboa@budapest.hu

Chiricescu, Andrea — University “Valahia”, email: andrea.chiricescu@gmail.com

Ciută, Marius-Mihai — Police Inspectorate of Alba County, email: mariusciuta@yahoo.com

Coman, Marian — Study Centre of the Dacica Foundation, email: marian.coman@dacica.ro

Comer, Douglas C. — President and Chairman, ICOMOS United States National Committee, email: d.c.comer@gmail.com

Cozma, Elena-Loredana — Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Iași branch, email: elenacozma26@gmail.com

Crăciunescu, Adrian — architect, ICOMOS Romania, “Ion Micu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, email: craciunescu_adi@yahoo.com

Curcă, Roxana — “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași, Romania, email: roxanigabriela@yahoo.com

Cureleț, Cristi — restorator, Bukovina Museum, Department of Monitoring the UNESCO Monuments, Suceava, Romania, email: monitorizare@muzeulbucovinei.ro

Dobrinescu, Cătălin — Museum of the National History and Archaeology, Romania

Doempke, Stephan — World Heritage Watch, Berlin, Germany, email: contact@world-heritage-watch.org

Filip, Anca — National Institute of Heritage, Bucharest, Romania, email: ancafilip10@gmail.com

42

Gaynutdinova, Anna — Historian of Art and Architecture, Member of the Board of NC ICOMOS Russia, email: gauri.gan@gmail.com

Găzdac, Cristian — Romanian Academy of Science, Institute of Archaeology Cluj-Napoca, email: cgazdac2000@yahoo.co.uk

Gheorghiu, Dragoş — National University of Arts, Bucharest, email: gheorghiu_dragos@yahoo.com

Grünberg, Claudia — Institute Heritage Studies at the International Academy Berlin and project partner for the EU education project in the Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří mining region

Hansell, Friederike — project officer UNESCO World Heritage nomination “Erzgebirge/ Krušnohoří Mining Region“ and head of Saxon World Heritage Coordination, Institute for Industrial Archaeology, History of Science and Technology, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, email: friederike.hansell@iwtg.tu-freiberg.de

Humer, Franz — Government of the State of Lower Austria, Department of Cultural Affairs, Archaeological Park Carnuntum, email: eva.pimpel@noel.gv.at

Iamandescu, Ioana-Irina — National Institute of Heritage, Focal Point for World Heritage Convention, email: icomosromania@gmail.com, irina.iamandescu@patrimoniu.gov.ro

Kavruk, Valerii — National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians / “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași Romania, email: valerii.ivanovici@gmail.com

Kovacs, Iosef — National Institute of Heritage, Bucharest, Romania, email: iosefkovacs@gmail.com

Machat, Christoph — PhD, Architect, ICOMOS Germany, email: cmachat@netcologne.de

Martínez Fernández, Andrea — M.A. World Heritage Studies, Brandenburg University of Technology, email: andreamf9@hotmail.com, andrea.martinezfernandez@b-tu.de

Moudopoulos-Athanasiou, Faidon — PhD researcher in archaeology, University of Sheffield, WRoCAH and AHRC fellow, Scholar of the A.G. Leventis foundation, email: faidonmoudopoulos@outlook.com

Musteață, Sergiu — project director, Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Iași branch, email: sergiu_musteata@yahoo.com

Mălăncrăvean, Ovidiu — Dumitru, Mayor of Sighișoara, email: primaria@sighisoara.org.ro

Opriș, Ioan — associated professor, Faculty of History, University of Bucharest, Romania, email: ioan_opris@yahoo.com

Pantelimon, Răzvan — Faculty of History and Political Sciences, Ovidius University, Constanţa

Pețan, Aurora — Study Centre of the Dacica Foundation, email: apetan@gmail.com

Pintea, Aura — executiv director, Maramaureș County Department for Culture, Baia Mare, e-mail: cultura.maramures@gmail.com

Popa, Alexandru — National Museum of Eastern Carpathians, Sf. Gheorghe, email: alex.popa@live.de

Popescu, Adina — Sighișoara municipality, email: adinawmw@gmail.com

43

Popescu, Cristina Claudia — curator of the Exhibition Centre of the University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu in Bucharest and PhD student in Arts at the National Arts University Bucharest, Romania, email: claucris_popescu@yahoo.com

Postăvaru, Iozefina — researcher, National Institute of Heritage, email: iozefinapostavaru@gmail.com

Potârniche, Tiberiu — Museum of National History and Archaeology Constanţa, email: tiberiu.potarniche@gmail.com

Rusu, Dumitru — Bureau for Art and Urban Research, Bucharest, Romania, email: office@bacu.ro

Salinas Córdova, Daniel — Research Masters student in the ‘Archaeological Heritage in a Globalising World’ programme at the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands, email: danielsalinas00@gmail.com

Sosedov, Eugene — VOOPIK, Rusia

Ştefan, Livia — National University of Arts, Bucharest, email: livia.stefan@yahoo.com

Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej — Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Faculty of Letters, Soka University, Tokyo, email:

Swain, Colleen — Director, World Heritage Office, Municipality of San Antonio, USA, email: colleen.swain@sanantonio.gov

Turk, Mihaela — Eminescu Trust, Sighișoara, email: mtuerk@mihaieminescutrust.org

Vartolomei, Paula — restorator, Bukovina Museum, Department of Monitoring the UNESCO Monuments, Suceava, Romania, email: monitorizare@muzeulbucovinei.ro

Voinea, Valentina — Museum of National History and Archaeology Constanța, email: vialia_rahela@yahoo.fr

Vorobyev, Dmitry — German-Russian Exchange, Russian group within the World Heritage Watch, St. Petersburg, Russia, email: moxabat@gmail.com

Wanner, Rob — Ph.D., Archaeologist / GIS Specialist, EAC/Archaeology, Inc., Baltimor, USA, email: rwanner@eacarchaeology.com