Tsunami's recent review of Kazanlak ( http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/site.php?id=44#community ) mentioned the fact that it is only one of a series of Thracian Tombs in the area and that there is a Bulgarian T List extension for the site titled "The royal necropolis of the Thracian city of Seuthopolis – a serial site, extension of the Kazanlak Thracian tomb".

This title clearly states that it only relates to the "Necropolis" of the city - but where does that leave the remains of the "City of Seuthopolis" itself?

It appears that the Necropolis isn't really a single entity unlike many royal necropoleis around the world, but is made up of a series of tombs scattered between the modern towns of Kazanlak and Shipka around 15 kms apart. In fact the majority are located near to Shipka in the north and Kazanlak is something of an outlier in the south near to the modern town of that name - but there are others even to the east of Kazanlak. The totality were given the popular name of "Valley of the Thracian Rulers" (possibly with a referential "nod" to e.g "Valley of the Kings"?).

The city of Seuthopolis from which the rulers came lies to the west of Kazanlak but its remains were flooded by the Koprinka Reservoir completed in 1956. The remains of the city were discovered in 1946 during construction of the dam and some excavations were carried out prior to inundation.

The potential interest in all this to us "WHS Collectors" lies in the fact that there exists a proposal (made in 2005) for a megaproject (at least 50 million Euro when first proposed!) to build a coffer dam in the lake around the remains of the city, pump out the water and present it as a tourist attraction. Mention is even made of it becoming a "World Heritage Site"!! See Wiki - "In 2005, Bulgarian architect Zheko Tilev proposed a project to uncover, preserve and reconstruct the city of Seuthopolis (the best preserved Thracian city in Bulgaria) by means of a dam wall surrounding the ruins in the middle of the dam, enabling the site's inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and making it a tourist destination of world importance. Tourists would be transported to the site by boats. The round wall, 420 metres in diameter, would enable visitors to see the city from 20 metres above and would also feature "hanging gardens", glass lifts, a quay, restaurants, cafés, shops, ateliers, etc. It would be illuminated at night."

The current T List extension of 8 tombs from "The Valley" makes NO mention of and in no way is dependant on the progress or otherwise of this project. But equally it makes no mention of the lack of the city itself in its scope or why this might be!

Some 12 years later the "Project" still appears to be a "dream" with funding problems and lack of government interest appearing to be major problems. Here are a few documents about the proposal (now known generally as "The Theusopolis Project")
1. The "project file" - http://www.kazanlak.bg/common/src/image/sevtopolis.pdf
2. A bullish document from 2009. The cost is now said to be 150 million Euros but it was then said - "Funding for the project does not seem to be a problem. The largest chunk will come from the European Regional Development Fund, with the rest being provided by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the UNDP as well as local funding. A number of private donors and investors from abroad are also in place." The EU is, of course, a somewhat different place both now and in the years to come from those far off happy days of 2008/9! EU budgets are likely to become very pressured with Brexit removing UK's massive net contribution. Perhaps Germany will make up the difference....??
http://www.vagabond-bg.com/features/item/259-seuthopolis.html
3. Possible US involvement/funding (From 2016 and therefore "pre Trump"!!) - http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/2016/01/11/submerged-anc[/i]ient-thracian-capital-s eut hopolis-in-bulgarias-koprinka-water-reservoir-could-be-resurfaced-with-us-government- money/

The bulgarian government decided to allow building the territory of the national parks. Mostly hotels and ski runs and lift in Pirin National Park. But it is 100% valid for the other national parks as well.
A haschtag #savepirin has been created
https://www.savepirin.com/pirin/
This bulgarian WHS could become in danger

On the 28.12.2017 the Government of Bulgaria took this decision to allow construction in 48% of the Pirin National Park. One of my bulgarian friend told me the amendments to the management plan permit construction in 3 out of 6 zones of the park. No proper public consultation was made. This is an infringement of Protected Areas Act, Environmental Protection Act, Biodiversity Act, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC). There have been mass protests in Bulgaria around this issue for a few weeks.

As we now, thanks to jeanbon, quite rightly have a separate topic for Bulgaria (particularly given its role as this year's "Meet up" country!!), I provide below a link to some web research I did way back in 2009 on the subject of the "The Ancient Plovdiv" T List entry -
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=274

It seems worth bringing this subject onto the main Bulgaria topic. It may be of future relevance as, following its failures to gain inscription in both 1983 and 2006, this site just doesn't seem willing to "lie down and die" and has shown signs of resurrection recently. This may be under a new guise possibly limited to a single church - or would they use the new discoveries there to bolster the previous wider nomination? I note that the excavations only finished in July 2017 so Bulgaria would presumably claim that there is a lot of heritage which wasn't known about at the time of the previous attempts! One wouldn't have thought that the passage of time would have strengthened its chances, even with the new discoveries - there are already a fair number of early churches and Ottoman towns etc etc on the List. But stranger things have happened in the WHC recently!!
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/ancient-church-in-plovdiv-bulgaria-reveals-hi dden-secrets-08-24-2017

(Els - I note that you have Plovdiv "scheduled" for 2019 under "Bulgaria" - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/country/Bulgaria.
I don't think that is correct. The above link merely states that the church is opening in 2019 and that there is an intention to go for UNESCO status sometime thereafter)

BULGARIA & "WORLD HERITAGE" 1974 to 1991 - 1

The assignment of the 2025 WHC to Sofia has prompted me to look again at the history of Bulgaria as one of the most active "early participant" countries in "World Heritage". Now, with its upcoming and first ever WHC hosting, it is fully back into the swing after rejoining the WHC in 2022 after an "absence" of 31 years. There is an interesting story within those early years which, I believe, is worth recording. Back in 2009 I posted on the forum a lengthy (!) history of Plovdiv's twice failed nomination which identified Bulgaria's "hyperactivity" on matters WHS in the 1970s and 80s. I suggested that the reason could have been "a few dedicated individuals for whom the scheme represented a chance for international contact, whilst the government, unlike its communist neighbours, (saw) some propaganda benefit in gaining inscriptions". That answer was never entirely satisfactory and I identify below more detail to try to explain what was going on in 1970s Bulgaria!

First, it might be worth recounting the "history" of the Soviet Bloc with regard to the WH Convention and highlighting Bulgaria's anomalous position within it. The USSR didn't even accede to the World Heritage Convention until 10/88 and only just managed to gain an inscription before its demise in 1989! Yet, in 1972, it had taken part in discussions regarding that Convention prior to its creation in November of that year - as here. I have been unable to discover specific evidence to explain this decision to "drop out" at that stage but must presume that it lay in Cold War politics - USA was, at that time the leading player in the WHC (how times subsequently changed!) and the USSR may well have seen the Convention as a Western-led initiative with underlying "capitalist" and "liberal" democratic values which could lead to it becoming a potential tool for Western influence and interference in Soviet affairs. That did not mean, of course, that USSR didn't see "culture" as an important tool for propaganda but that it didn't see UNESCO as the route.

The majority of the "Soviet Bloc" reflected (followed?!) USSR's reluctance to get involved. There were some non-Soviet Bloc countries which also took a long time to pick up on WHS (UK didn't join until 5/84!), but Bulgaria stands out as a notable exception among the Soviet satellites. If you sort this UNESCO table of States Parties by ascending Date of Ratification you will see that Bulgaria was the 4th country in the WORLD to do so in 3/74 ...... Poland was the next "Soviet bloc" country in 6/76 (itself worth investigating/explaining?), followed almost 10 years later by Hungary in 7/85. The DDR (12/88) and Romania (5/90) joined in the same late "era" as USSR, whilst Czechoslovakia awaited the end of Communism entirely and its division into 2 states (the 2 countries are recorded as attending the 1992 Santa Fe WHC as "observers").

And Bulgaria wasn't simply "making up the numbers" - It was a member of the WHC from 1979-82 and 1985-91. By 1985 it had 9 inscribed sites (4 in 1979, 4 in 1983 and 1 in 1985) plus a "rejection" of Plovdiv (1983). It also had a further 8 sites on its T List (Including the infamously titled (and still present!) "Two neolithic dwellings with their interior and household furnishings and utensils completely preserved."!). Indeed, when after the 1983 WHC, Bulgaria had acquired 8 WHS, it was only surpassed at that time by France with 14 and USA with 12. At that WHC, beyond the 21 State Parties there because they were WHC members, only 13 (Including Bulgaria - which wasn't on the WHC that year), sent representatives (out of a then total of 77 signatories to the Convention). And UK of course still hadn't even "joined! Why then was Bulgaria so out of line with the general Soviet Bloc approach?

continued.......

BULGARIA & "WORLD HERITAGE" 1974 to 1991 - 2

Between 1954/89 the "People's Republic of Bulgaria" was ruled "de facto" by Todor Zhivkov as General Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party. In so doing he became "the second longest-serving leader in the Eastern Bloc (and) the longest-serving leader within the Warsaw Pact" (Wiki). Across this period, Bulgaria's general reputation was as the USSR's closest and most willing client state. However, in a number of respects, Zhivkov's policies differed from those of other European Communist leaders, whilst somehow avoiding loss of support from USSR. This was particularly noticeable in matters of "Culture" where he managed to develop and maintain approaches which were significantly "nationalistic" - see the relevant Wiki section . In so doing he undoubtedly assisted a small, obscure and relatively poor Balkan Socialist country to punch way above its weight on the World stage.

In Oct 1971 Zhivkov's wife died and in Mar 1972 his daughter, Lyudmila Zhivkova was appointed "Deputy Chair of the National Committee of Art and Culture". In subsequent years she took on the de facto role of "First Lady" of Bulgaria, joined the party's Central Committee in 1976 and became a full member of the Politburo in 1979. Across that period she "ran" the government policy on Cultural matters which, as identified above, were considered by her father to be of particular significance. We can laugh of course at the tendency of some Soviet satellite leaders to install their relatives in significant positions for which they were not qualified. Elena Ceausescu is perhaps the most egregious example with her limited knowledge of Chemistry, but it does appear that Lyudmila Zhivkova did have significant knowledge of and interest in Bulgarian/Balkan culture and archaeology. She studied Art history in Sofia and Moscow and researched a book on British-Turkish relations at St Antony's College, Oxford. She also espoused a number of rather "Un-Marxist" interests and beliefs including Mysticism and Eastern religions. She spoke Sanskrit and had personal friendships with Indira Gandhi and the First Lady of Mexico, Carmen Romano (see here). . Her interests encompassed a wide range of UNESCO related activities and her voice clearly "counted" within that organisation. Thus, when UN declared that 1979 would be the "Year of the Child", Zhivkova, "in line with her pet idea of rounded personalities, produced the Banner of Peace World Children's Assembly in Sofia under the aegis of UNESCO" (Wiki).

She died suddenly in July 1981 aged only 38 and, while Bulgaria's period of activity in World Heritage matters continued through 1985 with the Sveshtari inscription, past 1989 with the fall of Zhivkov and "Communism", and on to 1991 with the end of its WHC tenure, its most "productive" years coincided with those of her personal influence. This Encyclopedia.com entry provides a better biography for her I think than that on Wiki. Her legacy is still hotly debated in Bulgaria and this article from 2014 gives a flavour of the issues . Finally if you want to gain a better insight into the ways in which Bulgaria differentiated itself culturally from the rest of the "Soviet Bloc" and the role of Lyudmila Zhivkova in so doing, I recommend – "THE COLD WAR FROM THE MARGINS . A Small Socialist State on the Global Cultural Scene" by Theodora K. Dragostinova. Available for free download here.

continued....

BULGARIA & "WORLD HERITAGE" 1974 to 1991 - 3

For most of Bulgaria's inscriptions across the period there is no reason to think that Zhivkova was exercising personal involvement in site selection and development beyond the overall policy setting and resource supplying roles. The exception, however, is Kazanlak. In Jan 1975 a book about the "Kazanlak Tomb" was published with Zhivkova credited as author. Wiki quotes from it thus - "Bulgarian art historian Lyudmila Zhivkova interprets the shared gesture between the central figures as indicative of a moment of tenderness and equality, but that interpretation is not shared by all specialists." We cannot know of course how much of the book was genuinely her work but it demonstrates her close connection to that site's preparation for inscription in 1979. Her direct involvement would also possibly help explain the "idea.....to build an exact copy of the tomb, which was carried out in 1973-1974" . Such a development would undoubtedly have needed impetus and the assignment of significant resources from "on high"! Unfortunately neither the Nomination File nor the AB evaluations are available to help discover more.

Even if she can't be directly connected with their nomination, the remaining Bulgarian cultural WHS clearly fit the wider "Zhivkova narrative". In line with the country's policies, they tell the story of Bulgaria's
a. foundation among ancient civilizations which give it the right to be compared on the World stage with others such as Greece (which it pre-dated!) and Rome.
b. development of a unique and rich culture which survived oppression and a long struggle for independence.

Here are some examples of how Bulgarian cultural WHS link to Zhivkova's other activities -
a. "Bulgaria's 1300th anniversary" was a massive celebration event masterminded by Zhivkova in 1981. As part of it, a 2 lev coin was issued featuring the Madara Rider sculpture which dated back to Bulgaria's foundation . We may find it "underwhelming" to visit but "The Madara Horseman is the ultimate image of early medieval Bulgaria, a vital symbol of national identity and history"!.
b. In the 1970s Zhivkova also initiated a policy of sending exhibitions of Bulgaria's treasures around the World as a way of promoting Bulgaria's cultural heritage. Its cultural WHS relate directly to these. Its "Thracian Treasures" exhibition was marketed in 1976 by the British Museum as being as important as its earlier successful "Tutenkhamun" one! Kazanlak was the relevant WHS but one also wonders to what extent the later discovery of Sveshtari in 1982 sprung directly from the emphasis placed by Zhivkova in investigating sites of the Thracian period
c. Other exhibitions were titled "1000 years of Bulgarian icon" and "Medieval Bulgarian Civilization" which tapped into 2 themes - Bulgaria's early "Slavic" adoption of Christianity in 865 and the impact of Ottoman rule from 1396 to 1878. Ivanovo, Nessebar, and Boyana all relate to these 2 periods which included the development of a notably "Bulgarian" school of Icon painting .
d. And the final relevant exhibition - "Treasures of the Rila Monastery". Rila isn't just any Orthodox monastery - Whilst it does contain some earlier remains from before its destruction by the Ottomans in 15th C, it is primarily "a characteristic example of the Bulgarian Renaissance (18th–19th centuries), the monument symbolizes the awareness of a Slavic cultural identity following centuries of occupation." As such, it also chimed completely with Zhivkova's reach towards the newly independent states of Africa and Asia also recently escaping colonial oppression.

Bulgaria's first 4 sites from '79 were cultural with natural ones only being added as part of the second tranche in 1983, 2 years after Zhivkova's death. But, under her control, Bulgaria had also been an early adopter of the UNESCO "Man and the Biosphere" (MAB) program and, in 1976, announced the creation of 16 MAB reserves (whose subsequent history been a sorry story leading to some being removed in 2017. Others are now within the Bulgarian "Beech Forests"). These included Srebarna which had also been made a RAMSAR site in 1975 when Bulgaria joined that Convention. Pirin was Bulgaria's only "National Park" in 1983 which presumably justified its nomination at the time. Their inscription may not have occurred because Zhivkova was interested in birding or hiking but are entirely consistent with a policy of fully demonstrating Bulgaria's "national" merits across both cultural and natural sites.

Finally, one wonders what objectives Bulgaria has this time round for its foray into WH committees. In terms of inscriptions and new T List entries it hasn't so far done much with its newly invigorated role so it doesn't appear to have joined with big intentions on those fronts. I have seen it suggested that, in some ways it represents a return to the "Zhivkov objective" of using "Culture" to assert a World wide diplomatic and cultural presence beyond Bulgaria's size and economic importance after the hiatus of the past c30 years during which it has concentrated on establishing its place within Europe. Regarding "inscriptions - it will get its "bit" of the Danube Limes in 2026...but where next? There are still 8 sites from 1984 on its T List plus Plovdiv which re-emerged in 2004 after its 1983 rejection but was withdrawn in the face of ICOMOS negativity. Will that be put forward a 3rd time? Does the List really need another "Ottoman town"? But there are other historic periods represented there as well. Based on recent WHC experience one could see no reason why a well prepared nomination would fail to get through even if not enthusiastically supported by ICOMOS!

Those early Bulgarian WHS have a notoriously low rating from this Community with an average of around 2.8, within which are some very low scores. Perhaps we undervalue them somewhat? Whatever - as you visit or even just read about them, remember the historical circumstances which brought about their presence on the List - and think of Lyudmila Zhivkova!

Fascinating deep dive into reasons why Bulgaria may have been so active in the early days of the World Heritage convention! I hadn't heard of Lyudmila Zhivkova before, but she seems like quite a remarkable woman who used her proximity for power for some good. Thanks for putting together all this research; it would make a good university lecture!

Of the sites on Bulgaria's Tentative List, I'm most interested in visiting Plovdiv for its history. Not sure if there is enough preserved to make it a good World Heritage Site (there are two different views in the reviews), but the mosaics of Philippopolis within the town look amazing.