How do you think we should handle sites which are dated between a-c centuries if there is no differentiation within this period?

What we try to do (as is stated in each description of the connection) is:
- Look at the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) statement provided by Unesco. This will narrow it down to a particular building, event or period.
- Where construction of that monument straddles the centuries (f.e. 1698-1720), the date of conception/commencement is used >> 17th century

In general, when in doubt: use the earliest date.

For large cities it can be problematic (Vienna, Paris). There more than one century-connection can be valid (trying to narrow it down to 3 or so, the Vienna AB evaluation mentions 3, and only 2 of them very clearly).

Cultural landscapes are also difficult: they usually cover one area over a longer period. Here I would either use the construction date of the most significant part OR the beginning of the practice where the landscape derives its OUV from (f.e. Viniculture on Pico Island, 15th century).

Natural sites will be excluded, as well as the prehistoric sites (or maybe use Neolithic etc there).

>>> sometimes it can be very difficult to pinpoint it to 1 century, we can discuss these cases below

First discussion: Quebrada de Humahuaca (a cultural landscape)

- suggested: 12th century (because of the Pucara of Tilcara)
- Unesco website & AB document mention all ages from 10.000 years ago until 20th century
- OUV-statement focuses on "Particularly notable are the pre-Hispanic and pre-Incan remains of large scale agricultural societies", examples are given: "numerous fortified towns, known as pucaras" and "stone-walled agricultural terrace fields at Coctaca"

For the agricultural practice in Coctaca I found the year "700" in the nomination file (page 193), the construction of Pucaras started from "1000" (page 194). A number of 30 Pucaras is mentioned, but only the ones at Tilcara (dating from the 12th century), La Cueva, Volcán, Tres Cruces and Morado are described. I could not find dates for the latter Pucaras.

Conclusion, my suggestion would be:
- 8th century for Coctaca
- 11th century for the Pucaras

Please feel free to dive into it and find out more about the dating of this site!

Granada (Alhambra)

Suggested is: 14th century - Although Alhambra was built over several centuries it is best known for its 14th Century moorish style

I can see this. For some reason however, the ICOMOS evaluation concludes "Alhambra and Generalife bear exceptional testimony to Muslim Spain of the 16th century"

Probably a mistake in the AB document?

Re: Humahuaca - In your introduction to the new chronological connections Els you said we should aim at capturing the spirit of the site. I think it could be helpful in some cases as this to look at the most iconic structure that represents what the site is known for. It is true the Pucara at Tilcara is not the only one mentioned in the nomination file, but it is certainly the best known of all pucaras not only in the Quebrada but in all of Argentina.

Re: Granada - definitely a mistake. Alhambra was fully completed in the 14th Century.

What to do about Royal Joseon Tombs?

There are 40 of them, dating from the 15th-19th centuries.
Not one really stands out (they are a "cohesive whole"), or maybe we should choose the earliest as that was when the burial tradition started.

So what do you think?
- Go for Built in 15-16-17-18-19th century?
- Built in 15th century because that's the earliest?
- Another option?

One reason I proposed the connection was "Built in the 20th century" is misleading for the Royal Joseon Tombs, as the vast majority of tombs were constructed in the previous five centuries and only two tombs were built in the 20th century.

*Go for Built in 15-16-17-18-19-20th century?
This is a fact, as the tombs were built throughout the entire Joseon Dynasty. There are 17 locations throughout Seoul and Gyeongi-do province, with one tomb in Gangwon-do province. (So the tombs are fairly spread out, being anywhere from 1 to 100 miles apart)

*Built in 15th century because that's the earliest?
This is true in the sense that the design of all tombs originate from this century. (With some variation) If you visit the oldest tombs in Donggureung and the latest Hongneung Tombs, you will notice strong variations of a central design. The stone guardians of each tomb are one example of a variation between these two tomb clusters. However, the layout is similar and clearly recognizable as from Joseon.

You're right, the connection was added at a moment that we used the "Built in... century" differently than now. I have removed it now, and changed it to 15th century for now.

I don't disagree with this but wonder also if it might not be worth having a new Connection for "contains significant structures from the 20th Century". Obviously the definition would exclude sites already included in the "full" 20th century Connection. There are a few other sites which got put into this connection when its purpose was to highlight the existence of "modern" buildings - possibly more than might have been expected.
I think of Paris (Chaillot/Pyramid), Vienna and even Liverpool (?) to add to Joseon. We would need to consider possibly (??) leaving out new roads, tunnels, cable cars etc.

It might be said that this would finish up just being the start of a whole series of such "secondary" links - "Contains significant structures from the nth century" etc!! Well I think that the existence of 20th century buildings has a particular "interest" that isn't present with all the other centuries and as such justifies itself on its own - but perhaps such a result would be a useful way of overcoming some of the problems we are having about pin-pointing the single (or at most 2?) century which most closely represents the "spirit" of a site. It would enable us to highlight where there are other significant buildings which perhaps don't fully represent the site - OK so Paris, Vienna etc would finish up with a fair number of such connections but, so what, if it adds "value" in terms of our knowledge of a site? It would in effect provide a proxy for a "time line" showing the length of a site's development period.

It occurs to me also that a Connection for "Contains significant structures from the 21st Century" is now both possible and of interest. Herewith 4 to start with!

Berlin - Neues Museum (2009)
Graz - Murinsel (2003)
Vienna - Peek and Kloppenburg store (2010)
Venice - San Michele Cemetery (2007)

For the 20th century connection, we can also add Ancient Thebes in Egypt, where New Gourna village is included within the site.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/666

New Gourna was built by Hassan Fathy, one of the best-known (and to me only-known) Egyptian architects of the 20th century, and is considered a prime example of the fusion of Modern architecture with traditional building techniques.

What do you think, maybe we can use this "trick" for Neolithic Age etc. too?
I will move up the primary Neolithic sites into a "Built in the Neolithic" connection, and the rest of them to a secondary "Contains significant structures...".

I've noticed on the latest connections, Hahoe & Yandong Villages, as well as Changdeokgung Palace Complex have been added, yet when you click on the link there is no information on the connection. Perhaps a computer error, or if you just haven't had time to get to it, ignore this post.

You were right, I had forgotten to push a button after adding them