elsslots:
the inscriptions at Nahr el-Kalb (Mount Lebanon). This looks like an immoveable monument, so wouldn't it fit better with the WHL
they are in fact on Lebanon's T List as part of a wider site at Nahr el-Kalb which includes Stone/Bronze Age, Roman and Mediaeval sites (shelters, bridge, convents)
The MoW is about "Documentary Heritage" (the "Memory of the World Register lists documentary heritage" - MoW Web site) without (as far as I know) defining what a "Document" might have to be (It just gives examples - right up to "sound recordings" etc). I guess there is no real problem in accepting that text written in Stone is a "document" - but have a look at the Wiki section on "Documents"! It quotes a French author/librarian etc Suzanne Briet who wrote a treatise titled
"Qu'est-ce que la documentation?" -
"An antelope running wild on the plains of Africa should not be considered a document, she rules. But if it were to be captured, taken to a zoo and made an object of study, it has been made into a document. It has become physical evidence being used by those who study it. Indeed, scholarly articles written about the antelope are secondary documents, since the antelope itself is the primary document." The trouble with that of course is that EVERY cultural artefact (i.e all Cultural WHS) could thereby be defined as "Documents" irrespective of whether they include text or "representatations". Further, I could imagine the argument extending to EVERY Natural site as well! The mere act of separating out an area of "Nature" for inscription thereby creates a "document" using her example/logic.
Back to Nahr el-Kalb - I guess that Lebanon thought (with justification!) that it would be a lot easier to get its site addedd to the MoW register than to the WH List. There does seem to be a great deal of variation in the historic value of the stelae and their inscriptions. some of the modern ones could be regarded as pretty inconsequential! (British and French troops commemorating e.g the Capture of Damascus in WWI)
