u.s. world heritage gap study report

U.S. WORLDHERITAGE GAP STUDY REPORT

United States National Committee, International Council on Monuments and Sites

BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OFFICERSJan C. K. Anderson, FAPT, Chair

Douglas C. Comer, Ph.D., Vice Chair

Ronald Lee Fleming, FAICP, Secretary

Jeffrey Soule, FAIPC, Treasurer

TRUSTEES AT LARGEMs. Amy Ballard

Ms. Brenda Barrett

Ms. Elizabeth Bartley

Professor Jeffrey Eley

Professor R. Grant Gilmore III, Ph.D.

Nancy Hudson, P.E.

Rachel Jacobson, J.D.

Ms. Kathleen Kilpatrick

Mr. Brian Michael Lione

Mr. Yuan Liu

Christopher Marrion, P.E., FSFPE

Nora Mitchell, Ph.D.

Darwina L. Neal, FASLA, F.US/ICOMOS

Patricia O’Donnell, FASLA, AICP

Mr. Anthony D. Pell

John F. Smith III, L.L.B.

Troy Thompson, AIA, LEED AP

EX-OFFICIO, ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL OFFICERSGustavo F. Araoz, Jr., F.US/ICOMOS (ICOMOS President)

Pamela Jerome, FAPT, F.US/ICOMOS (ICOMOS Executive Council)

Ms. Milagros Flores Román (President, ICOFORT)

STAFFAndrew Potts, J.D., US/ICOMOS Executive Director

Jennifer Spreitzer, Project Manager


© US/ICOMOS 2016 Washington, DC

All rights reserved.

US/ICOMOS expresses its gratitude to the J.M. Kaplan Fund

and the National Park Service

of this undertaking.

U.S. WORLD HERITAGE GAP STUDY REPORT

Including

to the UNESCO World Heritage List:

Past, Present and Future

By Stephen Morris, Chief,

National Park Service

United States National Committee International Council on Monuments and Sites

Washington, DCJanuary 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD: REFLECTIONS ON U.S. NOMINATIONS TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ...................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... iv

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................3

BACKGROUND: WORLD HERITAGE GAPS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS .........4

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................6

EXPERT ROUNDTABLE: BACKGROUND .............................................................................8

EXPERT ROUNDTABLE: DIALOGUE AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................9

TABLE 1: INNOVATION, INVENTION, TECHNOLOGY, MODERNIST LEGACY, AND RECENT HISTORY SUMMARY ............................................12

TABLE 2: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES, EARLY HUMAN OCCUPATION SUMMARY ....................16

TABLE 3: LIVING CULTURES, CULTURAL DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY OF BELIEFS, SITES OF CONSCIENCE, URBAN HERITAGE SUMMARY ..... 20

FUTURE DIRECTIONS ...........................................................................................................21

APPENDIX: SYNTHESIS REPORT ...................................................................................... 23


FOREWORD i

In the public mind, the UNESCO World Heritage List is a modern-day version of the wonders of the world, com-posed primarily of iconic natural and cultural landmarks of stunning beauty like the Grand Canyon, the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids of Giza, and the Great Barrier Reef. With this view, the public would no doubt be surprised or con-fused by recent additions to the World Heritage List whose attributes don’t appear to conform with the usual expecta-tions for what makes a place worthy of recognition by the international community.

At its 39th session in Bonn, Germany, the World Heritage Committee added a meat-packing plant in Uruguay, the Fray Bentos Industrial Landscape, built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which “through its physical location, industrial and residential buildings as well as social institu-tions, presents an illustration of the entire process of meat production on a global scale,” according the Committee. The nomination was well prepared, with the Uruguayan sponsors having received direct assistance in preparing the

-ments and Sites (ICOMOS), the Committee’s advisor for cultural heritage properties. It also resulted in a raised-eye-brows commentary in the British media.

The inscription of the Fray Bentos Landscape illustrates a growing trend to add sites to the World Heritage List whose claim to “outstanding universal value” or global

since the inception of the list in the late 1970s most of the world’s truly iconic sites have long since already been listed. Given the relentless expansion of the World Heritage List, which grows annually by 20 to 30 new sites, inscriptions have moved on to encompass relatively unknown sites. The World Heritage List is moving away from exclusivity, no longer reserved for “the best of the best,” but rather to-wards a greater emphasis on representation across regions and cultures of the world.

The focus on representation emerged more than 20 years ago as a response to the overwhelming preponderance of cultural heritage nominations from European countries. The World Heritage Centre has also encouraged consid-eration of multinational “serial” nominations, in recog-nition of the fact that heritage is not limited by political boundaries. In many cases, however, this shift has resulted in nominations linking rather undistinguished properties that share some larger historical theme or topic in com-mon. This trend seems counter to the original intent of the World Heritage Convention to help preserve preeminently important properties. The shift towards representative-

history and historic preservation, away from a focus on monumental architecture and the role of elites in historical developments.

Proponents of “representative” sites in the U.S. and other countries are encouraging broadening the framework of what those countries could nominate to the World Heri-

Convention, the U.S. got an early start in nominating its own sites for World Heritage status, beginning in 1978, when we hosted the session of the World Heritage Com-

FOREWORD: REFLECTIONS ON U.S. NOMINATIONS TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTUREBy Stephen Morris, Chief,

Fray Bentos World Heritage Site, Uruguay


ii FOREWORD

mittee at which the World Heritage List was inaugurated. From that point until 1995, the U.S. actively nominated “iconic” U.S. sites, primarily units of the National Park System, on an annual basis. Among the early U.S. inscrip-tions were Mesa Verde, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and Everglades National Parks, Independence Hall, and the Statue of Liberty. Included among the sites nominated during that period were also some sites that may have been less famous but were certainly globally preeminent exam-ples of their kind, such as Cahokia Mounds, Taos Pueblo, Carlsbad Caverns, and the San Juan National Historic Site. After a long break the U.S. resumed nominations with the

northwestern Hawaiian islands, a vast archipelago sacred to the Native Hawaiians inscribed in 2010 as a “mixed” natural and cultural heritage site. The most recent inscrip-tions include an archeological site, Poverty Point, in Loui-siana and the San Antonio Missions in Texas. The ground-work for both of the latter nominations was laid many years earlier, though it took decades for them to come to fruition.

Revising the Candidate ListThe U.S. is a large and wealthy country recognized as a global leader in many areas. Since our emergence on the world stage in the 19th century, we have had an impact well beyond our shores. For such a country, embarking on the development of a new candidate list or a revision of the current one gives rise to a number of questions about what goals and priorities should guide the nomination of U.S. sites to the World Heritage List, particularly for cultural sites:

• Should the U.S. favor candidate sites that highlight U.S. contributions to global culture?

• Should we put forward sites that illustrate the overcom-ing of painful episodes in our national history, (e.g., the Civil Rights movement)?

• To what extent should we consider nominating sites

totality of our history?• How should we consider worldwide trends and devel-

opments pioneered by the U.S. that some would regard as negative (e.g., the development of nuclear weapons, the globalization of consumer culture)?

Underlying these questions is the most basic tenet of the World Heritage program—that World Heritage sites must

be legitimately considered the common heritage of human-kind.

A quick look at the list of current U.S. World Heritage Sites and the current U.S. Tentative List reveals that the com-bination of the two lists in no way represents the totality of U.S. history or the diversity of our people. No list with fewer than 40 sites ever could. The combined lists do not

War, the role of the United States in global industry, the ever-growing impact of U.S.- led innovations in computer technology, and on and on. Unless the U.S. were to be per-mitted to nominate hundreds of sites to the World Heritage List, it is doubtful that we could achieve a full representa-tion of U.S. history, but that in fact is not the purpose of the World Heritage List. The List is meant to include places that should be preserved because of their value for all the world’s people, not to be a catalogue of world history or the national history of any particular country no matter how large or important.

or candidate, list is to identify U.S. properties that could

in terms of themes or categories of heritage. While there is no shortage of Gothic cathedrals on the List, there are few sites related to science and technology. Similarly, in the natural realm, volcanoes of all types are well represented, while deserts, grasslands, and marine sites are not.

A starting point in considering possible cultural candidate sites is the roster of National Historic Landmarks (NHLs),

-

U.S. law for considering potential World Heritage nomi-nations). Similarly, the list of National Natural Landmarks and the many superlative natural areas in the U.S. national park system will be a reference point for possible candi-dates that might qualify under the World Heritage natu-

received from advocates and the public over the years; that list now exceeds 150 possible sites.

While the NHLs constitute a worthy pool of possible candi-

from the World Heritage criteria, particularly with respect


FOREWORD iii

to recognizing sites associated with important events, peo-ple, or ideas. A large number of NHLs are designated sole-ly for their associative value, which is not possible under the World Heritage criteria. World Heritage Criterion (vi) (for sites linked to ideas and events) is only eligible when used in

World Heritage Committee, recognizing that inscribing sites on the basis of associative value alone could give rise to an impossibly huge number of nominations, instituted this policy in response to the inscription of Independence Hall in 1979. While it has not been unheard of in recent years to pair Criterion (vi) with Criterion (iii) (for sites illus-trating a cultural tradition), this approach is questionable as it essentially circumvents the intended restriction.

There are a number of other considerations that come into play for U.S. nominations, including statutory and regula-tory requirements that all property owners write in support of the nomination and pledge to preserve the property in perpetuity. This requirement makes it virtually impossible to nominate historic towns or districts to the World Heri-tage List, as most other countries do routinely. In the early 1990s, in an attempt to avoid the need for approval from hundreds of private property owners, the U.S. nominated just the publicly owned squares and streets of Savannah, GA, an important colonial town noted for its distinctive urban plan. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) recommended that the nomination be deferred unless the buildings and other urban fabric could

-

As the World Heritage nomination process has evolved

gotten much more stringent both in terms of content and presentation. It is not unusual for the nomination docu-ments to be hundreds of pages long, lavishly illustrated and professionally printed. Extensive research and comparisons with similar or related properties around the globe were not as necessary in the early days of the program, when icons such as the Grand Canyon were being proposed.

Now, as countries put forward less obvious candidates, a great deal of research must be done to establish how distinctive and unique a property is in relation to similar sites elsewhere and to make a strong case for why the site is

-cant sites.

With rising standards for nominations, developing these documents has become time-consuming and expensive. The nomination of “Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright” (a serial nomination of 10 Wright-de-signed buildings in seven States) submitted by the U.S. last

was preceded by an earlier failed nomination, some 20 years earlier, of only the two Wright studios in Wisconsin and Arizona. The entire and considerable cost of develop-ing the nomination was borne by the Frank Lloyd Wright

-ation of owners of Wright buildings. While the NPS OIA provides oversight and guidance, the proponents of nomi-nations are responsible for the research, writing, and pro-duction of the nomination document, as well as the costs of workshops and hosting the evaluation visits by ICOMOS or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This is asking a lot of groups that may not be well funded and dependent on volunteer resources.

Despite the challenges facing the World Heritage program in the U.S., with far fewer inscribed sites than a number of other nations, our country still has much to contribute to the World Heritage List. Relying on the knowledge of a

to geology to the history of industry and technology, the OIA hopes to revise the Tentative List to include candi-dates that the average interested member of the public would readily recognize as having global importance. In considering the best candidates, the U.S. and the stewards of the U.S. World Heritage program need to seriously con-sider what purpose we believe World Heritage designation serves and what messages we convey to the global commu-nity by sites we nominate.

National Park Service

August 2015


iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-

cial support of the J.M. Kaplan Fund, without whom this work would not have been possible.

US/ICOMOS also gratefully acknowledges the participation and contributions of the following people who each gave

important work of updating the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List.

Dr. Patrick Martin, Co-Chair

Ms. Brenda Barrett, Co-Chair

Dr. Douglas Comer

James K. Reap, J.D., F.US/ICOMOS

Ms. Milagros Flores Darwina Neal, F.US/ICOMOS, FASLA

Dr. Nora Mitchell, IUCN Liaison

THEMATIC CONSULTATION SUBCOMMITTEE


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

ONLINE DISCUSSION MODERATORS

Ms. Brenda Barrett Dr. Douglas Comer

Ms. Donna Graves

Dr. Brent D. Glass

Dr. Patrick Martin

Dr. Diana M. Greenlee

Pamela Jerome, FAPT, F.US/ICOMOS

Dr. Daniel Marriott Dr. Nora Mitchell, IUCN Liaison

Dr. Helaine Silverman

Dr. Bret J. Ruby Dr. Bruce Seely

PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHIGAN TECH ARCHIVES


vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Members of the Expert Roundtable convened November 13, 2015, at US/ICOMOS headquarters in Washington, D.C.

EXPERT ROUNDTABLE SUBCOMMITTEE

Jan C.K. Anderson, FAPT, Co-Chair

Thomas M. Harboe, FAIA, F.US/ICOMOS,

Co-Chair

Dr. Richard W. Longstreth, Rapporteur

Expert Roundtable Participants:

Jan C. K. Anderson, FAPT; Gustavo F. Araoz, Jr., F.US/ICOMOS, ICOMOS President; Ms. Brenda Barrett; Dr. Timothy Davis; Ms. Phyllis Ellin; John M. Fowler, J.D., F.US/ICOMOS; Thomas M. Harboe, F.US/ICOMOS, FAIA; Dr. Richard Longsteth; Dr. Patrick Martin; Patricia O’Donnell, FASLA, AICP; Dr. Franklin S. Odo; Carol Shull, F.US/ICOMOS.

FINAL REPORT SUBCOMMITTEE

Patricia O’Donnell, FASLA, AICP, Chair

Susan Macdonald, RIBA, PIA, Co-Chair

Gustavo F. Araoz, Jr., F.US/ICOMOS

E. Blaine Cliver, F.US/ICOMOS

John M. Fowler, J.D., F.US/ICOMOS

Mr. Michael Romero Taylor


WORLD HERITAGE GAP STUDY REPORT 1

INTRODUCTIONThe preparation of a World Heritage Tentative List is one of the most important expressions of cultural heri-tage a nation can undertake. For that reason, US/ICOMOS is honored to have been invited by the U.S. National Park Service to prepare this U.S. World Heritage Gap Study Report in aid of the updating of the cul-tural and mixed natural and cultural heritage elements of the U.S. Tentative List, which is expected to occur in 2016.

The 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (more commonly known as the World Heritage Convention) establishes a World Heritage List to which signatory states can nominate natural and cultural heritage of “outstanding universal value” (OUV). The purpose of the List is to help

-servation, and management. To date, over one thousand sites, including 23 in the United States, have been in-scribed. The Convention is said to be one of the greatest successes at cultural politics the world has known.

In the course of the past decades, even as the List has steadily grown longer, considerable “gaps” or “imbalanc-es” have remained. There is a strong predominance of some regions or themes, while others are represented only marginally or not at all. Addressing these imbalances has

Convention today. We must ensure, the World Heritage Committee has said, a more representative, balanced and credi-ble World Heritage List.

Prior ICOMOS studies of this issue have concluded that the development of credible Tentative Lists by the world’s countries must underpin all other actions: it is the foun-

a credible World Heritage List. When the National Park Service announced its intention to update the U.S. Ten-

agreement that the process should be guided by this inter-national context.

But the idea of ‘balance’ in relation to the World Heritage List is not as simple as it might seem. It does not refer merely to a balance between countries, or types of proper-

ties, but rather to how well a particular type of heritage of outstanding universal value is represented on the List. An American answer to the gap question thus requires both a comprehensive familiarity with U.S. cultural resources and a thorough understanding of the internationally iden-

World Heritage Gap Study was undertaken to marshal historic preservation and World Heritage expertise to do just that.

Taking place from August to December 2015, with the support of the National Park Service and the J.M. Kaplan Fund, US/ICOMOS recruited and engaged di-verse experts familiar with World Heritage requirements and U.S. heritage to identify categories of U.S. cultural resources with potential OUV that could properly repre-sent the broad range of heritage categories in our country

Heritage List.

US/ICOMOS has been committed to the principles of

the International Council on Monuments and Sites, US/ICOMOS remains deeply committed to the World Heritage program, both working to build domestic support for this international program and aiding in the nomination and conservation of U.S. inscribed sites. This work builds on the international work of ICOMOS, the formal advisory body to the World Heritage Committee on all aspects of cultural heritage.

Great Serpent Mound, Adams County, Ohio


2 WORLD HERITAGE GAP STUDY REPORT

Americans played key roles in the World Heritage Con-vention’s development, and the United States was the

of American cultural heritage professionals seeks to do its part to carry forward the tradition of World Heri-tage excellence. It is the sincere hope of US/ICOMOS that this United States World Heritage Gap Study Report

16th Street Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama PHOTO © Nigel Morris Photography



SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Given the limited number of properties that can be added to the 2016 Tentative List, an important object of US/ ICOMOS in preparing this U.S. World Heritage Gap Study Report was to bring forward a manageable, short list of recommended U.S. themes and illustrative proper-ties. These would generally be U.S. themes and illustrative properties that:

•

• appropriate inventory;

• Have strong potential to yield an OUV statement and meet applicable World Heritage criteria; and

• Have strong potential for owner consent, excellent management and strong legal protection.

The US/ICOMOS recommendations coming forward from this gap study bring scholarship and expertise to the updating of the current U.S. Tentative List.

The potential themes and properties for consideration in the near term include the following, without specifying an order of priority:

• Cultural diversity, sites of conscience and cultural landscapes would be addressed with an expanded Civil Rights movement serial nomination, including the three churches currently on the tentative list and Sweet Auburn Historic District (NHL), Atlanta, Selma to Montgomery NHT, Pettus Bridge (NHL), Little Rock Central High School NHS (NHL), Martin Luther King Jr. NHS (NHL), and NHL group of serial sites.

• global architectural development

• The technological innovation of bridges, notably Roe-bling’s Brooklyn Bridge (NHL)

• Immigration, cultural diversity, and diversity sites of conscience could be addressed with a combined nomi-nation of Angel and Ellis Islands (NHLs)

• Concept of National Parks as a U.S. innovation that

• Modernist architectural legacy of Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe, and, possibly, of Louis I. Kahn

• Mining and other Industrial Heritage sites such as Kennecott in Wrangell St. Elias National Park (NHL)

• Space exploration as innovation, Kennedy Space Cen-ter at Cape Canaveral (NHL)

• Urban parks as symbols of democracy Central Park (NHL), New York, or serial nomination of selected Olmsted legacy parks with high integrity

• Scenic Parkways as a new type of park uniquely suited to modernity, Blue Ridge Parkway

• Associative landscapes such as the Hudson River Na-tional Historic Landmark District

• Properties serving as witnesses to enslavement or the ability of suppressed peoples to struggle and overcome. For the U.S. this may be the Low Country plantations and Charleston, SC, for the near term, but this study points out that the U.S. should also participate in and contribute to the international scholarship around slav-ery sites with future potential for a multinational serial nomination.

Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



BACKGROUND: WORLD HERITAGE GAPS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKSIn the early years of UNESCO’s World Heritage program, an abundance of sites with similar characteristics were inscribed. In 1994 the World Heritage Committee recog-nized these imbalances and adopted a Global Strateg y for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List (Global Strategy). The Global Strategy’s ongoing goal has been to produce a World Heritage List that is “representative, balanced, and credible” via two concurrent initiatives. The

on the list between number of types, regions, and periods of cultural property that are currently under-represented.

The second initiative is more qualitative. It calls for World Heritage nominations to move away from a “typological” approach and toward a “dynamic” approach (Report of the Expert Meeting on the “Global Strategy” and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List, UNESCO Headquarters, 20-22 June 1994). “Typological” simply means a static view of isolated heritage features. The dynamic approach takes a global view on the complex and multidimensional cultural expressions of social structures, ways of life, beliefs, systems of knowledge, and cultural representations. Representation of living cultures through the dynamic approach is favored.

In order to assess progress on the Global Strategy and to highlight areas where attention was still needed, ICOMOS published The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps (Filling the Gaps) in 2005. This study served as the key resource for our

current U.S. Gap Study. Filling the Gaps uses type, time, and theme as organizing topics:

• Typological framework: employs categories that have been used for decades to classify cultural heri-tage; for example, religious properties, industrial and technological properties, historic towns, cultural land-scapes, etc.

• Chronological-Regional framework:cultural heritage in relation to time and space.

• Thematic framework:to their cultural environment; for example, movement of peoples, settlement, technological evolution, migra-tion, human interaction, and cultural coexistence.

when Filling the Gaps was published in 2005 included, among others, representations of living cultures; diverse heritage, peoples, beliefs and traditions; cultural land-scapes, inventions, industrial heritage, technological evolu-tion; recent heritage of the 20th century; and sites of mixed cultural and natural heritage.

ICOMOS recognizes that in the dozen years since the Fill-ing the Gaps report was published, considerable progress has

considerable number of cultural landscapes, industrial heri-tage, and heritage properties of the 20th century have been nominated and inscribed on the List. A pressing yet elusive objective of ICOMOS is to continue to track the progress achieved by having the resources to update the Filling the Gaps report annually on the basis of the new properties inscribed each year.

Nevertheless, gaps still remain and so a key task of those guiding the preparation of the U.S. World Heritage Gap Study Report was to determine the most relevant, present gaps and then to consider those with reference to U.S. inscribed and tentative listed properties with the objective of identifying gaps for our nation within the global context. To do this,

the consultation’s participants, along with documents and guidance pertaining to:

• OUV• the current U.S. Tentative List• U.S. World Heritage sites• U.S. and World Heritage listing requirements, and • World Heritage strategy.

Mountain Railways of India World Heritage Centre. PHOTO: Hung Chung Chih, Shutterstock.com



Furthermore, in addition to being a global process, ad-dressing the gaps in the World Heritage List requires a

identify and evaluate the outstanding universal value of the full range of properties that would represent correctly its histories and its cultures. As discussed further in this Report, clearly additional inventorying work is needed in the United States to achieve this goal. In order to assure

-tlinks were provided for each discussion with some 75-plus documents accessible online to inform the process. These included a series of NPS thematic studies, such as the re-cent American Latino Heritage (2013), and the more venerable The Mining Frontier (1959).

The committee charged with planning the Online Expert Consultation distilled the relevant works into a short list of contemporary gaps with particular relevance to U.S. cultural resources with the potential to yield sites of OUV.

global thematic gaps most relevant to the United States:

• Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant cultural groups

• Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e., intangible heri-tage) that are embodied in place

• Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution

• Living cultures• Early human occupation of the New World• Sites of conscience and painful historical events• Recent heritage of the 20th century• Mixed cultural and natural heritage

These gaps were then employed in the online discussions and the expert forum to focus the dialogue toward gap

relevant to U.S. cultural resources.

San Antonio Mission World Heritage site, San Antonio, Texas



METHODOLOGYResearch for the US/ICOMOS U.S. World Heritage Gap Study Report (Gap Study) included an Online Expert Con-sultation comprised of an online survey to gather quantita-tive data and six curated online discussions of a qualitative nature regarding themes in U.S. heritage resources that

More than one thousand architects, historians, archaeolo-gists, site managers, ethnographers, Tribal Historic Pres-

invited to participate in these online expert discussions. In addition, 750 US/ICOMOS members were invited to take the survey. The participants engaged included:

• 356 individuals who completed the survey• 89 heritage professionals and experts who contributed

to the discussion groups• 23 experts who moderated the online discussions and

participated in the Gap Study subcommittees

US/ICOMOS issued a Synthesis Report that summarizes the results of the Online Expert Consultation. The Synthe-sis Report documents an abundance of themes and possible

-pert Roundtable held in November 2015 brought together more than a dozen World Heritage experts to evaluate the results of the Online Expert Consultation and seek consen-sus on themes and priorities. The full Synthesis Report is reproduced herein as an Appendix to this Report.

The U.S. World Heritage Gap Study Report draws upon the Synthesis Report and the work done at the Expert Roundtable to provide the Department of the Interior

recommendations as possible to consider for inclusion on the 2016 U.S. World Heritage Tentative List. This Report, then, distills the broader array initially captured by im-posing stricter requirements regarding U.S. themes that 1)

OUV; and 3) present a rich diversity of cultural resources that merit showcasing to the world.

SURVEY METHODSThe survey was conducted via Surveymonkey.com from August 17 through October 2, 2015. It was designed to:

• Attract experts to participate in the qualitative discus-sions;

• Gather quantitative data about current perceptions of gaps and the relative urgency of addressing them;

• Learn more about Consultation participants and their experience with and attitudes toward World Heritage; and

• Publicize World Heritage, US/ICOMOS, ICOMOS

the current U.S. Tentative List.

Respondents were asked to:

• Identify their area of expertise and number of years

• -

• Rate their level of familiarity with the World Heritage program and the approximate number of sites they had visited;

• Rate their perception of the relative level of representa-

Heritage sites; and• Rate their perceived level of urgency to address gaps

States.

An overview of Survey results, as well as complete results and a copy of the Survey Instrument, are included in the Synthesis Report.



ONLINE DISCUSSIONS The second component of the Online Expert Consulta-tion was composed of six threaded discussions regarding themes in U.S. heritage resources that could address

the discussions were conducted online between August 17 and October 2, 2015. Participation was by invitation only, and registrants were asked to identify themselves and

area was moderated by at least two moderators who were encouraged to check in often, respond to comments, pose questions and generally encourage participation.

gaps and posed six questions:

• ARCHAEOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY: Are there types, regions or periods of Archaeological sites or landscapes that are underrepresented on the current list?

• ARCHITECTURE & URBANISM: What types of urban heritage and architectural ensembles of OUV could address gaps of underrepresented typology, region or period?

• TECHNOLOGY & INDUSTRY: What opportuni-ties exist to address gaps related to Science, Technolo-gy, Invention and Industrial Heritage?

• LIVING CULTURES & HERITAGE: Two ques-tions were asked:

❒ Are there living cultures, subcultures and examples of America’s diverse heritage that have been qualita-tively underrepresented?

❒ Are there themes of migration, settlement, modes of subsistence, human interaction, cultural coexistence, spirituality, and creative expression in the U.S. that have been qualitatively underrepresented?

• CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: What types of Cul-tural Landscapes in the U.S. are responsive to the gaps

-scapes in particular?

Upon conclusion of the Online Discussions, moderators summarized the many themes raised in their respective

opportunity from their expert perspective. These summa-ries were then incorporated, along with Survey results, into the Synthesis Report, which was distributed to Expert Roundtable participants for review prior to the Roundtable meeting.

Image of Online Discussion Links



EXPERT ROUNDTABLE: BACKGROUNDThe Expert Roundtable was convened on November 13, 2015, to synthesize and evaluate the results of the online discussion and also to adduce other scholarship and expert perspectives on themes that might not have surfaced in the online discussion. Fourteen world heritage experts, led by Richard Longstreth, Rapporteur, gathered to discuss each

of themes were discussed for each subject area, with expert attendees adding further suggestions (themes and sites) and

the consideration of NPS.

Experts who contributed to this rich exchange in addi-tion to Dr. Longstreth included US/ICOMOS Chair Jan Anderson; ICOMOS President Gustavo Araoz; Brenda

Committee on Cultural Landscapes); John Fowler (former US/ICOMOS Chairman); Gunny Harboe (Vice Presi-

Heritage); Patrick Martin (President, The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heri-tage); Franklin Odo (Chair, National Park Service Asian

Executive Director Andrew Potts; and Carol Shull (Inter-national Committee on Interpretation and Presentation), as well as Tim Davis (NPS HABS/HAER) and Stephen Morris and Phyllis Ellin (NPS-OIA).

In preparation for the more detailed discussion of gaps and themes, Stephen Morris, director of NPS-OIA, described the process for revising the U.S. Tentative List in 2016. With the input of the public and assistance by experts, the NPS is asking for guidance on: areas of strength the U.S. can bring to global heritage; themes that are fruitful to

have a good chance of success for U.S. nominations. This focus guided the deliberations of the Expert Roundtable and informed the writing of this Report.

A parallel study by the U.S. National Commission on UN-ESCO was also addressing similar issues, seeking to arrive at themes and priorities. The results of both of these studies

focus on the recommended sites. It was noted that only a limited number of properties will be added to the U.S. Ten-tative List. To be considered for tentative list nomination, properties must adhere to these parameters:

• could be added in future

• OUV statement and World Heritage criteria must ap-ply, with the added proviso that Criterion (vi), if used, must also be accompanied by other World Heritage Criteria

• Owner consent, excellent management and strong legal protection are required for the property itself and, if pertinent, to its setting and viewsheds

Recognition of these opportunities and constraints informs the Gap Study recommendations. With a focus on out-comes and recommendations it is useful to dispel a com-mon misconception that the U.S. should put forward the

through a World Heritage Nomination. The consideration of OUV that transcends national boundaries and holds value for all of humanity is more correctly the objective of World Heritage inscription. Early on in the process of nominating a property to the U.S. Tentative List, a draft statement of OUV and the proposed criteria the property may meet are tested. This expert study was informed by a depth of World Heritage knowledge among the participants that directed the dialogue, as requested by NPS, toward properties where a logical and compelling OUV statement and criteria were thought to be probable.



EXPERT ROUNDTABLE: DIALOGUE AND RECOMMENDATIONSAnalysis of the overlapping themes among the survey responses and threaded conversations drew our attention to three distinct clusters of related response patterns among Gap Study participants. The clusters are:

A. Innovation, Invention, Recent History, Technology, Modernist Legacy

B. Cultural Landscapes, Mixed Cultural and Natural Sites, Early Human Occupation

C. Living Cultures, Urban Heritage, Cultural Diversity, Diversity of Beliefs, Sites of Conscience

As a method for integrating the outcomes, these three -

pert forum in interrelated groups. An explication of the outcomes for each cluster is presented in narrative and an accompanying chart.

A. Innovation, Invention, Technology, Modernist Legacy and Recent History

The curated Online Discussion responses demonstrat-

invention, technology and modern legacy aspects of U.S. heritage. The experts who contributed to the forum also expressed great interest in these themes. Discussion high-lighted the many innovative themes that U.S. heritage properties could address, noting that U.S. inventions and innovations clustered in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Prior international reporting notes that these topics are underrepresented in the World Heritage List and the US/ICOMOS Gap Study highlights that these subject areas are also unrepresented in the inscribed U.S. World Her-itage properties. The U.S. is fertile ground for properties that address these overlooked topics, which can contribute toward a more balanced and credible World Heritage List

areas. There is already existing an excellent body of docu-mentation work completed by the NPS’s Historic American Engineering Record since the 1960s to draw on, as well as National Heritage Areas, such as Rivers of Steel and the Hudson River National Historic Landmark District

documented properties for consideration of their OUV.

Undoubtedly the U.S. has been a source of advancement of technology and industry internationally, particular over the last 200 years; however, as yet there are no cultural heri-tage sites that represent these contributions. The Dayton Aviation History NHP (NHL), a portion of the Wright

currently included on the U.S. Tentative List, while a prior nomination of the Kitty Hawk site was denied but may be reconsidered.

The spirit of invention, innovation, renewal, free enterprise and entrepreneurism that resulted in the U.S.’s industrial landscape also catalyzed architecture, planning, transpor-tation systems and landscape design in the 19th and 20th centuries and helped the U.S. become a major force in western culture. Structural experimentation and advance-ments in technology that occurred in the U.S. helped shape the modern world. Advancements such as the elevator and steel frame construction resulted in the skyscraper—a unique U.S. contribution—that emerged as a new architec-tural form in metropolitan areas such as Chicago and New York. The proponents of the Beaux-arts architectural style and early modernists such as Frank Lloyd Wright devel-oped a distinct North American architectural style in the

European architects after the First World War, modernism emerged as the predominant architectural language of the second half of the 20th century and again the U.S. became

Interest in modernism has gained considerable ground since the 1990s, which resulted in a number of properties

The Four Lifts on the Canal du Centre and their Environs Word Heritage sites, La Louvière and

Le Roeulx (Hainaut), Belgium.



that represent the modernist legacy being included on the NHL list. Recent surveys at local and state levels have paid particular attention to identifying places that repre-sent the modernist legacy in many parts of the country and have expanded their recognition of the values of these places beyond architecture to better recognize other values such as urban, landscape, social, technological and so on. Currently there are no sites from the modern era from the U.S. included on the World Heritage List, although the Key Works of Modern Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright serial nomination is under consideration for inscription in 2016.

There are also few World Heritage sites or tentative list properties addressing heritage from the recent past beyond that of works of great architecture. The Civil Rights Move-ment Sites of the 1960s are currently included on the U.S. Tentative List in a modestly framed placeholder nomina-tion that requires further study and perhaps enlargement to a national serial nomination. These sites are discussed in sections B and, at more length, in C below.

The accompanying table (see Table 1: Innovation, Inven-tion, Technology, Modernist Legacy and Recent History Summary Chart on page 12) summarizes the themes and sub-themes

Innovation, Invention, Technology, Modernist Legacy and Recent History and organizes those suggestions made for

within the context of this overarching exercise. The consul-

building types such as skyscrapers and bridges, but then

also discussed thematic areas, for example civil rights sites. The table attempts to draw these typologies and themes to-gether and illustrate how they relate to each other, overlap, and also may relate to themes and properties in the other two clusters.

Within innovation, invention, technology, and heritage of the recent past, themes and types of heritage places and sample sites discussed and considered of high priority for

below. Each topic may be relevant; however there are a

nomination. In the case of serial nominations, additional support would be needed to prepare and bring forward such a nomination or group of properties.

Skyscrapers, particularly the early skyscrapers of Chi-cago, New York, and Detroit, were agreed to be a major

of consideration for the tentative list. Without question

the World Heritage Committee often ask when the U.S. is going to nominate our skyscrapers. Of course this runs into the problem of guaranteeing their permanent protection, which the U.S. always has fully supported. Questions of whether individual buildings or a serial nomination would best tell the story of the innovation, creative genius and im-pact of this typology on architecture and urbanism inter-nationally were discussed. Debates about the preeminence of Chicago or New York were also raised—a debate that might become moot should a serial nomination be deter-mined the best approach.

Bridges were another typology that was agreed to be of great relevance in the U.S., with examples cited such as the Brooklyn, Golden Gate, and Covington bridges. Again discussion ensued as to whether individually any of these would meet the criteria for World Heritage listing alone or whether a serial nomination would be a way of telling the story of innovation and the U.S. role in developing inter-

such as roads, canals and dams were also agreed to be an important theme and likely to yield potential places of

A number of ‘great’ 20th-century architects were discussed, with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe being agreed

Unity Temple, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, Oak Park, IL.



serial nomination were posed with the potential to look at a transnational nomination for this particular architect. An-other great architect of international renown that gained traction was Louis I. Kahn. Given the current debates at the World Heritage Committee level on serial nomination for ‘great architects,’ it was agreed that careful consider-

Mining and Industrial sites in the U.S. were felt to be an important contribution to the international story. Over 100 industrial heritage sites across the U.S. have been recognized as NHLs, with a further 50 plus sites recognized by the American Society of Civil Engineering as Historical Civil Engineering Landmarks. Additional-ly, the Historic American Engineering Record has been thematically identifying and documenting industrial sites

that attracted particular attention during the survey and the Roundtable discussion were mining sites like Ken-necott Mine in Wrangell St. Elias NP (NHL) in AK, the Keweenaw National Historical Park (NHL) in MI (which might be particularly amenable to nomination as a joint cultural/natural site if expanded to include Isle Royal NP); industrial complexes such as Ford Piquette Avenue Plant (NHL) in Detroit, and the Hudson River Valley, as a

and industrial communities such as Lowell NHP in MA,

be considered, in a number of these cases, between signif-icance and existence. Because something exists does not mean it has OUV. The other problem is that many sites no

of many industrial sites. However, we believe that, given U.S. contributions to industry and technology of lasting

Space/aerospace was another thematic area where U.S. sites are likely to demonstrate OUV. Whilst this theme did not attract lengthy discussion, it was one that resonated with many participants as all agreed that space explora-tion and the U.S. lunar missions were some of the greatest achievements of the 20th century.

In conclusion, the most likely properties in the realm of invention, innovation, technology and Modernist legacy for consideration on the 2016 U.S. Tentative List would be:

• global architectural development

• The technological innovation of bridges, notably Roe-bling’s Brooklyn Bridge (NHL)

• The Modernist architectural legacy of Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe, and, possibly, of Louis I. Kahn

• Mining and other Industrial Heritage sites such as Kennecott in Wrangell St. Elias NP (NHL) and the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant (NHL) in Detroit

• Space exploration focused at Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral (NHL)

are subjects for future study toward updating subsequent tentative lists and perhaps further work to explore prelimi-

of interest.

The following table (page 12) transforms the expert forum dialogue into a concise format that provides an overview of the discussion. It is organized by gaps, topics and sample

meeting discussions. Note that bold text indicates focal theme or sample site.

Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station) World Heritage site, Lemmer, the Netherlands.

PHOTO: hipproductions, shutterstock.com



GAP TOPIC SAMPLE PROPERTIES

Industrial Innovation, Technology

Skyscrapers Individual iconic tall buildings or a series, Chicago cluster, Sullivan, et al, NYC Chrysler (NHL), Empire State Building (NHL)

Flight Wright Brothers NMEM (NHL), Dayton Aviation History NHL (NHL), Kitty HawkSpace Exploration Kennedy Space Center Cape Canaveral (NHL), Goddard Rocket Launching

Site (NHL), Saturn V Launch Vehicle (NHL), Apollo Mission Control Center (NHL), White Sands V-2 Launching Site (NHL)

Dams Hoover Dam (NHL), TVA damsMining, Processing • Kennecott Mine in Wrangell St Elias NP (NHL)

• Indiana Limestone, Vermont Marble granite quarries, global contextCold War, Defense Cold war sites, Trinity Site (NHL) and Manhattan Projects PropertiesGlobal Institutions Political sites/institutions, UN Headquarters

Industrial complexes, communities,

headquarters

• Ford Piquette Avenue Plant (NHL)• Steel plants Pittsburgh, Birmingham Sloss Blast Furnace (NHL)• Research institutes e.g. Salk Biological Institute• Lowell National Historic Park• Pullman Historic District (NHL)•

Company (NHL)Agricultural McCormick Farm and Workshop (NHL), International Harvester

Transportation Innovation, Invention

Bridges, Transport Brooklyn Bridge (NHL), Roebling theme, Golden Gate BridgeParkways Blue Ridge Parkway, Columbia River Highway (NHL)

Routes Cultural routes, Route 66Canals Canal system, Erie Canal (NHL) corridor

Suburban development Urban freeways; components of the 1956 Interstate System

Modernist Legacy, Recent

History

Modernist Architecture Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe, other 20th c. architects Louis I. Kahn, Eliel and Eero Saarinen

Modern Monuments Gateway Arch (NHL), Westward Expansion, Saarinen and KileyModern housing New housing models, individual or serial, the Case Study houses; Eames House

(NHL)Modern entertainment Major exhibition or entertainment sites, world fair sites, Disneyland, Hollywood

early movie studios, collection of historic theatres in several cities, Sun Record Company (NHL), Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (NHL), Guggenheim Museum (NHL)

TABLE 1: INNOVATION, INVENTION, TECHNOLOGY, MODERNIST LEGACY, AND RECENT HISTORY SUMMARY



B. Cultural Landscapes, Mixed Cultural and Natural Properties, Early Human Occupation

and early human occupation arose from the curated discus-sions. The inter-disciplinary interests brought forward in these three areas are all related to properties that incor-porate cultural and natural values. Currently inscribed U.S. properties include 11 national and state parks listed as natural landscapes, two of which are natural parks shared with Canada as transboundary parks, and 10 properties inscribed as cultural sites. Only one site has been designat-

Hawaiian northwest islands cluster and marine area, was inscribed in 2010 as both a cultural and natural land and marine zone. This large area encompasses land and ma-rine natural resources that have deep cosmological associ-

It should be noted that the consultation recognized the spiritual value to Native Americans of several of the U.S. sites already listed for their natural values. However, to recognize the cultural values of the sites would require an amendment and reconsideration of their World Heritage nomination. The recent shared practice initiative between IUCN and ICOMOS highlighted the importance of future consideration of the multiple values of mixed properties.

The breadth and depth of cultural landscapes in the United

diversity of the interaction between humankind and its

natural environment. Since the 1992 addition of the cul-tural landscape type to the World Heritage Operational Guide-lines, activity has been impressive worldwide. However, as noted above only one cultural landscape has been listed for the U.S.1 Cultural landscape themes under discussion in the Gap Study included parks, parkways, agricultural landscapes, and diverse landscapes of underrepresented

consideration for potential inclusion on the U.S. Tentative List, now or in the coming years, to include the following themes.

In recent years, as well as through earlier nominations, many states parties have inscribed:

• living communities through urban heritage nomina-tions,

• integrated productive agricultural and community nominations,

• working landscapes or their remains, such as mines and industrial areas2, and

• linear corridors of cultural routes.

None of these resources have come forward in the Unit-ed States. A challenge in these themes for the U.S. is the relatively meager collection of NHL or nationally recog-

points out a gap in the NHL and National Register process that perhaps requires reconsideration and new initiatives.

In regard to future opportunities for U.S. cultural land-scape nomination, expert discussion focused on a number of themes with an especially rich concentration on indige-nous and diverse cultural landscapes of underrepresented communities including African Americans, Native Amer-

places were also discussed as part of the theme of cultural exchange between the new world and the old. In particu-lar, the international impacts associated with slavery and slave routes were thoughtfully presented. Resources associ-ated with the African American diaspora (the slave trade and plantation slavery) and the African American Civil Rights Movement were thought to be very important with those addressing slavery potentially connected to global serial nominations. These topics are addressed at greater

Papah naumoku kea Marine National Monument and World Heritage site, HI. IMAGE: NOAA.

1 The World Heritage Jefferson-themed properties of Monticello and University of Virginia while not listed as cultural landscapes, are designed landscapes.

2 There is also research activity to gather data on the global legacy of working and relict stone quarries.



length within the Living and Diverse Heritage discussion and outcomes (section C).

The living heritage of cultural landscapes has potential to

States to considering large swaths of land, including cultural routes such as the Trail of Tears or Route 66, in the context of World Heritage, the energy around this discussion is an

resources in a broader landscape context. One such is the Hudson River Valley, which has a serial group of NHLs associated with Hudson River Valley artists and writers and the Hudson River National Heritage Area. This area also has a history of important actions in the early scenic and environmental conservation movement and was noted previously within the industry theme. A system of local and regional legal protections, historic districts, and conserved viewsheds around these NHL properties may together bring forward a group of properties within a legally controlled

-tive cultural landscape.

For cultural landscapes of communities, the French colonial landscapes along the Mississippi River such as Ste.

down to the river and the townscape. New Mexico Hispanic

lands. Shaker communities combine architecture, objects, -

sign to this day. This aspect of urban heritage overlaps with cities as cultural landscapes or historic urban landscapes, to include the heritage of early U.S. cities of Annapolis,

Charleston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Augustine, Old San Juan, Savannah, and the Modernist heritage of Colum-bus, IN.

National Parks are a U.S. innovation. The theme ad-dressing the U.S. contribution to the international parks and protected areas movement was strong. Central Park in New York (NHL) began a movement in 1858 that inspired not only the creation and design of city parks in other coun-tries, but later, with the establishment of Yosemite National Park, the creation of regional scenic reservations, which in

system and, subsequently, national parks and park systems in many countries around the world. The U.S. role in this history of conservation and park planning and the begin-ning of a national park system that represents universal access to special places in a democratic society has had a

now is particularly apt as 2016 coincides with the centennial of the U.S. National Park Service. The U.S. exported the very concept of national parks world-wide and that concept could be honored with an inscription of one or more parks that are emblematic.

Urban Parksembodying democracy, as found in the works of Fredrick Law Olmsted. Currently Central Park is the sole National Landmark in this nationwide legacy of democratic spaces, but others could be considered from Olmsted works such as parks in Louisville, Chicago, Rochester, Brooklyn, and more. Both national parks and urban parks themes are worthy of exploration as a democratic symbol of OUV. An innovation, also noted above, is the Parkway, inner city and intra-city, as a scenic corridor landscape shaped for use

The Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina is the apotheosis of the driving park, with a 600-mile corridor, viewshed controls, and adjacent protected landscapes. It is a recreational corridor and tourism corridor with sites along the route. Other parkway examples are the Bronx River Parkway and the Taconic Parkway, both examples of limit-ed access highways that are scenic.

Agricultural Landscapes are a notable gap in U.S. nominations. The evolution of agricultural landscapes from pre-contact through intensive agriculture was seen as a sig-

have been brought forward in many countries, notably the Coffee Cultural Landscape World Heritage site, Colombia.



-

Burgundy, and Rhine wine cultures, and the rice terraces of the Philippines and Japan. Likewise, the diverse agricul-

vineyard landscapes, Low Country rice culture landscapes, the Midwest agro-technology and the western ranching legacy were pointed out as potential themes. The McCor-mick reaper and other farming machinery were discussed, with the Cyrus McCormick Farm and Workshop (NHL) as a possible representative of this agro-technology theme. Although no properties in this theme are NHL-listed, examples of western cattle ranches were also cited, such as the immense, intact Big Bend Ranch State Park, TX, part of a network of Longhorn cattle ranches, and Grant-Kohrs National Historic Park in Montana. The Grant-Kohrs NHP may be worthy of consideration, as this park preserves a site that was a huge cattle empire and displays the lives of American cattlemen or cowboys.

There was limited discussion about military sites. There -

tage list, including a 2008 serial nomination of 12 groups of

harbor. Built between the 16th and 19th centuries, with contributions by several countries, this site was inscribed in 1983. Fort Ticonderoga (NHL), a Revolutionary War site, was discussed and noted as an unusual case in North America where a military ruin was consciously saved within a country place estate and conserved with selective recon-struction with an intact viewshed. It is historically associ-

the largest and best preserved British fort in the U.S. The cultural exchange, U.S. to the United Kingdom or, for that matter, with other nations may be relevant. There was also a mention of the potential for World War Two cemeteries on foreign soil to be inscribed as having OUV. This theme may be a subject for further research.

Prehistoric Earthworks in North America provide tan-gible evidence of the sophistication and complexity of these societies. Although many have been destroyed, through the

a number of these sites have been preserved. There has been strong support for serial nominations of properties related

to pre-contact Native American earthwork-building tradi-tions. Currently, the Poverty Point and the Cahokia World Heritage Sites represent these themes on the World Heritage List. A serial nomination of “Hopewell Ceremonial Earth-works” is proposed on the current U.S. Tentative List, and is a strong candidate for nomination. Extension of the Poverty Point World Heritage Site to a serial nomination would draw attention to the earliest mound-building traditions in the Americas. Extension of the Cahokia World Heritage Site to a serial nomination would recognize the many regional traditions and lifeways subsumed under the “Mississippian” label, with a possible temporal extension up to the period of European colonization. Together with the anticipated listing of the Hopewell nomination, these three serial nominations would bring recognition to the full sweep of Native Amer-ican mound-building traditions stretching back more than 5000 years from the contact period. However, in the expert forum discussion there was a clear sense that the U.S. in-scribed and tentatively listed properties demonstrate a focus on early peoples and that more sites in this theme should

relevant direction may be to reconsider the current listed early cultures sites, notably Cahokia Mounds, for serial in-scriptions addressing the early human imprint more broadly.

Further studies of agricultural landscapes, cultural routes and historic landscape sites are required to increase the

In summary, the potential sites to move forward into the Tentative List from those addressed in this discussion of cultural landscapes, mixed cultural and natural properties and early human occupation include:

• A nomination addressing the origins of the concept of National Parks as a U.S. innovation, considering sites such as Yosemite National Park and Yellowstone National Park

• Urban parks as symbols of democracy (Central Park, New York, Olmsted Parks serial nomination)

• Scenic Parkways as a new type of park uniquely suited to modernity (Blue Ridge Parkway)

• Associative landscapes such as the Hudson River Valley NHLD

• For living communities Low Country plantations and Charleston SC sites may address the regional heritage



of slavery and the knowledge and innovations they brought to develop plantation culture.

The following table transforms the expert forum dialogue into a concise format that provides an overview of the dis-

cussion. It is organized by gaps, topics and sample proper-

discussions. Note that bold text indicates focal theme or sample site.

TABLE 2: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES, EARLY HUMAN OCCUPATION SUMMARY


Mixed Cultural-Natural

Properties

National Parks Mariposa Grove with other early parks, National Parks Concept Peace Parks Glacier/Waterton Peace Park US/Canada listed; Chamizal National

Memorial/Mexico Peace Park, El Paso (NHL)

Cultural Landscapes,

Cultural Routes, Evolved

Landscapes

Urban Parks, Olmsted Central Park (NHL), Emerald Necklace, Boston NHP (NHL), Niagara Reservation (NHL), Mount Royal (NHL), Buffalo System (NHL), other F.L. Olmsted

Associative landscape art literature

Hudson River (NHLD), NHL serial, Frederic Church House (NHL), Thomas Cole House (NHL), others

Scenic Parkways Blue Ridge Parkway, VA, NCCivil Rights Sites See Table 3

Native American cities, sacred sites, battle grounds, migration

routes(NHL), Blood Run Site (NHL), Pipestone NM (NHL), Leary serial sites (NHL), First Peoples Buffalo Jump (NHL), Sand Creek Massacre NHS, Trail of Tears NHT forced migration route

Agricultural Landscape • Carolina low country rice culture• Vineyard landscapes, Napa Valley CA• US farming innovation, midwest, McCormick Reaper• Trujillo Homesteads, NHL• Grant-Kohrs NHS, Big Bend• Midwest prairie-plains, corn, beans, livestock• Native American farming contributions

Water management landscapes Cache la Poudre River NHA Urban Parks Beaux Arts Meridian Hill Park, DC (NHL); Chicago 1893 Exposition, South Parks

ChicagoCity Beautiful Movement Washington DC McMillan Plan, Monumental Core

University Campuses Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton, University of Chicago (NHL)Historic landscape sites Fort Ticonderoga (NHL), military site, evolved landscape and gardens

Urban Landscape Heritage

Historic Urban Green Infrastructure parks and

parkways, landscape urbanism

19th century parks systems city shaping, Buffalo, Essex County, Minneapolis, Hartford, Boston, Rochester, Louisville, Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City, Fort Wayne

Human Settlements, Historic Cities See Table 3

Large Scale Landscapes

Territorial landscapes urban and rural

Carolina Low Country NHLs, Brookgreen Gardens, Charleston Historic District (NHL), Drayton Hall (NHL), Hampton Plantation(NHL), Hopsewee Plantation (NHL), Middleton Place (NHL), Orton Plantation

Early Human Occupation

Pre-Contact Era Hester Hardaway Site (NHL), Borax Lake Site (NHL), Meadowcroft Rockshelter (NHL), Blackwater Draw (NHL)

Nomadism, Migration Early Peoples

• Cooper Bonebed, OK• Buttermilk Creek Complex, TX

Mississippian culture Expansion of Cahokia Mounds as serial nomination



C. Living Cultures, Urban Heritage, Cultural Diversity, Diversity of Beliefs, Sites of Conscience

The range of this topic was demonstrated in the far-reach-ing Online Discussions addressing living cultures and cultural diversity. These topics are not only underrepresent-ed on the World Heritage list but also on the U.S. list of Na-tional Historic Landmarks. As noted above, themes of living cultures, cultural and religious diversity, urban heritage and

landscape, industrial and recent 20th-century themes.

The general trend of Living Culture and Diverse Heritage comments was toward the theme of injustice and expand-ing civil rights movements in American history. Many re-spondents pointed out Native American cultures through-out the country such as those in the Midwest and Florida that have persevered. Living sites of Native American cul-tures where contemporary culture is preserving traditions, languages, and practices could be considered as vessels of culture. Taos is inscribed already as a living Native Ameri-can culture. Sites related to the U.S. Public Health Service

Syphilis Study, sites related to LGBTQ events, and African American civil rights movement were also discussed as worthy of consideration for World Heritage designation.

The themes of diversity and the persistence of cul-ture particularly resonated in regard to living cultures. The diversity of the nation can be represented through

-ing traditions today. For example, considerable discourse focused on the persistence of peoples in the face of injustice within diverse communities including the African Amer-ican, Latino, and LGBTQ heritage; African American Civil Rights; and the heritage of communal societies based on unique beliefs. Dominant cultures pressuring secondary cultures may be a useful thread. In regard to living cul-tures, the Gullah Geechee culture, Amish and Moravian religious communities, China- and Japantowns, and His-panic communities of northern New Mexico centered on urban plazas that function as shared spaces for community engagement were all suggested for possible World Heritage consideration. U.S. communal societies, most being reli-gious in nature, were noted as a rich resource. Additionally, discussion focused on U.S. musical traditions such as New Orleans jazz, Detroit Motown, and New York’s Broadway and Tin Pan Alley, even though musical traditions are rec-ognized under the Intangible Heritage Convention.

Themes of migration, peopling the continent, and immigration are integral with the origins and peopling of the United States. Indeed, the migration process contin-ues today. Migration of the 17th to 20th century emphasizes the melting pot of the U.S. with multinational immigration of English, Asian, French, Spanish, northern European, and other peoples in the shaping of our national ethos. In order to represent the diversity that has produced the U.S. on the World Heritage list, there needs to be a focus on

discussion included:

• Ellis Island and Angel Island (NHLs) as examples of how the U.S. alternatively welcomed and excluded migrants from across the globe

• Early human migration through Alaska along the Bering Strait

• International slavery routes that could incorporate U.S. sites but do not yet do so. The nationally designated

-

Map, Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System World Heritage cultural route.

MAP CC-BY-SA © Koen Adams, Wikimedia Commons



such route that has been the focus of research, although more may be needed.

• Chinese immigrant workers in mining and building railroads, such as immigrant workers for copper min-ing at Keweenaw NHP (NHL)

Also related to migration, both to the United States and within it, are routes that express a strong basis of prolonged cultural exchange through the movement of peoples, volun-tary and involuntary, with reciprocal exchange of tradi-tions, customs, beliefs. Examples may be useful to include in consideration of the updated list. There are a series of congressionally designated national historic trails (NHTs) such as the Trail of Tears NHT, Lewis and Clark NHT, a route of northern migration from Mexico (El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro NHT), and several NHTs of national westward migration. Sites currently being developed as a result of the report American Latinos and the Making of the United States: A Theme Study published by the National Park System Advisory Board (NPSAB) for the National Park Service may also prove an important source of future NHLs on the theme of migration. Cultural routes have been inscribed on the World Heritage list by other state parties, while none have come forward for the US.

For diversity of religions, a gap in the World Heritage list, the U.S. could consider the Shakers, Amish, Amana colonies, Mormons, Moravians, and others. Sites could in-clude the Latter Day Saints Church or Mormon landscape of the San Pino valley south of Salt Lake City and the Moravian settlements of Pennsylvania and North Caroli-na. For a strong religious diversity nomination, additional foundational research and preliminary statements of OUV could be developed.

Sites of conscience and painful historical events as well as international slavery sites were an important theme. The history of slavery in the United States can be understood through anthropological and archaeological research that has examined the ideological, social, and economic underpinnings of slavery. In addition, archae-ological evidence suggests that traditional African ritu-

transfer of African slave technology and practices to the Americas. U.S. slave sites may contribute to an interna-tional serial nomination addressing slavery. A number of sites may be considered should research and new NHL

listings continue to bring options forward. Additional NHL listings are needed to address greater diversity of culture and movements. For example, only a few sites, such as the Henry Gerber House in Illinois, are listed as NHLs for LGBTQ History. Another one of these, Stonewall, is inter-

movement. The forthcoming NPS LGBTQ Theme Study

Islander Theme Study are expected to yield an increasing number of NHL nominations that could include sites with OUV and high potential to address such gaps.

The human and civil rightsinternational theme that is a gap in World Heritage listings today. The current Tentative List includes the three Afri-can American churches in Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama, as representatives of the African American strug-gle for civil rights. However, there are more National Land-marks on this theme worthy of inclusion, including Little Rock Central High School NHS (NHL), Martin Luther King Jr. NHS (NHL), and Selma to Montgomery NHT as well as a number of other associated landmark properties.

represent the Civil Rights and Voting Rights struggles. The direct link to the passive resistance teachings of Gandhi are

need to be considered at the landscape scale, assessing the

OUV for a serial nomination. This is an important nomi-

and authenticity. A cautionary note stressed that potential

Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)

World Heritage site, Poland.



properties need to be focused, choosing the best site of that theme, not every site within the theme (which is, of course, also true for other themes).

For urban heritage, the dialog among experts was more focused addressing urban form, historic and modern exam-ples, and the evolving concepts that consider interrelated urban and territorial context as a potential nomination. It has also been pointed out that while Hispanic and Lu-so-American colonial cities are broadly represented in the World Heritage List, there is a gap in the representation of Anglo American colonial cities. In terms of urban form, Washington, D.C., was discussed from the perspective of the L’Enfant plan as detailed and carried out in the 1930s under the McMillan Plan of 1901 to shape the monumen-

is required to position any U.S. city within a global context such as the urban planning constructs of Brasilia, Canber-ra, and New Delhi.

A number of questions were raised about the feasibility of such a nomination within the context of property stewards and approvals. While there are a number of cities that as-pire to urban heritage inscriptions, including Philadelphia, Annapolis, New Orleans, St. Augustine, Charleston, and Newport, the current legal requirements present a road-block. While it is not helpful to have an aspirational tenta-tive list if the legal blockage remains, properties that can go forward should be listed while work is done to address the barrier. For example, the evolution of the potential Charles-

in the transfer of knowledge from Africa to transform the Low Country in the plantation process with those planta-tions contributing to the growth, wealth and shaping of the city. Selected properties, rather than a large urban district, would form the nomination, avoiding the owner-consent impediment for an urban area.

A recent study of urban heritage and the mainstreaming of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Land-scape, completed in December 2015, indicates that human settlements are the fastest growing group and dominate the World Heritage List. Historic cities and individual monument within an urban context of various scales and heritage values are coming forward in large serial nomina-tions accounting for over 400 properties listed and within those over 1,600 human settlements due to large serial nominations. In the U.S., Philadelphia, New York, and

San Antonio have inscribed monuments or sites within an urban context, while the Taos Pueblo—a living communi-ty—adds another urban heritage property. This is a very small count compared to many state parties who have one hundred or more urban heritage inscriptions. The issue of nominating non-federal properties, municipal and privately owned, for urban heritage inscriptions in the United States deserves more attention toward a solution. The valoriza-tion and economic values of World Heritage in the U.S. are being missed in this lack of human settlements brought forward for inscription.

In terms of potential sites arising from this cluster that are feasible for the current update of the U.S. Tentative List,

the World Heritage list in a compelling way with a strong potential for OUV:

• Immigration, cultural diversity, and diversity sites of conscience could be addressed with a combined nomi-nation of Angel and Ellis Islands (NHLs).

• Cultural diversity, sites of conscience and cultural landscapes would be addressed with an expanded Civil Rights movement serial nomination, including the three churches currently on the tentative list and Sweet Auburn, Atlanta, Selma to Montgomery NHT, Pettus Bridge, Little Rock Central High School NHS (NHL), Martin Luther King Jr. NHS (NHL), NHL group of serial sites as an NHL group of serial sites.

The following table (page 20) transforms the expert forum dialogue into a concise format that provides an overview of the discussion. It is organized by gaps, topics and sample

meeting discussions. Note that bold text indicates focal theme or sample site.

Speicherstadt urban World Heritage site, Hamburg, Germany.



TABLE 3: LIVING CULTURES, CULTURAL DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY OF BELIEFS, SITES OF CONSCIENCE, URBAN HERITAGE SUMMARY


Living Cultures

Migration National emigration routes Puerto Rican culture Old San Juan Historic District (NHL)

Chinese culture Chinatown, San Francisco, and others; Chinese labor contributions Mexican culture Acequia de Chamita in Rio Arriba County, NM; El Pueblo de los Angeles,

CA, The Forty Acres (NHL) Kern County, CA

Cultural Diversity

Immigration Angel and Ellis Islands (NHLs)Native American Taos Pueblo already inscribed; Santa Fe Plaza (NHL), Pueblo cultures

Slavery Charleston Plantations; sites in Charleston; Underground RailroadAfrican descent Gullah Geechee peoples, FL, SC, GA

African American Civil Rights

Bethel (NHL), 16th Street, Dexter Churches (NHL) on Tentative list. Join with Sweet Auburn Historic District (NHL), Atlanta, Selma to Montgomery NHT, Pettus Bridge (NHL), Little Rock Central High School NHS (NHL), Martin Luther King Jr. NHS (NHL), NHL group of serial sites

LGBTQ Stonewall Inn (NHL), AIDS response sitesLatino Heritage Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, The Forty Acres (NHL), Kern County,

CA, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro NHT, Palace of the Governors (NHL)

Diversity of Beliefs

Diverse religions, communal utopianism, Shaker, Amana,

Moravian, Harmonie

New Harmony (NHL), Indiana Historic District (NHL), Moravian Bethlehem (NHL), Shaker communities MA/NY/ME/PA; Santuario de Chimayo (NHL)

Latter Day Saints Mormon historic sites: Nauvoo Historic District (NHL), Temple Square (NHL)

Sites of Conscience

Civil Rights Listed aboveSlavery New Philadelphia, IL NHL, Fort Mose, FL

Urban Heritage

Human Settlements, Historic Cities

Colonial Annapolis Historic District (NHL), Charleston Historic District (NHL), New Orleans (NHL), Philadelphia Town Site (NHL), St. Augustine Town Plan Historic District (NHL), Old San Juan Historic District (NHL), Savannah Historic District (NHL), Modernist heritage of Columbus, Newport, Washington DC planned core



FUTURE DIRECTIONS Arising out of this study, a number of areas for future consideration become clear. The ICOMOS Filling the Gaps study observes that one of the main reasons for the existing imbalance of the World Heritage List is the “incomplete register of cultural heritage in many regions of the world.”

of inscriptions. One issue that is increasingly receiving attention in the U.S., and which was noted throughout the development of the Gap Study, was that several themes that could address gaps on the World Heritage List are themselves underrepresented on the U.S. NHL list or other nationally important designations.

National Park Service has launched a series of heritage ini-tiatives. These heritage initiatives are multi-faceted projects exploring ways in which the legacy of underrepresented groups can be recognized, preserved, and interpreted for future generations. One way is through broader inclusion in both the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks (NHL) Program. Accord-ingly, these NPS programs are playing a major role, with NHL Theme Studies and designations acting as a corner-stone for the initiatives. Given that national designation is a prerequisite for World Heritage nomination, the strategy for targeting new, diverse sites for inclusion in the NHL program should take into account whether such sites also

gaps. Prioritization of such sites for NHL listing would have

States to help balance the World Heritage List while also increasing the possibility of bringing international appreci-ation to a more diverse array of U.S. cultural resources.

Responsibility for the process and funding of World Heri-tage nomination development at this time is placed on the proponent. While this was understandable when virtually all nominations were of federally owned properties, it is clear that future U.S. nominations will increasingly involve properties in private ownership. There should be a recon-sideration of this approach, as nomination of World Heri-tage sites is an act of the national government, not the site owner. The U.S. government should commit to funding the development of non-federal nominations so that the sites

may still achieve tentative listing and future nomination.

Meanwhile, since the NPS has some funding in the upcom-ing budget for Civil Rights sites, perhaps some portion of these resources can be used to develop a World Heritage

were highlighted as components of this process. US/ICO-MOS, working with the NPS and other partners, may

support the U.S. World Heritage process. These future directions for US/ICOMOS could include:

• Continue to participate in Tentative List Selection process as appropriate.

• -large the list of NHLs to be more inclusive of the gaps.

• Provide technical expertise through upstream assis-tance for Tentative List development toward preparing OUV statement, appropriate criteria and new nomina-

• Work with future potential Tentative List properties -

bility for inscription.• Develop a checklist for protection and management to

suitability of tentative list properties.• Prepare a summary and review of the US/ICOMOS

process for developing the next U.S. Tentative List (both its strengths and weaknesses) and share with interested partners around the world, including ICO-MOS national committees.

• Participate in the global ICOMOS Gap Study Update to bring forward lessons learned in this process.

• strong potential for multi-national serial nominations, such as those related to the Routes of Enslaved Afri-cans. Other considerations for transnational nomina-tions would include Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with Germany; and sites of European immigration with Argentina and Brazil.

• a physical site, more research and scholarship should be applied to important intangible heritage to seek the combination of tangible and intangible that may lead to a future World Heritage nomination.

• To address additional mixed cultural and natural heri-tage sites, participate in initiatives begun by ICOMOS



and IUCN through the ongoing work of the Con-necting Practices Project that is striving to better link natural and cultural heritage in future nominations.

• Consider a project to “harmonize” the U.S. Tentative List regionally and globally along themes and identify possible serial trans-national opportunities. We could also consider harmonizing by looking at other coun-

tries’ lists and perhaps dropping U.S. sites when less compelling. Further work in this direction is worth exploring and would be undertaken in a subsequent study that reviews other tentative lists to harmonize with the U.S. List. Countries to harmonize with would include Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and the Eastern Anglo Caribbean.

APPENDIX

US/ICOMOSExpert Online Consultation

SYNTHESIS REPORT

United States National Committee International Council on Monuments and Sites

November 2015

© US/ICOMOS 2015

Washington, DC

US/ICOMOS expresses its gratitude to the J.M. Kaplan Fund

and the National Park Service

of this undertaking.


APPENDIX: SYNTHESIS REPORT 25

INTRODUCTION & SYNTHESIS REPORT GOALSThe U.S. National Committee of ICOMOS (US/ICO-MOS) has been committed to the principles of World

-tional Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), US/ICOMOS remains deeply committed to the World Heri-tage program, both working to build domestic support for this international program and aiding in the nomination and conservation of U.S. inscribed sites. This work builds on the international work of ICOMOS, the formal adviso-ry body to the World Heritage Committee on all aspects of cultural heritage.

Preparing a World Heritage Tentative List is one of the most profound expressions of a nation’s cultural heritage. US/ICOMOS is proud to partner with the National Park Service in this Online Expert Consultation relating to the cultural and mixed elements of the next U.S. Tentative List, which is expected to be completed in 2016.

To assist in the process of reexamining the United States World Heritage Tentative List, NPS asked US/ICOMOS to engage experts in online Consultation on themes or categories of U.S. heritage places that have the potential to yield nominations holding Outstanding Universal Value

-tage gaps. The practical and legal requirements for addi-tion to the U.S. Tentative List and criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List were to be recognized through-out this process. The Consultation was not designed to

U.S. Tentative List. Rather, it aimed to identify categories of cultural resources or themes in U.S. cultural heritage that are responsive to gaps on the World Heritage List and have the potential to yield places that are of outstanding universal value.

the current World Heritage List comprise the starting point for this exercise. In the early years of UNESCO’s World Heritage program, many sites with similar characteristics were inscribed. In 1994 the World Heritage Committee recognized these imbalances and adopted a “Global Strat-egy for the Implementation of the World Heritage Con-vention” to make the World Heritage List “representative,

balanced, and credible” via two concurrent initiatives. The

on the list between number of types, regions, and periods of cultural property that are currently under-represented.

The second initiative is more qualitative. It calls for World Heritage nominations to move away from a “typologi-cal” approach to a “dynamic” approach. The dynamic approach takes a global view on the complex and multidi-mensional cultural expressions of social structures, ways of life, beliefs, systems of knowledge, and cultural representa-tions. Representation of living cultures through the dynam-ic approach is favored (see Section II of Expert Meeting on the “Global Strateg y” and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List).

The “Global Strategy” report was elaborated upon by a groundbreaking report issued by ICOMOS in 2005 enti-tled The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps—An Action Plan for the Future. Scholarship on this and related questions has in turn been enhanced by a number of studies, reports and symposia undertaken in the intervening years by ICO-

sister heritage organizations. Of particular note has been the work of The International Committee for the Conser-vation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH).

planning this Consultation was to distill all of the foregoing works into a short list of contemporary gaps with particular relevance to U.S. cultural resources with the potential to

following gaps in inscribed property types as meeting these criteria:

• Living cultures• Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant

cultural groups• Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible heri-

tage) that are embodied in place• Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution• Sites of conscience and painful historical events• Recent heritage of the 20th century• Mixed cultural and natural heritage• Early human occupation of the New World

-ulate an informed, inter-disciplinary Consultation among


26 APPENDIX: SYNTHESIS REPORT

professionals in the United States on the dimensions of the concept of World Heritage and the U.S. gaps in the current World Heritage List. In designing the Consultation, US/ICOMOS was committed to an inclusive multi-stakehold-er process. Our goal was participation by a wide range of experts and practitioners from all regions, relevant scien-

special commitment was made to invite underrepresented groups, as part of our and the National Park Service’s commitment to ensuring that the opportunity exists for all stories to be told.

More than one thousand architects, historians, archaeolo-gists, site managers, ethnographers, Tribal Historic Preser-

-

and experts were invited to participate in the Consultation. In addition, 750 US/ICOMOS members were invited to take the survey. In the end, we engaged:

• 358 individuals registered on the Consultation website• 356 completed the survey• 89 commented in the discussions

The Synthesis Report summarizes our learning from the survey and online discussions, the two components of this stage of the Online Expert Consultation completed thus far.

The Report’s goal is to provide a basis for discussion at the Expert Roundtable along with supporting material and guidance for the World Heritage Gap Study Report. It contains

and separate reports by discipline highlighting the top the-matic suggestions for each area, along with many pages of detailed suggestions for consideration in Discussion Chart form. Although the Discussion Charts have been relegated to the appendices, they are full of useful information and suggestions and we highly recommend that all readers examine them.



RESEARCH METHODS The Online Expert Consultation has included two research

data; and second, six threaded discussions of a qualitative nature regarding themes in U.S. heritage resources that

gaps and posed six questions:

• ARCHAEOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY: Are there types, regions or periods of Archaeological sites or landscapes that are underrepresented on the current list?

• ARCHITECTURE & URBANISM: What types of urban heritage and architectural ensembles of OUV could address gaps of underrepresented typology, region or period?

• TECHNOLOGY & INDUSTRY: What opportuni-ties exist to address gaps related to Science, Technolo-gy, Invention and Industrial Heritage?

• LIVING CULTURES & HERITAGE: The iden-

to probe living cultures, subcultures and examples of America’s diverse heritage in dynamic new ways.

• In light of this circumstance, ❒ Are there living cultures, subcultures and examples

of America’s diverse heritage that have been qualita-tively underrepresented?

❒ Are there themes of migration, settlement, modes of subsistence, human interaction, cultural coexistence, spirituality, and creative expression in the U.S. that have been qualitatively underrepresented?

• CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: What types of Cul-tural Landscapes in the U.S. are responsive to the gaps

-scapes in particular?

Each subject area was moderated by at least two moder-ators who were encouraged to check in often, respond to

comments, pose questions and generally encourage par-ticipation. On the whole, the conversations that were most lively were those that included the most experts invited to participate combined with highly engaged moderators (Cultural Landscapes, for example), whereas those that gen-erated fewer comments generally featured fewer (Architec-ture & Urbanism, for ex.) or more “distant” invitees (Living Cultures & Diverse Heritage), who were presumably less likely to open email invitations from US/ICOMOS on a world heritage topic.

When designing the Consultation, we aimed to make the two elements of the research complementary and also to employ the survey as a tool to:

• Attract experts to participate in the qualitative discus-sions;

• Gather quantitative data about current perceptions of gaps and the relative urgency of addressing them;

• Learn more about Consultation participants and their experience with and attitudes toward World Heritage; and

• Publicize World Heritage, US/ICOMOS, ICOMOS

the current U.S. Tentative List.

Approximately one thousand individuals were invited to participate in the Consultation. These included:

•

• -

• • Another 750 more US/ICOMOS members were in-

between website registrants (approximately one third of whom participated in the online discussions) and survey respondents. However, we do not have direct evidence of this since we did not track the identity of survey participants.



ONLINE EXPERT CONSULTATION SURVEY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAn executive summary of the survey results follows. Complete results (omitting names and email addresses) are included in Exhibit F along with a copy of the Survey Instrument.

A. Survey Participants

Professional ExpertiseInvitations to participate were sent out weekly or bi-weekly over the course of the six-week Consultation (August 17–October 2, 2015). 356 invitees chose to participate. 40%

ranging from a low of 4% (Living Cultures) to a high of 16% (Archaeology and Anthropology).

Our goal in capturing professional expertise was twofold: 1) to understand the range of professionals participating,

-

nomination. On this latter point, we found that professional expertise generally led to higher ratings of urgency and importance for professionally related gaps. We address this at greater length below.

Respondents also were asked to indicate for how long they

seasoned experts, with 54% indicating 20 or more years of

participation from presumably younger heritage profes-sionals or students, with 13% of respondents indicating 5 or

Fig. 1: Primary Area of Professional ExpertiseANSWERED: 356 / SKIPPED: 0

Archaeology / AnthropologyArchitecture / Architectural History / UrbanismLiving CulturesLandscapesTechnology / Science / Invention / Industrial HeritageHistoryHistoric Preservation

16.3%

15.4%

4.2%

8.7%

4.8%10.1%

40.4%

Fig. 2: Years of Experience in FieldANSWERED: 356 / SKIPPED: 0

5 Years or fewer

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

16 to 20 years

20 years or more

12.9%

10.1%

9.6%

12.9%

54.5%



DiversityAt the end of the survey, respondents were posed an option-al question regarding their racial or ethnic heritage. 305 chose to respond to the question, “Which of the following best represents your racial or ethnic heritage? Choose all that apply.” Their responses are summarized in Figure 3.

of ethnicities (Roma, Hispanicized White, e.g.) or, presum-ably, expressed displeasure at the question, indicating that they are “American.” Compared to 2010 U.S. Census data, survey respondents indexed very high for White (85% vs. U.S. average of 64%); high for Native American or Amer-ican Indian (5% vs. U.S. average of 1%); exceptionally low for Black or African American (2% vs. average of 12%) and Hispanic or Latino (6% vs. U.S. average of 16%). The Asian response of 4% was close to the U.S. average of 5%.

Americans and Latinos in the U.S. World Heritage com-munity.

US/ICOMOS and International

US/ICOMOS member participation was quite high: 56% of respondents indicated that they were members. Inter-

with 25% of respondents indicating membership. This indicates very high engagement with US/ICOMOS and ICOMOS and these organizations’ activities. Those who were not members of US/ICOMOS or an International

email address in order to be contacted about membership at a later date. A large number of individuals did so.

B. World Heritage Participation and Opinions

Given the selective nature of the invitation process, it is not surprising that 68% of survey respondents indicated that they were either “Familiar” or “Very Familiar” with the UNESCO World Heritage Program. Among all respon-dents, only four chose “Not at all Familiar.” This implies

the Online Expert Consultation.

Most respondents of the survey also estimated that they had visited many world heritage sites, both in the U.S. and abroad. Over half have visited 10 or more sites. Only 2% (six respondents) have visited no World Heritage sites, while 88% have visited three or more sites.

RACE/ETHNICITY PERCENTAGE

Non-Hispanic White 63.7%Non-Hispanic Black or

African American 12.2%

Non-Hispanic Asian 4.7%Non-Hispanic American Indian or

Alaska Native 0.7%

Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian 0.2%

Non-Hispanic some other race 0.2%

Non-Hispanic two or more races 1.9%

Hispanic or Latino 16.4%

Fig. 3: Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Participants Choosing to Answer

RACE/ETHNICITY PERCENTAGE

White 84.6%Hispanic or Latino 5.9%

Black or African American 1.6%Native American or American Indian 4.9%

3.9%

Other 6.9%

Fig. 4: U.S. Population Racial and Ethnic Breakdown, U.S. Census 2010

Fig. 5: Estimated Number of World Heritage Sites Visited (U.S. or abroad)

None: 2%

1-2 sites: 10%

3-5 sites: 18%

6-9 sites: 20%

10+ sites: 50%



We wished to learn more about what respondents believe -

ure 6), since many US/ICOMOS members and heritage professional are closely involved with campaigns for World

Committees devoted to the preservation of World Heritage.

Although many resented the forced choice of just ONE

listing for U.S. sites, respondents gravitated toward three:

• Increased international awareness and understanding (32%);

• Commitment to long-term preservation (29%); and• Enhanced appreciation and knowledge of U.S. culture

and history (24%).• A mere 2% chose “Increased funding for sites” as a pri-

and when there are more cultural World Heritage sites

more prevalent and more recognized.

Attitudes regarding Gaps in the World Heritage list as these pertain to U.S. World Heritage sitesIn the early years of UNESCO’s World Heritage program, many sites with similar characteristics were inscribed. In 1994 the World Heritage Committee recognized these imbalances and adopted a “Global Strategy for the Imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention” to make the World Heritage List “representative, balanced, and credi-ble.”

The U.S. currently has 23 World Heritage inscribed sites: 10 cultural, 1 mixed and 12 natural. Since the Online Dis-cussion component of the Consultation did not present the possibility of weighting the relative importance or urgency of themes responsive to gaps in the World Heritage List, we posed two survey questions designed to better understand

are displayed in Figures 7 and 8 (page 31).

However, we caution readers not to employ Figures 7 and

to address the varied property types were not found to be

under- or over-represented among U.S. listings. Please note that all of the property types listed represent gaps (or have historically represented gaps, as the gap studies are some-what outdated at this point). Our goal in this question was to gauge respondents’ opinions of whether these property types are under- or over-represented in their perception.

See Figure 7 (page 31) for responses to the question, “Considering U.S. properties currently inscribed on the

Listing for U.S. Sites

Increased international awareness and understanding

Commitment to long-term preservation

Enhanced appreciation and knowledge of U.S. culture and history

Improved management and upgraded presentation

Other

Increased funding for sites

3%3%

2%

29%

24%

7%

32%



Fig. 7: Relative Representation of Property Types on Current U.S. World Heritage List

Very Under-Represented Under-Represented Adequately Represented Over-Represented Very Over-Represented

Sites of Conscience and Painful Historical

Events

Recent Heritage

of the 20th Century

Invention, Industrial Heritage, Techno-logical

Evolution

Diversity of Beliefs and Traditions Embodied in Place

Living Cultures

Diverse Heritage

and Peoples

Cultural Landscapes

Mixed Cultural

and Natural Heritage

Early Human

Occupation of the New

World

43% 36% 33% 29% 28% 24% 21% 17% 17%

43% 48% 49% 53% 55% 54% 49% 49% 41%

12% 13% 16% 18% 16% 21% 27% 31% 37%

2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 5%1%

Fig. 8: Relative Importance of Themes to Address or Add to the U.S. Tentative List at this Time

Extremely Important or Important Not or Not At All Important

Sites of Conscience and Painful Historical

Events

Recent Heritage

of the 20th Century

Invention, Industrial Heritage, Techno-logical

Evolution

Diversity of Beliefs and Traditions Embodied in Place

Living Cultures

Diverse Heritage

and Peoples

Cultural Landscapes

Mixed Cultural

and Natural Heritage

Early Human

Occupation of the New

World

92% 91% 89% 89% 87% 83% 81% 80% 75%

8% 9% 11% 11% 13% 17% 19% 20% 25%



World Heritage List, in your opinion, please RATE the extent to which the following themes are UNDER- OR OVER-REPRESENTED”.

and most under-represented property types is not great

types perceived to be most under-represented on the U.S. World Heritage list, with 33% or more of respondents iden-tifying them as “Very Under-Represented”, are:

• Sites of conscience and painful historical events (43% Very Under-Represented)

• Recent heritage of the 20th century (36% Very Un-der-Represented)

• Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution (33% Very Under-Represented)

• On the other side of the spectrum, respondents were mostly likely to rate these three themes as “Adequately, Over- or Very Over-Represented” among U.S. sites on the World Heritage list:

• Early human occupation of the New World (43% Ade-quate or better)

• Mixed cultural and natural heritage (34% Adequate or better)

The second of the survey’s two questions regarding respon-

better understand the level of urgency (importance) at-tached to each. See Figure 8 (page 31) for responses to the question, “In your opinion, which of the following themes are MOST IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS OR ADD to the U.S. Tentative List at this time?”

All of the themes listed were deemed to be “Important or Extremely Important” to address by at least 75% of re-spondents. The top 2 sites rated as Important or Extremely Important were:

• Sites of conscience and painful historical events (92% Important or Extremely Important)

• Diverse Heritage and Peoples (91% Important or Ex-tremely Important)

• The two themes deemed to be relatively (but not sig-

• Recent heritage of the 20th century (20% Not or Not at All Important)

• Early human occupation of the New World (25% Not or Not at All Important)

Patterns of ResponseWhen an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted in order to determine if the variability in responses was

-

explanation was the disciplinary background declared by the respondents.

As a note of interest, we see distinct clusters of related

in relation to these questions. A Factor Analysis suggests that three clusters (or factors) explain nearly 70% of the observed variability. The clusters, which indicate linkages

property types highly, are:

• Living Cultures, Cultural Diversity, Diversity of Belief and Sites of Conscience

• Cultural Landscapes, Mixed Cultural and Natural Sites and Sites of Early Human Occupation

• Invention and Technology; Invention, Innovation and Industrial Heritage and Recent Heritage of the Twenti-eth Century

Conclusions The survey results indicate that the over 350 survey par-

-edgeable about World Heritage to adequately provide a representative view of expert perceptions of U.S. cultural heritage gaps.

Based on survey results, we can say directionally that:

• Sites of conscience and painful historical events were perceived as very under-represented and very import-ant to address

• Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e., intangible heritage) that are embodied in place was also rated, compared to others, relatively more under-represented and more important to address at this time

• Sites of Invention, industrial heritage, and technolog-ical evolution are also very under-represented on the U.S. World Heritage List

• Properties associated with Diverse Heritage and Peo-ples are Important or Extremely Important to address



ONLINE DISCUSSIONS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Observations on the DiscussionsOverall the Online Discussions were successful. From mid-August to October 2, 89 experts participated in the

-ators noted the active and thoughtful nature of the discus-sion. This is in line with the consultation process, which was targeted to experts. In addition, experts self-selected both the topic area and even whether to participate at all.

-ed in the survey results, which indicated over half of the participants were seasoned professionals with over twenty

while some experts understandably focused on their nar-rower subject area, many weighed in on multiple themes and demonstrated a wide angle view of both the possible themes and how to address underrepresented themes through a cross-disciplinary approach.

Some moderators did note that the consultation was ham-pered by an overall lack of familiarity with World Heri-tage, the associated criteria and how to apply the concept of OUV. In some cases, the baseline requirement in the United States (i.e., that for World Heritage consideration a property be designated as a National Historic Landmark)

said, the overall recommended priorities did show a global perspective.

As in academia and heritage practice overall, there is a consistent challenge in engaging diverse audiences. The survey results demonstrate this and, by inference, the consultation process as well. In the survey, Native Ameri-cans were reasonably well represented; African Americans and Latinos were underrepresented. There were a number of thoughtful discussions by both moderators and expert participants on the need to engage these audiences particu-larly in identifying what is important to diverse peoples and their living traditions. More outreach is clearly needed to appropriately represent the breadth and worldwide connec-tions of these stories.

As will be discussed in the Summary of Themes below, many recommendations overlapped across disciplines.

In particular, diverse and living cultures shared many commonalities with cultural landscapes. There was also a distinct trend towards a wider landscape perspective in a number of subject areas including anthropology and archaeology and industry and technology. Additionally, quite a few participants recommended considering serial nominations, both national and multinational.

Many participants commented on the constraints placed on World Heritage nominations in the U.S., noting the challenge of nominating the entirety of a resource and of cultural and urban landscapes in particular. Funding and developing nominations and management plans were also raised as issues. Finally, there were questions about interna-tional perceptions of U.S. nominations given the status of UNESCO funding.

B. Summary of ThemesThrough this Online Expert Consultation good progress has been made in identifying underrepresented themes in the U.S. World Heritage list. Many of these themes and the suggested examples (in the consultation summaries and questionnaires) will help address internationally recognized gaps in the World Heritage program. Based on the mod-erators’ review of the consultation, there was consensus around several key themes:

• peopling of the New World including prehistoric earth-works,

• the treatment of Native Americans, the role of slavery and the struggle for civil rights,

• themes related to U.S. industry, innovation and tech-nology, and

• taking a broader cultural landscape perspective and

• A number of these topics crossed over multiple dis-cussions and disciplines. The three areas of greatest convergence seem to be:

• themes associated with slavery and the civil rights of people and groups;

• themes associated with innovation and technology; and• themes taking a landscape-scale approach.



ONLINE DISCUSSION SUMMARY: ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGYAre there types, regions or periods of Archaeolog-

are underrepresented on the current list?

Although participation in this consultation was less than on some of the other topics, the quality of the comments received was high: several commenters demonstrated in-depth familiarity with both the U.S. National Historic Landmark program and the UNESCO World Heritage program. The discussion was generally weighted toward consideration of archaeological properties as opposed to intangible heritage, or living cultures that might be consid-ered more properly anthropological. The tone of the com-ments suggests most participants represent the professional

participation by representatives of Native American tribes was evident. Geographically, eastern North America seems to dominate the discussion.

suggested themes or properties expressed OUV, or how

Heritage List. Perhaps the central question might be: what

countries can’t, or are in a less obvious position to do so? -

ated little dialog. However, several topics struck chords of discussion, drawing from the very thoughtful contributions to the anthropology/archaeology discussion, the following primary themes stand out:

• Peopling of the New World/ Early Human Cultures of the New World

• Legacy of Slavery / Slave Routes•

Colonization• • Expansion of Cahokia World Heritage Site to a Serial

Nomination – “The Mississippian World”• Prehistoric Earthworks of North America• Early European Settlement Sites of the New World• Rock Art• Sacred Pipe in Native American Cultures

There is broad support, for example, on the Peopling of the New World, Human Migration to the Americas. It was suggested that this could be a multi-national nomination. Further analysis would need to determine if a viable list of representative properties can be collected from existing Na-tional Historic Landmarks. While sites in the U.S. might or might not prove to be the earliest human occupation sites in the Americas, the U.S. has conducted more research

several of the most instructive aspects of the movement of humans to the Americas. Results of this archaeological research indicate that the migration of humans to the land-masses in the Western Hemisphere was a relatively recent occurrence. Also, this research has provided solid evidence that indigenous populations constructed the complex urban developments and impressive monuments that were seen by Europeans when they arrived in the Americas half a millennium ago.

Sites of conscience and painful historical events as well as international slavery sites were another important theme. The United States is closely linked to the history of slavery and a good deal of anthropological and archaeological research has examined the ideological, social, and eco-nomic underpinnings of slavery. In addition, there are

-al African rituals were covertly practiced in the Americas

attention given to slave sites by U.S. anthropologists and archaeologists can provide the basis for an international serial nomination of slavery sites.

The importance of the Prehistoric Earthworks in North America is that they are tangible evidence of the sophisti-cation and complexity of these societies. Although many

-tutions at the federal, state, and local level, a number of these sites have been preserved. There is strong support for serial nominations of properties related to pre-contact Native American earthwork-building traditions. Currently, the Poverty Point and the Cahokia World Heritage Sites represent these themes on the World Heritage List. A serial nomination of “Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks” is proposed on the current U.S. Tentative List, and is a strong candidate for nomination. Extension of the Poverty Point World Heritage Site to a serial nomination would draw



attention to the earliest mound-building traditions in the Americas. Extension of the Cahokia World Heritage Site to a serial nomination would recognize the many regional traditions and lifeways subsumed under the “Mississippian” label, with a possible temporal extension up to the period of European colonization. Together with the anticipated listing of the Hopewell nomination, these three serial nom-inations would bring recognition to the full sweep of Native American mound-building traditions stretching back more than 5,000 years from the contact period.

In summary, for the topic of Archaeology and Anthro-pology, the moderators rated these three themes as most

A. Movement of peoples: Human Migration to the Americas

B. Sites of conscience and painful historical events: International Slavery Sites

C. Prehistoric Earthworks of North America

A complete chart of all submitted themes for this area of specialization is included at the end of the report as Exhibit A (page 58).



ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY SUMMARY OF TOP RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Movement of peoples • • Alternately: Peopling of the New World/Early Human Cultures of the New World

EXAMPLES AND NHL STATUS

DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC.IDENTIFIED GAP TO FILL,

OUV, CRITERIA

NHLs: Hester; Hardaway; Borax Lake; Meadowcroft;

Cooper Bonebed, OK

Buttermilk Creek Complex, TX

Long list sent by David Meltzer

“part of the universal human process of colonization of the globe” David Whitley

This was the culmination of human migration to all habitable regions of the globe.

Submitted by: Mark Barnes, Megan Springate, Lance Foster, Marko Meniketti, Helaine Silverman, Allyson Brooks, Robert Brooks, David Meltzer, Douglas Comer

• Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)

• Settlement

• Modes of subsistence

• Technological evolution

• Distinctive settlement patterns and modes of existence

Pre-Contact North America

Indigenous Cultures

• Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)

• Settlement

• Modes of subsistence

• Technological evolution

Possible WH Criteria: Ii, iii, v.



B. Sites of conscience and painful historical events: History and Legacy of Slavery

C. Prehistoric Earthworks of North America

EXAMPLES AND

NHL STATUS DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC.

IDENTIFIED GAP TO FILL,

OUV, CRITERIA

New Philadelphia, Illinois NHL; Fort Mose, FL. Some Underground Railroad sites. International sites could include the slave trading centers of Ghana and Senegal in West Africa, as well as the trade of slaves from south to north in Sudan

“SLAVERY SITES. UNESCO has a Slave Route Project. There are WHL slave route sites such as Ouidah in Bénin. Thus far there are 15 sites in multiple countries that are inscribed on the basis of their connection with the slave route(s) — Gambia, Ghana, Senegal and sites on the east side countries of Africa. Liverpool in England is a WHS with a strong association with slavery. There are sites in the Caribbean and Latin America. (Google: UNESCO Slave Route) I am proposing that U.S. sites be added and that the existing sites themselves be re-grouped into a single, powerful, serial nomination called TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVERY SITES and that this serial nomination then be one part of a larger two-part comprehensive serial nomination called WORLD SLAVERY SITES in which the several sites on the east side of Africa (such as Tanzania and Mozambique) form the other part. Or at least the U.S. slavery sites could themselves be grouped into a serial nomination.” Helaine Silverman

Submitted by: Helaine Silverman, Mark Barnes, Megan Springate

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Spirituality and creative expression. There are

Gap: Modern heritage

OUV: Slavery in historic context: Understanding human

through an historical examination of economic and ideological dimensions of slavery


DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC.IDENTIFIED GAP TO FILL, OUV, CRITERIA

WH: Poverty Point, Cahokia Mounds

“Prehistoric earthworks of North America – Today we realize from the recent work in Louisiana that the mound building tradition begins some 5400 years ago at the end of the Middle Archaic. Would recommend a series of serial nominations; a. pre-Poverty Point, Poverty Point sites (Jaketow); b. Woodland (Hopewell) – Marksville, Kolomoki, Crystal River etc.; and Mississippian – Emerald Mound, Winterville, Etowah, Moundville, Town Creek, Grand Village of the Natchez, Holly Bluff, Bottle Creek Site etc.” Mark Barnes

Submitted by: Mark Barnes


Indigenous Cultures

Religious properties (excluding “World Religions”)

Earthen Architecture



ONLINE DISCUSSION SUMMARY: ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISMWhat types of urban heritage and architectural ensembles of outstanding universal value could address gaps of underrepresented typology, region or period?

Overall, participants engaged in an energetic dialogue exploring architecture and urbanism. Discussion focused

which gave rise to some of the great iconic architecture and places of the 20th century in the U.S. Generally, while there was continued dialogue on the serial nomination of buildings and places by Modern masters, there was also consideration of the rise of the U.S. skyscraper and identi-

part of twentieth-century innovation (including examples of planned utopian communities, industrial sites, urbanism), migration, housing, and architectural themes that centered around the advancement of science and space technology.

It should be mentioned that there are a number of addition-al themes that were not mentioned as part of the Online Expert Consultation. As part of this continued dialogue, it should be noted that the ICOMOS ISC20C has been in the process of addressing and developing a 20th-Century

and assessment of 20th-Century Heritage places. The intent of this project is that it will assist researchers to strategically

research, survey and analysis beyond the existing, often ar-chitecturally-focused lists and studies. One of the resources that was made available to participants of the Online Dis-cussions was the report of the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) and ICOMOS ISC20C experts meeting held in May 2011 at the Getty Center, which is relevant to this discus-sion.

Generally, topics and examples were raised according to the following themes:

• Urbanism and Housing• Colonialism and Settlements• • Beaux Arts Architecture and Industrial Architecture • American Urbanism-Migration and International

History

• Governmental Headquarters and Extraterritorial Sites • American Urban Cultural Landscapes

Some of these resonant themes are broad enough to en-compass a wide range of heritage sites. Further, some of the sites mentioned in the discussion could fall into a number of

-ready designated National Historic Landmarks. The theme

appears to be a priority for NPS consideration, as well as ‘American Urbanism-Migration and International Histo-ry’ and ‘Urbanism and Housing.’ As such, consideration should be given to the prioritized sub-themes and examples drawn from these themes.

It is recommended that the following hierarchy of themes

criteria. The prioritized list is as follows:

• • American Urbanism-Migration and International

History • Urbanism and Housing• Colonialism and Settlements• Modern and Industrial Architecture, Beaux Arts Ar-

chitecture• Governmental Headquarters and Extraterritorial Sites• American Urban Cultural Landscapes

A complete chart of all submitted themes for this area of specialization is included at the end of the report as Exhibit B (page 61).

In summary, for the topic of Architecture and Urbanism,

for 2016 U.S. Tentative List consideration:

B. American Urbanism-Migration and International History

C. Urbanism and Housing



ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM SUMMARY OF TOP RECOMMENDATIONS:



OUV, CRITERIA

Early Skyscrapers: Chicago and New York; Marquette Building; Guaranty Building, Wainwright Building, Philadelphia City Hall, Woolworth Building, Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, Lever House; Seagram Building, Kahn’s Richards Building

“There are many other giants in the US in the development of the modern movement that demand consideration, beginning with the early skyscrapers of Chicago, and later of New York. There have been numerous discussions to identify which are the greatest landmark buildings of the 20th century in the US that should be brought into this discussion. The work of Mies van der Rohe might merit consideration as a transnational nomination with Germany.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Gustavo Araoz

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Architecture

“One of the unique things that the US gave to the world is the skyscraper. In addition, to the giants of Modernism, there should be a serial nomination of iconic early skyscrapers – Chicago, NY, Detroit, etc. – from the pre-World War II period.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Pamela Jerome


“Skyscrapers and auto-related sites are also a home run for the technology gap.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Donna Graves


“NHLs include Guaranty Building, Wainwright Building, Philadelphia City Hall (tallest building in world until 1908) and those that later claimed the title: Woolworth Building, Chrysler Building, Empire State Building. And

discussion: Kahn’s Richards Building is now an NHL.”

“The idea of a transnational nomination for Mies is intriguing. Alternative visions of modernism such as Greene & Greene or perhaps even H. H. Richardson to complement Wright presence of the tentative list”

Conversation Contributor(s): Mark M Brown


“Louis Kahn may be deserving of the kind of group nomination being undertaken for Wright - considering the breath and quality of his mature works, though it would raise the issue as to whether the recent additions to both Salk and Kimball – arguably two of the strongest architectural works – have compromised their OUV.”

Conversation Contributor(s): David Fixler


Innovation, Technology and Modern Architecture

Outstanding Universal Value Selection Criteria: Meets OUV based on cultural criteria.

Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria i, ii and iv.

(continued on next page)





OUV, CRITERIABridges:

Brooklyn Bridge,

Bridge, Eads Bridge, Roebling Bridge, Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge, Knights Ferry Bridge; All NHL Listings - Holland Tunnel

“One may think of the contribution in the 19th and 20th century architecture as well as technical and industrial monuments like some of the bridges. These sites still seem to present “easy cases” (single monuments, one owner.)”

Conversation Contributor(s): Bernd Paulowitz





Health Science and Space Exploration: Salk Institute for Biological Studies

role in the advancement of health science (places like Salk, etc) space exploration – seems like this would be something of great international

Conversation Contributor(s): ICOMOS Visitor


Development


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria i, ii, iii, iv and v.

Housing Programs:

Case Study Program Southern California

again seems to be very apt for the US.”




Space Travel Sites: Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center

“Space travel sites are obviously missing from the WH List- Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center, etc.”



Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iii and iv.



B. American Urbanism-Migration and International History



Nationally Designated Administration Buildings: (Customs), Old Division Monuments, Migration and border areas. Statue of Liberty (already a WH site) - NHL Listing.

“…A suggestion that we take on that idea more frankly and examine the ways in which American urban development represents fundamental histories regarding immigration and colonization — two fraught themes that are integrally bound up in the US landscape and and its role in global history.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Erica Avrami

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Cultural Landscapes

“how to address buildings and structures located in the border region

international history. There are old division monuments and nationally designated administrative buildings (for Customs) and other interesting structures (I just know a portion of the border). This is an underrepresented architecture and urban landscape with a rich history for both nations.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Maria Curry


“Migration as a key theme of great relevance here – there are places in



Globalization, Migration


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iv and vi.

National Gateway Arch, St. Louis. NHL Listing

Conversation Contributor(s): Jonathan Tourtellot

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Architecture, Technology




C. Urbanism and Housing



Planned Company Towns:

Lustron Buildings, Sears Catalogue Houses; NHL Listings

“This would also include planned company towns that in a way attempted to create a utopian urban environment within a capitalistic context.”



Innovation

Cities:

Washington D.C.; San Francisco; No NHL status

“Washington DC - An early republican [effort] is the unique case of Washington DC as a planned city based on a Baroque plan. Washington, of course is not only important for its L’Enfant Plan and its late neo-classic architecture, but also for the role that it has placed as a major centre of power in the world.”

“San Francisco - There are also iconic and visually stunning cities that are unique for their interaction with their geography, and salient among them would be San Francisco, which would echo the inscription of Rio de Janeiro.”



“America’s great planned cities of the 17th and 18th centuries are self evidently of OUV.”

Conversation Contributor(s): David Brownlee




Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii and iv.



ONLINE DISCUSSION SUMMARY: TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRYWhat opportunities exist to address gaps related to Science, Technology, Invention, and Industrial Heritage?

Discussion was wide-ranging, with participants from varied backgrounds, including historians, archaeologists, museum professionals, cultural landscape specialists, and NPS em-ployees. There was some tendency to focus on favorite sites, rather than themes or broader considerations, but that ten-dency diminished somewhat as the discussion continued.

Several categories or themes of heritage places did emerge, and some discussants explicitly attempted to guide discus-

industrial categories (iron and steel, mining and minerals, non-ferrous metals, power and energy, manufacturing, transportation, industrial communities, laboratories and experimental facilities, agro-industry, chemical industry, military and space, maritime, infrastructure, and commu-nications). Virtually all of the categories, themes and sites mentioned by other discussants can be subsumed within this list, for example, bridges, automobiles, railroads and infrastructure within transportation; atomic age/Cold War, war and peace, and aerospace within military and space.

Several discussants cogently mentioned National Heritage Areas (NHAs) as potential targets, especially since several of the areas are organized around Industry and Technolo-gy resources, notable among them Motor Cities, Rivers of Steel and the Hudson Valley Heritage Area. Giving some consideration to nominations that recognize the large land-scape scale of industrial heritage and take advantage of the foundational work that has already been achieved in these NHAs would seem to be a logical step toward expanding the Tentative List in this direction. In addition, NHAs have already dealt with surveys of key resources, public engagement and the development of a management plan.

Discussants noted that the National Park Service has

heritage sites as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs): a

50-100 industrial sites are recognized as American Society of Civil Engineering Historical Landmarks that could be NHL-eligible. These sites could be evaluated for potential

candidates, and are already sorted in categories based on their industrial history (such as mining, for example).

Finally, though it was not overt in the online discussion, there is the very important recognition that within NPS, the Historic American Engineering Record has been studying and documenting industrial heritage sites since

like the list generated above! They apply the most rigorous standards, maintain meticulous records, and their collec-tions could easily be used to generate a Top-Ten List of potential World Heritage Sites; in fact, the exercise has al-ready been done on a casual basis, and there is a National Inventory underway. This seems to be the logical starting point.

In summary, for the topics of Technology and Industry, the

2016 U.S. Tentative List consideration:

A. Auto industry & Transport (Brooklyn Bridge, Erie Canal)

B. Mining and mineral processing (KEWE, Butte, Ken-necott)

C. Industrial Communities (Lowell etc.)

A complete chart of all submitted themes for this area of specialization is included at the end of the report as Exhibit C (page 66).



TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY SUMMARY OF TOP RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Auto industry & Transport (Brooklyn Bridge, Erie Canal)



OUV, CRITERIA

Many Bridges, especially Brooklyn; Erie Canal

Auto industry sites in Detroit and elsewhere

Auto Industry: The US is uniformly recognized as the primary home of the global auto industry throughout the twentieth century, and the landscape is littered with physical sites and cultural landscapes that

these relicts (MotorCities National Heritage Area and some of its

Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Museum in Auburn, Indiana,

architectural design, seen best through the work of Albert Kahn and his studio in several Detroit locations.

innovations and installations, from the Erie Canal to the Brooklyn Bridge and beyond. The expansion of American agriculture and industry into the midsection of the continent was enabled by not only the drive of canal-building, but also the innovative production and use of hydraulic cement to construct critical components of the Erie Canal. This system fueled the enormous growth of enterprise and population that characterized much of the nineteenth century, and substantial portions are not only still largely intact, but also in use, and much of it is managed by the cultural professionals of the State of New York and the US NPS in the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor. The Sault Ste. Marie locks and canal, joining Lakes Superior and Huron, also provide an essential link for transport of massive quantities of iron ore from the ranges of Minnesota and Michigan, as well as grain from

locks, canals, and adjacent hydroelectric power station have been the focus of HAER-sponsored documentation.

The US also contains an incredible array of bridges, many built using designs and technologies developed here. Perhaps best known is the Roebling-designed Brooklyn Bridge, but also deserving attention are remarkable structures like the Eads Bridge across the Mississippi, both National Historic Landmarks. Eric DeLony, late of HAER, did an excellent thematic study of US bridges that could serve as a starting point.




Bridges:

Brooklyn Bridge,

Bridge, Eads Bridge, Roebling Bridge, Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge, Knights Ferry Bridge; All NHL Listings - Holland Tunnel

“One may think of the contribution in the 19th and 20th century architecture as well as technical and industrial monuments like some of the bridges. These sites still seem to present “easy cases” (single monuments, one owner.)”








B. Mining and mineral processing (KEWE, Butte, Kennecott)



Kennecott (in Wrangell Elias NP); Quincy and C&H Copper Mines, NHLs in Keweenaw Nation-al Historical Park; Butte, MT

US. Among them are some within National Parks (so the ownership issue is minimized) like the Kennecott Mine in Wrangell St. Elias NP, and the Quincy and Calumet and Hecla Mines in the Keweenaw National Historical Park. These three copper mines set international standards for production and technological innovation, as well as providing the basis for sizeable communities of immigrant workers. Both Kennecott and Keweenaw have been the subjects of NPS Cultural Landscape Reports, and include NHL properties. Butte, MT is also an NHL with tremendous integrity and authenticity.

KEWE is a regional park, much like an NHA, with wide landscape spread and scope

Especially relevant also as cultural landscape.

C. Industrial Communities (Lowell etc.)



Lowell, Manchester, Nashua, Bethlehem, Pullman, Kohler

Many examples of company towns/planned communities, often with manufacturing/productive facilities intact.

During its massive 19th century industrialization, the US was home to a number of planned communities, developed expressly to support in-dustrial enterprises. Communities such as Lowell, Massachusetts, set the standards for establishment of linked hydro-powered textile mills and controlled communities of workers recruited from the hinterlands. Lowell

study and heritage development. Other planned communities such as Manchester, NH, Paterson, NJ, and Bethlehem, PA deserve consideration, as well.



ONLINE DISCUSSION SUMMARY: LIVING CULTURES AND DIVERSE HERITAGE

cultures, subcultures and examples of America’s diverse heritage that have been qualitatively un-derrepresented?

of migration, settlement, modes of subsistence, human interaction, cultural coexistence, spiritu-ality and creative expression in the U.S. that have been qualitatively underrepresented?

Expert input for this topic was sought by posing two separate questions (above). However, many commenters

have been to frame this as one broad question about living cultures instead of two parallel questions. As noted above,

in the Online Discussion on cultural landscapes. For these reasons the comments of the moderators on the two ques-tions have been combined in the Synthesis Report. Looked at in this way, there was wide-ranging and thoughtful participation on this issue.

The general trend of Living Culture and Diverse Heritage comments was toward the theme of injustice and expand-ing civil rights movements in American history. Many re-spondents pointed out Native American cultures through-out the country such as the Midwest and Florida that have persevered. The U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study, sites related to LGBTQ events, and African American civil rights movement were also discussed as meeting the

living cultures mentioned were the Gullah Geechee culture and Amish religious communities. U.S. communal societ-ies, most being religious in nature, were also noted as a rich resource. Some of the discussion focused on U.S. musical traditions such as New Orleans jazz, Detroit Motown and New York’s Broadway and Tin Pan Alley.

An important point of discussion presented by one of the -

sented themes. The risk of prematurely categorizing the

spent on the process could inhibit identifying sites and plac-es that are truly meaningful. It is critical to engage groups

that have not been represented in the past and are new to the process to identify what they hold dear. The role of the expert might then be to help place these resources into a World Heritage perspective.

Another discussion thread considered taking a syncretic approach to the diversity of the American experience per-haps using immigration and colonization as a lens. Howev-er, this also can be challenging. For example, do enslaved peoples represent the theme of immigration and coloniza-tion and do we need to answer this at this moment? What might be more important is that the complexities of the institution of slavery be broadly recognized.

resources can surmount the barriers of National Historic Landmark listing such as integrity thresholds as well as property ownership requirements. These have made the

discussion to recognition.

In summary, Online Discussion suggested that (with a caveat that more engagement is needed with the commu-

and promising themes for 2016 U.S. Tentative List con-sideration from the arena of Living Cultures and Diverse Heritage are:

A. Persistence and perseverance of culture/identity in the face of injustice and adversity

❒ African American, Latino and LGBTQ heritage

❒ African American Civil Rights Movement

B. Communal Societies

A complete chart of all submitted themes for this area of specialization is included at the end of the report as Exhibit D (page 68).



LIVING CULTURES AND DIVERSE HERITAGE SUMMARY OF TOP RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Persistence and perseverance of culture/identity in the face of injustice and adversity • African American, Latino and LGBTQ heritage• African American Civil Rights Movement



Native American communities;

LGBTQ sites

African American Civil Rights movement events and sites

Lance Foster wrote with reference to American Indian culture: “we have endured in some of the best land in the region of the cornbelt, for almost 180 years, in the face of unrelenting corruption, violence, and land pressures by our non-Indian neighbors over the land, even the tiny acreage left to us. Yet we knew and used this land for over 1000 years at least. We have had to change much, perhaps most of what we were, yet we still retain our identity as a community of shared heritage.”

Mark Meinke wrote “The LGBTQ community’s heritage, recently recognized as underrepresented in the NPS survey of historic sites is also non-existent

LGBTQ sites is at a very early stage there are sites, such as the Stonewall Inn, where events occurred that have had world-reaching effects. There are many reasons why the Stonewall In NHL could be considered a World

Gap:

Diversity of Heritage and Peoples, Sites of Conscience and Painful Histories

Movements for Social Change/Civil Rights;

Possible WH Criteria: iii, v, vi



B. Communal Societies



New Harmony, Indiana

Moravian settlements in Bethlehem, PA and Winston-Salem, NC

Amish communities in PA, Indiana, and Ohio

component of American history. The Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries, communal society movements, and the establishment of religions that survived despite intense opposition are stories that have shaped the nation’s identity. In addition, the principle of separation of church and

From Connie Weinzapfel:

An important aspect of 18th and 19th century immigration and settlement, particularly in rural areas of the United States, was the uniquely American brand of social experimentation known as communal utopianism. There were (and are) two main strains of this human desire – religious, as in Shakers, Amana Colonies, etc. and secular, such as Oneida’s Perfectionists and Fourier’s Phalanxes.

While there are many well-preserved historic utopian communities extant, New Harmony, Indiana is the only surviving, living community that was founded and built by the religious, millennial Harmonie Society, and then sold to the secular social reformer, Robert Owen of Scotland.

The OUV is the impulse for communal co-existence, which is found throughout world history. This human instinct was made uniquely possible by the concepts of democracy and religious freedom in the United States. The WHL gap that this nomination would address is the thematic framework of social systems, of which there are currently none. Secondary themes,

19th century agricultural development; textile production and other types of manufacturing; pioneering, New World science; democratic access to education; and the promotion of abolition of slavery and equal rights for women.

Charlene Donchez Mowers wrote: The Moravian community of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania founded in 1741 was part of this tight-knit, world-wide network of Moravian settlements. Bethlehem and the other historic Moravian communities were planned and structured, guided by their mission of spirituality and supported by their economic vitality and desire

espousing the greater good of the world community regardless of race, nationality, gender, language, or religion and represent their efforts in medicine, education, technology, music, equality, and diversity.

Submitted by: Connie Weinzapfel, Charlene Donchez Mowers

Relevant to other discussions? Cultural Landscapes

Diversity of Heritage, Associative Landscapes that have or continue to inspire religions, spiritual beliefs, art, literature, etc.

OUV: Yes

C. Weinzapfel described the OUV as “the impulse for communal co-existence.”

Possible WH Criteria: ii, iii, vi



ONLINE DISCUSSION SUMMARY: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

-scapes in the U.S. are responsive to the gaps iden-

mixed natural and cultural sites and living land-scapes?

The topic of Cultural Landscapes attracted the most com-ments (72) of all the Online Discussions. While the experts addressed a wide range of resources including mixed natu-ral and cultural sites, living landscapes, and designed park landscapes, the discussion could be categorized into three broad themes: landscapes associated with underrepresented communities, agricultural landscapes, and the designed landscapes of parks and protected areas. In addition, there were provocative suggestions such as considering very large landscapes (such as former bison ranges, the Great lakes, agricultural landscapes of the Midwest, and southern plan-tation landscapes) and transnational themes such as trails and trading routes, and multi-national peace parks.

The richest discussion was centered on landscapes of underrepresented communities including African Ameri-

Hispanics. These places were also discussed as part of the theme of cultural exchange between the new world and the old. In particular, the international impacts associated with slavery and slave routes were thoughtfully presented. Agricultural landscapes from pre-contact through inten-

Finally, the international impact of the development of U.S. parks at the national and city planning level that represent the ideal of universal access to recreation in a democratic

Based on the expert input, two themes seemed to be a priority for the U.S. to consider for the next tentative list.

African American Diaspora (the slave trade and plantation slavery) and the African American Civil Rights Movement. Commenters noted that the plantation system (particularly the rice plantations on the U.S. southeastern seaboard) is a

cultural exchange with worldwide implications. This could be linked to the UNESCO Slave Route project. Examples

of possible sites were the many NHL-listed plantations associated with rice production and the broader associative values of the Gullah Geechee National Cultural Corridor.

Also associated with this broad theme is the struggle for Civil Rights in the American South. Although some sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement are on the U.S. existing tentative list, this theme could be considered through a broader lens to include the routes of marches and protests at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail that represent, along-side places such as Robben Island (a World Heritage Site), globally important milestones in the universal struggle for human and civil rights.

A second theme was the U.S. contribution to the inter-national parks and protected areas movement. Central Park in New York (NHL) began a movement in 1858 that inspired not only the creation and design of city parks in other countries, but later with the establishment of Yosemite National Park, the creation of regional scenic

development of national parks and park systems in many countries around the world. The U.S. role in this history of conservation and park planning and the beginning of a national park system that represents universal access to special places in a democratic society has had an interna-

apt with the upcoming centennial year of the U.S. National Park Service.

international legal instrument to recognize and protect cultural landscapes, adopting guidelines acknowledging that such places represent the “combined work of nature and man”. Today there are 88 cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List. Only one U.S. cultural landscape,

cultural values, has been listed. Along with outstanding natural resources this island chain has deep cosmological

culture. Cultural landscapes are clearly a challenging and

the interaction between humankind and its natural envi-ronment. Although there are barriers in the United States to considering large swaths of land in the context of World



Heritage, the energy around this discussion is an indicator

in a landscape context.

In summary, for the topic of Cultural Landscapes, the

2016 U.S. Tentative List consideration:

A. African American culture and plantation landscapes

B. African American civil rights sites including the land-scape components

C. Designed parks and protected areas and the develop-ment of the National Park System

A complete chart of all submitted themes for this area of specialization is included at the end of the report as Exhibit E (page 72).



CULTURAL LANDSCAPES SUMMARY OF TOP RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. African American culture and plantation landscapes



Brookgreen Gardens (NHL)

Charleston Historic District (NHL)

Drayton Hall (NHL)

Hampton Plantation State Historic Site (NHL, State Park)

Hopsewee Plantation (NHL)

Middleton Place (NHL)

Orton Plantation

(NR _ NHL requested)

Penn School Historic District (NHL)

Roberts Smalls House (NHL)

Also ACE Basin Biosphere Reserve

Evolved Landscape -The rice-based economy in the Carolina

converted and then controlled through the use of enslaved labor for over a century. In looking at this area the landscape was (re)designed to manufacture rice on a scale never before seen in history. Expressions of the wealth thus generated are found across Charleston and its surrounding plantations on cultural landscapes designed to highlight this wealth through formal gardens in urban and rural settings, as well as plantation layout. Under the evolved landscape criterion, it is clear that this vast area has evolved through a complex interaction of human and natural events

Also an associative landscape

Due to the exceptional combination of African and European cultures within this particular agricultural landscape many centuries of art and literature with spiritual meaning. The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor created to express some of those values.

Submitted by: Brittany Lavelle Tulla, Richard Gilmore, Alissandra Cummins, Alexandra Kruse

Relevant to other discussions? Specify:

http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/3rice/3rice.htm

Gap: Underrepresented groups, agricultural landscapes

B. African American civil rights sites including the landscape components




The three churches (Bethel, Sixteenth Street, and Dexter), from the 2008 tentative list should remain on the list and be expanded to in-clude the Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge and possibly other sites such as the route of the march from Selma to Montgomery. As the NPS has noted, “a serial nomination of a larger grouping of dis-contigu-ous sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement …”

Submitted by: Carroll Van West, Rolf Diamant

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Living Cultures

Gap:

Underrepresented groups

OUV: part of larger context of civil rights movements

Possible WH Criteria: iii, vi



C. Designed parks and protected areas and the development of the National Park System• U.S. contribution to parks and protected areas: History of conservation and park movement and beginnings of na-

tional parks



Central Park (an NHL) and Yosemite NP

This could also include other western parks and a group of these could be nominated as a national serial nomination.

Central Park in New York (NHL) began a movement in 1858 that inspired not only other city parks, but later the creation of regional

national park system.

There is also an international context related to the struggle between republicanism and oligarchy so central to the future of an emerging park ideology. Frederick Law Olmsted was acutely aware of this context and in his 1865 Report on Yosemite he repeatedly references examples from the Old World of the global contest between democratic ideals and aristocratic privilege. Olmsted is speaking about both the New World and Old World when he warns against the monopolization of natural resources and access to recreational opportunities.

Subsequently, parks such as New York’s Central Park and the U.S.

countries around the world. From an international perspective, many countries credit the US for the idea of national parks, that they have imported and applied.

initial campaign for parks in New York; but the broader, American movement took on its own momentum, theory, and practice (and initiated the profession of landscape architecture). By the early 20th century, the ideologies and design practices developed in regional scenic reservations shaped the early policies of the US National

national park movement in the 20th century. Olmsted’s Yosemite report established the fundamental rhetoric and rationalizations for national park making in the US and the world. This report was used

Organic Act establishing the NP Service and specifying the purposes

establish scenic reservations–and parks in general–in terms that applied for large municipal parks and regional scenic reservations, as well as wilderness areas.

Submitted by: Ethan Carr and Rolf Diamant

OUV: international

Possible WH Criteria: Criteria (i), (ii), (iv)



CONCLUSION This conversation is just the beginning and is one step in fashioning the next U.S. World Heritage Tentative List. Both the survey and the consultation summarized in this report capture just a snap shot of what experts from across

and underrepresented themes that need further consider-ation. This project will conclude with a Final Report to be submitted to the National park Service that is informed by this information and the input of an expert Roundtable held in November, 2015.

The survey completed by over 350 experts is one tool. Rec-ognizing that the data provided by the survey are direc-tional rather than conclusive, we can nonetheless refer to them as one way to prioritize the many worthy themes and

-ing to level of representation on and level of importance to address property types:

The property types perceived to be most under-represented on the U.S. World Heritage list, with 33% or more of re-spondents identifying them as “Very Under-Represented”, are, in order:

• Sites of conscience and painful historical events (43% Very Under-Represented)

• Recent heritage of the 20th century (36% Very Un-der-Represented)

• Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution (33% Very Under-Represented)

All of the themes listed were deemed to be “Important or Extremely Important” to address by at least 75% of re-spondents. The top 5 property types rated as Important or Extremely Important were:

• Sites of conscience and painful historical events (92% Important or Extremely Important)

• Diverse Heritage and Peoples (91% Important or Ex-tremely Important)

• Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible her-itage) that are embodied in place (89% Important or Extremely Important)

• Cultural Landscapes (89% Important or Extremely Important)

• Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution (87% Important or Extremely Important)

the Online Discussions, which were organized by disci-plinary themes. It is important to note that a number of these topics crossed over multiple discussions and disci-plines. While our online conversations were organized by professional subject area in order to recruit and engage expert participants, we learned via the many overlapping

fruitful organizational structure for future analysis. Based on the moderators’ review of the consultation, there was consensus around several key themes:

• the treatment of Native Americans, the role of slavery and the struggle for civil rights.

• Peopling of the New World including prehistoric earth-works.

• Themes related to U.S. industry, innovation and tech-nology, which include the development of the skyscrap-er and modern buildings.

• Taking a broader cultural landscape perspective whether parks and protected areas, patterns of settle-ment and migration, or planned communities.

Considering the survey and consultation results in tandem

themes and the suggested examples (in the consultation summaries and questionnaires) will help address interna-tionally recognized gaps in the World Heritage program. Some of the themes that should be considered in the future for the U.S. tentative list include:

Places of conscience and painful memories. The topic that had the greatest convergence in both the survey and the consultation and is closely related to this overall theme was the legacy of slavery and the movement for civil rights. This theme was also called out by the survey as the most underrepresented and as the most important or extremely important property type. It was repeatedly

Discussions under multiple disciplinary topics including diversity of heritage, cultural landscapes, and archeology and anthropology. Other related themes included places associated with struggles of Native Americans, Latinos and the LGBT community. While there is a recommendation on the U.S. Tentative List to list three churches associated with the Civil Rights Movement in Birmingham, Alabama,



no sites on the current U.S. World Heritage list represent this theme.

Diversity of heritage and peoples, and diversity of peoples and traditions. The second most important

with the diversity of people, heritage and traditions. This

as sites associated with Native Americans, sites along the nation’s borders, and the cultural landscape of plantation slavery. This was connected in some comments with the idea of cross-cultural exchange and migration. A number of commentators also made the connection of this topic and the UNESCO Slavery Project. At this time Native Amer-ican sites are well represented on the U.S. World Heritage list by Chaco Culture, Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point and Taos Pueblo. However, other non-dominant groups are not well

-represented property type.

Invention, industrial heritage, and technological evolution. as both underrepresented and important. The consultation also found this to be important with active discussion on the topic and a range of compelling examples. Despite the important role industry and invention have played in the

not represented on the U.S. World Heritage list or on the

underrepresented on the global level.

Finally, two other themes were recognized as important by the survey and the consultation, but did not have quite the

-ally important development of the park idea. However, a number of the examples in the consultation discussion tied cultural landscapes to landscape of plantations and slavery. Another theme was 20th century architecture. It should be noted that this theme also has connections to the topic of invention and innovation in particular as related to early skyscrapers and tall buildings.

Overall the process of reaching out more broadly to experts across the country has yielded good information

underrepresented themes for consideration for the U.S. World Heritage tentative list. However, both the survey and the review of the consultation show the strength and

reach out more purposefully to underrepresented groups -

dition, it showed the need to educate even U.S. experts on World Heritage as a concept. It is to be hoped that the survey and consultation were a learning experience for all

Heritage to a much larger audience. This is a very import-

to follow up and continue to engage new and underserved audiences and broaden the network of experts. This will

of one-time event.



NEXT STEPS: EXPERT ONLINE CONSULTATION ON GAPS & THEMES AND NPS-OIA/DOI REVISED U.S. TENTATIVE LISTThis Expert Online Consultation is just one step in the larger process that will lead to a revised U.S. Tentative List of future World Heritage (WH) nominations in 2016.

(NPS-OIA) is spearheading this work.

This is how the larger process will proceed:

20151. NPS-OIA has collected a list of suggestions through

public comment opportunities and ad hoc public submissions since 2008. This list, which must be considered in the process, is being supplemented with high-potential National Historic Landmarks and sug-

2. U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (NAT-COMM), a State Department Commission, has convened a working group of organizations with wide subject matter expertise to advise throughout the pro-cess. This group will address both natural and cultural resources.

3. The NATCOMM working group will meet for an

priorities.

4. US/ICOMOS has conducted an Expert Online Con-sultation on gaps and themes to help identify targeted areas for cultural site nominations. The survey and

online discussion components of this initiative are com-plete as of October 31, 2015. In November, US/ICO-MOS will conduct an Expert Roundtable to assess the

or emendations to its contents. The Final Report Sub-

into a Final Report.

5. NPS-OIA will continue to review suggestions against

with the working group.

6. Department of the Interior (DOI) will identify the candidates for which nominations could reasonably be developed in terms of potential OUV, integrity, man-agement, etc. The potential list will be narrowed to approximately 20 sites.

EARLY 20167. DOI will:

• • Seek “upstream” input from ICOMOS World Heritage

advisors• Approach potential sites’ owners to determine interest.

US/ICOMOS may assist in this process also

SEPTEMBER 20169. NATCOMM working group will reconvene to vet

suggested list to present to DOI

FALL 201610. Federal Register Notice will be published, with draft

revised Tentative List for public comment



ACKNOWLEDGMENTSA project of this scope in this context is unprece-

dented. US/ICOMOS is deeply grateful to the J.M. Kaplan Fund and the National Park Service for their

thanks is also owed to Steve Morris and Phyllis Ellin

Park Service, whose commitment to operating the U.S. World Heritage program in spirit of collabo-ration, and whose faith in US/ICOMOS and the

corpus of U.S. heritage professionals, are both warm-

professionalism, the work of Jennifer Spreitzer, US/ICOMOS’s Expert Online Consultation Project Manager, is gratefully acknowledged. We thank, too,

Adam Wellstead of Michigan Technological Universi-ty for his gracious assistance in the statistical analysis

of the Consultation Survey results.

The following Thematic Consultation Subcommit-tee Members and Discussion Moderators have been

instrumental in the conception and administration of the Expert Online Consultation and the moderation

the Roundtable and Final Report Subcommittee’s work is getting underway. We would like to thank

THEMATIC CONSULTATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Ms. Brenda Barrett, Chair

Prof. Patrick Martin, Ph.D., Co-Chair

Dr. Douglas Comer, RPA

Ms. Milagros Flores

Prof. Nora Mitchell, Ph.D. (IUCN Liaison)

Darwina Neal, FASLA

Prof. James Reap, JD

Jennifer Spreitzer (staff)

ROUNDTABLE SUBCOMMITTEE

Jan C. K. Anderson, FAPTI

Prof. Richard Longstreth, Ph.D., Rapporteur

Thomas Harboe, FAIA

DISCUSSION MODERATORS

Ms. Brenda Barrett

Dr. Douglas Comer, RPA

Brent Glass, Ph.D.

Ms. Donna Graves

Prof. Diana M. Greenlee, Ph.D.

Pamela Jerome, FAPT

Dan Marriott, Ph.D.

Prof. Patrick Martin, Ph.D.

Nora Mitchell, Ph.D.

Dr. Bret J. Ruby, RPA

Bruce E. Seely, Ph.D.

Helaine Silverman, Ph.D.

FINAL REPORT SUBCOMMITTEE

Patricia O’Donnell, FSLA, Chair

Susan Macdonald, RIBA, Co-Chair

Gustavo Araoz, F.US/ICOMOS

E. Blain Cliver, F.US/ICOMOS

John Fowler, F.US/ICOMOS

Mr. Michael Romero Taylor



SYNTHESIS REPORT: EXHIBIT LIST

A. Discussion Chart: Archaeology & Anthropology

B. Discussion Chart: Architecture & Urbanism

C. Discussion Chart: Technology & Industry

D. Discussion Chart: Living Cultures & Diverse Heritage

E. Discussion Chart: Cultural Landscapes

F. Complete Survey Results & Instrument

G. Opening page Screen Shot



A. DISCUSSION CHART: ARCHAEOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGYTHEME & SITES DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC. GAP / OUV

Movement of peoples

Human Migration to the Americas

Alternately: Peopling of the New World/Early Human

Cultures of the New World

Examples: NHLs: Hester; Hardaway;

Borax Lake; Meadowcroft;

Cooper Bonebed, OK

Buttermilk Creek Complex, TX

Long list sent by David Meltzer

Submitted by: Mark Barnes, Megan Springate, Lance Foster, Marko Meniketti, Helaine Silverman, Allyson Brooks, Robert Brooks, David Meltzer, Douglas Comer

Outstanding Universal Value:

“part of the universal human process of colonization of the globe” David Whitley

This was the culmination of human migration to all habitable regions of the globe.

Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)

Settlement

Modes of subsistence

Technological evolution

Distinctive settlement patterns and modes of existence


Possible WH Criteria:

Ii, iii, v.

Sites of conscience and painful historical events

History and Legacy of Slavery

New Philadelphia, Illinois NHL; Fort Mose, FL. Some

Underground Railroad sites. International sites could

include the slave trading centers of Ghana and

Senegal in West Africa, as well as the trade of

slaves from south to north in Sudan and along

“SLAVERY SITES. UNESCO has a Slave Route Project. There are WHL slave route sites such as Ouidah in Bénin. Thus far there are 15 sites in multiple countries that are inscribed on the basis of their connection with the slave route(s) — Gambia, Ghana, Senegal and sites on the east side countries of Africa. Liverpool in England is a WHS with a strong association with slavery. There are sites in the Caribbean and Latin America. (google: UNESCO Slave Route) I am proposing that U.S. sites be added and that the existing sites themselves be re-grouped into a single, powerful, serial nomination called TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVERY SITES and that this serial nomination then be one part of a larger two-part comprehensive serial nomination called WORLD SLAVERY SITES in which the several sites on the east side of Africa (such as Tanzania and Mozambique) form the other part. Or at least the U.S. slavery sites could themselves be grouped into a serial nomination.” Helaine Silverman

Submitted by: Helaine Silverman, Mark Barnes, Megan Springate


Spirituality and creative expression.

traditional African rituals were covertly practiced in the Americas

Gap: Modern heritage

OUV: Slavery in historic context: Understanding human

historical examination of economic and ideological dimensions of slavery




THEME & SITES DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC. GAP / OUV

American Indians and European Colonization

“Sites associated with the destruction of our Native American nations, massacre sites, prisons, etc.” Lance Foster

coasts.” Marco Meniketti

“I also feel that sites of conscience must be strongly represented, including places like the Residential Schools, designed in large part to strip Native American children of their Native-ness. This might fall under anthropology (which has, as a discipline, also played a not-

sites associated with Residential Schools?” Megan Springate

“Another period that merits attention is during the initial contact between Europeans and Native people. Examples exist in the Southeast, Southwest, and Plains.” Robert Brooks

Submitted by: Lance Foster, Marco Meniketti, Robert Brooks

Modern heritage

Indigenous Cultures

Sites:

American Memorial: American Samoa National Park, Midway: Battle of Midway National Memorial (US Fish and Wildlife) and NR

Aleutian World War II National Historic Area in Dutch Harbor

Bikini Atoll WHS

“If you look at the 23 United States’ WHS properties you’ll see they don’t include battle sites. This has to do with the way the WHS criteria is written – no battle sites and no famous people.” Mark Barnes

Submitted by: Toni Carrell

Modern heritage

Cultural Landscapes

whc.unesco.org/document/10062)

Expansion of Cahokia WHS to a Serial

Nomination – “The Mississippian World”

Cahokia WHS

Moundville, AL

Spiro, OK

Holly Bluff, Grand Village of the Natchez, Parkin, Chucalissa, Winterville,

Emerald Mound

“As to your point about adding Mississippian sites to the existing Cahokia WHS nomination I know that there has been a recommendation to do so, but the actual process of doing such a nomination has not been delineated. For example, the Cahokia WHS nomination is over 20 years old, would someone who wanted to amend this nomination to include Spiro have to redo the Cahokia nomination?

The big question is of course funding.” Mark Barnes

“Domestication and farming of corn, beans and squash in the American Midwest has been the foundation to feeding the global

Foster

Submitted by: Mark Barnes, Helaine Silverman, Lance Foster


Indigenous Cultures







Prehistoric Earthworks of North America

“Prehistoric earthworks of North America – Today we realize from the recent work in Louisiana that the mound building tradition begins some 5400 years ago at the end of the Middle Archaic. Would recommend a series of serial nominations; a. pre-Poverty Point, Poverty Point sites (Jaketow); b. Woodland (Hopewell) – Marksville, Kolomoki, Crystal River etc.; and Mississippian – Emerald Mound, Winterville, Etowah, Moundville, Town Creek, Grand Village of the Natchez, Holly Bluff, Bottle Creek Site etc.” Mark Barnes

Submitted by: Mark Barnes


Indigenous Cultures



Early European Settlement Sites of the

New World

Jamestown, St. Mary’s City, Williamsburg

St. Augustine (Initial Site), Pensacola, Old Mobile site,

Caparra, Charlestown-Santa Elena, Charleston

Landing Site, Jamestown, Plymouth Plantation etc.

Werowocomoco

“If possible it would be good to involved host countries in the Caribbean – Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc. Such a transnational approach would demonstrate the linkage between early colonies of North American and the Caribbean and would help to support the preservation efforts of a number of host countries.” Mark Barnes

“Werowocomoco was the seat of the Powhatan chiefdom at the time

“Can we please stop saying New World? As we all know it wasn’t ‘new’ to people who had been here at least 11,000 years….” Heather Huyck

a way to do a joint US Canadian nomination– Nova Scotia,

Huyck

Submitted by: David Brownlee, Mark Barnes, Lena McDonald

Modern heritage

Rock Art

there are currently 3 US rock art NHLs: Pictograph

Cave, Billings, MT; Coso Rock Art District, CA; and the Carrizo Plain Rock Art

District, CA

Pecos River Pictographs (not NHL)

Caguana Site NHL in Puerto Rico

David Whitley submitted a detailed and thoughtful discussion of potential opportunities for a rock art-themed nomination (see transcript).

“ICOMOS has already done a rock art in the Caribbean study and I would hope it may be possible to do a serial nomination with

host nations.” Mark Barnes

Submitted by: David Whitley, Diana Greenlee, Mark Barnes

“UNESCO has a rock art committee intended to promote rock art World Heritage listings. They

in these nominations.”

Sacred Pipe in Native American Cultures

Pipestone NM, MN

Blood Run Site NHL, IA & SD

Leary Site NHL, NE & KS

Utz Site NHL, MO

Cahokia Mounds NHL & World Heritage Site, IL

“Can we take pipestone and make a case about the historical

material was traded over great distances, etc.?” Diana Greenlee

Submitted by: Lance Foster, Diana Greenlee



B. DISCUSSION CHART: ARCHITECTURE & URBANISMTHEME & SITES DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC. GAP / OUV

Urbanism and Housing

Planned Company Towns - Lustron Buildings, Sears Catalogue Houses; NHL

Listings

“This would also include planned company towns that in a way attempted to create a utopian urban environment within a capitalistic context.”


Relevant to other discussions? Architecture

Innovation

Modern Heritage

Meets OUV based on cultural criteria.

Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iv and vi

Urbanism and Housing

Washington, DC; San Francisco

(no NHL status)

“Washington DC - An early republican [effort] is the unique case of Washington DC as a planned city based on a Baroque plan. Washington, of course is not only important for its L’Enfant Plan and its late neo-classic architecture, but also for the role that it has placed as a major centre of power in the world.”

“San Francisco - There are also iconic and visually stunning cities that are unique for their interaction with their geography, and salient among them would be San Francisco, which would echo the inscription of Rio de Janeiro.”



“America’s great planned cities of the 17th and 18th centuries are self evidently of OUV.”

Conversation Contributor(s): David Brownlee


Innovation

Modern Heritage



Colonialism and Settlements

Anglo-American colonial Settlements - Annapolis,

Charleston, Savannah, Philadelphia and Newport.

Savannah, Philadelphia and Newport. As colonial towns that merit consideration – all this in spite of the challenge of the required 100% owner consent. There is always the possibility of securing a congressional waiver regarding the 100% owner consent. The group preparing the Charleston nomination are considering joining forces with Annapolis, Philadelphia, Newport, Savannah, Chicago and New Orleans (et al as needed) to create a support lobbying group.”


Relevant to other discussions? Architecture

Innovation


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iii, iv and v.


Utopian Communities - Amana, Shaker Villages,

New Harmony; NHL Listings

“There are a number of settlements that while representing only am incipient urbanism should be considered, and those are the various types of utopian communities that proliferated in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”



Innovation

Modern Heritage


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii. Iii, iv and v.


Mid-Century Suburban Areas and Communities - Baldwin Hills Village, Crystal Cove Cottages,

G.M. Tech Center

“Suburbanization is something that is always associated with the US – is this an urban typology particular to the US or is the US role in this typology of international importance?”



Innovation

Modern Heritage


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii and iv





Innovation, Technology

Development

Early Skyscrapers:

Chicago and New York; Marquette Building; Guaranty Building,

Wainwright Building, Philadelphia City Hall,

Woolworth Building, Chrysler Building, Empire

State Building, Lever House; Seagram Building, Kahn’s

Richards Building; NHL Listings

Discussion Excerpts / Context / Theme Studies, Etc.

“There are many other giants in the US in the development of the modern movement that demand consideration, beginning with the early skyscrapers of Chicago, and later of New York. There have been numerous discussions to identify which are the greatest landmark buildings of the 20th century in the US that should be brought into this discussion. The work of Mies van der Rohe might merit consideration as a transnational nomination with Germany.”


“One of the unique things that the US gave to the world is the skyscraper. In addition, to the giants of Modernism, there should be a serial nomination of iconic early skyscrapers – Chicago, NY, Detroit, etc. – from the pre-World War II period.”


“Skyscrapers and auto-related sites are also a home run for the technology gap.”


“NHLs include Guaranty Building, Wainwright Building, Philadelphia City Hall (tallest building in world until 1908) and those that later claimed the title: Woolworth Building, Chrysler Building, Empire State Building. And to get some more recent architecture of universal

NHL.”

“The idea of a transnational nomination for Mies is intriguing. Alternative visions of modernism such as Greene & Greene or perhaps even H. H. Richardson to complement Wright presence of the tentative list”

Conversation Contributor(s): Mark M Brown

“Louis Kahn may be deserving of the kind of group nomination being undertaken for Wright - considering the breath and quality of his mature works, though it would raise the issue as to whether the recent additions to both Salk and Kimball – arguably two of the strongest architectural works – have compromised their OUV.”







Development

Bridges:

Street Bridge, Eads Bridge, Roebling Bridge, Bollman

Truss Railroad Bridge, Knights Ferry Bridge; All

NHL Listings - Holland Tunnel

“One may think of the contribution in the 19th and 20th century architecture as well as technical and industrial monuments like some of the bridges. These sites still seem to present “easy cases” (single monuments, one owner..)”











Development

Health Science and Space Exploration:

Salk Institute for Biological Studies

vital role in the advancement of health science (places like Salk, etc) space exploration – seems like this would be something of great



Technological and


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria i, ii, iii, iv and v.


Development

Housing Programs:

Case Study Program Southern California

popular culture again seems to be very apt for the US.”



Technological and


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iii, and iv.


Development

Space Travel Sites:

Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center

“Space travel sites are obviously missing from the WH List- Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center, etc.”



Technological and


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria i, ii, and iv.

Modern and Industrial Architecture

Auto Industry & Other:

Transnational Nominations:

May also include Inventories of Industrial

Heritage such as the Automobile Industry by Albert Kahn - sites incl.

the Dearborn Inn, the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant,

The Detroit Free Press Building, Fisher Building,

Ford Motor Company Lamp Factory, River Rouge Plant - 60 + buildings with NHL

Listing

Hoover Dam, NHL Listing

GM and IBM Facilities

“Albert Kahn is considered the foremost American industrial architect of his day. He is sometimes called the architect of Detroit. As of 2006, Kahn had approximately 60 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places.”


“There are also some early examples of industrialization, like Paterson, NJ, where Alexander Hamilton set up one of our earliest planned industrial sites.”


“Certainly the works of Albert Kahn around Detroit and the River Rouge plant in particular merit strong consideration to the degree that they remain intact, but Hoover Dam should also merit consideration as both a feat of engineering and a work of stunning beauty”.


“One of the great American contributions is industrial and manufacturing. Starting with the automobile heritage to the more recent facilities for research. GM or IBM facilities come to mind.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Theo Prudon


Gap: Technological and



Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria i, ii and iv






Modern and Industrial Architecture

Beaux Arts Architecture and Interior Design:

Nominations: Schools of Architecture in Paris, Buenos Aires and other

U.S. Cities like New York. Note: Nominations can be

Transnational.

“The United States was also a major center in the development of Beaux-Arts Architecture and interior design, and while our American manifestations are derivative of those of France, exploring another transnational nomination that could include this school of architecture in the U.S.”



Gap: Technological and


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iii and iv.

American Urbanism - Migration and

International History

Nationally Designated Administration Buildings (Customs), Old Division

Monuments, Migration and border areas. Statue of

Liberty (already a WH site) - NHL Listing.

National Gateway Arch, St. Louis. NHL Listing

“…A suggestion that we take on that idea more frankly and examine the ways in which American urban development represents fundamental histories regarding immigration and colonization — two fraught themes that are integrally bound up in the US landscape and and its role in global history.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Erica Avrami


“how to address buildings and structures located in the border

and international history. There are old division monuments and nationally designated administrative buildings (for Customs) and other interesting structures (I just know a portion of the border). This is an underrepresented architecture and urban landscape with a rich history for both nations.”

Conversation Contributor(s): Maria Curry


“Migration as a key theme of great relevance here – there are

super interesting. “



Conversation Contributor(s): Jonathan Tourtellot

Relevant to other discussions? Specify: Architecture, Technology

Globalization, Migration








Governmental Headquarters -

Extraterritorial Sites

UN Headquarters, UNESCO Headquarters, OAS Headquarters (Pan

American Union)

“The United Nations Headquarters – not perhaps of outstanding

technical and political symbol, arguably the apotheosis (for better or worse) of the Modern movement – also probably the most recognizable single building complex on earth.”



is an extraterritorial site. There are also two sites (perhaps more in Geneva) that would have potential. One is the OAS headquarters in Washington DC (Pan American Union) by Paul Cret. It is the earliest international organization. “

“The OAS is interested in nominating this building, and are looking at the reverse of a transnational nomination by having all the member states of the OAS ‘nominate a single property’ which is jointly “owned.” The same would be true of the UNESCO headquarters in Paris by Breuer – a close cousin of our HUD headquarters.”

Gap:

Government and Governance



American Urban Cultural Landscape

The Hudson River Valley

“The regional aspects can yield a combination of types. On every occasion that the US Tentative List has been open for comment in recent years - the Hudson River Valley, with a serial group of NHL properties and a series of historic district, scenic and environmental protections in place may be a valid nomination, inspiring art, literature from the 19th century.”

“If the NHL properties were added to the US Tentative List- the question would arise - Can they be nominated with a river overlay zone, the coincides with existing legal protections, serve as the buffer zone and subject of the required management plan? This example can be extrapolated to address various US designated National Heritage Areas, which may encompass urban, and rural areas, and address cultural diversity as expressed by immigrant groups and /or cultural diversity.”

“There is also the potential for cultural routes, that link urban areas to be a theme missing form the US WH efforts to date, but represented in by other States Parties on their inscriptions.”

Living Cultures / Diversity


Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iii, v and vi.

Possible WH Criteria: Cultural Criteria ii, iv and vi



C. DISCUSSION CHART: TECHNOLOGY & INDUSTRYTHEME & SITES DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC. GAP / OUV

Mining/minerals, non-ferrous metals

Kennecott (in Wrangell Elias NP); Quincy and

C&H Copper Mines, NHLs in Keweenaw National

Historical Park; Butte, MT

US. Among them are some within National Parks (so the ownership issue is minimized) like the Kennecott Mine in Wrangell St. Elias NP, and the Quincy and Calumet and Hecla Mines in the Keweenaw National Historical Park. These three copper mines set international standards for production and technological innovation, as well as providing the basis for sizeable communities of immigrant workers. Both Kennecott and Keweenaw have been the subjects of NPS Cultural Landscape Reports, and include NHL properties. Butte, MT is also an NHL with tremendous integrity and authenticity.

KEWE is a regional park, much like an NHA, with wide landscape spread and scope

Especially relevant also as cultural landscape.Power/Energy

Sault Ste. Marie Hydro (ASCE); Niagara Adams

Transformer House (NHL)

Lots of dams.

Manufacturing

othersAuto Industry &

Transport

Many Bridges, especially Brooklyn; Erie Canal!

Great Auto industry sites in Detroit and elsewhere

Auto Industry: The US is uniformly recognized as the primary home of the global auto industry throughout the 20th century, and the landscape is littered with physical sites and cultural landscapes that

these relicts (MotorCities National Heritage Area and some of its

Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Museum in Auburn, Indiana,

architectural design, seen best through the work of Albert Kahn and his studio in several Detroit locations.

innovations and installations, from the Erie Canal to the Brooklyn Bridge and beyond. The expansion of American agriculture and industry into the midsection of the continent was enabled by not only the drive of canal-building, but also the innovative production and use of hydraulic cement to construct critical components of the Erie Canal. This system fueled the enormous growth of enterprise and population that characterized much of the 19th century, and substantial portions are not only still largely intact, but also in use, and much of it is managed by the cultural professionals of the State of New York and the US NPS in the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor. The Sault Ste. Marie locks and canal, joining Lakes Superior and Huron, also provide an essential link for transport of massive quantities of iron ore from the ranges of Minnesota and Michigan, as well as grain from

locks, canals, and adjacent hydroelectric power station have been the focus of HAER-sponsored documentation.





Auto Industry & Transport

(continued)

The US also contains an incredible array of bridges, many built using designs and technologies developed here. Perhaps best known is the Roebling-designed Brooklyn Bridge, but also deserving attention are remarkable structures like the Eads Bridge across the Mississippi, both National Historic Landmarks. Eric DeLony, late of HAER, did an excellent thematic study of US bridges that could serve as a starting point.

Communities


Many examples of company towns/planned communities, often with manufacturing/productive facilities intact

During it’s massive 19th century industrialization, the US was home to a number of planned communities, developed expressly to support industrial enterprises. Communities such as Lowell, Massachusetts, set the standards for establishment of linked hydro-powered textile mills and controlled communities of workers recruited from the hinterlands.

scholarly study and heritage development. Other planned communities such as Manchester, NH, Paterson, NJ, and Bethlehem, PA deserve consideration, as well.

Agro Industry

Silos to Smokestacks NHA

Important productive advances, often landscape scale (again)

Military/Space

Loads of examples from discussion, apparently NPS theme study also underway

This theme came up regularly, and could perhaps best be characterized under the NPS Man in Space National Historic Landmark theme studies.



D. DISCUSSION CHART: LIVING CULTURES & DIVERSE HERITAGE

Question 1


Persistence and perseverance of culture/

identity in the face of injustice and adversity

American Indian communities;

LGBTQ sites;

African American Civil Rights movement events and

sites

Lance Foster wrote with reference to American Indian culture: “we have endured in some of the best land in the region of the cornbelt, for almost 180 years, in the face of unrelenting corruption, violence, and land pressures by our non-Indian neighbors over the land, even the tiny acreage left to us. Yet we knew and used this land for over 1000 years at least. We have had to change much, perhaps most of what we were, yet we still retain our identity as a community of shared heritage.”

Mark Meinke wrote “The LGBTQ community’s heritage, recently recognized as underrepresented in the NPS survey of historic sites is

and recognition of LGBTQ sites is at a very early stage there are sites, such as the Stonewall Inn, where events occurred that have had world-reaching effects. There are many reasons why the Stonewall In NHL could be considered a World Heritage site. There

Submitted by several

Gap: Diversity of Heritage and Peoples, Sites of Conscience and Painful Histories

Outstanding Universal

Movements for Social Change/Civil Rights;

Possible WH Criteria: iii, v, vi

Religious communal

tolerance and independence

New Harmony, Indiana

Moravian settlements in Bethlehem, PA and

Winston-Salem, NC

Amish communities in PA, Indiana, and Ohio

Brent Glass wrote: The history of religion is often overlooked as a

the 18th and 19th centuries, communal society movements, and the establishment of religions that survived despite intense opposition are stories that have shaped the nation’s identity. In addition, the principle of separation of church and state has produced a number

experience.

From Connie Weinzapfel:

An important aspect of 18th and 19th century immigration and settlement, particularly in rural areas of the United States, was the uniquely American brand of social experimentation known as communal utopianism. There were (and are) two main strains of this human desire – religious, as in Shakers, Amana Colonies, etc. and secular, such as Oneida’s Perfectionists and Fourier’s Phalanxes.

While there are many well-preserved historic utopian communities extant, New Harmony, Indiana is the only surviving, living community that was founded and built by the religious, millennial Harmonie Society, and then sold to the secular social reformer, Robert Owen of Scotland.

Diversity of Heritage, Associative Landscapes that have or continue to inspire religions, spiritual beliefs, art, literature, etc.

Outstanding Universal Value: Yes

C. Weinzapfel described the OUV as “the impulse for communal co-existence.”

Possible WH Criteria: ii, iii, vi





Religious communal

tolerance and independence

(continued)

The OUV is the impulse for communal co-existence, which is found throughout world history. This human instinct was made uniquely possible by the concepts of democracy and religious freedom in the United States. The WHL gap that this nomination would address is the thematic framework of social systems, of which there

as lacking representation, would include: early 19th century agricultural development; textile production and other types of manufacturing; pioneering, New World science; democratic access to education; and the promotion of abolition of slavery and equal rights for women.

Charlene Donchez Mowers wrote: The Moravian community of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania founded in 1741 was part of this tight-knit, world-wide network of Moravian settlements. Bethlehem and the other historic Moravian communities were planned and structured, guided by their mission of spirituality and supported by their

bear witness to a global identity espousing the greater good of the world community regardless of race, nationality, gender, language, or religion and represent their efforts in medicine, education, technology, music, equality, and diversity.

Submitted by: Connie Weinzapfel, Charlene Donchez Mowers

Relevant to other discussions? Cultural LandscapesAmerica’s innovative

musical traditions

New Orleans Jazz National Historic Park

Detroit Motown

New York

Heritage, Diversity of Heritage and Peoples

Communities that are examples of multi-

Gullah communities in the South, Gullah Geechee

Cultural Heritage Corridor

Santa Fe, NM

Katherine Burlingame wrote: I would strongly suggest to look into the Gulla people — descendants of workers from South Carolina and Georgia plantations who have lived and continue to live with their unique culture in the southern states. Particularly with respect to their language and their basket-weaving traditions, I would most certainly argue that they fall into criteria iii and vi.

William Iseminger wrote: “showing a continuity of tradition would be places such as Santa Fe, NM, especially Old Town area, where traditional forms of architecture from the Pueblo cultures have been maintained. It is also a cultural and arts center for both traditional Native artists and a modern artist colony.”

Submitted by Katherine Bulingame, William Iseminger


Heritage and Peoples, Intangible Heritage

Outstanding Universal Value: Yes, Outstanding Value as Testimony of Cultural Perseverance

Possible WH Criteria: iii, vi





Latino Heritage

List of sites at right

Representatives of the NPS Latino Heritage Expert Scholars Panel suggested these 4 sites as priority:

El Pueblo de los Angeles Historic District in Los Angeles County, California

The Forty Acres in Kern County, California

Old San Juan Historic District in San Juan Puerto Rico

Acequia de Chamita in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.

Heritage and Peoples

Outstanding Universal Value: varied

Possible WH Criteria: ii, v, vi

Question 2


Maintaining cultural heritage after

immigration

Japanese Schools in Japantowns

http://www.californiajapantowns.org/preserving.html

“not just used to teach children how to speak, read and write in their parents’ language, but also as a site for inculcating community values, passing along cultural practices and holding community-wide gatherings.” – Donna Graves



Living Cultures / Diversity of Heritage and Peoples


v, vi

Slavery and slave trade

South Carolina Low Country

changing land patterns. The African manipulation of land for the

Caribbean immigrants and the survival of the land patterns they

only symbolizes the slave trade as an integral element in the North American colonization process and its success, but also showcase how

development of an American settlement’s economy and social structure. Both the urban fabric and the rural landscape are tangible evidence.

Submitted by: Brittany Lavelle Tullla

Heritage and Peoples. Sites of conscience and painful historical events.

OUV: Yes, Historic Value of Slave Trade as Example of Humanity’s Worst Impulses

Possible WH Criteria: iii, v

Native American Culture

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Sites associated with retention of heritage/identity as well as the destruction of our Native American nations, massacre sites, prisons,

Submitted by Lance Foster, University of Georgia students


of Peoples, Sites of conscience and painful historical events. Living Cultural Landscapes

Possible WH Criteria, iii, v, vi,





Protest and March Corridors

Selma to Montgomery, AL National Historic Trail

Pride March Route, San Francisco

United Farmworkers March, Delano to Sacramento, CA

1966

Chavez Special Resource Study

Submitted by: Donna Graves

Gap: Diversity of Heritage and Peoples. Sites of conscience and painful historical events.

OUV: Yes Historic

Movements for Social Change/Civil Rights

Possible WH Criteria: v, vi

Migration/Immigration

Ellis Island National Monument

Ellis Island is important to this group because it is the best known symbol of immigration to both sides of the migration story; it physically represents the point where many groups entered the US as well as the symbol to all of the families left behind in many parts of the world and heard the stories of life in the US.

Heritage and Peoples.

OUV: Yes Historic Value and

Attitudes Toward Migration/Immigration

Possible WH Criteria: v, vi



E. DISCUSSION CHART: CULTURAL LANDSCAPESTHEME & SITES DISCUSSION EXCERPTS / CONTEXT / THEME STUDIES, ETC. GAP / OUV

Landscapes associated with Native American cultures in

the Midwest

Cahokia (WH),

Monument, Blood Run, Pipestone,

Leary,

examples of Hopewell Culture.

(These could be considered as a group)

ways to accommodate, survive, and establish mutualism with the

Consider a multiple property – type approach, listing several sites related to a common theme perhaps ancient Native American cities and sacred sites

Conversation Contributor(s): Lance Foster, Mark Barnes, Brenda Williams, Alisandra Cummins

Underrepresented Groups


iii, v, vi

Landscapes associated with Native American settlement

and lifeways

First Peoples Buffalo Jump (NHL)

changing land patterns. The African manipulation of land for the

Caribbean immigrants and the survival of the land patterns they

only symbolizes the slave trade as an integral element in the North American colonization process and its success, but also showcase

and social structure. Both the urban fabric and the rural landscape are tangible evidence.

Submitted by: Brittany Lavelle Tullla

Heritage and Peoples. Sites of conscience and painful historical events.

OUV: Yes, Historic Value of Slave Trade as Example of Humanity’s Worst Impulses

Possible WH Criteria: iii, v

Sites associated with the destruction of our Native

American nations

Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site

Submitted by: Lance Foster, Astrid Liveman Possible WH Criteria:

Iii, iv, vi

Landscapes associated with Civil Rights Movement

Bethel

Brown Chapel AME (NHL)

Sixteenth Street, Dexter

The three churches (Bethel, Sixteenth Street, and Dexter), from the 2008 tentative list should remain on the list and be expanded to include the Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge and possibly other sites such as the route of the march from Selma to Montgomery. As the NPS has noted, “a serial nomination of a larger grouping of dis-contiguous sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement …”

Submitted by: Carroll Van West, Rolf Diamant

Gap: Underrepresented groups

OUV: part of larger context of civil rights movements


iii, vi





Landscapes associated with the Plantation Economy and

the Slave Trade

Brookgreen Gardens (NHL)


Drayton Hall (NHL)

Hampton Plantation State Historic Site ( NHL, State Park)

Hopsewee Plantation (NHL)

Middleton Place (NHL)

Orton Plantation

(NR _ NHL requested)

Penn School Historic District (NHL)

Roberts Smalls House (NHL)

Also ACE Basin Biosphere Reserve

Evolved Landscape -The rice-based economy in the Carolina

converted and then controlled through the use of enslaved labor for over a century. In looking at this area the landscape was (re)designed to manufacture rice on a scale never before seen in history. Expressions of the wealth thus generated are found across Charleston and its surrounding plantations on cultural landscapes designed to highlight this wealth through formal gardens in urban and rural settings, as well as plantation layout. Under the evolved landscape criterion, it is clear that this vast area has evolved through a complex interaction of human and natural events

Also an associative landscape Due to the exceptional combination of African and European cultures within this particular agricultural landscape many centuries of art and literature with spiritual meaning. The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor created to express some of those values.

Submitted by: Brittany Lavelle Tulla, Richard Gilmore, Alissandra Cummins, Alexandra Kruse


http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/3rice/3rice.htm

Underrepresented groups, agricultural landscapes


Iii, v, and vi

Routes of the Slave trade


The issues involved in The Slave Trade Route are truly global and they must be dealt with globally, and not as an isolated US experience. We cannot discuss Southern plantations without including the West Indies where plantation culture was developed. We cannot ignore the impact of slavery on the cultures of Brazil, Cuba and elsewhere in the Americas. We cannot talk about the fortunes made possible by enslaved labor in the South and ignore the fortunes that made possible the construction of so may great houses in Great Britain.

Submitted by: Gustavo Araoz, Brittany Lavell TullaCultural and Historic Trade

Routes in North America

Lewis and Clark

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site

Sergeant Floyd Monument (NHL)

Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site

Fort Clatsop NHS

Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

Santa Fe Trail

Route 66

“Landscape along the Missouri River is important for both Native American villages and early exploration and trade.”

Lewis and Clark Travel Itinerary

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/lewisandclark/sitelist.htm

by: Gustavo Araoz, Allyson Brooks, Emily Williams, Elizabeth Watson Suzanne Guerra

Western Hemisphere cultural routes inscribed on the WH list in other nations, including several in Latin America-US-Mexico transnational nomination of the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was prepared previously but only the Mexican side was nominated.





Transboundary knowledge Exchange

Cache La Poudre NHA

Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area has the potential for a world heritage site due to it being the birthplace of water law that affects not only the arid western US but also Mexico, as well as being a model for countries around the world. The complex system of water delivery ditches and the technological development of the Parshall Flume for measuring water created not only a unique and beautiful natural habitat but also a different cultural way of life centering on the use of water for agriculture, recreation and urbanization.

Submitted by: Kathleen BenedictSettlement and cultural

exchange

http://www.nps.gov/history/aapi/

Chinatowns hold a particularly interesting place in this work and might be an appropriate category to pursue in relation to living cultures and diverse heritage, and to the cultural landscapes gap

Agricultural landscapes of North America

Native American contributions to farming

Hispanic settlement and

Trujillo Homesteads (NHL) in the San Luis Valley CO

Western ranching Grant Kohrs National Historic

Site

Plantation culture of the south See list of NHL Plantations

under the Plantation Economy and Slave Trade

Midwestern agriculture

Vineyard Landscape Napa Valley

Agricultural heritage of the United States has often been overlooked in our schemes of historic recognition. This heritage

settlement from other countries, and the heritage ranges from small

and grazing operations

The various sites and periods of the American Prairie-Plains, from our Native American tribes to the development of the agricultural industry that feeds the world, are not addressed on the current list. Domestication and farming of corn, beans and squash in the American Midwest and the integrated American farming system of crops and livestock, dependent on rich prairie soils, has been the foundation to feeding the global population.

For more on Native American contributions to farming see this site: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/IndianFarmers.pdf

Certainly the idea of ranching, cattle drives, and cowboys has generated a vast literature.

Plantation landscapes in the southern states provide ample evidence of the kind of exchanges of knowledge, cultures and skills that would provide quintessential examples of the type see the above discussion of Landscapes associated with the Plantation Economy and the Slave Trade.

One notable attempt to address this situation was the “Silos and

and agricultural landscapes (including the Native American peoples who started the practice of farming corn and its associated crops), to factories that produced world-famous agricultural machinery like John Deere

Submitted by: [name of person (s) who suggested theme, example(s)] Lance Foster, Mark Brown, Darwina Neal


Iii and iv





20th century places/landscapes associated with

global war/peace

Chamizal National Memorial / Mexico Peace Park

Manhattan Project National Monument

Port Chicago National Memorial

Place/landscape associated with the United Nations; or the newly-established NPS Manhattan Project areas, including Los Alamos; or the Glacier/Waterton Peace Park on the US/Canada border, or the US Chamizal National Memorial / Mexico Peace Park across the border in El Paso . Or a place/landscape associated with a grass-roots international indigenous or community peace movement.

Submitted by: Jill Cowley, Donna Graves


vi

Associative/ evocative landscapes associated with international art/creativity

movements, involving a diversity of living cultures

Hudson River Valley

Olana: Frederick Church historic site (NHL)

Thomas Cole National Historic Site

Other associative landscapes to consider such as the art and literature arising from the Hudson River Valley where there are

a serial NHL in the valley and a number of historic, scenic and environmental legal controls are already in place.


vi

US contribution to parks and protected areas: History

of conservation and park movement and beginnings

of national parks

Central Park (an NHL) and Yosemite NP

This could also include other western parks and a group of

these could be nominated as a national serial nomination.

Central Park in New York (NHL) began a movement in 1858 that inspired not only other city parks, but later the creation of regional scenic reservations, which in turn our national park system.

There is also an international context related to the struggle between republicanism and oligarchy so central to the future of an emerging park ideology. Frederick Law Olmsted was acutely aware of this context and in his 1865 Report on Yosemite he repeatedly references examples from the Old World of the global contest between democratic ideals and aristocratic privilege. Olmsted is speaking about both the New World and Old World when he warns against the monopolization of natural resources and access to recreational opportunities.

Subsequently, parks such as New York’s Central Park and the U.S.

countries around the world. From an international perspective, many countries credit the US for the idea of national parks, that they have imported and applied.

Criteria (i), (ii), (iv)





US contribution to parks and protected areas

(continued)

initial campaign for parks in New York; but the broader, American movement took on its own momentum, theory, and practice (and initiated the profession of landscape architecture). By the early 20th century, the ideologies and design practices developed in regional scenic reservations shaped the early policies of the US

international national park movement in the 20th century. Olmsted’s Yosemite report established the fundamental rhetoric and rationalizations for national park making in the US and the world.

key portions of the 1916 Organic Act establishing the NP Service

why governments should establish scenic reservations–and parks in general–in terms that applied for large municipal parks and regional scenic reservations, as well as wilderness areas.

Submitted by: Ethan Carr and Rolf Diamant

History of landscape design and landscape architecture

Park development and design

designed parks, parkways and park systems and ‘landscape urbanism’

Central Park, Boston’s Emerald Necklace and other Olmsted

designs

A series of designed landscapes that should be

considered are the Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux

designed parks, parkways and park systems which were built in the late 19th century in dozens of cities across the

country including Buffalo NY,

coordinated system of public parks and parkways.

Central Park in New York (NHL) began a movement in 1858 that inspired other city parks (as well as the creation of regional scenic reservations, which in turn national park system.)

In Boston, the “Emerald Necklace” park system initiated the

infrastructure” or “green urbanism.” There are also important park landscapes not directly associated with Olmsted–the Minneapolis

story of 19th-century US landscape urbanism.

of the American park movement is its association with the early development of a distinct form of urbanism that today is known and practiced internationally under the names of “landscape urbanism,” “green infrastructure,” etc. All over the world, a landscape-based approach to urbanism is now seen as a potential salvation as cities grow to unprecedented sizes in the developing world, as the growing world population becomes more urban, and as the need to mitigate the causes of climate change becomes more intense. Landscape-based urbanism is an international phenomenon, widely hoped to be the key to sustainable patterns of future urbanization. If we consider the great challenges of the 21st century–increased urbanization and climate change–the early development

contributions US society has produced.

Olmsted / Olmsted & Vaux: Other cities that feature his park and urban planning projects include the Niagara Reservation in Niagara Falls, NY; Mount Royal Park in Montreal, Quebec; the Emerald Necklaces in Boston, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Chicago; Central Park in NYC; a park system in Louisville KY; master plans for university campuses including UC Berkeley, Stanford, St. Catherine’s Ontario, and Univ. of Chicago.

Outstanding Universal Value: an international

and OUV for a group of sites in the US associated with the American park movement (potentially municipal, regional, state, and national).


Criteria (i), (ii), (iv)





History of landscape design and landscape architecture - City Beautiful Movement

Meridian Hill Park

in Washington, DC, is an expression of this Beaux-Arts

classicism.

City Beautiful Movement

Building upon Olmsted and Vaux’s 1858 plan for Central Park (NHL), a subsequent generation of architects, city planners and landscape architects fanned out across the country, reshaping urban environments and leaving their mark upon the cultural landscape. These next-generation urban designers and landscape architects owed a great deal to their visionary predecessors, yet they did not express themselves in same naturalistic, Olmstedian Picturesque idiom. Rather, they embraced the prevailing principles of Beaux-Arts classicism and saw themselves as practitioners of the

Architecture, sculpture, painting and landscape architecture were considered the essential components for creating better urban design. The genesis of this collaborative spirit was developed at the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893 and promulgated, notably, by architects like William Rutherford Mead and Charles Follen McKim. To further this vision, they established at the American Academy in Rome a beachhead of classicism that informed a generation of emerging talent.

urbanism/settlements or early interactions between

man and nature in a cultural landscape typology

Charleston, SC et al

Other examples of urban heritage, ranging from colonial, 19th and 20th

centuries, to include Annapolis, Philadelphia, Old San Juan,

St. Augustine, Savannah, and for modern heritage Columbus,

Indiana, among others.

The city as an historic urban landscape

The ways in which American land use development represents fundamental histories regarding immigration and colonization — two fraught themes that are integrally bound up in the US landscape and and its role in global history.

Charleston proposes a nomination that incorporates the urban landscape. Charleston is not proposing a purely urban or architectural landscape, but rather component parts within the city of Charleston, along with associated landscapes in the surrounding Low Country, that represent the distinct urban-rural relationship that

American colonization.



F. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS NOTE: results do not include personal email address responses to Questions 4 and 6.QUESTION 1: What is your PRIMARY AREA OF EXPERTISE?

Answer Options Response Percent Response CountArchaeology / Anthropology 16.3% 58Architecture / Architectural History / Urbanism 15.4% 55Living Cultures 4.2% 15Landscapes 8.7% 31Technology / Science / Invention / Industrial Heritage 4.8% 17History 10.1% 36Historic Preservation 40.4% 144Other (please specify) 48

answered question 356skipped question 0

“Other” Responses:Disaster Management and protecting cultural heritage CommunicationsLaw, government and public policy Cultural Resource Conservation/EducationMuseums, primarily history Cultural LandscapesMan in Space EngineeringNational Heritage Area Program Administrator Law and in/justice & Race and spaceTourism management Disaster responseAmerican Latino Heritage Expert Scholars Panel FORTIFICATIONSNatural and cultural heritage management and local economic development Management of Natural and Cultural NPS/UNESCO Sites

Urban planning undewater cultural heritageStructural Engineering Architecture / Urbanism and Historic PreservationFinance historic preservation specialistart museums and rare books LawArchitectural conservation TourismManagement Architecture and urbanismLaw Architectural ConservationArt History; New Mexico cultural history Classical LanguagesConservation I was also a licensed architect during this period until I retired.

Professionally trained conservator Cultural Landscapes/Landscape History/Historical Landscape Architecture

+Historic Preservation cultural heritage lawCultural Heritage Law museum collectionsI primarily work with 20th century historic resources History/Historic PreservationStructural Engineering ArchitectureArt historyFine art conservationAlso Maritime HeritageArchitecture and Historic Preservation



QUESTION 2: For HOW MANY YEARS have you worked in this area?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count5 years or fewer 12.9% 46

6-10 years 10.1% 3611-15 years 9.6% 3416-20 years 12.9% 46

20 years or more 54.5% 194answered question 356

skipped question 0

QUESTION 3: Are you a MEMBER OF US/ICOMOS?Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Yes 55.6% 198No 44.4% 158


QUESTION 4: If you would like to learn more about US/ICOMOS membership, please provide your email address.

Answer Options Response Count 84


Open-ended responses not included in order not to disclose personal email addresses.

Answer Options Response Percent Response CountYes 25.1% 89No 74.9% 266


your email address.Answer Options Response Count

109answered question 109

skipped question 247

Open-ended responses not included in order not to disclose personal email addresses.

QUESTION 7: How FAMILIAR are you with the UNESCO World Heritage program?

Answer OptionsNot at all Familiar

Somewhat Unfamiliar

FamiliarSomewhat Familiar

Very Familiar

Rating Average

Response Count

4 29 77 111 132 3.96 353




QUESTION 8: How MANY World Heritage sites have you visited in the United States or abroad? (please estimate):Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

0 1.7% 61-2 10.0% 353-5 18.5% 656-9 19.7% 6910+ 50.1% 176


QUESTION 9: What do you think the PRIMARY BENEFIT of World Heritage Listing is for U.S. sites?Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Increased international awareness and understanding 31.5% 110Commitment to long-term preservation 29.2% 102Improved management and upgraded presentation 7.4% 26Increased funding for sites 1.7% 6

3.2% 11Enhanced appreciation and knowledge of U.S. culture and history 23.8% 83Other (please specify) 3.2% 11


OTHER:Enhanced local as well as visitor appreciation of heritage values and their associated assets Valorization of descendent and/or associated communities, which in turn may translate into holistic revitalizationAND increased international awareness and understandingEnhanced appreciation and knowledge of INDIGENOUS culture and historyAll above follow from WH listing of national sites

Increased appreciation of the US cultural and historical connections with world historyIt differs depending on the site and can include a mix of the above.Building social and political capital through the nomination and preservation processIncreased foreign tourism



QUESTION 10: Considering U.S. properties currently inscribed on the World Heritage List, in your opinion, please RATE the extent to which the following themes are UNDER- OR OVER-REPRESENTED. [NOTE: to see a list of current U.S. World Heritage sites, please copy and open this link in a new window: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us.]

Answer Options

Very Under-Represented

Under-Represented

Adequately Represented

Over-Represented

Very Over-Represented

Rating Average

Response Count

Living cultures 89 174 49 2 1 1.90 315

Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant cultural groups

78 172 66 4 1 2.00 321

Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible heritage) that are embodied in place

92 168 57 2 0 1.90 319

Cultural landscapes 67 154 87 9 0 2.12 317

Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution

106 159 51 5 1 1.87 322

Sites of conscience and painful historical events

140 137 40 5 0 1.72 322

Recent heritage of the 20th century

116 155 43 8 1 1.83 323

Mixed cultural and natural heritage

55 155 99 9 1 2.20 319

Early human occupation of the New World

54 130 117 16 2 2.32 319

answered question 326

skipped question 30



QUESTION 11: In your opinion, which of the following themes are MOST IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS OR ADD to the U.S. Tentative List at this time? Please rate the LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE, in your opinion, for each theme. [NOTE: to see a list of current U.S. Tentative List sites, please copy and open this link in a new window: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=us.]

Answer Options Not at all Important

Not Important Important Extremely

ImportantRating

AverageResponse

Count

Living cultures 3 50 174 85 3.09 312Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant cultural groups

3 26 166 122 3.28 317

Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible heritage) that are embodied in place

5 30 185 94 3.17 314

Cultural landscapes 3 33 181 99 3.19 316Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution 0 43 189 88 3.14 320

Sites of conscience and painful historical events 3 24 145 147 3.37 319

Recent heritage of the 20th century 3 60 182 72 3.02 317Mixed cultural and natural heritage 4 56 178 74 3.03 312Early human occupation of the New World 4 73 171 66 2.95 314


QUESTION 12: OPTIONAL: Which of the following best represents YOUR RACIAL OR ETHNIC HERITAGE? Choose all that apply.

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

White 84.6% 258Hispanic or Latino 5.9% 18Black or African American 1.6% 5Native American or American Indian 4.9% 15

3.9% 12Other (please specify) 6.9% 21


OTHER:white, hispanic, latino African Caribbean European AmericanItalian-American Euro-American Hispanicized whiteIrish Anglo-Celtic Australian Living Latin in Puerto RicoJewish South Asian AmericanScotch Irish Anglo-Mexican N/A (there’s no real reason for you to be asking this...)Decline to state Anglo-AmericanRoma Americanhuman Alsatien



QUESTION 13: Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your participation in this important initiative and encourage you to join in an expert discussion now by following this link, which will take you to the Consultation home page with directions and discussion topics to choose from: http://consultation.usicomos.org/.

Answer Options Response Count 3


Response TextThis seems to be a place for additional comments. I would note, apropos “mixed cultural and natural sites,” that many current U.S. listings (Great Canyon, Hawaiian Volcanoes, Yosemite, etc.) are really “mixed” sites and one approach to addressing the gap would be to update the listings.Thank you. thank you for inviting me to participate in this survey



G. SURVEY INSTRUMENT

[Welcome Statement]Welcome. We appreciate your participation in this short survey to learn more about you and your thoughts on World Heritage in the United States. The survey should take approximately [5] minutes to complete.

[Background, ICOMOS participation]1. What is your PRIMARY AREA OF

EXPERTISE?

a. Archaeology / Anthropology

b. Architecture / Architectural History / Urbanism

c. Living Cultures

d. Landscapes

e. Technology / Science / Invention / Industrial Heritage

g. History

h. Historic Preservation

i. Other: _______________________

2. For HOW MANY YEARS have you worked in this area?

a. 5 years or fewer

b. 6-10 years

c. 11-15 years

d. 16-20 years

e. 20 years or more

3. Are you a MEMBER OF US/ICOMOS?

a. Yes

b. No

If “Yes,” they will skip to Q5. If “No,” they will be asked:

4. If you would like to learn more about US/ICOMOS membership, please provide your email address.

you a MEMBER OF AN ICOMOS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE?

a. Yes

b. No

If “Yes,” they will skip to Q7. If “No,” they will be asked:

6. Would you like to learn more about ICOMOS

provide your email address.

[World Heritage participation and opinions]7. How FAMILIAR are you with the UNESCO

World Heritage program?

a. Not at all Familiar

b. Somewhat Unfamiliar

c. Familiar

d. Somewhat Familiar

e. Very Familiar

8. How MANY World Heritage sites have you visited in United States or abroad? (please estimate):

a. 0

b. 1-2

c. 3-5

d. 6-9

e. 10+

9. What do you think the PRIMARY BENEFIT of World Heritage Listing is for U.S. sites?

a. Increased international awareness and understanding

b. Commitment to long-term preservation

c. Improved management and upgraded presentation

d. Increased funding for sites

f. Enhanced appreciation and knowledge of U.S. culture and history

g. Other:__________________________



areas of human culture and achievement that are currently under- or unrepresented on the World Heritage List.

10. Considering U.S. properties currently inscribed on the World Heritage List, in your opinion, please RATE the extent to which the following themes are UNDER- OR OVER-REPRESENTED. [NOTE: to see a list of current U.S. World Heritage sites, please copy and open this link in a new window: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us.]

Scale:

1=Very Under-Represented

2=Under-Represented

3=Adequately Represented

4=Over-Represented

5=Very Over-represented

a. Living cultures

b. Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant cultural groups

c. Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible heritage) that are embodied in place

d. Cultural landscapes

e. Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution

f. Sites of conscience and painful historical events

g. Recent heritage of the 20th century

h. Mixed cultural and natural heritage

i. Early human occupation of the New World

11. In your opinion, which of the following themes are MOST IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS OR ADD to the U.S. Tentative List at this time? Please rate the LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE, in your opinion, for each theme.

[NOTE: to see a list of current U.S. World Heritage sites, please copy and open this link in a new window: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us.]

1=Not at all Important

2=Not Important

3=Important

4=Extremely Important

a. Living cultures

b. Diverse heritage and peoples, including non-dominant cultural groups

c. Diversity of beliefs and traditions (i.e. intangible heritage) that are embodied in place

d. Cultural landscapes

e. Invention, industrial heritage, technological evolution

f. Sites of conscience and painful historical events

g. Recent heritage of the 20th century

h. Mixed cultural and natural heritage

i. Early human occupation of the New World

[Demographics – optional]

12. OPTIONAL: Which of the following best represents YOUR RACIAL OR ETHNIC HERITAGE? Choose all that apply.

White

Hispanic or Latino

Black or African American

Native American or American Indian

Other (please specify):_______________

[Conclusion] Thank you for completing this survey.

We appreciate your participation in this important initiative and encourage you to join in an expert discussion now by following this link, which will take you to the Consultation home page with directions and discussion topics to choose from: http://consultation.usicomos.org/



ONLINE CONSULTATION HOME PAGE SCREEN SHOTNote:that the Consultation has ended, but the website remains available for consultation online.

US/ICOMOS Directorate1307 New Hampshire Avenue, NW

Third FloorWashington, DC 20036-1531

www.usicomos.org

u.s. world heritage gap study report

Documents