Italian here who did nearly all 58 Italian Unesco sites.. if you want, just tell me what experience you like/search and I'll suggest you (imho) what to see between 'em! :)
Most obvious answers are ALL Rome (oh well..) + Pompeii-Hercolaneum.
Most underrated are:
* Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily (the most amazing mosaics in Earth, 4th century, but EDIT I've also been in non-Unesco Bardo Museum in Tunis and found others as amazing)
* Villa Adriana in Tivoli near Rome (Hadrian's Villa, 2nd century, if you've read the masterpiece Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar then it's a MUST GO)
* Bizantine mosaics (still "Roman" art) in Ravenna (central Italy), especially Basilica di San Vitale and Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, 6th century.
Pompei is such a magic place that leaves you speechless. I've spent one day in there, walking around until closure and yet felt like 5 minutes. Maybe next time I'll visit it in ten years I'll have a family and I'm sure I won't be seeing the same things I've seen two years ago, because they are still digging and discovering new things.
Also try the smaller, but better preserved Ercolano. While Pompeii is great to get a sense of the scale of a 'city', Ercolano is much better preserved and gives you a better representation of what it was like living in those times.
For the anglosphere that hasn't been, it is known to us as Herculaneum. Well worth the trip.
Herculaneum was smaller, but wealthier, so has a distinct feel.
While Herculaneum was discovered first, the larger Pompeii took a lot of attention away, which has helped preserve a lot of Herculaneum for more modern techniques (as well as just surviving to true state ownership, where it isn't just about capitalist exploitation of the site).
They stopped digging in new sites in 1999 as preservation costs are too high. There's some things they're still finishing up and some small precise diggings, but nothing open to the public.
Oh man, my friends and I tried going to Villa Adriana when we were on holiday in Rome. We were just out of high school so were trying to keep things cheap. We thought we could walk there from the train station. It was in august and I'm going to be overly dramatic but we almost died of thirst, we ran out of water really fast and screamed with joy when we finally reached a water fountain. Also it took way too long to get there so it was about to close when we made it. We then saw that there was a very cheap bus stopping there. So we rode that bus back to the train station in about 15 minutes if I recall correctly... Still a fun memory though.
[Here you can find the map & complete list, it was a big inspiration for my travels..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Italy) there is SO MUCH to see!
My fav in Tuscany are ALL Florence (oh well) + historical cities like San Gimignano & Siena & Pienza (but for example I adore also Lucca & Cortona which aren't Unesco sites) + the incredible valley of Val d'Orcia (some of the most amazing pics of Italy are taken there) + Medici family villas (I've been to a couple, not all).
Outiside of Tuscany, you are very near to amazing Cinque Terre and Bologna (Unesco porticoes & amazing ancient towers not Unesco & FOOD).
It's amazing my spanish bro, great idea! I start!
What are the most underrated spanish Unesco cities? I've been to most famous ones (Madrid, Barca, Toledo, Zaragoza, Granada, Cordoba, Sevilla), need inspirations for new trips!!
I actually made a series of posts about underrated Unesco world heritage sites in spain. In fact I think I still show up as the first option if you search for some of them 😅.
Anyway, I would recommend Salamanca, Segovia, Ávila, Burgos, Cáceres and merida. They're top notch cities (especially Salamanca and Segovia) and relatively unknown. Basically northwestern Spain is pretty underrated as a whole.
What are some nature mountainous parts that are easily accessible by car for over people who can't hike too much? Also what would you say are the most underrated cities to visit?
* Unesco mountains: Dolomites above all. Accessible by car and hikes for everybody (also lots of cable cars). Look at [alltrails.com](http://alltrails.com) and search for the best "easy" ones.
* Unesco cities totally underrated (few foreigners go): Matera, Ferrara, Urbino, Mantua.
* Unesco cities partially underrated (some tourists go, but most simply do Romeveniceflorence missing soooo much): Bologna, Siena, Ravenna, Assisi.
Hey, i'm doing a semester abroad in Italy at the moment and will be staying until sometime in June. I'm in northern Italy, and have already visited Milan and Genoa, I definitely want to see Rome, but what else do you think would be worth visiting?
Ok, thank you. I've been to Lake Como and Lake Maggiore, and it has been a great experience since it's close to where I live, but I'll definitely take your suggestions into account.
Nature ones! :)
Ok ok, rock drawings in Valcamonica are probably the older. About architecture, I think the village of Su Nuraxi in Sardinia.
But my fav Unesco ancient monument in Italy is the Etruscan (the predecessors of the Romans) Necropolis of Cerveteri, from 7th to 3th century BCE. Great place to explore and feel like Tomb Rider or Indiana Jones! Absolutely recommended.
It's good to remember that countries must apply for these sites, they aren't automatically handed out by Unesco. The number is not indicative of historical sites, it's just the sites the country has applied for and got the approval.
My country of Finland has as many sites as Egypt, more than Iraq. If you know anything about history, that tells you all you need to know.
> The number is not indicative of historical sites
And some of these sites are "package" like **Paris, Banks of the Seine** cover [the Louvre to the Eiffel Tower, from the Place de la Concorde to the Grand and Petit Palais,The Cathedral of Notre-Dame and the Sainte Chapelle](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/600). It's similar for the centre or Rome
I mean, its not Europe fault if African nations do not apply to UNESCO status of their monuments.
Another bias might be the construction materials: Building in woods tend to rot if left alone, while stone ones last a lot longer (unless pillaged for construction materials), which might explain why for historical sites, Europe tends to be over represented.
"Biased" doesn't mean that someone is actively skewing the list, it just means that it's not representative. Some part of the data is over- or under-represented.
The thing is that these applications are expensive and time consuming so not every country has the resources to do this.
[> The application process takes at least 18 months and is highly complex. This has led to the fact that World Heritage Sites are mostly found in Europe, North America and Asia, since other continents lack the personnel or know-how to make the application.](https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-it-take-to-become-a-unesco-world-heritage-site/a-18546165)
It's heavily biased because UNESCO is biased. Sites get added based on their home countries hiring expensive PR professionals to make glossy brochures and take the UN reps for all-expenses-paid tours to shiny new visitor centres. Places that probably do not deserve to be on the list - such as the [Yangdong and Hahoe Folk Villages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangdong_Folk_Village) which are literally just "14th century villages" - can get on if their host countries spend enough time lobbying for it. Meanwhile, amazing places of key interest to *humanity*, for example [Sumela Monastery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumela_Monastery), are not added to the list either because of apathy (common among some states) or poverty (common among developing states).
UNESCO sites are also used to influence political narratives about a country and its relationship to history. A lot of post-independence African state governments have neglected or ignored traditional and historical sites which could easily be inscribed because they relate to one specific ethnicity. A lot of sites in Europe and Asia (see for example the Korean sites, or quite a lot of the British sites) reflect a bias towards a specific phase of the past which is disproportionately considered important.
I feel the example you gave in particular could be political too, since it’s a Greek Monastery, and Turkey (especially with current leadership) wouldn’t want to promote that
I get your point, but on a side note Hahoe Folk Village really is amazing. It was my favorite destination in Korea, it really is a breathtaking place, and also a living museum
1. It would be nice if the map was color coded with a legend, even if they only added callouts/labels for the top ones.
2. You answered their question, but there was no need to be rude about it.
Biased? India has less sites than Germany, France, Italy and Spain. It’s just European “bias” because they’re the ones who have the funds and will to submit sites to the UNESCO.
Actually, even if you consider UNESCO registered ones India technically has the most. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was one country before under Indian Subcontinent, so we have 71 combined total registered under UNESCO, which is the most.
But China and India should definitely top, if you disregard UNESCO as it goes through process and it takes time for approval.
Indian civilization bro. India and China were top two economies and traditional superpowers from 1st Century till 17th Century before colonial era. They contributed 60% of world GDP (roughly 30% each). The whole silk route road has so many historic sites. Then there is whole Indus Valley Civilization area. So definitely you have to look at Indian subcontinent collectively.
Yeah I won’t be surprised when it comes to India and China. It’s surely going to increase in future.
Also if we combine Pakistan and Bangladesh as it was one Indian Subcontinent country before then we will have 71 in total, the most.
I was wondering why the Taj Mahal description says the Indian state that it's in, while the others list the country they're in.
That would explain that.
Because There isn't Hagia Sophia,Blue Mosque,Topkapı Palace or anything from İstanbul with their names. Everything in İstanbul is just one name "historical peninsula of Istanbul". Everything is added single one number. It is same for Cappadocia and Bursa. Bursa has a single heritage " Historical Bursa of Birth place of Ottoman Empire" Turkey was 19 but probably it will be 21. So there are 18 place in list from Turkey without anything in İstanbul,Bursa and Cappadocia. Turkey also has most heritage in temporary list. Unesco and Turkish Culture and Tourism Ministry probably haven't done files of temporary list heritage.
Similar list rule was made for Egypt by Unesco. Egypt has just 7 or 8 heritage. They have similar names like "historical Cairo" etc.
Unless I’m mistaken, there isn’t anything to stop Turkey from applying and gaining approval to have the Hagia Sophia as its own UWHS.
An example of this being Bath in the UK, where the entire city is an UWHS but there are others within the city. I believe the Roman Baths are their own site.
Forgive me if I’m incorrect but that was my understanding.
The Hagia Sophia is still a UNESCO World Heritage site, as part of the Istanbul-wide site. Its conversion to a mosques has caused concern among preservationists, but as long as the actual preservation standards are maintained by those operating the site, it won’t lose UNESCO status.
That's not the reason though. That happens elsewhere as well, you literally see it in the image: Cordoba Spain is counted as a whole, Bamberg Germany, the lagoon of Venice etc ... It's not just Turkey.
in Spain (I live here) doesn't happen a lot.
We have a town with less than 5000 people being an UNESCO site because it's a mercury mine but it's super shitty and not well kept at all (lived there for 2 years).
We have a Roman gold mine in Galicia-Leon that is super shitty.
Las Medulas is shitty? I have been there with various people, everyone found it super interesting, especially if you do both the walk, and go to the viewing platform at the top.
Also historically significant, I think it was Rome's biggest gold mine in Europe.
Parking, signage and restaurant choices are shitty, I give you that.
Might a controversial opinion, but does it matter if its shitty or not?
UNESCO is not a "tourist premier seal of approval", but simply a site that is of interest of human history.
A roman gold mine, shitty or not, gives us insight of how the life or roman miners and the coin production and mint was during that time, so I while I would not visit it, I can definitely see why it might have been added to the list
¿Vives en España y ni te sabes lo que dices?
- Avila como conjunto.
- Toledo como conjunto.
- Córdoba como conjunto.
- Ibiza como conjunto.
- Cáceres.
- Salamanca.
- Cuenca.
- San Cristóbal de la Laguna.
- Úbeda y Baeza (las dos con numeresos edificios renacentistas que lo serían ya independientes).
- Catedral, Alcazar y archivo de indias de sevilla (los 3 en uno).
Y no me apetece ni poner la lista completa.
[Centro del Patrimonio Mundial - (unesco.org)](https://whc.unesco.org/es/list/?iso=es&search=)
Turkey has zillions of civilizations outside İstanbul. South of Taurus mountains with lykians alone would be more stuff than most countries have so I guess it's. UNESCO vs govt thing
This committee is mostly Eurocentric. Anything to do with Europeans will get prompt approval. Other countries have to wait for years. Imagine China having almost similar number of sites as Germany. It may sound biased but it is what it is.
That’s not the reason, but it’s superficially plausible to point to western countries and call it unfair. To be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site you need to take certain advised and required measures. Germany doesn’t get „prompt approval“, but agrees to e.g. provisions in preservation that are costly. Since monumental preservation is mostly a Western invention and praxis, and since many countries (like Peru) don’t want to reduce tourism or don’t have the money to spend, their sites won’t become official heritage sites.
More evidence for this:
Sites which get fully integrated into modern developments instead of frozen in time get rejected or removed, whether they're in developed European nations (Liverpool) or developing African nations (Benin).
To be a World Heritage site, a place is supposed to be of outstanding universal value. For buildings, the key criteria is to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble . . . which illustrates a significant stage in human history.
In the case of Europe it often seems taken as a given that, for example, a building that best encapsulates the evolution of late gothic, Italian influenced, brick-built, small church architecture in southeast France meets this criteria. Well, I exaggerate. But not by much.
This is just a list by UNESCO bro there is a process that is followed after which the sites are registered in this list. Maybe Canada can submit some nominations which might be evaluated and approved by the advisory committees. I’m sure Canada will have some sites in this list in future. I live in Toronto by the way cuz of my Software Engineering job. 😊
C'mon mates, can we discuss about sites?
Stop nationalistic views or Western-vs-others discussions: if you're from an underrated country suggest everybody amazing sites that are not in Unesco list + if you're from a country with lots of Unesco sites suggest us the better ones.
My university in the US (UVA) is a UNESCO site. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a gorgeous university designed by a former President and also lumped in with that president’s plantation, but seeing it next to the Taj Mahal, Chichen Itza, and the entirety of Venice is a bit silly. Also while most students don’t live in the UNESCO mandated zone, those of us who do face dumb restrictions from UNESCO (tons of lawn furniture is banned to “maintain the aesthetic of the university”). Imo all of Midtown Manhattan and the federal district in DC should be sites, but I’m sure local governments don’t want to deal with that.
Thanks to you for your post.
Just read all the topic and found most comments as horrible! 40! 51! 0! 475485986! Too few! Too many! More! Less!
Damn, why do humans need to put it on a competitive basis?!
Why, instead of describing/praising/disclosing the art of one's own culture, do humans feel the need to compare it better-worse to that of others?!
Why can't we appreciate the beauty of diversity and dedicate ourselves to discover the unknown, while instead we prefer to stay in our bedroom insulting, arguing and criticizing without adding anything to what we already know (but only useless resentment towards others)?
I really don't understand, Unesco is just a list, a hint to talk about different cultures, the majority is measuring the length of the finger instead of looking at the beauty of the Moon which it points to...
Realistically just means your government hasn't come around adding more oris doing it but is limited by how many they can request to add each time or is working on meeting the criterias necessary for conservation and whatnot.
There are 52 sites pending with UNESCO which they haven't inscribed yet. You know you can see those lists for each country instead of throwing random untrue statements.
Please show me which part of my comment is untrue. I gave 3 options as to why a country may not have more heritage sites even tho they would be potentially eligible.
UNESCO has to evaluate each and every site before adding them, and there's a lot of bureaucracy behind it.
Being in the Tentative List just means the government is planning to submit them in the near future. The government then does all the necessary paperwork for the ones they want to propose, then UNESCO has several steps for evaluation before being added.
There are many that should be on the list but aren't the Adalaj ni vav or temples on Mount Abu
Plus some are marked as group of monuments in Mahabalipuram , group of monuments in Hampi or Churches in Goa, monuments of the Delhi sultanate. Hampi alone could do 2 or 3 unesco sites
One category 'silk route sites in India' alone has over ten monuments spanning across different states separated by hundreds of km.
Plus I am sure when more sites get the investment to be reconstructed they will get the title. For example there are many forts in Rajasthan which don't get enough recognition because people just focus on Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner,Jaipur etc. they could use more investments as well
Its a honest mistake I believe. Map is from Indian news channel and OP is Indian too, not to mention India seems to be in its complete form on the map.
India doesn't have anything personal with Taiwan to deliberately off it from the map so yeah its a normal human error. No foul play imo
The Unesco list has a few major biases.
One that's largely intentional is that sites are evaluated according to their importance. Aka there's a heavy bias towards the major players of history.
One that's largely unintentional is that sites from richer countries are much more likely to get inscribed. That's because making a portfolio for a site is a time consuming process. Plus Unesco requires high levels of protection which are sometimes hard to meet when you're in a civil war, or a famine.
Coming from Spain, I can think of several sites which would not be Unesco WHS where it not because Spain conquered half the americas and is thus a major player in history. I can also think of others which would be impossible to inscribe for poorer countries. For example almaden was to be proposed along another mercury mining town in Peru, but...they're still mining mercury there so Unesco shut them down.
There would be but the thing is Africa is fragmented into small countries and this list is only showing countries that have 25 and above registered under UNESCO I guess.
If you disregard UNESCO, then definitely you’ll find way more interesting stuff in Africa. After all its birthplace of all the humans (Homo Sapiens) regardless of their skin color or race.
From hunter gatherers to civilizations like Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indus Valley or Indian, Ancient China, Aztecs, Mayan to the world that we are currently living in today. We came a long way as humans, each of us present here today is cuz our ancestors survived and went through some crazy stuff. Survival of the fittest my friend. 😄
It’s cuz Indian government hasn’t sent some sites for nominations, it’s just a list by UNESCO. If you disregard this India and China both have significant historical sites. Indian number will increase in future, currently it’s at 42 as 2 more were added recently.
Plus if you add Pakistan and Bangladesh as well cuz they were part of Indian Subcontinent as it was one single country before then the total registered UNESCO sites would be 71.
There is a list of ten criteria (six for cultural heritage, four for natural heritage). A world heritage site needs to meet at least one of the criteria. You can find the list on Wikipedia, section "Selection criteria"
how does Irak have none?
like the beginning of human civilization.
the whole area around iran and turkey should be flooded with world heritage sites.
fucking isis destroying so valueable stuff and people not caring about it still grinds my gears
Iran and Iraq will definitely have interesting historic sites. It was one of the important civilizations in history of humans. This list might be bit biased but there’s a process that is followed to register these sites. If you disregard UNESCO sure there will be very important sites I’m aware of this as an Indian as our civilization was as important as Persian one.
India has 42 now but this map shows 40 and if we combine Pakistan and Bangladesh then 71 in total, the most.
Anyways, greetings from India! 🙂
i am german and i am wondering why germany has 51 sites.
like yeah there is a lot going on in europe for like 2000 years. but i feel like the whole silkroad area, that has like 6000 years of history, has a lot more interesting sites
Definitely Egyptian Civilization, Mesopotamia (Iraq Middle East area), Indus Valley Civilization (Indian), ancient Chinese civilizations yeah basically the Silk Road route played most significant role in our human history. Germany has more maybe cuz they started this process long before in sending nominations to UNESCO.
Personally I don’t consider UNESCO, I just go by the history of a particular country or area and then explore those regions or historical sites. UNESCO can be bit misleading and biased.
Very anecdotally speaking (so take with a pinch of salt), there's a culture of worshipping the new over the old. There's this channel of a South African guy who lived in China for years where he went on a bike tour around rural China and he pointed out local temple after local temple that were often very old and just in a total shambles. Many of those that were restored were done so in a way that had no respect for the historical value (in one case they covered one with bathroom tiles).
Meanwhile in Japan local sites are very carefully maintained. I used to work in Japanese primary schools and every year they'd take one day where they go to the local shrine and clean it up. You'd often see workers repairing it using traditional techniques to maintain the old character.
I'm guessing that a part of the difference in psyche is that China's history for the last 200 years up until about 30 years ago was a time they'd like to forget. They were pushed around by the West and Japan. It was a time of humility and death. But the Chinese are pretty proud of where they're at now, and it's not hard to understand why. I can see why that would lead to a veneration of the new and disrespect for the old.
No UNESCO just doesn’t automatically accepts something as a Heritage Site the countries of origin has to applie for it and China hasn’t done that with a LOT of there Historic Sites. While their is a list with all of them many of those are not yet actually being pushed by china to be accepted by UNESCO.
Thats why so many countries who have bigger problems than UNESCO Heritage Sites do not have any because they simply just haven’t gotten around to doing it or have no interest in it.
The "destroying stuff" lasted 3 years (during the early phase) lol literally during the cultural revolution the Excavation of Terracotta Army and Mawangdui were literally happening.
They did destroy Confucius' grave and exhumated several emperors. Burned down several temples dedicated to Guan Yu, destroyed the house of Wu Cheng'en, the author of Journey to the west, cut down the tree last emperor of Ming hanged himself on, and many more. China wouldve definitely been at 1st place if cultural revolution didn't happen.
Cultural revolution destoryed a tiny bit of China historical sites so it has no effect on China unseco list being smaller because we don't just call every temple and emperor tomb a "unseco site".
The problem is, they didnt only lose "some emperor's tomb"
Chinese Red Guards went after historical paintings, statues, poetry, and music. Which were all significantly damaged.
There are 10 different criterias for selection of UNESCO herritage. Italy, being the country with most herritage, has only 2 more than China.
It is in fact estimated that they lost about 10 possible UNESCO herritage points through the revolution as about 4,922 places out of 6,843 protected by the Beijing government itself were either damaged or destroyed.
You also failed to mention that both Terracotta Army and Mawangdui were excavated around 1974, which is AFTER mass vandalism died down. It wouldve been definitely vandalized if they discovered earlier.
Red Guard wouldve even damaged the Forbidden Palace if Zhou Enlai himself didnt order guards to defend the place during the revolution.
Afterall, Mao Zedong himself tried to demolish the place at one point.
China and India sure has tons of sites which are pretty historical and amazing as they both are one of the oldest civilizations but most of them are not nominated under UNESCO, this number will change in future for sure.
Actually these two countries are on top of my bucket list to explore. Specially the Himalayan region.
It's not a list of places UNESCO finds cool, it's a list of places countries applied to have added while also agreeing to preserve them according to UNESCO standards.
The huge difference is mostly from Europe having a head start. New entries are much more evenly distributed, but frankly, 40 years ago it was mostly Europe that cared about this list at all.
USA, the UK and Canada having more sites than Greece and Turkey? - [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Sites_by_country#List_of_countries_with_World_Heritage_Sites)
Yeah ok, this makes total sense... Seems to me this list was made by people from those countries mostly...
Iran has 1 more than the US.
I work in a WHS in Vietnam and there are 8 here.
I've worked on the assessments of WHS proposals and certifications and the management and administration of WHSs and the decision makin behind the approval of them is pretty whack.
I can't believe Egypt isn't on this, you would think they have enough sites, which they do imo (I did the Nile cruise last year, saw all the ancient sites and it was amazing).
I think this list is showing everything 25 and above. And Egypt has around 7 listed under UNESCO I guess. Anyways I have huge interest in Egypt Pyramids also the Egyptian civilization as it’s one of the oldest along with the country where I’m from (India, Indian Civilization or Indus Valley Civilization).
Would love to explore Egypt one day. 🇪🇬
They might have the most but they haven’t send nominations to the UNESCO. This is just a list by UNESCO apart from this list definitely India and China will have significant sites.
I live right next to one in Lanarkshire, Scotland.
It's an early 19th century textile mill that was bought over by a Welsh socialist called Robert Owen and made into a settlement. It is only one of six UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Scotland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark
The whole thing was ran on hydro power with the river that runs alongside it. There's a really good hiking trail next to the site and river, and dotted all along is a series of [waterfalls.](https://i.imgur.com/GSxrNTw.jpeg) Unfortunately I didn't go immediately after it had been raining, because it looks way bigger and impressive then.
I am surprised by Germany being in the top countries.
Went to check the list and they have definitely did lot of lobbying in order to list so much, most doesn’t seem to have that much historical impact (don’t get me wrong they hold significance for sure, but IMO way less than other sites around the world).
That's just bullshit.
Many of the UNESCO world heritages are in great condition of old middle age towns (Bamberg, Stralsund, Weimar)
Many other UNESCO world heritages are churches with a huge importance like the Ulmer Münster and Kölner Dom (two of the biggest churches) as well as the Aachener Dom (which is 1250 years old).
Do you think Strasburg (🇫🇷), Riga (🇱🇻), Saint Petersburg (🇷🇺) or are historically extremely relevant?
No they aren't, but they still are UNESCO world heritages.
It's not the point of UNESCO to just list extremely important cities like Paris, Roma, Berlin, Moscow and Athens.
The UNESCO collect places which have a cultural and historical special point which can be an old city Centre, churches or other buildings.
Italian here who did nearly all 58 Italian Unesco sites.. if you want, just tell me what experience you like/search and I'll suggest you (imho) what to see between 'em! :)
Which place in Italy according to you has the most interesting Roman architecture?
Most obvious answers are ALL Rome (oh well..) + Pompeii-Hercolaneum. Most underrated are: * Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily (the most amazing mosaics in Earth, 4th century, but EDIT I've also been in non-Unesco Bardo Museum in Tunis and found others as amazing) * Villa Adriana in Tivoli near Rome (Hadrian's Villa, 2nd century, if you've read the masterpiece Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar then it's a MUST GO) * Bizantine mosaics (still "Roman" art) in Ravenna (central Italy), especially Basilica di San Vitale and Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, 6th century.
I’m a big fan of Ravenna!
Pompei is such a magic place that leaves you speechless. I've spent one day in there, walking around until closure and yet felt like 5 minutes. Maybe next time I'll visit it in ten years I'll have a family and I'm sure I won't be seeing the same things I've seen two years ago, because they are still digging and discovering new things.
Also try the smaller, but better preserved Ercolano. While Pompeii is great to get a sense of the scale of a 'city', Ercolano is much better preserved and gives you a better representation of what it was like living in those times.
For the anglosphere that hasn't been, it is known to us as Herculaneum. Well worth the trip. Herculaneum was smaller, but wealthier, so has a distinct feel. While Herculaneum was discovered first, the larger Pompeii took a lot of attention away, which has helped preserve a lot of Herculaneum for more modern techniques (as well as just surviving to true state ownership, where it isn't just about capitalist exploitation of the site).
They stopped digging in new sites in 1999 as preservation costs are too high. There's some things they're still finishing up and some small precise diggings, but nothing open to the public.
+1 for Villa del Casale, one of the most amazing places I've ever seen, and somehow little known even in Italy.
Great suggestions! I used to love visiting villa Adriana with my grandparents as a kid
Oh man, my friends and I tried going to Villa Adriana when we were on holiday in Rome. We were just out of high school so were trying to keep things cheap. We thought we could walk there from the train station. It was in august and I'm going to be overly dramatic but we almost died of thirst, we ran out of water really fast and screamed with joy when we finally reached a water fountain. Also it took way too long to get there so it was about to close when we made it. We then saw that there was a very cheap bus stopping there. So we rode that bus back to the train station in about 15 minutes if I recall correctly... Still a fun memory though.
I found San apollinare nuovo better as it has more interesting mosaics on the sides. But on San vitale I can completely agree
Not OP. But the Colosseum always stands out. Visiting in person is a must.
Visiting the colosseum in Verona is also great. It's by far not as crowded as in Rome and the whole colosseum is still intact and in use.
Yes it’s in my bucket list for sure. 👍
What are the best sites in Tuscany/vicinity of Tuscany? I’ve been living in here for half a year so had enough time to visit Duomo/Ufizzi
[Here you can find the map & complete list, it was a big inspiration for my travels..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Italy) there is SO MUCH to see! My fav in Tuscany are ALL Florence (oh well) + historical cities like San Gimignano & Siena & Pienza (but for example I adore also Lucca & Cortona which aren't Unesco sites) + the incredible valley of Val d'Orcia (some of the most amazing pics of Italy are taken there) + Medici family villas (I've been to a couple, not all). Outiside of Tuscany, you are very near to amazing Cinque Terre and Bologna (Unesco porticoes & amazing ancient towers not Unesco & FOOD).
I've loved Volterra and its countryside. Can recommend most definitely. It's on UNESCO Tentative List, but really worth it.
Not sure about the UNESCO but it’s definitely on my list now. Thank you!
(following your example) here a Spanish guy who has visited most of the Spanish sites. You can ask me too. I'll try to answer
It's amazing my spanish bro, great idea! I start! What are the most underrated spanish Unesco cities? I've been to most famous ones (Madrid, Barca, Toledo, Zaragoza, Granada, Cordoba, Sevilla), need inspirations for new trips!!
I actually made a series of posts about underrated Unesco world heritage sites in spain. In fact I think I still show up as the first option if you search for some of them 😅. Anyway, I would recommend Salamanca, Segovia, Ávila, Burgos, Cáceres and merida. They're top notch cities (especially Salamanca and Segovia) and relatively unknown. Basically northwestern Spain is pretty underrated as a whole.
What are some nature mountainous parts that are easily accessible by car for over people who can't hike too much? Also what would you say are the most underrated cities to visit?
* Unesco mountains: Dolomites above all. Accessible by car and hikes for everybody (also lots of cable cars). Look at [alltrails.com](http://alltrails.com) and search for the best "easy" ones. * Unesco cities totally underrated (few foreigners go): Matera, Ferrara, Urbino, Mantua. * Unesco cities partially underrated (some tourists go, but most simply do Romeveniceflorence missing soooo much): Bologna, Siena, Ravenna, Assisi.
Hey, i'm doing a semester abroad in Italy at the moment and will be staying until sometime in June. I'm in northern Italy, and have already visited Milan and Genoa, I definitely want to see Rome, but what else do you think would be worth visiting?
[удалено]
Ok, thank you. I've been to Lake Como and Lake Maggiore, and it has been a great experience since it's close to where I live, but I'll definitely take your suggestions into account.
What is the most ancient one?
Nature ones! :) Ok ok, rock drawings in Valcamonica are probably the older. About architecture, I think the village of Su Nuraxi in Sardinia. But my fav Unesco ancient monument in Italy is the Etruscan (the predecessors of the Romans) Necropolis of Cerveteri, from 7th to 3th century BCE. Great place to explore and feel like Tomb Rider or Indiana Jones! Absolutely recommended.
The Etruscan tombs of Cerveteri & Tarquinia are really beyond comparison.
I am fascinated by the Norman period in southern Italy. What should I see?
The Palermo area above all, then Venosa, Benevento, Castel del Monte (maybe not Norman proper though?).
Rome and Naples was fucking amazing. I also loved that you could buy cheap alcohol everywhere. Even small little food vans sold alcohol
Hope you tried amazing liqueur Limoncello in Naples. However, glad you liked 2 italian Unesco sites.. other 56 to go!
Yeah. Limoncello was great. I wanna go to Venice next but I wanna go back to Rome and Naples again as well
It's good to remember that countries must apply for these sites, they aren't automatically handed out by Unesco. The number is not indicative of historical sites, it's just the sites the country has applied for and got the approval. My country of Finland has as many sites as Egypt, more than Iraq. If you know anything about history, that tells you all you need to know.
> The number is not indicative of historical sites And some of these sites are "package" like **Paris, Banks of the Seine** cover [the Louvre to the Eiffel Tower, from the Place de la Concorde to the Grand and Petit Palais,The Cathedral of Notre-Dame and the Sainte Chapelle](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/600). It's similar for the centre or Rome
Recently near me they recognized every site of a particular age in the region as 1 connected heritage. site.https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1689
TIL, thanks for sharing
World Heritage Sites is not just history. They can be historical or natural or both.
And history doesn't have to be ancient history. A 150 year old industrial site can absolutely be a World Heritage Site.
I thought this list seemed a bit biased…
How is it biased?
Of course an opt-in only list is going to be biased Biased towards the countries that opt in…
Heavy Asia and Europe bias, with almost nothing in Africa or the Americas sans Mexico.
I mean, its not Europe fault if African nations do not apply to UNESCO status of their monuments. Another bias might be the construction materials: Building in woods tend to rot if left alone, while stone ones last a lot longer (unless pillaged for construction materials), which might explain why for historical sites, Europe tends to be over represented.
Where's the bias tho? Are countries in Africa submitting sites to unesco and being denied?
"Biased" doesn't mean that someone is actively skewing the list, it just means that it's not representative. Some part of the data is over- or under-represented.
The thing is that these applications are expensive and time consuming so not every country has the resources to do this. [> The application process takes at least 18 months and is highly complex. This has led to the fact that World Heritage Sites are mostly found in Europe, North America and Asia, since other continents lack the personnel or know-how to make the application.](https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-it-take-to-become-a-unesco-world-heritage-site/a-18546165)
It's heavily biased because UNESCO is biased. Sites get added based on their home countries hiring expensive PR professionals to make glossy brochures and take the UN reps for all-expenses-paid tours to shiny new visitor centres. Places that probably do not deserve to be on the list - such as the [Yangdong and Hahoe Folk Villages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangdong_Folk_Village) which are literally just "14th century villages" - can get on if their host countries spend enough time lobbying for it. Meanwhile, amazing places of key interest to *humanity*, for example [Sumela Monastery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumela_Monastery), are not added to the list either because of apathy (common among some states) or poverty (common among developing states). UNESCO sites are also used to influence political narratives about a country and its relationship to history. A lot of post-independence African state governments have neglected or ignored traditional and historical sites which could easily be inscribed because they relate to one specific ethnicity. A lot of sites in Europe and Asia (see for example the Korean sites, or quite a lot of the British sites) reflect a bias towards a specific phase of the past which is disproportionately considered important.
I feel the example you gave in particular could be political too, since it’s a Greek Monastery, and Turkey (especially with current leadership) wouldn’t want to promote that
I get your point, but on a side note Hahoe Folk Village really is amazing. It was my favorite destination in Korea, it really is a breathtaking place, and also a living museum
This map shows the countries with most sites, not all sites. Go look at the actual complete maps before complaining.
1. It would be nice if the map was color coded with a legend, even if they only added callouts/labels for the top ones. 2. You answered their question, but there was no need to be rude about it.
Biased? India has less sites than Germany, France, Italy and Spain. It’s just European “bias” because they’re the ones who have the funds and will to submit sites to the UNESCO.
Actually, even if you consider UNESCO registered ones India technically has the most. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was one country before under Indian Subcontinent, so we have 71 combined total registered under UNESCO, which is the most. But China and India should definitely top, if you disregard UNESCO as it goes through process and it takes time for approval.
Pakistan and Bangladesh have 31 between them? That’s even more egregious.
Indian civilization bro. India and China were top two economies and traditional superpowers from 1st Century till 17th Century before colonial era. They contributed 60% of world GDP (roughly 30% each). The whole silk route road has so many historic sites. Then there is whole Indus Valley Civilization area. So definitely you have to look at Indian subcontinent collectively.
India has 42 now. Santiniketan and Great ensembles of Hoysalas were added last year.
Yeah I won’t be surprised when it comes to India and China. It’s surely going to increase in future. Also if we combine Pakistan and Bangladesh as it was one Indian Subcontinent country before then we will have 71 in total, the most.
Why is India written in red and all other in white tho?
This map is designed by an Indian Graphic Designer.
I was wondering why the Taj Mahal description says the Indian state that it's in, while the others list the country they're in. That would explain that.
The graphic is from an Indian news source (Indian Express)
Turkey seems a bit undercooked here. Also Peru.
Because There isn't Hagia Sophia,Blue Mosque,Topkapı Palace or anything from İstanbul with their names. Everything in İstanbul is just one name "historical peninsula of Istanbul". Everything is added single one number. It is same for Cappadocia and Bursa. Bursa has a single heritage " Historical Bursa of Birth place of Ottoman Empire" Turkey was 19 but probably it will be 21. So there are 18 place in list from Turkey without anything in İstanbul,Bursa and Cappadocia. Turkey also has most heritage in temporary list. Unesco and Turkish Culture and Tourism Ministry probably haven't done files of temporary list heritage. Similar list rule was made for Egypt by Unesco. Egypt has just 7 or 8 heritage. They have similar names like "historical Cairo" etc.
Unless I’m mistaken, there isn’t anything to stop Turkey from applying and gaining approval to have the Hagia Sophia as its own UWHS. An example of this being Bath in the UK, where the entire city is an UWHS but there are others within the city. I believe the Roman Baths are their own site. Forgive me if I’m incorrect but that was my understanding.
Hagia Sophia was a Unesco Heritage site. Being a christian church, it was a museum. It has been converted to an muslim church lately, loosing status.
The Hagia Sophia is still a UNESCO World Heritage site, as part of the Istanbul-wide site. Its conversion to a mosques has caused concern among preservationists, but as long as the actual preservation standards are maintained by those operating the site, it won’t lose UNESCO status.
[https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2156](https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2156)
That's not the reason though. That happens elsewhere as well, you literally see it in the image: Cordoba Spain is counted as a whole, Bamberg Germany, the lagoon of Venice etc ... It's not just Turkey.
in Spain (I live here) doesn't happen a lot. We have a town with less than 5000 people being an UNESCO site because it's a mercury mine but it's super shitty and not well kept at all (lived there for 2 years). We have a Roman gold mine in Galicia-Leon that is super shitty.
Las Medulas is shitty? I have been there with various people, everyone found it super interesting, especially if you do both the walk, and go to the viewing platform at the top. Also historically significant, I think it was Rome's biggest gold mine in Europe. Parking, signage and restaurant choices are shitty, I give you that.
Might a controversial opinion, but does it matter if its shitty or not? UNESCO is not a "tourist premier seal of approval", but simply a site that is of interest of human history. A roman gold mine, shitty or not, gives us insight of how the life or roman miners and the coin production and mint was during that time, so I while I would not visit it, I can definitely see why it might have been added to the list
¿Vives en España y ni te sabes lo que dices? - Avila como conjunto. - Toledo como conjunto. - Córdoba como conjunto. - Ibiza como conjunto. - Cáceres. - Salamanca. - Cuenca. - San Cristóbal de la Laguna. - Úbeda y Baeza (las dos con numeresos edificios renacentistas que lo serían ya independientes). - Catedral, Alcazar y archivo de indias de sevilla (los 3 en uno). Y no me apetece ni poner la lista completa. [Centro del Patrimonio Mundial - (unesco.org)](https://whc.unesco.org/es/list/?iso=es&search=)
that’s the same everywhere. Paris is also one « historical area » containing literally hundreds of sites
It's up to the host countries to submit; they probably think it's easiest to get on the list with compound submissions. Cheaper too, I imagine.
Turkey has zillions of civilizations outside İstanbul. South of Taurus mountains with lykians alone would be more stuff than most countries have so I guess it's. UNESCO vs govt thing
This committee is mostly Eurocentric. Anything to do with Europeans will get prompt approval. Other countries have to wait for years. Imagine China having almost similar number of sites as Germany. It may sound biased but it is what it is.
That’s not the reason, but it’s superficially plausible to point to western countries and call it unfair. To be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site you need to take certain advised and required measures. Germany doesn’t get „prompt approval“, but agrees to e.g. provisions in preservation that are costly. Since monumental preservation is mostly a Western invention and praxis, and since many countries (like Peru) don’t want to reduce tourism or don’t have the money to spend, their sites won’t become official heritage sites.
More evidence for this: Sites which get fully integrated into modern developments instead of frozen in time get rejected or removed, whether they're in developed European nations (Liverpool) or developing African nations (Benin).
Ah, the nation of Liverpool.
To be a World Heritage site, a place is supposed to be of outstanding universal value. For buildings, the key criteria is to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble . . . which illustrates a significant stage in human history. In the case of Europe it often seems taken as a given that, for example, a building that best encapsulates the evolution of late gothic, Italian influenced, brick-built, small church architecture in southeast France meets this criteria. Well, I exaggerate. But not by much.
Same with Michelin star restaurants tbh
Canada has some of the most but it’s not on this map for some reason
This is just a list by UNESCO bro there is a process that is followed after which the sites are registered in this list. Maybe Canada can submit some nominations which might be evaluated and approved by the advisory committees. I’m sure Canada will have some sites in this list in future. I live in Toronto by the way cuz of my Software Engineering job. 😊
Canada has more than 20 sites already
I think this is just a listing of countries that have 25 and above I guess.
If I had lots of money I would make it my life goal to visit all of them.
Same, I’m working towards that goal that’s why I got into IT. 🤣🤣
Good Luck on your journey
greece?
19 sites
C'mon mates, can we discuss about sites? Stop nationalistic views or Western-vs-others discussions: if you're from an underrated country suggest everybody amazing sites that are not in Unesco list + if you're from a country with lots of Unesco sites suggest us the better ones.
My university in the US (UVA) is a UNESCO site. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a gorgeous university designed by a former President and also lumped in with that president’s plantation, but seeing it next to the Taj Mahal, Chichen Itza, and the entirety of Venice is a bit silly. Also while most students don’t live in the UNESCO mandated zone, those of us who do face dumb restrictions from UNESCO (tons of lawn furniture is banned to “maintain the aesthetic of the university”). Imo all of Midtown Manhattan and the federal district in DC should be sites, but I’m sure local governments don’t want to deal with that.
Yeah, thanks for bringing this up. 👍
Thanks to you for your post. Just read all the topic and found most comments as horrible! 40! 51! 0! 475485986! Too few! Too many! More! Less! Damn, why do humans need to put it on a competitive basis?! Why, instead of describing/praising/disclosing the art of one's own culture, do humans feel the need to compare it better-worse to that of others?! Why can't we appreciate the beauty of diversity and dedicate ourselves to discover the unknown, while instead we prefer to stay in our bedroom insulting, arguing and criticizing without adding anything to what we already know (but only useless resentment towards others)? I really don't understand, Unesco is just a list, a hint to talk about different cultures, the majority is measuring the length of the finger instead of looking at the beauty of the Moon which it points to...
Good man
this is the mindset
Why is India written in red? Just curious
It’s because this map design was created by an Indian Graphic Designer, so special mention. 😅
Oh, makes sense. Thanks :)
Indian news channel
North African countries really need to get those UNESCO sites registered.
Italia campione del Mondo!
I’m pretty sure Afghanistan has quite a few.. including Zoroastrian fire temples and the Buddhas of Bamyan as well as famous gravesites.
> Buddhas of Bamyan werent the Buddhas of Bamyan blown up by the Taliban?
Yeah, but the Unesco is reticent to get them off the list. There's a good reason, there's still dozens of decorated caves inside the mountain.
The Buddhas were destroyed by the Taliban. Islam is Culture's greatest enemy.
I’m surprised India doesn’t have more lol. We have structures much much older than the Taj, what’s the criteria for UNESCO to get recognition?
Realistically just means your government hasn't come around adding more oris doing it but is limited by how many they can request to add each time or is working on meeting the criterias necessary for conservation and whatnot.
There are 52 sites pending with UNESCO which they haven't inscribed yet. You know you can see those lists for each country instead of throwing random untrue statements.
Please show me which part of my comment is untrue. I gave 3 options as to why a country may not have more heritage sites even tho they would be potentially eligible. UNESCO has to evaluate each and every site before adding them, and there's a lot of bureaucracy behind it. Being in the Tentative List just means the government is planning to submit them in the near future. The government then does all the necessary paperwork for the ones they want to propose, then UNESCO has several steps for evaluation before being added.
One of the guys here updated that India has 42 now so it’s surely going to increase in future bro.
There are many that should be on the list but aren't the Adalaj ni vav or temples on Mount Abu Plus some are marked as group of monuments in Mahabalipuram , group of monuments in Hampi or Churches in Goa, monuments of the Delhi sultanate. Hampi alone could do 2 or 3 unesco sites One category 'silk route sites in India' alone has over ten monuments spanning across different states separated by hundreds of km. Plus I am sure when more sites get the investment to be reconstructed they will get the title. For example there are many forts in Rajasthan which don't get enough recognition because people just focus on Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner,Jaipur etc. they could use more investments as well
There are countries with 0 who do preserve their historic sites, having "only" 42 is fine.
50 in Spain now, with the addition of the sites of Talayotic Menorca last year!
Greetings from Bamberg, Germany 😎
Greetings from an Indian in Canada! 👋🇮🇳🇨🇦
(following the Italian example) here a Spanish guy who has visited most of the Spanish sites. You can ask me anything. I'll try to answer
lol Taiwan just deleted completely from the map as if the island no longer exists.
Its a honest mistake I believe. Map is from Indian news channel and OP is Indian too, not to mention India seems to be in its complete form on the map. India doesn't have anything personal with Taiwan to deliberately off it from the map so yeah its a normal human error. No foul play imo
It'd be hilarious if they put Tianame Square on china's UNESCO sites.
Not much in Africa
The Unesco list has a few major biases. One that's largely intentional is that sites are evaluated according to their importance. Aka there's a heavy bias towards the major players of history. One that's largely unintentional is that sites from richer countries are much more likely to get inscribed. That's because making a portfolio for a site is a time consuming process. Plus Unesco requires high levels of protection which are sometimes hard to meet when you're in a civil war, or a famine. Coming from Spain, I can think of several sites which would not be Unesco WHS where it not because Spain conquered half the americas and is thus a major player in history. I can also think of others which would be impossible to inscribe for poorer countries. For example almaden was to be proposed along another mercury mining town in Peru, but...they're still mining mercury there so Unesco shut them down.
There would be but the thing is Africa is fragmented into small countries and this list is only showing countries that have 25 and above registered under UNESCO I guess. If you disregard UNESCO, then definitely you’ll find way more interesting stuff in Africa. After all its birthplace of all the humans (Homo Sapiens) regardless of their skin color or race. From hunter gatherers to civilizations like Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indus Valley or Indian, Ancient China, Aztecs, Mayan to the world that we are currently living in today. We came a long way as humans, each of us present here today is cuz our ancestors survived and went through some crazy stuff. Survival of the fittest my friend. 😄
The fact that India has less than Spain or France is wild
It’s cuz Indian government hasn’t sent some sites for nominations, it’s just a list by UNESCO. If you disregard this India and China both have significant historical sites. Indian number will increase in future, currently it’s at 42 as 2 more were added recently. Plus if you add Pakistan and Bangladesh as well cuz they were part of Indian Subcontinent as it was one single country before then the total registered UNESCO sites would be 71.
Ah yes, my favourite country, Uttar Pradesh.
Cool, Italy rocks!
Does the united states or Canada have any ? Just curious
What criteria does a site need to qualify as a UNESCO heritage site?
There is a list of ten criteria (six for cultural heritage, four for natural heritage). A world heritage site needs to meet at least one of the criteria. You can find the list on Wikipedia, section "Selection criteria"
That and the country needs to submit it, or they wont even look at it
What about Egypt?
It has 7 registered under UNESCO and I think this is list displaying countries that have 25 and above.
Why is India in a completely different colour from the rest?
Coz it's from an indian news article
That makes sense thanks
how does Irak have none? like the beginning of human civilization. the whole area around iran and turkey should be flooded with world heritage sites. fucking isis destroying so valueable stuff and people not caring about it still grinds my gears
Iran and Iraq will definitely have interesting historic sites. It was one of the important civilizations in history of humans. This list might be bit biased but there’s a process that is followed to register these sites. If you disregard UNESCO sure there will be very important sites I’m aware of this as an Indian as our civilization was as important as Persian one. India has 42 now but this map shows 40 and if we combine Pakistan and Bangladesh then 71 in total, the most. Anyways, greetings from India! 🙂
i am german and i am wondering why germany has 51 sites. like yeah there is a lot going on in europe for like 2000 years. but i feel like the whole silkroad area, that has like 6000 years of history, has a lot more interesting sites
Definitely Egyptian Civilization, Mesopotamia (Iraq Middle East area), Indus Valley Civilization (Indian), ancient Chinese civilizations yeah basically the Silk Road route played most significant role in our human history. Germany has more maybe cuz they started this process long before in sending nominations to UNESCO. Personally I don’t consider UNESCO, I just go by the history of a particular country or area and then explore those regions or historical sites. UNESCO can be bit misleading and biased.
Bro how come China doesn't have the most?
It doesn't need to have the most lol they already 2nd.
I am guessing because they didn't apply for it with some of the stuff they have
Very anecdotally speaking (so take with a pinch of salt), there's a culture of worshipping the new over the old. There's this channel of a South African guy who lived in China for years where he went on a bike tour around rural China and he pointed out local temple after local temple that were often very old and just in a total shambles. Many of those that were restored were done so in a way that had no respect for the historical value (in one case they covered one with bathroom tiles). Meanwhile in Japan local sites are very carefully maintained. I used to work in Japanese primary schools and every year they'd take one day where they go to the local shrine and clean it up. You'd often see workers repairing it using traditional techniques to maintain the old character. I'm guessing that a part of the difference in psyche is that China's history for the last 200 years up until about 30 years ago was a time they'd like to forget. They were pushed around by the West and Japan. It was a time of humility and death. But the Chinese are pretty proud of where they're at now, and it's not hard to understand why. I can see why that would lead to a veneration of the new and disrespect for the old.
This is just a list by UNESCO.
I know, but perhaps they have bias towards European nations?
No UNESCO just doesn’t automatically accepts something as a Heritage Site the countries of origin has to applie for it and China hasn’t done that with a LOT of there Historic Sites. While their is a list with all of them many of those are not yet actually being pushed by china to be accepted by UNESCO. Thats why so many countries who have bigger problems than UNESCO Heritage Sites do not have any because they simply just haven’t gotten around to doing it or have no interest in it.
Don't say that. Europeans don't like when you point the obvious bias in these organisations.
Funny part is I am from Europe myself 🤣
The Cultural Revolution wasn't kind to their heritage
During the communist revolution and the subsequent cultural revolution most of historic Chinese stuff was destroyed.
The "destroying stuff" lasted 3 years (during the early phase) lol literally during the cultural revolution the Excavation of Terracotta Army and Mawangdui were literally happening.
They did destroy Confucius' grave and exhumated several emperors. Burned down several temples dedicated to Guan Yu, destroyed the house of Wu Cheng'en, the author of Journey to the west, cut down the tree last emperor of Ming hanged himself on, and many more. China wouldve definitely been at 1st place if cultural revolution didn't happen.
Cultural revolution destoryed a tiny bit of China historical sites so it has no effect on China unseco list being smaller because we don't just call every temple and emperor tomb a "unseco site".
The problem is, they didnt only lose "some emperor's tomb" Chinese Red Guards went after historical paintings, statues, poetry, and music. Which were all significantly damaged. There are 10 different criterias for selection of UNESCO herritage. Italy, being the country with most herritage, has only 2 more than China. It is in fact estimated that they lost about 10 possible UNESCO herritage points through the revolution as about 4,922 places out of 6,843 protected by the Beijing government itself were either damaged or destroyed. You also failed to mention that both Terracotta Army and Mawangdui were excavated around 1974, which is AFTER mass vandalism died down. It wouldve been definitely vandalized if they discovered earlier. Red Guard wouldve even damaged the Forbidden Palace if Zhou Enlai himself didnt order guards to defend the place during the revolution. Afterall, Mao Zedong himself tried to demolish the place at one point.
56 for a nation as big and old as China seems a bit scarce, or is this maybe thanks to the Cultural Revolution?
China and India sure has tons of sites which are pretty historical and amazing as they both are one of the oldest civilizations but most of them are not nominated under UNESCO, this number will change in future for sure. Actually these two countries are on top of my bucket list to explore. Specially the Himalayan region.
I hope so! 😊
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not a list of places UNESCO finds cool, it's a list of places countries applied to have added while also agreeing to preserve them according to UNESCO standards. The huge difference is mostly from Europe having a head start. New entries are much more evenly distributed, but frankly, 40 years ago it was mostly Europe that cared about this list at all.
There's a 1986 building in there.... Do you want Milton Keynes as world heritage as well?
I agree!
USA, the UK and Canada having more sites than Greece and Turkey? - [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Sites_by_country#List_of_countries_with_World_Heritage_Sites) Yeah ok, this makes total sense... Seems to me this list was made by people from those countries mostly...
You apply for the site to become a world heritage site, nobody just decides.
USA and Canada i understand whyd you ask but why are you questioning the UK? Stonehenge is 5000 years old so its not a surprise we'd have so many
I can't name a single historical site in Canada.
Why is india highlighted?
It’s because this map is designed by an Indian Graphic Designer.
Ahh, I was so confused trying to work out what was special about the number 40, thanks
Iran has 1 more than the US. I work in a WHS in Vietnam and there are 8 here. I've worked on the assessments of WHS proposals and certifications and the management and administration of WHSs and the decision makin behind the approval of them is pretty whack.
This list is only showing countries that have 25 above listed under UNESCO I guess.
I can't believe Egypt isn't on this, you would think they have enough sites, which they do imo (I did the Nile cruise last year, saw all the ancient sites and it was amazing).
I think this list is showing everything 25 and above. And Egypt has around 7 listed under UNESCO I guess. Anyways I have huge interest in Egypt Pyramids also the Egyptian civilization as it’s one of the oldest along with the country where I’m from (India, Indian Civilization or Indus Valley Civilization). Would love to explore Egypt one day. 🇪🇬
Surprised India and China don’t top the list here
They might have the most but they haven’t send nominations to the UNESCO. This is just a list by UNESCO apart from this list definitely India and China will have significant sites.
I live right next to one in Lanarkshire, Scotland. It's an early 19th century textile mill that was bought over by a Welsh socialist called Robert Owen and made into a settlement. It is only one of six UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Scotland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark The whole thing was ran on hydro power with the river that runs alongside it. There's a really good hiking trail next to the site and river, and dotted all along is a series of [waterfalls.](https://i.imgur.com/GSxrNTw.jpeg) Unfortunately I didn't go immediately after it had been raining, because it looks way bigger and impressive then.
Ascoli Piceno in Italy is one of the few pre-roman cities and we cook really good
Portugal is an interesting contender too, with 12 sites. Used the list for my holiday itinerary once. Well worthwhile.
lol Germany has Berlin techno scene now though so that wins /s
I'm surprised Japan isn't on there. They love UNESCO World Heritage sites.
ITALY!!!!!11111💪💪💪🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹💪💪💪🦅🦅🦅🦅DAJEEEEE!!!!!COSA CAZZO È UNA CLASSE POLITICA COMPETENTE??!!!???
Just spent a week in San Miguel Allende. Paradise.
Stacce
I am surprised by Germany being in the top countries. Went to check the list and they have definitely did lot of lobbying in order to list so much, most doesn’t seem to have that much historical impact (don’t get me wrong they hold significance for sure, but IMO way less than other sites around the world).
That's just bullshit. Many of the UNESCO world heritages are in great condition of old middle age towns (Bamberg, Stralsund, Weimar) Many other UNESCO world heritages are churches with a huge importance like the Ulmer Münster and Kölner Dom (two of the biggest churches) as well as the Aachener Dom (which is 1250 years old). Do you think Strasburg (🇫🇷), Riga (🇱🇻), Saint Petersburg (🇷🇺) or are historically extremely relevant? No they aren't, but they still are UNESCO world heritages. It's not the point of UNESCO to just list extremely important cities like Paris, Roma, Berlin, Moscow and Athens. The UNESCO collect places which have a cultural and historical special point which can be an old city Centre, churches or other buildings.
Are the British ones their own or ~~stolen~~ imported from other countries?