Stonehenge and its Environs forum 134 room
Image by mjobling
close
more_vert

jonmor wrote:
tiompan wrote:
How can we raise the value of the WHS when it is considered as being of Outstanding Universal Value ? It doesn't get any higher . The problem from my perspective , is not the value but the belief that the value(s) can be quantified .
Aye, some of the wordings used in semi-governmental organisations can be difficult because some words have and ambiguous or other common meaning(s). If you're trying to frame a response in the terms of a consultation, you have to be absolutely sure that you've understood the meaning. It's much easier if you're making a purely technical response.

Is that what you meant or were you referring to my use of the word 'valuation'?

There could be problems defining value but that was secondary and not what I was concerned about .
Similarly I am not bothered about the use of the term valuation , but the problem is how you arrive at a valuation that would involve quantifying cultural values . It can't be done .

Why would you want to reference cultural values George?

The UNESCO definition specifically refers to value: The plural of that definition applies to either a multiple of the singular (values as in benefits or worth) or values (as in cultural meaning to people). Because they have been specific about the meaning by not referring to the plural, (even though the two plurals have a related meaning), any reference to the secondary plural meaning is likely to be ruled as irrelevant in a consultation.

The Australian Government tried to define meaning and came to the same conclusion about what it meant. If you're particularly interested, I can email you the document.

If you think that UNESCO meant something different, then you may be right, but it would be difficult to argue for your interpretation of meaning if a commonwealth archaeological authority has spent the time to define the meaning and found it to be something else.