jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (2004)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 0USD

Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

During a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta (Georgia) from 8 to 16 November 2003, observations were also made on the state of conservation of Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery. The mission observed that the exterior of the buildings of Gelati Monastery is in good condition. The windows, however, need to be conserved to keep out the wind and rainwater as damages have been caused to the mural paintings particularly on the southern wall.

 

In Bagrati Cathedral scaffolding from the previous conservation work still stands against the wall of the fortress, and open trenches indicate that archaeological excavation have been left incomplete. Conservation work on the chapel in the fortress and the walls of the cathedral also need to be concluded. The authorities of Georgia intend to undertake a major reconstruction of the structure, either by using artificial stones to recreate the original form of the building or to use glazed steel to build a transparent dome, which can be illuminated. ICOMOS, however, took a view that any reconstruction must be carried out in keeping with the outstanding universal value of the property and its authenticity and therefore it would be more appropriate to retain the site as a ruin. 

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

28COM15B.87
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee, 1. Acknowledging the outcomes of the joint UNESCO-ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property, 2. Takes note with concern of the conservation problems affecting the property and encourages the State Party to respond to them taking into account the recommendations made by the mission; 3. Urges the State Party not to carry out any reconstruction work which may adversely affect the outstanding universal value and its authenticity and strongly urges the State Party not to commence any constructions before consideration of the project by the Committee; 4. Requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre an updated report by 1 February 2005 so that the World Heritage Committee may examine the state of conservation of the property at its 29th session in 2005.

Draft Decision:28 COM 15B.87

The World Heritage Committee,

1.       Acknowledging the outcomes of the joint UNESCO-ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property, 

2.       Takes note with concern of the conservation problems affecting the property and encourages the State Party to respond to them taking into account the recommendations made by the mission;

3.       Urges the State Party not to carry out any reconstruction work which may adversely affect the outstanding universal value and its authenticity;

4.       Requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre an updated report by 1 February 2005 so that the World Heritage Committee may examine the state of conservation of the property at its 29th session in 2005. 

Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery
State Party:
Georgia
Date of Inscription: 1994
Nomination records (Year): 1993
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2004
Threats*
  • Wind
  • Water
  • High impact research/monitoring activities
  • Management activities
  • Other Threats:
Documents
WHC-04/28.COM/15B
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1481
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2010
Threats to the Site:

Irreversible interventions as part of major reconstruction of the structure of Bagrati Cathedral

 


* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.