Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian
Factors affecting the property in 2000*
- Financial resources
- Interpretative and visitation facilities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Lack of maintenance ; Halt of site excavations
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Unstable archaeological strata and cave roof
- Need to prepare the master plan of the site giving priority to the remodelling of the museum facilities
- Complete halt of site excavations
- Lack of research funds
- Lack of adequate maintenance of the site
- Site museum needs to be refurbished
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2000
Total amount approved : 26,000 USD
|1993||Emergency measures to prevent the collapse of some of ... (Approved)||26,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2000**
September 1996: UNESCO expert mission; September 1999: joint ICOMOS/ICCROM mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2000
Regarding the ICOMOS - ICCROM joint mission’s recommendation to add cultural criterion (iv) and remove criterion (vi) under which the site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Committee at its twenty-third session requested ICOMOS to examine this matter further in consultation with the State Party.
ICOMOS undertook a study of the six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, those being: Lower Valley of the Awash (Ethiopia, 1980), Lower Valley of the Omo (Ethiopia, 1980), Willandra Lakes Region (Australia, 1981), Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China, 1987), Sangiran Early Man Site (Indonesia, 1996), Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kormdraai, and Environs (South Africa, 1999). It noted that there was some inconsistency in the criteria applied in the case of the first three sites, but by contrast that the two criteria used for Zhoukoudian have also been applied in both of the subsequent cases.
In the case of Zhoukoudian, therefore, ICOMOS does not support the proposal of the joint mission, but recommends that the two criteria currently applied should be retained. It does not recommend, however, that the criteria applied to the fossil hominid sites inscribed earlier be changed.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2000
24 COM VIII.iii.35-43
State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Committee noted
VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil)
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany)
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India) Sun Temple of Konarak (India) Petra (Jordan) Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic) Byblos (Lebanon) Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco) VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal) Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama) Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru) VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India)
Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)
VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama)
Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru)
VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey)
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
The Bureau may wish to formulate a decision upon examining the recommendations of ICOMOS.
Documents examined by the Committee24COM (2000)
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.