The Assessment of Historic Towns’ Outstanding Universal Value Based on the Interchange of Human Values They Exhibit

Abstract

Influences exerted by cultural heritage properties on developments in architecture, town planning, or landscape design represent one of the criteria that are used to evaluate the Outstanding Universal Value of the properties nominated for listing as World Heritage Sites, which is criterion (ii). In 1996, the wording of criterion (ii) was revised to address the interchange of human values exhibited by cultural heritage properties. The main aim of this study was to discuss the changes that occurred to the application of criterion (ii) following the revision of its wording of 1996, particularly in relation to historic towns. The study also aimed at investigating the applicability of the revised version of criterion (ii) to the particularity of the cultural heritage of an Egyptian historic town and a potential World Heritage Site, which is “Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid”. To achieve these aims, a sample of World Heritage Sites, or potential ones, representing both the pre-1996 and the post-1996 historic towns whose Outstanding Universal Value was justified based on criterion (ii), was adopted for the analysis of the changes in the application of criterion (ii). Subsequently, a brief preview of the major features that represent the mutual influences experienced throughout Rosetta’s wider cultural context was carried out. The findings revealed that the prevalent trend in the post-1996 listings of historic towns is the emphasis on other cultures’ influences exerted on the concerned historic towns through interchanges of human values that take the form of exchanges of technical know-how, traditions and religious values. The findings also indicated the applicability of the revised version of criterion (ii) to the particularity of Rosetta’s cultural heritage. The study recommends inscribing Rosetta on the World Heritage List based on criterion (ii).

Full text

Heritage 2019, 2, 1874–1891; doi:10.3390/heritage2030114 www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage
Article
The Assessment of Historic Towns’ Outstanding
Universal Value Based on the Interchange of Human
Values They Exhibit
Ayman Abdel Tawab
Department of Architectural Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta 31511, Egypt;
a_g_a_abdeltawab@yahoo.co.uk; Tel.: +2-010-2301-8833
Received: 4 May 2019; Accepted: 8 July 2019; Published: 10 July 2019
Abstract: Influences exerted by cultural heritage properties on developments in architecture, town
planning, or landscape design represent one of the criteria that are used to evaluate the Outstanding
Universal Value of the properties nominated for listing as World Heritage Sites, which is criterion
(ii). In 1996, the wording of criterion (ii) was revised to address the interchange of human values
exhibited by cultural heritage properties. The main aim of this study was to discuss the changes that
occurred to the application of criterion (ii) following the revision of its wording of 1996, particularly
in relation to historic towns. The study also aimed at investigating the applicability of the revised
version of criterion (ii) to the particularity of the cultural heritage of an Egyptian historic town and
a potential World Heritage Site, which is “Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid”. To
achieve these aims, a sample of World Heritage Sites, or potential ones, representing both the pre-
1996 and the post-1996 historic towns whose Outstanding Universal Value was justified based on
criterion (ii), was adopted for the analysis of the changes in the application of criterion (ii).
Subsequently, a brief preview of the major features that represent the mutual influences experienced
throughout Rosetta’s wider cultural context was carried out. The findings revealed that the
prevalent trend in the post-1996 listings of historic towns is the emphasis on other cultures’
influences exerted on the concerned historic towns through interchanges of human values that take
the form of exchanges of technical know-how, traditions and religious values. The findings also
indicated the applicability of the revised version of criterion (ii) to the particularity of Rosetta’s
cultural heritage. The study recommends inscribing Rosetta on the World Heritage List based on
criterion (ii).
Keywords: historic towns; World Heritage Sites; world heritage criteria; Outstanding Universal
Value; Rosetta
1. Introduction
Adopted by the UNESCO in 1972, the World Heritage Convention established the concept of
listing heritage assets that enjoy internationally acknowledged heritage significance as World
Heritage Sites (WHSs). The convention refers to this international level of significance as an
Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and associates it with the heritage properties that are important
for all the peoples of the world and that are considered as heritage of mankind as a whole [1].
Subsequently, a supplementary document to the convention was adopted in 1977 to explain the
various subjects associated with the management of WHSs, which is the “Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention” (OGs) and which was revised several times
later. The OGs adopted a list of six criteria that should be used to evaluate whether the properties
nominated for listing as cultural WHSs enjoy an OUV or not, and another list of four criteria pertinent

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1875
to natural heritage. The second criterion, criterion (ii), of the cultural heritage list indicated that each
nominated cultural property should have exerted considerable influences on developments in
architecture, landscape design, or human settlements [2] so that the nominated property could be
considered to enjoy an OUV. Since 1977, the OGs have been revised several times. The OGs’ version
of 1996 involved an amendment of the wording of criterion (ii). According to this amendment,
criterion (ii) would be concerned with cultural heritage properties that exhibit an interchange of
human values on developments in architecture or town planning [3] instead of the previous interest
in the influences exerted on other properties.
Historic towns represent a well-established type of cultural WHSs. Only one Egyptian historic
town is inscribed as a WHS, which is “Historic Cairo”. However, the Egyptian Tentative List, of
potential WHSs, still involves another property representing historic towns, which is “Historic
quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid” [4]. The criteria that were adopted to justify Rosetta’s
potential OUV involve criterion (ii) [5].
The amendment carried out to the wording of criterion (ii) indicates the acknowledgement of
the significance of the mutual influences exerted between the concerned historic town and other
relevant heritage properties, provided that these influences are the outcomes of interchanges of
human values. The application of criterion (ii) in relation to h isto ric t own s is e xpec ted to be infl uenc ed
by the amendment in its wording. Consequently, the study aimed at exploring the changes that
occurred to the application of criterion (ii) following its amendment, particularly in relation to historic
towns. The other objective of this study was to examine the validity of the hypothesis that this
amendment further emphasizes the applicability of criterion (ii) to the particularity of Rosetta’s
cultural heritage and increases its chance in being inscribed on the World Heritage List (WHL) based
on criterion (ii). A brief exploration of the characteristics of Rosetta’s cultural heritage confirmed the
validity of the previous hypothesis and revealed that Rosetta’s cultural heritage was the subject of
several influences exerted by the heritage of other properties abroad, and also played a major role in
the development of a unique architectural style characteristic of the Delta region in Egypt.
2. Theoretical Backgrounds
2.1. Significance of Heritage Assets
The significance of a heritage asset can be defined as the summation of all the heritage values it
enjoys, which make it of interest to the society [6]. The Burra Charter, which is the major ICOMOS
charter concerned with the concept of the significance of heritage properties, provides a similar
definition that describes cultural significance as an “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual
value” [7] (p. 2). The significance of heritage assets can be evaluated by a process that involves two
stages; the first of which is concerned with understanding the characteristics and the historic
development of the heritage asset, while the second is concerned with concluding the extent of
appreciation of its values [6].
Evaluating the significance of heritage assets involves the identification of these assets’ level of
significance, which is usually expressed by what is referred to as “thresholds of heritage
significance”. These thresholds involve the personal threshold, the local threshold, the regional
threshold, the national threshold, and the international threshold [8]. One of the significant
hierarchical systems of heritage significance thresholds is referred to as Kerr’s hierarchical system.
According to this hierarchical system, thresholds of heritage significance increase from “no
significance”, to “unknown significance”, to “limited significance”, to “some significance”, to
“considerable significance”, to “exceptional significance” [6]. Thresholds of heritage significance
involve another threshold that is usually referred to as “negative significance” and is usually assigned
to the elements in the heritage property that detract from its overall significance [6]. Aplin [9] suggests
another hierarchical system of heritage significance that involves three dimensions concerned with
establishing the significance of heritage assets; which are scale, importance, and either uniqueness or
representativeness. The scale dimension comprises the various thresholds of heritage significance
that involve the local, regional, state, national, and global thresholds [9].

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1876
The significance of a heritage asset can be evaluated by other measures that address particular
qualities of the heritage asset, such as the rarity of the heritage asset, its condition and intactness, the
survival of the heritage asset’s context, the extent of the heritage asset’s threats, and its age [10]. The
overall significance of heritage properties can be evaluated by another relevant method that is based
on comparison and on evaluating what can be described as the relative significance. According to
this method, the significance of a heritage property is evaluated based on comparative criteria that
involve, for instance, being the most complete example of a particular type of heritage properties,
being the most representative example of its type, and being a good example of a particular
architectural style. The relative significance of a heritage property can be evaluated using another list
of criteria, which is referred to as Kerr’s list, and based on the extent this property represents within
a given context. These criteria involve, for instance, the age of the heritage property, the rarity of the
property as an example of a particular type, the vulnerability of the property, the completeness and
representativeness of the property, and the influences the property had on the emergence of new
ideas and particular architectural movements [6].
Evaluating the significance of heritage properties should involve the identification of the
heritage values that these properties enjoy, the evaluation of these properties’ importance in
comparison with other relevant properties, the identification of the elements that contribute to these
properties’ overall significance, and the evaluation of the relative significance of the various elements
of these properties [6]. The evaluation should also involve the identification of these properties’
stakeholders, who mainly involve the owners and the occupants of these properties and the other
members of the local community who are associated with them [6]. Stakeholders of heritage
properties represent a major source used to identify these properties’ heritage values [11]. Therefore,
evaluating the significance of heritage properties should also involve the documentation of the
memories of the members of the local communities who are associated with these properties, and all
their stakeholders [6].
The significance of heritage properties might change over time and with use [6,7]. The Burra
Charter emphasizes that understanding cultural significance might change as a result of achieving
new information on the concerned heritage place [7]. The charter emphasizes that the significance of
heritage places can be influenced by the quality of the conservation interventions carried out to these
places, and that the aim of these interventions should be to retain these places’ significance. The
charter also emphasizes that changes carried out to heritage places may be necessary to retain their
significance, yet these changes are usually undesirable when they reduce these places’ significance
[7].
2.2. Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites
In 1972, the UNESCO adopted the World Heritage Convention, which is concerned with the
conservation of the cultural and natural heritage properties that are significant to all the peoples of
the world [1]. This convention was responsible for the introduction of a new threshold of heritage
significance that is associated with these heritage properties. The convention and its OGs refer to this
threshold as “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) [12], and describe it as the level of heritage
significance that the cultural and natural heritage properties, which have exceptional qualities, enjoy,
and which deserve special protection against the dangers that threaten them [13]. The OUV threshold
is sometimes referred to as the ‘world heritage value’. The notion of OUV may be interpreted to
incorporate both uniqueness and representativeness, and may also be interpreted to imply that the
concerned heritage property is the best of its kind [13]. Heritage resources can be considered to enjoy
a universal value as long as they represent a true and authentic expression of a particular culture,
whereas the adjective outstanding in the term OUV can be understood to pertain mainly to the best
and/or the most representative example or examples of a type of heritage properties [14].
Properties nominated for listing as WHSs can be considered to enjoy an OUV if they were found
to meet at least one of the 10 world heritage criteria; and should also successfully satisfy the
conditions of authenticity and integrity and be proven to have adequate long-term legislative,
regulatory, institutional, and/or traditional protection and management systems. The first six criteria

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1877
of this list are concerned with cultural heritage, while the other four are concerned with natural
heritage [12]. The first version of the OGs, which is that of 1977, cited the earliest text of the second
criterion, criterion (ii), which stated that each property nominated for listing as a WHS should “have
exerted considerable influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on
subsequent developments in architecture, monumental sculpture, garden and landscape design,
related arts, or human settlements” [2] (p. 3). Since 1977, the OGs have been revised several times.
The wording of criterion (ii) was revised in the OGs of 1996 to state that each property nominated for
listing as a WHS should “exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or
within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts,
town-planning or landscape design” [3] (p. 7), so that it can be inscribed on the WHL. The revised
version of criterion (ii) of the OGs of 1996 remained unchanged in the latest version of the OGs, which
is that of 2017 [12]. The amendment carried out to the wording of criterion (ii) in the OGs of 1996
indicates a shift in interest from influences exerted merely by the concerned heritage property on
other properties to an interest in mutual influences exerted between the concerned property and
other relevant properties, provided that these mutual influences take place through interchanges of
human values. In both cases, the pre-1996 version of criterion (ii) and the post-1996 version, these
influences might occur on two levels. The first is a temporal level, which is represented by a span of
time over which the influences take place. The second is a geographical level, where the influences
take place within a cultural area of the world.
Jokilehto [15] points out that the reasons for the amendment of the wording of criterion (ii) are
not clear, even though they can be understood to be attributed to the interest in the nomination and
listing of particular new types of cultural heritage, which involve mainly cultural landscapes and
living cultures. The reasons seem also to be associated with earlier arguments on flaws in the
representativeness of the WHL. The WHL was found to suffer from representational gaps
represented by the over-representativity of particular heritage types and the heritage of particular
UNESCO regions against an under-representativity of other heritage types and the heritage of other
UNESCO regions. Among the under-represented types are vernacular heritage and traditional living
communities’ heritage [16], both of which are closely related to the two types of cultural heritage that
Jokilehto [15] addresses, which are cultural landscapes and living cultures. To resolve these gaps, the
World Heritage Committee adopted a strategy that is officially known as the Global Strategy in 1994
[16]. The time when the Global Strategy was adopted indicates a potential relationship with the
amendment of the wording of criterion (ii) of 1996. Regarding that the OGs of 1996, which embraced
the amendment of criterion (ii), represent the first version of the guidelines that were published
following the adoption of the Global Strategy. What supports this conclusion is the particularity of
the vernacular heritage of traditional living communities, who were a central subject in the
arguments on the Global Strategy and the reasons put forward by Jokilehto [15]. Traditional living
communities’ vernacular heritage has always been characterized by its richness of evidences of
mutual influences mainly exerted by the diverse cultures that these communities encountered during
their long history. Taos Pueblo in the United States is an example of the traditional living
communities whose vernacular heritage comprises various architectural paradigms that emphasize
these mutual influences. An example of these paradigms is the external ovens, known as “hornos”,
in Taos Pueblo’s earthen houses [17].
The justifications of the OUV of the WHSs inscribed based on criterion (ii) can be grouped under
four themes. These themes involve “expressions of society”; “creative responses and continuity”,
which is concerned mainly with aspects like architecture; “spiritual responses”, which is concerned
with religions; and “movement of peoples”. The first theme, “expressions of society”, involves two
subsidiary themes that are concerned with developing knowledge and communication, while the
second theme, “creative responses and continuity”, involves other subsidiary themes that are
concerned with, for instance, religious and commemorative architecture, cultural landscapes and
parks, urban settlements and transport structures, and 19th and 20th centuries urban settlements [15].
Among the examples of the first theme, “expressions of society”, is the “Struve Geodetic Arc” WHS,
which represents the new notion of the interchange of human values. The justifications of this WHS’s

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1878
OUV based on criterion (ii) suggest that this property is an exceptional example of interchange of
human values in the form of cooperation among scientists from diverse countries. Consequently, this
example can be classified under the subsidiary group concerned with development of knowledge.
Among the examples of the second theme, “creative responses and continuity”, is the “Naval Port of
Karlskrona” WHS. The justifications of this property’s OUV based on criterion (ii) indicate that the
property incorporates elements derived from other properties in other countries, and that the
concerned property became a model that inspired other subsequent towns [15], indicating the
existence of mutual influences. These two examples represent the response to the amendment carried
out to the wording of criterion (ii) in 1996.
2.3. Major Classifications of Historic Towns
There are three groups of historic towns, which involve the historic towns that are no longer
inhabited, the historic towns that are still inhabited, and the new towns of the 20th century [12] (p.
82). “Mdina (Citta’ Vecchia)” is a Maltese potential WHS and an example of the historic towns that
are no longer inhabited, while “Historic Cairo” WHS in Egypt is an example of the historic towns
that are still inhabited. Finally, “Brasilia” WHS in the Brazil is an example of the new towns of the
20th century [4].
The second group of the historic towns that are still inhabited involves four subsidiary groups;
which are the historic towns that are typical of a specific period, the historic towns that have evolved
along characteristic lines, the historic centers that cover exactly the same area as ancient towns and
are enclosed within modern cities, and the sectors and areas or isolated units that provide evidence
of the character of a historic town that has disappeared [12] (p. 83). “Historic quarters and monuments
of Rosetta/Rachid”, an Egyptian potential WHS, can be classified under the subsidiary group of the
historic towns that are typical of a specific period because most of the remaining antiquities in the
property belong to the Ottoman era [4]. The historic town in Rosetta can also be classified under the
last subsidiary group that involves sectors and areas or isolated units because the remaining Islamic
antiquities in Rosetta are scattered throughout its urban fabrics.
3. Aim, Materials, and Method of the Study
The main aim of this study was to discuss the changes that occurred to the application of world
heritage criterion (ii) following the amendment carried out to its wording in 1996, particularly in
relation to historic towns. The study also aimed at investigating the applicability of the revised
version of criterion (ii) to the particularity of the cultural heritage of an Egyptian historic town and a
potential WHS, which is “Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid”. To analyze the
changes that occurred to the application of criterion (ii), a sample of 11 case studies was adopted.
This sample involves WHSs, or potential ones, representing the pre-1996 and the post-1996 historic
towns. These case studies were chosen so that they represent WHSs whose OUV is justified based on
criterion (ii). Six of these case studies represent the pre-1996 historic towns, while the other five
represent the post-1996 historic towns. The pre-1996 case studies involve “Medina of Marrakesh” in
Morocco, “Kairouan” in Tunisia, “Historic Centre of Cordoba” in Spain, “Historic City of Toledo” in
Spain, “Medina of Fez” in Morocco, and “Medina of Tunis” in Tunisia. The post-1996 case studies
involve “Mdina (Citta’ Vecchia)” in Malta, “Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn” in Estonia,
“Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah” in Saudi Arabia, “Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste
Perret” in France, and the “White City of Tel-Aviv–the Modern Movement” in Israel.
The case studies were also selected so that they represent the various classifications of historic
towns. Historic towns that are no longer inhabited are represented by the case study “Mdina (Citta’
Vecchia)”, while the new towns of the 20th century are represented by two case studies, which are
“Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret” and the “White City of Tel-Aviv–the Modern
Movement”. Finally, the historic towns that are still inhabited are represented by the other eight case
studies. The case studies were also selected so that they represent other relevant themes. Most of the
case studies were selected so that they represent the most relevant theme to Rosetta, which involves
the medieval Islamic historic towns in northern Africa and other similar case studies in southern

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1879
Europe. The other relevant theme is the theme that involves the historic towns of the Hanseatic
League in northern Europe. The only case study that represents this theme is “Historic Centre (Old
Town) of Tallinn”.
Following the selection of the sample of case studies, the justifications of these historic towns’
OUV based on criterion (ii), as discussed in their nomination documents or in the ICOMOS’ reports,
were analyzed. The aim of this analysis was to reveal the major themes and architectural paradigms
that represent the exerted influences or the interchange of human values that these historic towns
experienced. The analysis also aimed at revealing the major subsidiary trends of the application of
criterion (ii) in the two groups of case studies, the pre-1996 and the post-1996 historic towns.
Subsequently, the association between the application of criterion (ii) and the application of criterion
(i) in the two groups of the pre-1996 and the post-1996 case studies was examined. Regarding that
criterion (i) is another world heritage criterion that is concerned with the cultural WHSs that
“represent a masterpiece of human creative genius” [12] (p. 25). The analysis of the changes in the
application of criterion (ii) was followed by a brief preview of the major architectural features that
represent the mutual influences exerted between Rosetta’s cultural heritage and its wider cultural
context and the interchange of human values through which these influences took place.
The study had some limitations, particularly in relation to the justifications of the OUV of one of
the over-represented types of cultural heritage, which involves historic towns. The interest in
inscribing more historic towns, such as Rosetta in Egypt, seems to contradict with the prerequisites
of the Global Strategy for a balanced and diversified WHL. However, the heritage of Egypt and the
two UNESCO’s regions, which are the Arab States and Africa, is still under-represented on the WHL.
Moreover, historic towns still represent an under-represented type of WHSs in Egypt and the Arab
States region. Furthermore, the materials of the empirical study in connection with the analysis of the
changes that occurred to the application of criterion (ii) in relation to the post-1996 historic towns
were limited to the nomination documents and the ICOMOS reports of the adopted case studies.
Interviews with the officials concerned with the management of WHSs of the adopted case studies
were excluded. The reason is the diversity of the case studies and the broad geographical extent that
incorporates them.
4. Findings and Discussion
4.1. Changes in the Application of Criterion (ii) Following the Amendment of 1996
The findings (Table 1) [18–26]indicated that the application of criterion (ii) in relation to the pre-
1996 case studies is characterized by the existence of two major trends. The first trend is characterized
by the influences that the concerned historic towns exerted on other relevant properties. The second
trend is characterized by the influences exerted by other relevant properties that the concerned
historic towns underwent. The findings (Table 1)revealed that the prevalent trend of the application
of criterion (ii) in relation to the pre-1996 case studies is the first trend characterized by the focus on
the influences exerted by the concerned historic towns on other relevant properties. However, there
are few exceptions to this finding where the concerned historic towns acknowledged the influences
they underwent, which were exerted by other relevant properties. These exceptions represent the
second trend. Only two case studies represent the second trend, which are “Medina of Fez” and
“Medina of Tunis”. The justifications of the OUV of “Medina of Fez” based on criterion (ii) emphasize
that the plan and design of the district known as “Fez Jadid” in the property were inspired by the
earlier town plan of “Medina of Marrakesh” [20]. In relation to the second case study, “Medina of
Tunis”, the justifications of its OUV based on criterion (ii) emphasize the mutual influences, in the
field of art and architecture, experienced throughout the property’s wider context; which involves
the Maghreb, southern Europe, and the Middle-East over many centuries [21].

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1880
Table 1. Analysis of the major themes and architectural paradigms addressed by the various
justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of the adopted pre-1996 case studies of historic towns
(source: [18] (p. 3); [19] (p. 2); [20] (pp. 1–2); [21] (pp. 1–2); [22] (pp. 1–2); [23] (pp. 1–2); [24] (pp. 1–3);
[25] (p. 1); [26] (p. 4)).
Property (State
Party)
Date of
Listing Criteria
Major Themes, and Architectural Paradigms that
Represent the Exerted Influences or Interchange of
Human Values
1
Medina of
Marrakesh
(Morocco)
1985 (i), (ii),
(iv), (v)
-Influences by Marrakesh that remained a political,
economic, and cultural center for a long period; which
were felt throughout the western Muslim world from
Northern Africa to Australia;
-Influences exerted by the earlier urban model of
Marrakesh over the development of Fez Jadid, an integral
part of the Medina of Fez, which was inscribed in 1981 on
the WHL
2 Kairouan
(Tunisia) 1988
(i), (ii),
(iii), (v),
(vi)
-Influences exerted by the Great Mosque, as well as the
Mosque of the Three Doors, which served as a model for
several Moorish mosques, particularly for its unique
decorative motifs
3 Historic Centre of
Cordoba (Spain) 1984, 1994 (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv)
-A considerable influence exerted by the mosque of
Cordoba, despite its uniqueness, on western Muslim art
from the 8th century;
-Influences exerted on the development of “Neo-Mosque”
styles of the 19th century;
-Influences on both the Arabic and Christian cultures
alike since the 8th century by the building techniques that
have been experimented in the Great Mosque of Cordoba;
-Influences on all Spanish architecture by the architecture
of the Great Mosque of Cordoba, characterized by its
architectural hybrid that joins together many of the
artistic values of the East and the West and includes
elements hitherto unheard-of in Islamic religious
architecture including the use of double arches to support
the roof and the “honeycomb” capital that is different
from the Corinthian capital characteristic of the caliph art
4 Historic City of
Toledo (Spain) 1986 (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv)
-Influences exerted by Toledo both during the Visigothic
period, when it was the capital of a kingdom that
stretched all the way to the Narbonnese region, and
during the Renaissance when it became one of the most
important artistic centers in Spain
The Subsidiary Trend that Case
Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 Represent Influences Exerted by the Concerned Historic Town
5 Medina of Fez
(Morocco) 1981 (ii), (v)
-The construction techniques and decoration,
characteristic of the architecture in Fez, which developed
over a period of more than 10 centuries, and where local
knowledge and skills are interwoven with diverse outside
inspirations from Andalusia, the Orient, and Africa;
-Considerable influences mainly from the 12th to the 15th
centuries, which have been exercised by the Medina of
Fez on the development of architecture, monumental arts
and town-planning, notably in North Africa, Andalusia,
and in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as inspirations from

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1881
the earlier town-planning model of Marrakesh that
resulted in Fez Jadid;
-Influences by the urban Moorish culture and the diverse
stratas of the population, who have been in interaction
with the high density of monuments in Medina of Fez,
over the wide variety of architectural forms and urban
landscapes
6 Medina of Tunis
(Tunisia) 1979 (ii), (iii),
(v)
-Exchanges of influences in the field of arts and
architecture over many centuries; which were encouraged
b
y the early role played by the Medina of Tunis between
the Maghreb, Southern Europe, and the East;
-Considerable influence on the development of
architecture, sculpture, related arts, and human
settlements
The Subsidiary Trend that the Case
Studies 5, 6 Represent Influences Exerted on the Concerned Historic Town
The findings (Table 2) [27–33]indicated that the application of criterion (ii) in relation to the post-
1996 case-studies is characterized by the existence of four major trends. The first trend is characterized
by the influences exerted by other properties that the concerned historic towns underwent. The
second trend is characterized by the existence of mutual and continuous influences experienced
among the concerned historic towns and other relevant properties. The third trend is characterized
by the existence of mutual influences experienced among the concerned historic towns and other
relevant properties, provided that these mutual influences took place through interchanges of human
values. Finally, the fourth trend is characterized by the integration of modern trends in architecture
and town planning within the concerned historic towns’ design and planning and is characterized
also by seeking the influences exerted by modern architectural and town planning theories instead
of the influences exerted by other properties.
Table 2. Analysis of the major themes and architectural paradigms addressed by the various
justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of the adopted post-1996 case studies of historic towns
(source: [27] (pp. 89–90); [28] (pp. 1–2); [29] (p. 1); [30] (p. 1); [31] (pp. 1–2); [32] (pp. 1–2); [33] (p. 7)).
Property (State
Party)
Date of
Listing Criteria Major Themes and Architectural Paradigms that Represent
the Exerted Influences or Interchange of Human Values
1
Mdina (Citta’
Vecchia)
(Malta) *
1998 (i), (ii),
(iii)
-Contributions by medieval Islamic urbanism in the Maghreb
and in Sicily and its very characteristic features on the
evolution of Mdina’s street system that is organized into
series of alleys and winding thoroughfares;
-Influences by medieval defensive practices of the middle
ages on the remodeling of the defenses of Mdina at that time;
which involve the use of dry ditches, square and round
towers, barbicans, and drawbridges
The Subsidiary Trend that the
Case Study 1 Represents Influences Exerted on the Concerned Historic Town
2
Historic Center
(Old Town) of
Tallinn
(Estonia)
1997 (ii), (iv)
-Synthesis inside a crucible provided by the Historic Center
of Tallinn, one of the powerful outposts of the colonizing
activities of the Hanseatic League in the north-eastern part of
Europe in the 13th–16th centuries, forming an international
secular-ecclesiastical culture resulting from the interchange of
Cistercians, Dominicans, the Teutonic Order and the
traditions of the Hanseatic League, which was also exported
throughout Northern Europe;

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1882
-Influences originating in Lübeck, Visby and other North
German and Scandinavian centers, which gave push to the
development of the property in the 13th–14th centuries;
-Influences by the property’s characteristic traits, which the
property acquired as a joint effect of the local circumstances
and local building materials, and whose distribution reached
b
eyond Estonia into the neighboring countries
The Subsidiary Trends that the
Case Study 2 Represents
Influences Exerted on the Concerned Historic Town
Mutual and Continuous Influences
Mutual Influences through Interchanges of Human Values
3
Historic
Jeddah, the
Gate to
Makkah (Saudi
Arabia)
2014 (ii), (iv),
(vi)
-An exchange of human values, technical know-hows,
b
uilding materials, and techniques across the Red Sea region
and along the Indian Ocean routes between the 16th and the
early 20th centuries;
-The roshans that represent the evolution of an earlier
Egyptian element, which acquired a unique size and
complexity in the old city of Jeddah’s major houses at the end
of the 19th century, and the windcatchers and windshafts, all
of which represent an outstanding characteristic of the
traditional settlements and the cities located along both costs
of the Red Sea
The Subsidiary Trends that the
Case Study 3 Represents
Influences Exerted on the Concerned Historic Town
Mutual Influences through Interchanges of Human Values
4
Le Havre, the
City Rebuilt by
Auguste Perret
(France)
2005 (ii), (iv)
-Integration of urban planning traditions and implementation
of modern developments in architecture, technology, and
town planning
5
White City of
Tel-Aviv–the
Modern
Movement
(Israel)
2003 (ii), (iv)
-Synthesis of the various trends of the modern movement in
architecture and town planning in the early part of the 20th
century and influences that were adapted to the cultural and
climatic conditions of the place, as well as being integrated
with local traditions
The Subsidiary Trend that the
Case Studies 4, 5 Represent
Integration of Modern Trends in Architecture and Town
Planning
* Potential World Heritage Site listed on the Tentative List.
The findings (Table 2) showed that the major prevalent trend of the application of criterion (ii)
in relation to the post-1996 case studies is the first trend that focuses on the influences exerted by
other properties on the heritage of the concerned historic town. The case studies that represent this
trend are “Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah”, the “Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn”, and
“Mdina (Citta’ Vecchia)”. For instance, the justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of the
“Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn” indicate that the urban structure of the historic center of
Tallinn has evolved under the influences that originated in other earlier Hanseatic towns, such as
Visby [33]. The findings indicated that in few other post-1996 case studies the influences exerted by
other properties on the concerned historic town were later transferred to other relevant properties in
a mutual and continuous influences process, which is represented by the second trend. The only case
study that represents this secondary trend is the “Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn”. However,
this mutual influence process does not necessarily represent a dominant trend of the post-1996
historic towns. The findings revealed another emerging trend of the application of criterion (ii) in
relation to the post-1996 case studies. This new trend, which is the third trend, focuses on
interchanges of human values in the form of interchanges of technical know-hows, building materials
and techniques, traditions, and religious values. This interchange of human values was responsible

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1883
for mutual influences exerted among the concerned historic towns and other properties. The major
case studies that represent this new trend are “Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah”, and the
“Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn”. The justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of these
two WHSs focus on the interchange of human values that involved these two properties and other
relevant properties. The justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of Historic Jeddah indicate
that its cityscape is the result of an exchange of human values, technical know-how, and building
materials and techniques that took place across the Red Sea region and along the routes of the Indian
Ocean [27]. The justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of the other case study indicate that
the historic town of Tallinn was a crucible that contributed to the development of an international
culture through an interchange of traditions and religious values including the traditions of the
Hanseatic League [28].
The findings revealed another secondary trend of the application of criterion (ii) in relation to
the post-1996 case studies. This trend, which is the fourth trend, focuses on the integration of modern
trends in architecture and town planning within the concerned historic town’s design and planning
as a form of mutual influences, and seeks the influences exerted by modern architectural and town
planning theories instead of the influences exerted by other properties. The two case studies that
represent this trend are “Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret” and the “White City of Tel-
Aviv–the Modern Movement”. These two historic towns represent the modernism movement in
architecture and town planning. Consequently, the justifications of their OUV based on criterion (ii)
focus on the influences exerted by abstract theoretical themes of particular modern trends in
architecture and town planning. For instance, the justifications of the OUV based on criterion (ii) of
Le Havre indicate that the property is an outstanding example of the integration of urban planning
traditions and the implementation of modern developments in architecture, technology and town
planning [29].
The previous discussions revealed a clear shift in the application of criterion (ii) for the
justification of historic towns’ OUV following the amendment of its wording of 1996. After the
amendment of 1996, the application of criterion (ii) changed from the focus on the influences exerted
by the concerned historic towns on other relevant properties to the focus on the influences that the
concerned historic towns underwent, and which were exerted by other relevant properties and in
some cases the later transference of these influences to other properties in a mutual influences
process. The previous conclusion indicates that the OUV of several historic towns could have never
been justified based on criterion (ii) because these historic towns could have never been proven to
represent major sources of influences and inspirations on developments in architecture or town
planning. However, the OUV of these historic towns can be reconsidered after the amendment of the
wording of criterion (ii). Rosetta in Egypt is an example of these historic towns. The cultural heritage
in Rosetta is characterized by the several influences it underwent, and which were exerted by other
cultures in northern Africa, and the later limited transference of these influences to create a new
architectural style characteristic of the Delta region in Egypt.
Subsequently, the association between the application of criterion (ii) and the application of
criterion (i), to justify the OUV of the pre-1996 and the post-1996 case studies, was explored. The
exploration provided an explanation for the change in the application of criterion (ii), in relation to
historic towns, following the amendment of its wording of 1996. In relation to the pre-1996 case
studies, the findings revealed a significant association between the application of criterion (ii) and
the application of criterion (i). The OUV of four of the pre-1996 case studies is justified based on both
criteria (ii) and (i). These case studies are “Medina of Marrakesh”, “Kairouan”, “Historic Centre of
Cordoba”, and “Historic City of Toledo”. On the other hand, the OUV of the other two pre-1996 case
studies are justified based on criterion (ii) and other criteria that do not involve criterion (i). In relation
to the post-1996 case studies, the findings revealed a clear disassociation between the application of
criterion (ii) and the application of criterion (i). The OUV of only one of the post-1996 case studies is
justified based on both criteria (ii) and (i). This case study is “Mdina (Citta’ Vecchia)”. On the other
hand, the OUV of the other four post-1996 case studies is justified based on criterion (ii) and other
criteria that do not involve criterion (i).

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1884
The previous finding emphasizes the existence of a significant association between the
application of criterion (ii) and the application of criterion (i) to justify the OUV of the pre-1996 case
studies, and the decline of this association in relation to the post-1996 case studies. This finding
implies that many historic towns that were considered to enjoy an OUV prior to the amendment of
1996 because of the influences they exerted on other properties were also considered masterpieces of
human creative genius. The previous argument is reasonable since those historic towns that are
considered masterpieces of human creative genius should normally be regarded as role models that
inspire the evolution of other similar properties. However, the amendment carried out to criterion
(ii) implies that historic towns can be considered to enjoy an OUV because of the mutual influences
they experienced, and that those historic towns are expected to have been influenced during their
evolution by other properties. These mutual influences imply that those historic towns are not
necessarily role models or masterpieces of human creative genius.
The findings revealed that some WHSs that exerted considerable influences on some of the case
studies have not been inscribed on the WHL based on criterion (ii). “Historic Cairo” in Egypt is one
of the sources that exerted some influences on the cultural heritage of “Historic Jeddah, the Gate to
Makkah” [27]. Nevertheless, the criteria that have been adopted to justify Historic Cairo’s OUV
excluded criterion (ii). On the other hand, the traditional urban pattern of the “Historic Centre (Old
Town) of Tallinn”, another case study, was influenced by other major Hanseatic cities, particularly
the “Hanseatic Town of Visby” in Sweden [33]. Although Visby has had profound influences on the
evolution of Tallinn’s traditional urban pattern, criterion (ii) has not been adopted to justify the OUV
of the WHS in Visby [34].
4.2. Major Aspects of Rosetta’s Heritage that Represent the Interchange of Human Values
Rosetta is situated to the north of Egypt on the western bank of the Nile’s branch, known as the
Rosetta branch, and very close to the Mediterranean. Rosetta retains a large number of medieval
Islamic residences, most of which belong to the Ottoman era, such as Manzil ‘Arab Kulli, and a large
number of medieval mosques, such as the Mosque of Zaghlul. The city retains other medieval
buildings, such as the Mill of Waqf al-Mahalli and the Gate of Abu ar-Rish. Rosetta also retains most
of its historic street pattern almost intact. The two major old streets in the historic quarter are Zaghlul
Street and Dehliz al-Mulk Street [35,36]. “Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid” is an
Egyptian potential WHS. The property has been listed on Egypt’s Tentative List in 2003. Criteria (ii),
(iv) and (v) have been adopted to justify the property’s OUV [5].
Rosetta’s cultural heritage is characterized by the diverse influences it underwent, and which
were exerted by other cultures in northern Africa, and the later limited transference of these
influences throughout the Delta region in Egypt. This process of mutual influences took place
through interchanges of human values. The major architectural paradigms that represent the mutual
influences experienced throughout Rosetta’s wider cultural context and the interchanges of human
values are the ceramic tiles of Rosetta’s historic buildings, the minarets of the mosques in Rosetta and
their unique design, and the mushrabiyas used in Rosetta’s houses. The most outstanding examples
of historic buildings in Rosetta that retain ceramic tiles involve Manzil al-Qanadili, built in the first
half of the 18th century [36], the Mosque of Salih Agha Dumaqsis, built in 1702 [36], Manzil ‘Ilwan,
built in the 19th century [36], and Manzil ‘Abd al-Hamid Maharim, built in the 18th century [36].
These four historic buildings were built during the Ottoman dynasty [36]. Three distinctive design
patterns characterize the ceramic tiles used in these buildings; which are the organic pattern,
characterized by its floral ornaments; the geometrical pattern, and the plain pattern. All these
buildings are characterized by their integration of the two major patterns, the organic and the
geometrical patterns. Only two of these buildings retain ceramic tiles representing the third pattern,
the plain tiles pattern, which are Manzil ‘Ilwan and the Mosque of Salih Agha Dumaqsis. The
ornaments of the ceramic tiles used in these four buildings bear a clear resemblance to the ornaments
of the ceramic tiles used in the Mosque of Terbana in Alexandria. The Mosque of Terbana was
constructed in 1685 during the Ottoman dynasty [37]. Both the Mosque of Terbana and the other
historic buildings in Rosetta contribute to the establishment of a distinctive architectural style that is

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1885
referred to as the Delta Architectural Style. The ceramic tiles used in the mosque in Alexandria are
characterized by their integration of both patterns of ceramic tiles, which are the organic pattern that
is rich of its floral ornaments and the geometrical pattern (Figure 1). The geometrical ornaments of
the ceramic tiles used in the mosque in Alexandria are similar to those used in one of the historic
buildings in Rosetta, which is Manzil ‘Ilwan (Figure 1).
(a) (b)
Figure 1. The photographs show the clear resemblance between the ornaments of the ceramic tiles
used in Rosetta’s historic buildings and the ornaments of the ceramic tiles used in the Mosque of
Terbana in Alexandria, which was built in 1685 [37]: (a) A detailed photograph that shows one of the
ceramic tiles that are used inside Manzil ‘Ilwan in Rosetta, built in the 19th century [36], which are
characterized by their geometrical pattern; (b) A photograph that shows some of the ceramic tiles that
are used in the Mosque of Terbana in Alexandria, which are characterized by their geometrical
pattern.
The ornaments of the ceramic tiles used in the historic buildings in Rosetta bear a limited
resemblance to those of the ceramic tiles used in other historic building in Historic Cairo, which
belong to the Ottoman dynasty in Egypt. Among the most outstanding examples of historic buildings
in Historic Cairo that represent the early Turkish influences on the ornaments of the historic ceramic
tiles in Egypt are Bayt al-Sihaymi, built in 1648–1796 [38], Sabil-Kuttab of Abd al-Rahman Katkhuda,
built in 1744 [38] (Figure 2), and the Mosque of Aqsunqur. Regarding that the Mosque of Aqsunqur
was built in 1346 [38], therefore it belongs to the Bahri Mamluks dynasty. Nevertheless, the ceramic
tiles were added to the mosque during the renovations carried out in 1652 [38]. Almost all the ceramic
tiles used in these three historic buildings are characterized by their organic pattern and floral
ornaments. Among the most outstanding examples of historic buildings in Turkey where similar
ceramic tiles are used, which emphasize the Turkish profound influences on the ceramic tiles used in
the Egyptian historic buildings that belong to the Ottoman dynasty in Cairo, is the Mosque of
Sultanahmet in Istanbul, built in 1609–1617 [39]. The ceramic tiles that are used inside the mosque are
characterized by the distinctive organic patterns and floral ornaments they bear. However, the
Turkish distinctive style of historic ceramic tiles has had limited influences on the ornaments of the
ceramic tiles in Rosetta’s historic buildings. Some historic buildings in Rosetta retain small areas of
ceramic tiles that bear organic patterns and floral ornaments in blue and white colors that represent
these limited influences. The most outstanding examples of historic buildings in Rosetta that
represent these influences are Manzil al-Mayzuni, built in 1740 [36], Manzil al-Qanadili, built in the
first half of the 18th century [36], the Mosque of Salih Agha Dumaqsis, built in 1702 [36], and Manzil
‘Abd al-Hamid Maharim, built in the 18th century [36] (Figure 2).

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1886
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Two examples that illustrate the limited resemblance between the ornaments of some of the
ceramic tiles used in Rosetta’s historic buildings and the ornaments of the ceramic tiles used in other
historic buildings in Historic Cairo that belong to the Ottoman dynasty in Egypt: (a) A detailed
photograph that shows one of the few ceramic tiles that are used inside Manzil ‘Abd al-Hamid
Maharim in Rosetta, built in the 18th century [36], which are characterized by their organic pattern
and the floral ornaments they bear, and which represent the limited Turkish influences on the
ornaments of Rosetta’s historic ceramic tiles; (b) An example of the ceramic tiles that are used inside
Sabil-Kuttab of Abd al-Rahman Katkhuda in Historic Cairo, built in 1744 [38], which are characterized
by the organic pattern and floral ornaments they bear.
The ornaments of the ceramic tiles used in Rosetta’s historic buildings bear a very clear
resemblance to those of the ceramic tiles used in other historic buildings in Morocco and Spain.
Among the most outstanding examples of historic buildings that retain similar ceramic tiles in
Morocco is Madrasat al-Attarin in Fez, built in 1323–1325 [40], and among the most outstanding
similar examples of historic buildings in Spain are the Palacios Nazaries in Granada, built from the
mid-13th century to the late 14th century [41], and the Real Alcazar in Seville, built in 1364 [42]. The
ornaments of the majority of the ceramic tiles that are used in Madrasat al-Attarin are characterized
by the prevalence of the geometrical pattern. On the other hand, ceramic tiles are used inside the
Palacios Nazaries in several places, such as the Sala de los Dos Hermanas, or the hall of the two
sisters. The ornaments of the majority of the ceramic tiles used inside this hall are characterized by
the prevalence of the geometrical pattern. Ceramic tiles are used inside the Real Alcazar mainly in
the Patio de las Doncellas and its surrounding reception halls. The ornaments of the majority of these
ceramic tiles are characterized by the prevalence of the geometrical pattern. The clear resemblance
between the ceramic tiles used in the historic buildings in Morocco and Spain and those used in
Rosetta indicate potential influences exerted by the historic buildings in Morocco and Spain. Several
scholars [43–46] confirm this conclusion and emphasize the profound Moorish influences exerted on
the ornaments of the historic ceramic tiles used in Rosetta’s historic buildings. They all confirm that
these influences are attributed to the immigration of many Moorish craftsmen to Egypt and their
settlement in cities including Rosetta and Alexandria, and the ensuing interchange of their artistic
know-how with their Egyptian counterparts.
The unique form of the minarets of Rosetta’s mosques is another significant feature that
represents the mutual influences experienced throughout Rosetta’s wider cultural context. The form
of the minarets’ shafts of Rosetta’s mosques bears a clear resemblance to the form of the minarets’
shafts of other historic mosques in two nearby Egyptian cities, which are Alexandria and Fowah.
Among the most outstanding examples of historic mosques in Rosetta whose minarets’ form
represents this resemblance are the Mosque of Salih Agha Dumaqsis, built in 1702 [36] (Figure 3) and
the Mosque of Zaghlul, built in circa 1549 [36]. On the other hand, among the most outstanding
examples of historic mosques in Alexandria whose minarets’ form represents this resemblance is the
Mosque of Terbana, built in 1685 [37] (Figure 3); whereas the most outstanding similar examples of

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1887
historic mosques in Fowah are the Mosque of Hassan Nasr Allah, built in 1707 [43]; the Mosque of
Abu al-Makarim, built in 1850 [43]; and the Mosque of al-Qinaai, built in 1720 [43]. The clear
resemblance between the form of the minarets of the historic mosques in Rosetta and the form of
minarets of similar mosques in Alexandria and Fowah indicates the likelihood of the existence of
mutual influences experienced among Rosetta’s historic mosques and the historic mosques in the
other two cities. The geographical extent at which these mutual influences have been experienced is
limited to the Delta region in Egypt.
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Two photographs that show the clear resemblance between the form of the minarets of
Rosetta’s historic mosques and the form of the minaret of one of the historic mosques in Alexandria,
which is the Mosque of Terbana, built in 1685 [37]: (a) The minaret of the Mosque of Salih Agha
Dumaqsis in Rosetta, built in 1702 [36]; (b) The minaret of the Mosque of Terbana in Alexandria.
The third architectural feature that represents the mutual influences experienced throughout
Rosetta’s wider cultural context is the form of the mushrabiyas used in some historic houses in
Rosetta. The form of the mushrabiyas used in Rosetta’s historic houses bears a clear resemblance to
the form of the mushrabiyas used in other similar historic houses in Historic Cairo. Among the most
outstanding examples of historic houses in Rosetta that retain mushrabiyas and represent this
resemblance are Manzil Al-Hagg Isma’il Ramadan, built in the 18th century [36], and Manzil al-
Tuqatli, built in the first half of the 18th century [36] (Figure 4); while the similar examples of historic
houses in Historic Cairo involve, for instance, Bayt al-Sihaymi, built in 1648–1796 [38], and the House
and Sabil of al-Kritliya, built in 1631 [38] (Figure 4). The resemblance between the form of the
mushrabiyas used in the historic houses in Rosetta and the form of the mushrabiyas used in the
historic houses in Historic Cairo indicates the high likelihood of the existence of mutual influences
experienced by both cities, Rosetta and Cairo. The form of the mushrabiyas used in Rosetta’s historic
houses bears a considerable resemblance to the form of another similar architectural paradigm that
was integrated in the traditional architecture in Valletta, Malta, which is known as the Maltese
gallerija (Figure 4). The form of these galleriji was influenced by the mushrabiyas of northern Africa’s
traditional architecture, particularly in Morocco. The introduction of galleriji in Malta is attributed to
early slavery practices that resulted in the enslavement of a large number of Turkish in Malta. Some
of these slaves were master craftsmen who have participated in the introduction of galleriji in Malta,

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1888
regarding that galleriji started to appear in Valletta during the mid-18th century [47]. The process
through which galleriji were introduced in Malta represents an interchange of human values that
took place through an exchange of the artistic know-how of the Turkish craftsmen with their Maltese
counterparts. Therefore, the spread of mushrabiyas throughout Rosetta, northern Africa, and
southern Europe can be attributed to broad international mutual influences and interchange of
human values processes.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. Three examples that show the clear resemblance between the form of the mushrabiyas used
in Rosetta’s historic houses and the form of the mushrabiyas used in the historic houses in Historic
Cairo, and also shows the considerable resemblance with the form of the Maltese gallerija: (a) One of
the timber mushrabiyas of Manzil al-Tuqatli in Rosetta, built in the first half of the 18th century [36];
(b) A photograph that shows an example of the mushrabiyas of the House and Sabil of al-Kritliya in
Historic Cairo, built in 1631 [38]; (c) An example of the galleriji in Valletta, Malta, regarding that
galleriji started to appear in Valletta during the mid-18th century [47].
5. Conclusions
The findings indicated that the amendment carried out to world heritage criterion (ii) in 1996
led to the emergence of a new trend to justify the OUV of historic towns. This new trend
acknowledges the influences that the concerned historic town underwent and the later conveyance
of these influences to other properties. These mutual influences usually take place through
interchanges of human values represented by exchanges of artistic know-how, traditions, and
religious values. This new trend is characterized by the decline of the association between criterion
(ii) and criterion (i), which is concerned with the cultural properties representing masterpieces of
human creative genius. The amendment carried out to criterion (ii) in 1996 is attributed to the then
emerging interest in new types of cultural heritage, particularly vernacular and traditional living
communities’ heritage. Traditional communities’ heritage is characterized by the diverse mutual
influences these communities experienced through their encounter with other cultures. The emerging
interest in traditional communities’ heritage seems to have coincided with the emergence of a new
perception of historic towns that acknowledges the mutual influences they experienced and the role
that the interchange of human values played in their evolution.
The study emphasized the applicability of the revised version of criterion (ii) to the particularity
of Rosetta’s cultural heritage. Rosetta is characterized by the diverse influences its cultural heritage
underwent, which were exerted by other cultures in northern Africa, and the later transference of
these influences through the Delta region in an interchange of human values process. Several
architectural paradigms represent the mutual influences that Rosetta experienced through
interchanges of human values. The major paradigm that represents this interchange of human values
is the ceramic tiles used in Rosetta’s historic houses and mosques. The ornaments of Rosetta’s ceramic
tiles were influenced by two major trends, the first of which is the Moorish trend, while the other is
the Turkish trend. The Moorish influences were introduced to Rosetta’s architectural heritage by

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1889
Moorish craftsmen who immigrated to Egypt and settled in a number of cities including Rosetta
where they exchanged their artistic know-how with their Egyptian counterparts. The study
recommends inscribing Rosetta on the WHL based on criterion (ii). The study suggests the revision
of the nomination documents of other WHSs, which contributed to the mutual influences that Rosetta
experienced, particularly Historic Cairo, in order to adopt criterion (ii) among the criteria that justify
their OUV.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1. UNESCO. Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention; United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation: Paris, France, 2005.
2. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. The Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO
World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 1977.
3. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. The Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO
World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 1996.
4. Abdel Tawab, Ayman G. Historic Towns of Outstanding Universal Value: Evaluating the Appropriateness
of New Urban Development to Its Historic Context In. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Science
and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, Cairo, Egypt, 6–8 December
2009; Ferrari, A., Ed.; Grafica Elettrorica: Napoli, Italy, 2010; pp. 57–63.
5. Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1831/ (accessed on 1 August 2018).
6. Bond, S.; Worthing, D. Managing Built Heritage, The Role of Cultural Values and Significance; John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2010.
7. Australia ICOMOS Incorporated. THE BURRA CHARTER, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of
Cultural Significance. 2013; Australia ICOMOS Incorporated: Burwood, Australia, 2013.
8. Clark, K. Informed Conservation, Understanding Historic Buildings and Their Landscapes for Conservation;
English Heritage: London, UK, 2001.
9. Aplin, G. Heritage, Identification, Conservation, and Management; Oxford University Press: South Melbourne,
Australia, 2002.
10. Clark, K. Valuing Heritage, Creative Activities and Games for People Who Care about the Past; Manuscript in
preparation.
11. Mason, R. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In Assessing the
Values of Cultural Heritage; de la Torre, M, Ed.; The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA,
2002; pp. 5–30.
12. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. The Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO
World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2017.
13. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Information Document: Glossary of World Heritage Terms (Revised in October
1997); UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 1997.
14. Jokilehto, J. World Heritage: Defining the Outstanding Universal Value. City Time 2006, 2, 1–10.
15. Jokilehto, J. The World Heritage List, what is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World
Heritage Properties; International Council on Monuments and Sites: Paris, France, 2008.

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1890
16. Abdel Tawab, Ayman G. Article 55 Directions: Developing and Revising Tentative Lists and their Potential
Influences. In the Gotland Papers, Selected Papers from the VII International Conference on Easter Island and the
Pacific, Migration, Identity, and Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of the VII International Conference on Easter Island
and the Pacific; Migration, Identity and Cultural Heritage, Visby, Sweden, 20–25 August 2007; Wallin, P.,
Martinsson, H., Eds.; Gotland University Press: Visby, Sweden, 2010; pp. 511–530.
17. Abdel Tawab, Ayman. Evaluating the authenticity of traditional living communities’ ever-evolving
heritage. In HERITAGE 2016, 5th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development, Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–15 July 2016;
Lira, S., Amoêda, R., Pinheiro, C., Eds.; Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development: Barcelos,
Portugal, 2016; pp. 1891–1901.
18. ICOMOS. World Heritage List No 313; International Council on Monuments and Sites: Paris, France, 1984.
19. ICOMOS. World Heritage List No 379; International Council on Monuments and Sites: Paris, France, 1985.
20. Medina of Fez—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/170
(accessed on 1 August 2018).
21. Medina of Tunis—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/36
(accessed on 1 August 2018).
22. Medina of Marrakesh—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/331 (accessed on 1 August 2018).
23. Kairouan—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/499
(accessed on 2 August 2018).
24. Historic Centre of Cordoba—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/313 (accessed on 5 August 2018).
25. Historic City of Toledo—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/379 (accessed on 5 August 2018).
26. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage, World Heritage List, Nomination Submitted by Tunisia, The Medina of Tunis;
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Paris, France, 1978.
27. alGhabban, A. Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah, Nomination Document for the Inscription on the World
Heritage List; Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2013.
28. Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/822 (accessed on 1 August 2018).
29. Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1181 (accessed on 4 August 2018).
30. Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1361 (accessed on 1 August 2018).
31. Mdina (Citta’ Vecchia)—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/983/ (accessed on 4 August 2018).
32. White City of Tel-Aviv—the Modern Movement—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1096 (accessed on 4 August 2018).
33. World Heritage Centre. World Heritage Convention, Nomination of Properties for Inclusion on the World Heritage
List, Old Town Of Tallinn, Document C. 822; World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 1996.
34. ICOMOS. World Heritage List, Visby, No 731; International Council on Monuments and Sites: Paris, France,
1995.

Heritage 2019, 2, 114 1891
35. Abdel Tawab, Ayman G. Integrity and/or Authenticity: The Potential Challenges Facing the Nomination
of Historic Towns for Inscription on the World Heritage List. In HERITY Italia, Measuring the Value of
Material Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of the 2nd HERITY International Conference, Measuring the Value of
Material Cultural Heritage, Rome, Italy, 3–5 December 2008; Quagliuolo, M., Ed.; DRI—Fondazione Enotria
ONLUS: Rome, Italy, 2010; pp. 77–88.
36. Amin, N. The Historical Monuments of Egypt, Rosetta, Volume 1; Egyptian Antiquities Information System:
Cairo, Egypt, 2008.
37. Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Cultural Routes of Alexandria; Bibliotheca Alexandrina: Alexandria, Egypt, 2006.
38. Warner, N. The Monuments of Historic Cairo; The American University in Cairo Press: Cairo, Egypt, 2005.
39. Sultanahmet Camii | Istanbul, Sultan Ahmed Camii, general view. “Constantinople, Mosquée de Sultan
Ahmed” | Archnet. Available online: https://archnet.org/sites/2026/media_contents/62113 (accessed on 9
September 2018).
40. Madrasa al-’Attarin | Archnet. Available online: https://archnet.org/sites/1723 (accessed on 9 September
2018).
41. Alhambra | Archnet. Available online: https://archnet.org/sites/2547 (accessed on 9 September 2018).
42. Alcázar of Seville | Archnet. Available online: https://archnet.org/sites/2852 (accessed on 9 September
2018).
43. Azab, Khalid M. Fowah, the City of Mosques, a Study on the City and its Religious and Civilian Architecture;
Alahram Press: Cairo, Egypt, 1989. (In Arabic)
44. Al-Kadi, G.G.; Al-Sadik, M.T; Ismail, M.H. Rosetta, Emergence, Prosperity and Decline; Dar Al-Afaq Al-
Arabia: Cairo, Egypt, 1999. (In Arabic)
45. Al-Aaraj, A.M. Azulejos in Islamic Architecture in Algeria in the Turkish Era, an Archaeological and Artistic Study;
Owayday Publications: Beirut, Lebanon, 1990. (In Arabic)
46. Khamess, K. H. Ceramic Tiles in the Ottoman Constructions in Lower Egypt, an Archaeological and Artistic
Study. Master’s Thesis, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 2006. (In Arabic)
47. The Maltese Balcony—Maltese History & Heritage. Available online:
https://vassallohistory.wordpress.com/the-maltese-balcony/ (accessed on 15 October 2018).
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).