Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Heritage
This content is subject to copyright.
heritage
Communication
Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial Objects: Reporting Two New
Examples from Russia
Anna V. Mikhailenko 1, Dmitry A. Ruban 2,3 ,* and Vladimir A. Ermolaev 4
Citation: Mikhailenko, A.V.;
Ruban, D.A.; Ermolaev, V.A.
Geoheritage Meaning of Artificial
Objects: Reporting Two New
Examples from Russia. Heritage 2021,
4, 2721–2731. https://doi.org/
10.3390/heritage4040153
Academic Editors: Claudia Principe
and Carlos Alves
Received: 9 July 2021
Accepted: 24 September 2021
Published: 27 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Physical Geography, Ecology, and Nature Protection, Institute of Earth Sciences,
Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, 344090 Rostov-on-Don, Russia; avmihaylenko@sfedu.ru
2
K.G. Razumovsky Moscow State University of Technologies and Management (The First Cossack University),
Zemlyanoy Val Street 73, 109004 Moscow, Russia
3Department of Organization and Technologies of Service Activities, Higher School of Business,
Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija 43, 344019 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
4Department of Commodity Science and Expertise, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
Stremyanny Lane 36, 117997 Moscow, Russia; ermolaevvla@rambler.ru
*Correspondence: ruban-d@mail.ru
Abstract:
Geoheritage is not necessarily linked genetically to “purely” geological processes. Investi-
gations in two urban areas of Russia allowed us to find essentially artificial objects demonstrating
certain geological uniqueness. The huge balls sculptured from rapakivi granite and installed in Saint
Petersburg represent cultural, historical, and stone heritage. These are also artificial megaclasts with
perfect sphericity. The coal waste heaps situated in Shakhty and its vicinity represent industrial, his-
torical, and urban heritage. These are also artificial landforms creating a kind of pseudo-mountainous
landscape. These examples permit us to question the importance of the co-occurrence of heritage
categories for geosite assessment.
Keywords:
artificial landform; geosite; megaclast; rapakivi granite; Russian South; saint petersburg;
soviet legacy
1. Introduction
Geoheritage is an important resource [
1
–
3
]. Several specialists have argued that it is
tied to cultural, historical, archaeological, and other categories of heritage. Particularly,
Cárdenes et al. [
4
] showed the connections between geological and industrial heritage and
regional history; Ezquerro and Simón [
5
] related geoheritage to music; Gordon [
6
] put
geoheritage into the context of cultural landscapes; Górska-Zabielska [
7
] demonstrated
that a university’s rock garden can be considered as geosite; Kubalíková[
8
] realized the
cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity; Moroni et al. [
9
] linked geological and archaeo-
logical heritage; Páskováet al. [
10
] analyzed culture–geology interplay in geoparks; and
Prosser [
11
] explained that quarry-based geosites establish cultural connections. Despite
the accumulation of all these lines of evidence, two gaps are yet to be filled. On the one
hand, a bigger number of “ordinary” examples linking geoheritage to other contexts need
to be reported. Notably, peculiarities of countries and regions make the cultural frame
of geoheritage very different. On the other hand, essentially artificial heritage features,
which can be interpreted as geoheritage, are still poorly-known. This may not only include
mines or tunnels created to modify the geological environment or natural stones used
in buildings, but also objects significantly less related to geology. We should take into
account that “boundaries” (or transitions) between geological domains and cultural sphere
are broad, not fixed, and very transient. If so, the opposition between geological and
non-geological heritage is questionable, at least. Even the word “artificial” is used in this
paper with certain caution.
The objective of the present, essentially descriptive and interpretation-based paper is to
report two new examples of artificial objects with geoheritage meaning from Russia. These
Heritage 2021,4, 2721–2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4040153 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage
Heritage 2021,42722
have been “discovered” in the course of the authors’ trips. Although this country boasts an
outstanding richness of unique geological (including geomorphological) features [
12
–
16
],
they are documented only fragmentary, and they are known significantly less than the
famous cultural and historical heritage [
17
–
26
]. The presence of the latter makes Russia
especially important to finding artificial objects, which may also be geologically unique.
The reported examples seem to be rather “ordinary” and represent heritage, which is
not restricted to the only geology–culture nexus. In contrast, each of them can be put into
several heritage contexts, which are revealed in this paper. Both examples, in spite of their
evident differences, refer to the same class of multi-dimension heritage, and these seem
to be very representative and demonstrate how artificial objects also boast geoheritage
meaning and the latter is not only linked to use of natural materials, but this meaning
results from human activity. Although these examples are selected rather randomly (due to
the authors’ research experience) and there may be other geologically unique artificial
objects [
27
], both are characterized to contribute to accumulation of the evidence about
new forms of geoheritage, which is not necessarily found in the field or museums. In other
words, both examples serve the same purpose. It also seems that reporting new geosites,
both “ordinary” and exceptional, is an essential procedure in geoheritage studies like
reporting new fossils in palaeontology. This is especially true in regard to how poor the
geoheritage knowledge from many countries and regions still is. Thus, each new portion
of geoheritage, including the considered examples, deserves proper description to be
communicated to the international research community. Generally, the present paper
serves two purposes, namely reporting new geoheritage localities from Russia and arguing
for the geoheritage designation to essentially artificial objects.
2. Material and Method
The present study is based on information about two objects located in the different
parts of Russia (Figure 1a). The first are granite balls, which are a part of the famous
architectural ensemble in the historical part of the city of Saint Petersburg in the Russian
Northwest. This city is an international tourist destination, and its cultural and historical
heritage comprises the main attractions [
28
–
30
]. The study object is essentially cultural.
The second object is a group of coal waste heaps, which constitute the legacy of the mining
industry development in and around Shakhty in the Russian South. This territory has been
one of the most important coal-producing regions of the country for about a century [
31
–
33
].
The study object is essentially industrial.
The sites of both objects were visited, and the related literature was surveyed in order
to gather appropriate information for subsequent characterization. The latter is based on a
simple, three-step approach. First, as these are essentially artificial objects, their affinity to
various categories of heritage is established on the basis of the gathered information. Sec-
ond, the geoheritage value is argued via demonstrating geological uniqueness in each given
case. Third, each object is assessed in regard to its uniqueness, which can be established for
each category of heritage to which a given object is assigned. According to
Ruban et al. [34]
,
the uniqueness of objects can be local, regional, national, and international. It depends on
the spatial scale upon which the object is unique. For instance, if a given object is a part of
archaeological heritage, and none (or very few) archaeological features of the same kind
are found within a country, but they are numerous in the rest of the world, this is national
archaeological uniqueness. All noted procedures are based on qualitative interpretations,
but the subjectivity of judgments is minimized as possible.
Heritage 2021,42723
Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3
Figure 1. The geographical location of the considered examples: (a) location in Russia, (b) location map of the granite balls,
(c) location map of the coal waste heaps.
The sites of both objects were visited, and the related literature was surveyed in order
to gather appropriate information for subsequent characterization. The latter is based on
a simple, three-step approach. First, as these are essentially artificial objects, their affinity
to various categories of heritage is established on the basis of the gathered information.
Second, the geoheritage value is argued via demonstrating geological uniqueness in each
given case. Third, each object is assessed in regard to its uniqueness, which can be
established for each category of heritage to which a given object is assigned. According to
Ruban et al. [34], the uniqueness of objects can be local, regional, national, and
international. It depends on the spatial scale upon which the object is unique. For instance,
if a given object is a part of archaeological heritage, and none (or very few) archaeological
features of the same kind are found within a country, but they are numerous in the rest of
the world, this is national archaeological uniqueness. All noted procedures are based on
qualitative interpretations, but the subjectivity of judgments is minimized as possible.
3. Granite Balls from Saint Petersburg
Saint Petersburg is a large city in the northwestern part of Russia (Figure 1a) with a
population of ~5.4 million of people. It was founded in 1703 and remained the capital of
the Russian Empire until its disappearance. The local geology is dominated by the
Precambrian crystalline basement and the Lower Paleozoic deposits. Particularly,
Precambrian granitoids are common in the nearby Baltic Shield. The city concentrates a
huge amount of cultural and historical heritage. Among them is the architectural
ensemble on the Spit of Vasilievsky Island washed by the channels of the Neva River in
the very center of the city, and this is an element of the larger UNESCO World Heritage
Site [35]. This ensemble was projected by the French architect Jean-François Thomas de
Figure 1.
The geographical location of the considered examples: (
a
) location in Russia, (
b
) location map of the granite balls,
(c) location map of the coal waste heaps.
3. Granite Balls from Saint Petersburg
Saint Petersburg is a large city in the northwestern part of Russia (Figure 1a) with a
population of ~5.4 million of people. It was founded in 1703 and remained the capital of
the Russian Empire until its disappearance. The local geology is dominated by the Precam-
brian crystalline basement and the Lower Paleozoic deposits. Particularly, Precambrian
granitoids are common in the nearby Baltic Shield. The city concentrates a huge amount of
cultural and historical heritage. Among them is the architectural ensemble on the Spit of
Vasilievsky Island washed by the channels of the Neva River in the very center of the city,
and this is an element of the larger UNESCO World Heritage Site [
35
]. This ensemble was
projected by the French architect Jean-François Thomas de Thomon in the beginning of the
19th century. Near the very edge of the quay along the Neva River, there are two stone
balls sculpted by Samson K. Sukhanov from the Precambrian rapakivi granite (sometimes,
the material is labeled erroneously as marble). These granite balls are impressive in size,
and they are considered in the present study. They are located in the very center of the
city (Figure 1b), and are easily accessible from the Vasilievsky Island, which is the biggest
island of Saint Petersburg (they are situated at the eastern side of the Birzhevaya Square).
The granite balls from Saint Petersburg can be assigned to several categories of heritage
(Figure 2). They can be judged as the object of cultural (sensu stricto) heritage due to being
a part of the architectural ensemble on the Spit of Vasilievsky Island [
36
]. The balls are not
only two of many elements of the UNESCO World Heritage Site designated to outline the
highly-unique architecture [
35
], but they are also the object marking changes in the public
space dynamics in Saint Petersburg [
37
]. Moreover, these granite balls belong to historical
heritage because they are a part of the architectural object symbolizing the Russian Empire’s
Heritage 2021,42724
existence before 1917. The imperial theme and the related symbolism are typical to Saint
Petersburg and important to interpretations of the city’s historical center [38,39].
Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Thomon in the beginning of the 19th century. Near the very edge of the quay along the
Neva River, there are two stone balls sculpted by Samson K. Sukhanov from the
Precambrian rapakivi granite (sometimes, the material is labeled erroneously as marble).
These granite balls are impressive in size, and they are considered in the present study.
They are located in the very center of the city (Figure 1b), and are easily accessible from
the Vasilievsky Island, which is the biggest island of Saint Petersburg (they are situated at
the eastern side of the Birzhevaya Square).
The granite balls from Saint Petersburg can be assigned to several categories of
heritage (Figure 2). They can be judged as the object of cultural (sensu stricto) heritage
due to being a part of the architectural ensemble on the Spit of Vasilievsky Island [36]. The
balls are not only two of many elements of the UNESCO World Heritage Site designated
to outline the highly-unique architecture [35], but they are also the object marking changes
in the public space dynamics in Saint Petersburg [37]. Moreover, these granite balls belong
to historical heritage because they are a part of the architectural object symbolizing the
Russian Empire’s existence before 1917. The imperial theme and the related symbolism
are typical to Saint Petersburg and important to interpretations of the city’s historical
center [38,39].
Figure 2. Attribution of the granite balls from Saint Petersburg to various heritage categories. A typical rapakivi pattern
is shown on insert image. A.V.M. is for scale.
The study object is also part of the city’s stone heritage. This category of heritage is
well-recognized in the world [40,41,42]. Rapakivi granites, from which the balls are
sculptured, are rocks with outstanding aesthetic properties, and, thus, these were often
used for historical buildings and monuments in Saint Petersburg to form a significant
portion of its stone heritage [43,44,45,46]. Apparently, the widespread use of this highly-
specific rock in the city stresses its stone heritage value. Importantly, this heritage differs
from geoheritage, if even they are related strongly.
The granite balls are essentially artificial objects located in an urban area, and their
relation to geoheritage is unclear at the first glance. Some indirect relation can be
established through only stone heritage value. However, the size and the shape of these
balls should be taken into account. Their diameter reaches 1 m, and their shape
exemplifies an ideal sphere. Their composition from rapakivi granite—a natural rock with
specific, well-visible structure and representative of intrusive body—should also be
Figure 2.
Attribution of the granite balls from Saint Petersburg to various heritage categories. A typical rapakivi pattern is
shown on insert image. A.V.M. is for scale.
The study object is also part of the city’s stone heritage. This category of heritage
is well-recognized in the world [
40
–
42
]. Rapakivi granites, from which the balls are
sculptured, are rocks with outstanding aesthetic properties, and, thus, these were often
used for historical buildings and monuments in Saint Petersburg to form a significant
portion of its stone heritage [
43
–
46
]. Apparently, the widespread use of this highly-specific
rock in the city stresses its stone heritage value. Importantly, this heritage differs from
geoheritage, if even they are related strongly.
The granite balls are essentially artificial objects located in an urban area, and their
relation to geoheritage is unclear at the first glance. Some indirect relation can be established
through only stone heritage value. However, the size and the shape of these balls should
be taken into account. Their diameter reaches 1 m, and their shape exemplifies an ideal
sphere. Their composition from rapakivi granite—a natural rock with specific, well-visible
structure and representative of intrusive body—should also be noted. Megaclast studies
are an important direction of the modern geological research [
47
–
50
]. According to the
classification by Bruno and Ruban [
51
], megaclasts are rock particles >1 m in size, and the
granite balls from Saint Petersburg can be classified as megaclasts (more specifically, as fine
blocks). As for the shape, the classification by Blott and Pye [
52
] implies that these balls
boast perfect circularity (in two dimensions) and perfect sphericity (in three dimensions),
i.e., the balls demonstrate the upper limit of the important properties of rock particles. The
geological uniqueness of the granite balls as megaclasts is related to their specific (fully
artificial) origin and very unusual shape. The majority of megaclasts are linked to coastal
zones or colluvial accumulations on mountains slopes, and their shapes are almost always
irregular [
49
,
53
]. Therefore, the granite balls from Saint Petersburg are unique from a
geological point of view. These are man-made megaclasts, which provide evidence of this
lesser-known category of megaclasts, and their shape is too ideal to be registered as any
natural megaclast. This interpretation appears to be novel because the previous workers
(e.g., [
45
,
46
]) focused on rapakivi granites of Saint Petersburg as stone heritage, which is
not the same as geoheritage. These balls are ideal for an explanation of what man-made
megaclasts and ideal, textbook-like megaclasts are. Nonetheless, the possibility to observe
Heritage 2021,42725
typical peculiarities of rapakivi granites with their unusual structure in these balls adds a
certain geological value to them.
From four heritage categories established for the study object (Figure 2), the most
valuable is the cultural heritage due to its affinity to the UNESCO World Heritage Site
(however, the granite balls are not the only elements of this site that encompass huge
architectural ensembles). The historical and stone heritage seems to be only local because
there are many other objects of this kind in Saint Petersburg. As for the geoheritage, its
high value is undisputable—this is a highly-unique example of man-made megaclasts with
perfect sphericity. Moreover, the composition of megaclasts from rapakivi granites appears
to be rare. The national geological uniqueness can be established tentatively.
4. Coal Waste Heaps from Shakhty
Shakhty is a small city in the southwestern part of Russia (Figure 1a), with a population
of ~0.25 million of people. It was founded in the beginning of the 19th century and
became a town in 1881. This city has remained an important center of the Russian coal
industry (its economy has diversified since the 1990s), and it is located in the “core” of
the nationally important coal-mining region called as the Eastern Donbass. The local
geology is dominated by thick coal-bearing Carboniferous deposits formed in a lengthy
rift basin, which is one of the biggest and most economically important (partly historically)
coal basins of Europe. These deposits were deformed tectonically in the course of basin
inversion and compression. Shakhty is a typical industrial city that grew actively in the
mid-20th century
. Several objects of cultural heritage (chiefly not very old, but historical
buildings) are ranked regionally. Nonetheless, the city and the territory around it boasts
numerous notable industrial objects (many were abandoned together with the decline of the
coal industry), the most spectacular among which are tall coal waste heaps dominating the
local landscape. They were formed due to massive storage of coal-mining waste—chiefly
debris of parent rocks accumulated in the course of coal extraction in numerous deep
mines [
54
]. The coal waste heaps concentrate on an area, which includes the urban area of
Shakhty and its vicinities (Figure 1c). All of them are easily accessible from the principal
(federal) road leading from Moscow to Rostov-on-Don and crossing the considered area.
The coal waste heaps from Shakhty can be assigned to several categories of heritage
(Figure 3). Evidently, they constitute industrial heritage representing the century-long
coal mining industry in the Eastern Donbass [
54
–
56
], and the size of the object adequately
reflects the scale and the importance of this industry and the degree of industrial pertur-
bation of the natural landscape. Closely related is historical heritage. In fact, the coal
industry of the Eastern Donbass flourished in the times of the ex-USSR [
55
,
56
], and its
development was a part of the so-called “Industrialization”—an initiative of outstanding
industrial advancement in the late 1920s–1930s, which required a lot of effort from the
Soviet society and changed it dramatically [
57
,
58
]. If so, the coal waste heaps represent a
very typical Soviet legacy. The same object can also be classified as urban heritage. Coal
waste heaps are located in urbanized areas and even directly in the city. Their formation
coincided with the urban growth and influenced on the urban planning. The city and its
vicinity demonstrate very specific organization, which is typical to settlements grown in
areas with active mining.
Heritage 2021,42726
Heritage 2021, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 6
[55,56], and its development was a part of the so-called “Industrialization”—an initiative
of outstanding industrial advancement in the late 1920s–1930s, which required a lot of
effort from the Soviet society and changed it dramatically [57,58]. If so, the coal waste
heaps represent a very typical Soviet legacy. The same object can also be classified as
urban heritage. Coal waste heaps are located in urbanized areas and even directly in the
city. Their formation coincided with the urban growth and influenced on the urban
planning. The city and its vicinity demonstrate very specific organization, which is typical
to settlements grown in areas with active mining.
Figure 3. Attribution of the coal waste heaps from Shakhty to various heritage categories.
The coal waste heaps are essentially industrial objects from an urbanized area. One
can trace their indirect relation to geoheritage through the mining activity; these heaps
represent the scale of human influence on the geological environment. However, a direct
relation can also be established. The coal waste heaps are artificial landforms (their
number is not counted, but it exceeds a hundred in the Rostov Region), with a height of
several dozens of meters, conical or sub-conical, and always very regularly shaped
(sometimes with a flat surface on the top), with a characteristic brown or red color (due to
oxidized iron sulfides). According to Szabó [59], they can be attributed to both
montanogenic and industrogenic types of geomorphic intervention of humans. These
landforms seem to be really peculiar not only due to their size, shape, and color, but also
because they change the natural landscape and influence on the perception of physical
geography. A typical hilly steppe plain looks like a mountainous domain. The heritage
relevance of artificial landforms has been demonstrated in several cases (including areas
affected by the mining industry) [60,61,62], and, thus, it is reasonable to judge the coal
waste heaps from Shakhty as a piece of geoheritage (geomorphological heritage in this
case), which proves the power of man as “mountain” builder (montanogenic activity [59]).
The heritage categories established for the study object (Figure 3) are chiefly regional
by their uniqueness. Industrial heritage is representative for only Shakhty because the
other objects in this category can be found in several cities and towns of the Russian South,
including the big cities of Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd. However, this concentration of
the coal-industry heritage is typical to only Shakhty. The mining-related Soviet legacy is
common in contemporary Russia, although the coal waste heaps seem to be unique in this
Figure 3. Attribution of the coal waste heaps from Shakhty to various heritage categories.
The coal waste heaps are essentially industrial objects from an urbanized area. One
can trace their indirect relation to geoheritage through the mining activity; these heaps
represent the scale of human influence on the geological environment. However, a direct
relation can also be established. The coal waste heaps are artificial landforms (their number
is not counted, but it exceeds a hundred in the Rostov Region), with a height of several
dozens of meters, conical or sub-conical, and always very regularly shaped (sometimes
with a flat surface on the top), with a characteristic brown or red color (due to oxidized
iron sulfides). According to Szabó[
59
], they can be attributed to both montanogenic and
industrogenic types of geomorphic intervention of humans. These landforms seem to be
really peculiar not only due to their size, shape, and color, but also because they change
the natural landscape and influence on the perception of physical geography. A typical
hilly steppe plain looks like a mountainous domain. The heritage relevance of artificial
landforms has been demonstrated in several cases (including areas affected by the mining
industry) [
60
–
62
], and, thus, it is reasonable to judge the coal waste heaps from Shakhty as
a piece of geoheritage (geomorphological heritage in this case), which proves the power of
man as “mountain” builder (montanogenic activity [59]).
The heritage categories established for the study object (Figure 3) are chiefly regional
by their uniqueness. Industrial heritage is representative for only Shakhty because the
other objects in this category can be found in several cities and towns of the Russian South,
including the big cities of Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd. However, this concentration
of the coal-industry heritage is typical to only Shakhty. The mining-related Soviet legacy
is common in contemporary Russia, although the coal waste heaps seem to be unique in
this regard to the Russian South. Urban heritage determined by the influence of mining
activity on urban planning is very characteristic for this city of the Russian South. As for
the geoheritage, artificial landforms are known from the other parts of the world [
63
,
64
],
but such a pseudo-mountainous landscape is only seen in Shakhty and its vicinity is unique
on a national scale.
5. Discussion
The two considered objects boast comparable complexity (a combination of four
heritage categories; see Figures 2and 3). Generally, this means that they are important,
multi-dimension heritage objects and need careful management, i.e., conservation and
Heritage 2021,42727
tourism-related promotion. Apparently, their multi-dimensionality itself is valuable. The
granite balls from Saint Petersburg are conserved as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and
the recognition of their geological value does not require any additional action. In contrast,
the coal waste heaps from Shakhty are not conserved; moreover, these are thought to be
barriers for urban planning and sources of environmental pollution, i.e., risks for their
modification and even erasure exist, which will mean the loss of some precious heritage
of the Russian South. As for the tourism promotion, the geological uniqueness of the
granite balls creates premise for additional touristic attractiveness, which can be facilitated
by communicating the related information during guided excursions and in printed and
on-line touristic materials (brochures and web-pages). The pseudo-mountainous landscape
of Shakhty and its vicinity needs special geotouristic exploration and exploitation. The
activities in the Ruhr region of Germany [
65
] and the Upper Silesia of Poland [
66
] can
provide a lot of examples and templates to be followed in the Eastern Donbass of Russia.
Moreover, there are also other geotouristic options in these areas, where mining activities
were strongly linked to the local socio-economic development [67,68].
The methodology of geosite assessment is a subject of strong debate [
34
,
69
–
72
].
Although
the proposed approaches tend to focus on “purely” the geological, geoheritage, and techni-
cal characteristics of objects, their cultural frame is also considered. For instance, Brilha [
69
]
specified additional points (scores) to be given to the geosites boasting ecological or cultural
values, Kubalíkova et al. [
70
] suggested to increase the value for the presence of historical,
archaeological, architectonic, and artistic aspects, and Warowna et al. [
72
] proposed to
measure semi-quantitatively the cultural value and the presence of cultural attractions. The
outcomes of the present study stress that the various heritage co-occurring with geoheritage
cannot be ignored.
It is sensible to distinguish three situations. In one situation, a unique geological fea-
ture is located very close to a unique cultural (historical, industrial, etc.) feature. Essentially,
these are different features, one of which is natural and the other is artificial. In another
situation, there is a single natural feature with different heritage meanings, both geological
and other (as noted above, the “boundaries” between them is always challenging to estab-
lish). Finally, there may be situation (it matches both reported examples) when a single
artificial feature has both geological and other meanings. It is unclear whether the diversity
of heritage features is equal to the diversity of heritage meanings and whether the natural
versus artificial origin of geosites increases or decreases their value. These questions are
almost philosophical and many arguments pro et contra can be presented depending on
the subjective preferences. To avoid this uncertainty, it is proposed to not count artificial
features and meanings when geoheritage is assessed, but to undertake (if necessary for the
purposes of conservation or tourism) a separate heritage assessment, when both geological
and other categories of heritage are judged cumulatively in regard to their uniqueness.
Nonetheless, further debates on this methodological issue are required.
The undertaken investigation implies that despite their apparent simplicity, the qual-
itative interpretations of the geology-related heritage are highly-complex. Indeed, these
may be simplified with some methodological standardization, but the latter also requires
solid ground. Apparently, geoheritage studies have already reached a threshold, after
which their theoretical and philosophical advancement is required. This is demonstrated
by some recent studies [
73
–
75
]. A correct understanding of such objects as reported in this
paper requires proper understanding of what are heritage in general and its particular
manifestations, whether they are objective or relational, and how people’s preferences,
attitudes, and perceptions influence the value of multi-dimension heritage.
6. Conclusions
The granite balls from Saint Petersburg and the coal waste heaps from Shakhty (
together
with many other features) constitute a separate class of unique man-made geological and
geomorphological objects. Their geoheritage value is linked to not the material they consist
of, but to their geological uniqueness of their artificial essence. The granite balls from
Heritage 2021,42728
Saint Petersburg belong to geoheritage because these are man-made megaclasts, which
are too ideal to be found in nature, and the coal waste heaps from Shakhty belong to
geoheritage because these are pseudo-mountains. The representation of rapakivi gran-
ites and coal mining activity is less important in these cases, respectively. The findings
imply that geoheritage can be tied closely to the other kinds of heritage (cultural, stone,
industrial, etc.), but these need to be distinguished. For instance, rapakivi granite in the
considered balls is stone heritage, whereas the megaclast interpretation of these balls makes
them geoheritage. Undoubtedly, state-of-the-art, almost philosophical interpretations are
necessary for such judgments, and this is a challenging but important perspective for the
modern geoheritage research.
Both of the “ordinary” objects seem to be representative to this class and, thus, high-
light an important direction of further investigations. There are three important perspec-
tives for the latter. The first is the development of a more or less universal approach for
them semi-quantitative assessment of artificial objects with geoheritage meaning. The
second perspective is linked to studying the perception of multi-dimensional geoheritage
by both visitors and locals. Expectedly, realizing the geoheritage value of artificial objects
would contribute to their overall heritage judgments, but this heavily depends on the basic
geological preparedness of the people. The third opportunity is linked to realizing the
full diversity of artificial objects with geoheritage meaning and classifying them properly.
Numerous reports like the present one from various parts of the world are necessary to
achieve this task.
More generally, the described examples stress the importance of collaboration be-
tween experts in different heritage categories, which would enable finding more geo-
heritage beyond the geological environment, such as cultural and other types of heritag.
For instance
, cooperation between geologists and historians would fill an important gap in
the knowledge of the links between national history, stone use and mining, and artificial
geoheritage creation.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, D.A.R.; methodology, A.V.M. and D.A.R.; investigation,
A.V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.R. and V.A.E.; writing—review and editing, D.A.R.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
We thank the editor and the reviewers for their thorough consideration of our
paper and helpful recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Bétard, F.; Hobléa, F.; Portal, C. Geoheritage as new territorial resource for local development. Ann. Geogr.
2017
,717, 523–543.
[CrossRef]
2.
Ruban, D.A.; Tiess, G.; Sallam, E.S.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Combined mineral and geoheritage resources related to
kaolin, phosphate, and cement production in Egypt: Conceptualization, assessment, and policy implications. Sustain. Environ.
Res. 2018,28, 454–461. [CrossRef]
3. Santangelo, N.; Valente, E. Geoheritage and Geotourism resources. Resources 2020,9, 80. [CrossRef]
4.
Cárdenes, V.; Ponce de León, M.; Rodríguez, X.A.; Rubio-Ordoñez, A. Roofing Slate Industry in Spain: History, Geology, and
Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2019,11, 19–34. [CrossRef]
5.
Ezquerro, L.; Simón, J.L. Geomusic as a New Pedagogical and Outreach Resource: Interpreting Geoheritage with All the Senses.
Geoheritage 2019,11, 1187–1198. [CrossRef]
6.
Gordon, J.E. Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconserva-
tion. Geosciences 2018,8, 136. [CrossRef]
Heritage 2021,42729
7.
Górska-Zabielska, M. The rock garden of the Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University—a
new geo-site in Kielce, central Poland. Geosciences 2021,11, 113. [CrossRef]
8.
Kubalíková, L. Cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity: A case study from Stranska skala (Brno, Czech Republic). Land
2020
,
9, 105. [CrossRef]
9.
Moroni, A.; Gnezdilova, V.V.; Ruban, D.A. Geological heritage in archaeological sites: Case examples from Italy and Russia.
Proc. Geol. Assoc. 2015,126, 244–251. [CrossRef]
10.
Pásková, M.; Zelenka, J.; Ogasawara, T.; Zavala, B.; Astete, I. The ABC Concept—Value Added to the Earth Heritage Interpretation?
Geoheritage 2021,13, 1–25. [CrossRef]
11. Prosser, C.D. Communities, Quarries and Geoheritage—Making the Connections. Geoheritage 2019,11, 1277–1289. [CrossRef]
12.
Fedorov, Y.A.; Gar’kusha, D.N.; Trubnik, R.G.; Latushko, N.A.; Ruban, D.A. Coastal peloids as geological heritage: Evidence from
the Taman Peninsula (Southwestern Russia). Water 2019,11, 1119. [CrossRef]
13.
Gogin, I.Y.; Vdovets, M.S. Geosites of International Significance in the UNESCO WHS Lena Pillars Nature Park (Sakha Republic,
Russia). Geoheritage 2014,6, 173–184. [CrossRef]
14.
Karpunin, A.M.; Mamonov, S.V.; Mironenko, O.A.; Sokolov, A.R. Geological Monuments of Nature of Russia; Lorien: Sankt-Peterburg,
Russia, 1998. (In Russian)
15.
Marshall, J.E.A.; Siveter, D.J. The Lake Il’men clint, Russia: A potential Devonian geopark. J. Min. Inst.
2018
,234, 581–590.
[CrossRef]
16.
Vdovets, M.S.; Silantiev, V.V.; Mozzherin, V.V. A national geopark in the Republic of Tatarstan (Russia): A feasibility study.
Geoheritage 2010,2, 25–37. [CrossRef]
17.
Butler, S.B.; Nayyar-Stone, R.; O’Leary, S. The law and economics of historic preservation in St. Petersburg, Russia. Rev. Urban
Reg. Dev. Stud. 1999,11, 24–44. [CrossRef]
18.
Golubev, A. “A wonderful song of wood”: Heritage architecture and the search for historical authenticity in North Russia.
Rethink. Marx. 2017,29, 142–172. [CrossRef]
19.
Kazanskaya, L.; Sobor, V. Historical railway bridges of Russia as objects of architectural heritage. Urbanism. Archit. Constr.
2019
,
10, 123–132.
20. Kotlyakov, V.M. Outstanding cultural heritage of Russia. Izv. Akad. Nauk Seriya Geogr. 1997,3, 152–154.
21. Kozinsky, O. The historical and Olympic heritage of Sochi. Proj. Baikal 2019,60, 132–141.
22.
Kuleshova, M.E. Cultural landscapes and prospects for extending Russia’s representation on the World Heritage List.
Reg. Res. Russ.
2013,3, 301–307. [CrossRef]
23.
Kuleshova, M.E. Cultural Landscapes, Their Position in the World Heritage List and Prospects for Representation of Russia.
Reg. Res. Russ. 2020,10, 260–271. [CrossRef]
24. Mazurov, Y.L. Factors of environment and condition of cultural heritage of Russia. Izv. Akad. Nauk Seriya Geogr. 2003,6, 58–65.
25. Saksa, A.I. The old cathedral in Vyborg—A unique object of cultural heritage. Strat. Plus 2014,6, 261–270.
26.
Voskresenskaya, E.; Vorona-Slivinskaya, L.; Kazakov, Y. Study of the protection of the architectural heritage of Russia.
E3S Web Conf. 2019,135, 03041. [CrossRef]
27.
Habibi, T.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N.; Ruban, D.A. Urban geoheritage complexity: Evidence of a unique natural resource
from Shiraz city in Iran. Resour. Policy 2018,59, 85–94. [CrossRef]
28.
Gordin, V.E. Development of cultural tourism in a megacity: The St. Petersburg phenomenon. Reg. Res. Russ.
2011
,1, 344–350.
[CrossRef]
29.
Kraikovski, A.; Bogachev, N.; Lomakina, I. Playing maritime capital: The Baltic Sea in the touristic representations of St.
Petersburg. Int. J. Marit. Hist. 2020,32, 928–945. [CrossRef]
30.
Zelenskaya, E.; Elkanova, E. Designing place brand architecture: The potential of a sub-brands strategy. J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2021,30, 167–179. [CrossRef]
31.
Kurakov, Y.I.; Samofalov, V.S.; Malikov, I.N.; Kolomiets, V.A. Coal mining in the Russian Donetsk Basin. Coke Chem.
2010
,53,
121–123. [CrossRef]
32.
Plakitkina, L.S.; Plakitkin, Y.A.; Dyachenko, K.I. Development of the coal industry in the Rostov Region in 2000–2025. Gorn. Zhurnal
2018,12, 4–8. [CrossRef]
33.
Tsaturov, V.V.; Agafonov, O.A.; Chernyak, V.A. The tasks of advanced development of mining production at the enterprises of
“South Coal Company”. Ugol 2020,8, 72–76. [CrossRef]
34.
Ruban, D.A.; Sallam, E.S.; Khater, T.M.; Ermolaev, V.A. Golden Triangle Geosites: Preliminary Geoheritage Assessment in a
Geologically Rich Area of Eastern Egypt. Geoheritage 2021,13, 54. [CrossRef]
35.
UNESCO. Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/540/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
36.
Lavrov, L.P.; Perov, F.V. “Appropriate architecture”. Capriccio on the vasilyevsky Island Strelka. Vestn. St.-Peterbg. Univ. Iskusstv.
2016,6, 52–86. [CrossRef]
37.
Molotkova, E. Environmental approach to the formation of public spaces of the capital city on the spit of Vasilevskiy Island.
E3S Web Conf. 2020,164, 04021. [CrossRef]
38.
Gorgadze, A.; Gordin, V.; Belyakova, N. Semantic analysis of the imperial topic: Case of St. Petersburg. e-Rev. Tour. Res.
2019
,16,
3–13.
Heritage 2021,42730
39. Lapin, V.V. St. Petersburg as an imperial capital. Ural. Istor. Vestn. 2016,52, 14–22.
40.
De Wever, P.; Baudin, F.; Pereira, D.; Cornee, A.; Egoroff, G.; Page, K. The Importance of Geosites and Heritage Stones in Cities—A
Review. Geoheritage 2017,9, 561–575. [CrossRef]
41.
Kaur, G.; de Oliveira Frascá, M.H.B.; Pereira, D. Natural Stones: Architectonic heritage and its global relevance. Episodes
2021
,44,
1–2. [CrossRef]
42. Pereira, D.; Van den Eynde, V.C. Heritage Stones and Geoheritage. Geoheritage 2019,11, 1–2. [CrossRef]
43. Bulakh, A.G. Ornamental stone in the history of St Petersburg architecture. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2015,407, 243–252. [CrossRef]
44.
Bulakh, A.G.; Gavrilenko, V.V.; Panova, E.G. Rapakivi granite in St Petersburg: Architecture and mineralogical-petrografical
observations. Vestn. St. -Peterbg. Univ. Seriya Geol. I Geogr. 2016,3, 40–53. [CrossRef]
45.
Bulakh, A.; Harma, P.; Panova, E.; Selonen, O. Rapakivi granite in the architecture of St Petersburg: A potential global heritage
stone from Finland and Russia. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2020,486, 67–76. [CrossRef]
46. Ziskind, M.S. Decorative-Facing Stones; Nedra: Leningrad, Russia, 1989. (In Russian)
47.
Blair, T.C.; McPherson, J.G. Grain-size and textural classification of coarse sedimentary particles. J. Sediments Res.
1999
,69, 6–19.
[CrossRef]
48.
Blott, S.J.; Pye, K. Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle size distributions: Review and
recommended procedures. Sedimentology 2012,59, 2071–2096. [CrossRef]
49. Ruban, D.A.; Ponedelnik, A.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Megaclasts: Term Use and Relevant Biases. Geosciences 2019,9, 14. [CrossRef]
50.
Terry, J.P.; Goff, J. Megaclasts: Proposed revised nomenclature at the coarse end of the Udden-Wentworth gain-size scale for
sedimentary particles. J. Sediment. Res. 2014,84, 192–197. [CrossRef]
51.
Bruno, D.E.; Ruban, D.A. Something more than boulders: A geological comment on the nomenclature of megaclasts on
extraterrestrial bodies. Planet. Space Sci. 2017,135, 37–42. [CrossRef]
52.
Blott, S.J.; Pye, K. Particle shape: A review and new methods of characterization and classification. Sedimentology
2008
,55, 31–63.
[CrossRef]
53.
Ruban, D.A.; Yashalova, N.N. New Evidence of Megaclasts from the Russian South: The First Report of Three Localities.
Geosciences 2021,11, 129. [CrossRef]
54. Sleptsov, Y. Problem of Slagheaps of Donbass. E3S Web Conf. 2020,217, 04005. [CrossRef]
55.
Danilin, O. On the way to decline: The development of the Donbass coal-mining industry from the 1950s to the 1980s. Inst. Min.
Metall. Trans. Sect. A Min. Technol. 2002,111, A167–A171. [CrossRef]
56.
Maksimenko, E.P. Black “bread of industry”: Giving the insight into the coal mining during first post-revolutionary years. Ugol
2017,11, 86–89. [CrossRef]
57. Ellman, M. Soviet industrialization: A remarkable success? Slav. Rev. 2004,63, 841–849. [CrossRef]
58.
Poberezhnikov, I.V. Modernization in the history of Russia: Trends and investigation problems. Ural. Istor. Vestn.
2017
,57, 36–45.
59.
Szabó, J. Anthropogenic Geomorphology: Subject and System. In Anthropogenic Geomorphology: A Guide to Man-Made Landforms;
Szabó, J., Dávid, L., Lóczy, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 3–10.
60. Kozma, J. The transboundary Muskau Arch geopark. Prz. Geol. 2011,59, 276–290.
61. Luud, A.; Liblik, V.; Sepp, M. Landscape evaluation in industrial areas. Oil Shale 2003,20, 25–32.
62.
Portal, C.; Kerguillec, R. The Shape of a City: Geomorphological Landscapes, Abiotic Urban Environment, and Geoheritage in the
Western World: The Example of Parks and Gardens. Geoheritage 2018,10, 67–78. [CrossRef]
63.
Gwenzi, W.; Hinz, C.; Bleby, T.M.; Veneklaas, E.J. Transpiration and water relations of evergreen shrub species on an artificial
landform for mine waste storage versus an adjacent natural site in semi-arid Western Australia. Ecohydrology
2014
,7, 965–981.
[CrossRef]
64.
Masalehdani, M.N.-N.; Mees, F.; Dubois, M.; Coquinot, Y.; Potdevin, J.-L.; Fialin, M.; Blanc-Valleron, M.-M. Condensate minerals
from a burning coal-waste heap in Avion, Northern France. Can. Mineral. 2009,47, 573–591. [CrossRef]
65.
Wrede, V.; Mügge-Bartolovic, V. GeoRoute Ruhr-a Network of Geotrails in the Ruhr Area National GeoPark, Germany. Geoheritage
2012,4, 109–114. [CrossRef]
66.
Gawor, L.; Jankowski, A.T.; Ruman, M. Post-mining dumping grounds as geotourist attractions in the Upper Silesian coal basin
and the Ruhr district. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2011,19, 61–68.
67.
Brzezinska-Wójcik, T.; Skowronek, E. Tangible Heritage of the Historical Stonework Centre in Brusno Stare in the Roztocze Area
(SE Poland) as an Opportunity for the Development of Geotourism). Geoheritage 2020,12, 10. [CrossRef]
68.
Nita, J.; Myga-Piatek, U. Geotourist potential of post-mining regions in Poland. Bull. Geogr.—Phys. Geogr. Ser.
2014
,7, 139–156.
[CrossRef]
69.
Brilha, J. Inventory and quantitative assessment of geosites and geodiversity sites: A review. Geoheritage
2016
,8, 119–134.
[CrossRef]
70.
Kubalíkova, L.; Drápela, E.; Kirchner, K.; Bajer, A.; Balková, M.; Kuda, F. Urban geotourism and geoconservation: Is it possible to
find a balance? Environ. Sci. Policy 2021,121, 1–10. [CrossRef]
71.
Štrba, L.; Rybar, P.; Balaz, B.; Molokac, M.; Hvizdak, L.; Krsak, B.; Lukac, M.; Muchova, L.; Tometzova, D.; Ferencikova, J. Geosite
assessments: Comparison of methods and results. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015,18, 496–510. [CrossRef]
72.
Warowna, J.; Zgłobicki, W.; Kołody´nska-Gawrysiak, R.; Gajek, G.; Gawrysiak, L.; Telecka, M. Geotourist values of loess
geoheritage within the planned Geopark Małopolska Vistula River Gap, E Poland. Quat. Int. 2016,399, 46–57. [CrossRef]
Heritage 2021,42731
73.
Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Pereira, D.I.; Pereira, P. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management
of the whole of nature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018,86, 19–28. [CrossRef]
74.
Capdevila-Werning, R. Preserving Destruction: Philosophical Issues of Urban Geosites. Open Philos.
2020
,3, 550–565. [CrossRef]
75.
Chakraborty, A.; Gray, M. A call for mainstreaming geodiversity in nature conservation research and praxis. J. Nat. Conserv.
2020
,
56, 125862. [CrossRef]
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
