se, slate slabs) and traditional techniques, a point valid for a total of 200 medieval-era buildings across the villages of Ushguli.
The other constituent villages, unlike Chazhashi, did not directly hold protected status as architectural ensembles in the Soviet era and do not today; this circumstance is due to changes to their architectural substance imposed by human action – particularly in Chwibiani and Zhibiani – or the destruction of the heritage by natural events such as land- and mudslides and avalanches (cf., inter alia, Tarragüel, Krol and van Westen 2012; National Atlas of Georgia 2019, p. 38- 42; for an overview on natural risks see Stadelbauer 2015). The World Heritage Committee, however, has stipulated that changes here be likewise subject to approval by state authorities, making the prevention of significant alterations to the architectural heritage of the whole of Ushguli a precondition for the retention of UNESCO World Heritage status. Despite this, the Georgian state has yet to present a sustainable plan for the management of the site (cf. Stadelbauer 2018), which would secure the long-term preservation of the ‘buffer zone’, protecting its buildings, managing the landscape and ensuring sustainable farming practices, taking a participatory approach to the involvement of the local administration and, above all, the population on the ground. UNESCO provides no financial support for building or maintenance work. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) recommended restricting the conferment of World Heritage status to Chazhashi – which was counter to the Georgian state’s original application – but endowing the entire mountainous region in which it is set with a mention, evidently in the intent of encouraging further desirable practices in the area.
The ICOMOS recommendation on the village of Chazhashi
The following passage from the ICOMOS recommendation is indicative of the robustness with which the Council advocates the principles underlying its decisions and can well be read as a warning in regard to the site’s future development: ‘In the opinion of ICOMOS it would be premature for the entire Reserve to be inscribed, since it is a new creation and its policies are still being formulated. The technical condition of Zhibiani village is, according to the “passport”, “in a grave condition”, which would seem to disqualify it for inscription until action has been taken to remedy that situation. The Ushguli-Chazhashi Museum-Reserve, on the other hand, is clearly defined and has been in operation for several years.’ (ICOMOS 1996, p. 101). The village of Zhibiani saw the greatest impact from substantial architectural change in the Soviet period, receiving elements reminiscent of typical Soviet dacha architecture, elegant and generously proportioned, with protruding, closed balconies in the Georgian style providing access to the series of rooms within. The dictum issued by ICOMOS (1996) excludes this style of building – the only type to provide enough space to accommodate reasonable numbers of tourists – from any and all protected status; indeed, it deems it deleterious to the site’s medieval architecture and its overall impression as per criterion V.
Photo: Reproduction of an undated Photo of the 1960s showing Chwibiani and Zhibiani and taken from a room of the Solomon guest house in Chwibiani, which captures the principal phase of reconstruction during the Soviet period, during which following the elder interlocutors over half of the uninhabited towers were demolished for building materials.
Photo: The same view, taken today; a check at the site confirms that since the previous Photo was taken, only one further tower has been lost, to collapse.
Methods of construction, though, are changing profoundly, with the introduction of building materials such as concrete, limestone composites, plastics and sheet metals and of styles of building modelled on hotels and other types of tourist-oriented structures typical of the European Alps. Further, seasonal returners to Ushguli, who cannot do the work of mou