Amazingly we haven't previously found a justification for a topic on this country!! There are a number of issues worth highlighting and following up about its recently (May 2023) published amended T List so I start one here

A few comments/observations on the 7 additions (with, officially so far, no removals, leaving a list of 12 sites).
1. Archaeological Sites on the Deltaic Landscape of Bangladesh 17/05/2023
2. Archaeological sites of Lalmai-Mainamati 17/05/2023
3. Cultural Landscape of Mahasthan and Karatoya River 17/05/2023
4. Mughal Mosques in Bangladesh 17/05/2023
5. Mughal and Colonial Temples of Bangladesh 17/05/2023
6. The Architectural Works of Muzharul Islam: an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement in South Asia 17/05/2023
7. Mughal Forts on Fluvial Terrains in Dhaka 17/05/2023

2. Largely duplicates the 1999 entry titled "The Lalmai-Mainamati Group of monuments". That consisted of "some 50 Archaeological sites" of which we had identified and located 7 (A job I remember working on!). Whilst the new " Archaeological sites of Lalmai-Mainamati " identifies 21 named sites with detailed descriptions and locations. A job to do some time to locate these and compare.

4,5 and 7 seem "fixated" on the Mughals ("Mughal Mosques in Bangladesh", "Mughal and Colonial Temples of Bangladesh" and "Mughal Forts on Fluvial Terrains in Dhaka"). Whilst the first and third might be justified I don't really understand why Bangladesh thought it necessary to identify the Temples being included as "Mughal" (as well as "Colonial"). In fact the architecture which they represent is widely recognised as "Bengali" and it wouldn't have been unreasonable to name it as such. The Mughals (as well as other "Sultanates) and the British influenced the development of local designs but it seems wrong to characterise the styles as "belonging" to either. (I fully support this particular T List addition having visited a number of examples and believing at the time, in 2008, that this style of architecture justified inclusion and hope that Bangladesh can give it a fair wind). Perhaps they were worried abut India's view - but why not try to work with India to include examples on both sides of the frontier? Also of course the Temples themselves are largely Hindu and to describe them as "Mughal" seems to downplay that religious provenance.

6. Despite contributing to the recent and growing trend of identifying "national" architects and claiming OUV for their designs or influence - often without adequate justification IMO - this is a genuinely interesting inclusion in attempting to identify a significant regional player and contributor unlike a number of the other examples of individual architect (T(WHS)

I note that Lalbagh Fort in Dhaka is represented on the new T List within 3 different entries -
a. In its own right from 1999
b. As one of the "Mughal Forts" - Component 4 of 4
c. As one of the "Mughal Mosques" - B11 on the UNESCO list.

Fortunately, all these new TWHS (with dozens of locations) are accompanied by coordinates, which at first glance seem accurate. Have added one for each now, will do the rest of them when I am back home from Madagascar (end of next week).

Overall I am happy to see Bangladesh's activity. And I second Solivagant's support for the Mughal / Colonial Temples TWHS!

Further to this I quote from Wiki regarding one of the "types" of Hindu Temples included in Bangladesh's new T List Entry - viz "Ratna" style (My Bold) -
"Ratna Style (Bengali: রত্ন শিল্পরীতি) is a style of Bengal temple architecture, that originated in Bengal from the 15th to 16th centuries, under the Mallabhum kingdom (also called Malla dynasty).[1] Originating as a regional style in Hindu temple architecture. It is an extended style of the Chala temple.[2] The special feature of Ratna-style temples is the curved cornice of the chala.
Ratna-style temples were built all over Bengal. But most of the temples are found in the city of Bishnupur. In the present day, the temples are now located in two separate national territories: the Indian state of West Bengal and Bangladesh." (Nb no mention of "Mughals"!)

Bishnupur is in West Bengal i.e in India and indeed it turns out that the most significant examples in India are already on India's T List since 1998 as "Temples of Bishnupur"

Bangladesh now has removed the 5 old TWHS

It appears that Bangladesh set off on its "T List renewal project" in Jan 2020

I have today discovered the project's "Final Report" titled "Updating the UNESCO Tentative List of Bangladesh".
It is dated June 2021 but not published onto its current location until Dec 2021. What has been happening between its completion in June 2021 and the "official" dating of the UNESCO T List in May 2023 isn't yet clear!!

It is a "nice" resource with good maps and plans as well as the full text passed through to the UNESCO descriptions

The report is very comprehensive in providing the process followed by the project team and in identifying the earlier lists from which potential sites were cut. The process seems to have been logical!. The team started sensibly enough from various available thematic studies previuously carried out "under the WHC global strategy" and identified
16 Themes potentially relevant to Bangladesh
61 proposals were received - but these are not fully provided
28 were mapped onto 16 themes and are fully listed in combined form
These were then gradually reduced - 13, 11, then to 10 placed into a "Draft T List" and 8 were put forward in the final report. Unfortunately the reasons for those falling by the wayside isn't always clear. The overall result has largely been a repackaging/"strengthening" of the previous T List entries and the addition of a few others. Some of the "Themes" seem to have failed to keep representation as the process continued (e.g "Landscapes and Monuments of the Liberation War of Bangladesh in Dhaka")
.........but only 7 have survived. The missing one is the Bangladesh National Assembly Building (A fine building which we have visited!!!). Its removal of course post dates this report - one could guess that its non Bangladeshi architect (Louis Kahn) told against it?? See Page 95 of the report for what would have been submitted.

I've started adding the locations for the extensive serial sites. I noticed that for the Mughal Mosques, the Bagha Mosque is not included (which is 16C and very pretty).

Don't understand. Why would you have expected it to be? When/where was it previously mentioned? What am I missing? Is it that you visited it when in Rajshahi?

I note that it is included in the widely quoted "10 Best (or most beautiful) mosques in Bangladesh".... e.g https://www.travelmate.com.bd/top-10-historical-mosques-in-bangladesh/ but has it ever been cited as a WHS possible - and the official report above doesn't mention it.

It is well-known and well-preserved and exactly fits the type of the others in the collection. I cannot find any reasoning behind the selection of the mosques in the Report mentioned above; maybe you do, I've not read it fully.

And yes - it is the only one I have visited!

I have come across a sumptuous and comprehensive UNESCO e-Book from 2006 titled "Mosque Architecture in Bangladesh".

It splits the Mosques into 3 periods (Early Islamic, Mughal and Colonial) and identifies 134 "Historic Mosques" in total. It then describes 30 in detail. But, of the 30 only 8 are categorized as "Mughal" - but NOT including Bagha among these. As far as I can make out from a quick comparison only 5 of those 8 have been included in the nominated 30 (I haven't checked if all of the 30 are in the full 134 "Historic" List - Bagha is)
.

As would have been expected Bangladesh had a lot of mosques to choose from - perhaps we should be thankful they stopped at only 30. But the logic for their selection and why it was decided only to focus on the Mughal period remains unclear,,,,,,

It would seem that UNESCO is (justifiably?) heavily invested in this subject and that a successful nomination could be expected if and when Bangladesh decides to pursue it.

OMG. There is a book for everything isn't it?


It is categorized under 'Early Islamic Period'. So of a slightly earlier date. OK.