The recent discussion on this forum about the upcoming consideration of the (largely) underwater "Prehistoric Pile Dwellings" has reminded me that some time ago I tried to develop a Connection for "Under-water Archaeology" along the lines of "Contains significant archaeological remains within the inscribed area which are now situated under water."

Despite the creation of the "Convention for the Protection of Underwater Heritage" by UNESCO in 2001 there is currently no site, to my knowledge, which is inscribed wholly or even largely on the basis of such aspects, though there are examples on T Lists
a. Alexandria. Egypt clearly intends this to encompass its very significant underwater aspects which include the Pharos and Cleopatra's Palace though it T List entry merely states "A study of all the remains could probably make it possible one day to confirm that imposing monuments and perhaps even parts of the famous lighthouse are still lying under the sea.". Perhaps inscription will coincide with the possible development of an underwater museum?
b. "The Underwater City of Port Royal" (Jamaica). As the title indicates the vast majority of this site is underwater following earthquakes in 1692 and thereafter.

Israel has placed Caesarea on its T list but, somewhat surprisingly, doesn't refer in its entry to any under-water remains despite the fact that it has created an underwater archaeological park (Claimed to be the World's "first") for scuba divers to see the remains of the Herodian port!

Regarding existing inscribed sites :-

The Cenotes of Chichen-Itza certainly contain important under-water remains and are within the inscribed area. See this site for its importance within the domain of "Underwater Archaeology" : - http://maya-underwater.blogspot.com/p/impact-on-modern-world.html

I might have expected Egypt's Nubian Monuments to contain some of the many un-raised remains under Lake Nasser – but it is strictly limited just to the small dry areas of Philae and Abu Simbel.

As Alexandria/Caesarea demonstrate, there have been shore level changes both up and down in the Eastern Mediterranean within historic times so it might have been expected that the numerous inscribed ports in that area might have included underwater remains. But the documentation of these early inscriptions is often very thin and in many of the cases I have been unable to "prove" that they actually include such remains within the inscribed area
a. Acre. The "best" example. The inscribed area certainly includes the relevant maritime areas and the Nomination File states "In addition to archaeological findings on land, archaeologists have discovered remnants from various periods under the sea, such as gravel quarry, sea wall, towers and sunken vessels together with their cargoes." This link indicates the types and locations of underwater remains http://cgate.co.il/archeology/Maritime_Akko.pdf
b. Tyre has had several ancient harbours most of which are now situated under the medieval and modern cities but there are significant remains of the original Northern Harbour which are still under water. As a result Tyre became an important site for early underwater archaeology and there is today a "Centre d'Archéologie Sous-marine de Tyr". Unfortunately the map of the site provided by UNESCO doesn't show the boundaries of the inscribed area very clearly and there is no mention of such aspects in the minimal AB evaluation
c. Paphos certainly has under-water Roman walls which are accessible to divers but the site boundaries seem exactly to follow the shoreline.
d. Byblos's current port contains remains of the Phoenecian port but there is no detailed map at all for the site to show its boundaries and all that the ICOMOS evaluation says is that it "recommends the definition of a wide area of protection encompassing, besides the ancient habitat, the medieval city within the walls and the areas of the necropolis" – no mention of anything "under-water"! Like Tyre however Byblos has been important in the development of under water archaeology and Honor Frost, the grande dame of the discipline who only died in 2010 at the age of 92, did some of her pioneering work there – see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/honor-frost-diver-who-pioneered-the-disc ipline-of-underwater-archaeology-2127872.html
e. Carthage is another possible site for such a connection but its old ports are now well behind the coast in what I have seen called "stagnant ponds" so perhaps hardly count as "under-water" for archaeological purposes?
f. Syracuse has been a significant location for under water archaeology with the discovery of a "marble port" – but again the inscribed boundaries rigidly follow the coast line.

Are there any other ideas or views as to which of the above sites (if any) would meet the requirements to be connected to "Underwater Archaeology"? My judgement would be that Chitchen-Itza and Acre certainly do whilst Tyre and Byblos might - but that we should probably await the likelihood of the Pile Dwelling inscription in June to make a 3rd to establish the "Connection".

Was thinking of Kerkuane, which has recently had its information updated.
It was a Phonecian trading port and the sea comes right up to the edge of the site.
They have built a retaining wall to hold it back but looking at the map there doesn't seem to be anything off the coast.

With Carthage a few of the sites are next to the sea, including the former ports. They are still conected to the sea though so I guess you could argue that the bottom of these ports are underwater and are an integeral part of the site. But then that opens up every port.

Will have a look, but perhaps Syracuse has something?

As an odd one the Cornish mining landscape has a few mines that stretch out under the sea, so they are technically underwater, but are actually dry(ish).

Won't mention it too much again, but Portsmouth's tentative propossal was going to be the first to feature a 'sea-scape' by including Spithead and the naval remains on the sea floor from which the Mary Rose was recovered. But hey ho, no chance of that becoming a WHS now anyway.

Will this count?

Chongqing's Baiheliang Underwater Museum to apply for World Cultural Heritage
http://www.whatsonchengdu.com/travel-msg-32.html

Baiheliang is currently under China's tentative list.

Somewhere, I have also read proposals to consider Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade archeological sites through the wide stretch of the Pacific.

I have dived both the Pharos and Cleopatra's Palace. The Pharos especially was an exceptional dive and a great site. Apart from the novelty off diving around the remains of a "lost" world wonder it was interesting to see an archaeological site which is both extensive and totally un-restored. The site was littered with monumental masonry, columns, obelisks and sphinxes.

It would make a worthy and exclusive WHS!

Thanks Boboj, for the info on Baiheliang Underwater museum - its construction and opening had totally passed me by and, like so much of what is going on in China now it is very impressive. So , equally I wasn't aware that it was on the T List. I must admit that a lot of the items on that very long list aren't known by me and their titles aren't always very well known even to those of us who have traveled reasonably widely in China. Also annoying is that I have already visited Chongqing (back in 1994) and am unlikely to return I fear so, if it ever gets inscribed I will just have to "lose" it!! I read that pre the 3 Gorges Dam the carvings were only viewable in winter (and then only every 3-5 years) when the river levels were low so I couldn't have seen it when I was there anyway.

It looks to have a pretty good chance as UNESCO itself already seems to use it to demonstrate the possibilities for preservation of underwater heritage :-
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/the-heritage /sites-and-museums/museums-and-tourism/baiheliang-underwater-museum/
and
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/35206/12028970713Underwater_Museums_en.pdf/ Underwater%2BMuseums%2Ben.pdf

Meltwaterfalls
The Portsmouth draft nomination file looks an impressive document - making it even more amazing that the site didn't apply last year for inclusion in the UK new T List. I hadn't previously appreciated how much of it was an "underwater" nomination. I have re-read the links you provided earlier about this and am even more mystified by the reason then given for not doing so - namely that the deadline for applying go missed!!!! It just doesn't add up - a retarded under-clerk could have completed the required form in a couple of days if they had wanted to, attached the draft nomination file and still had a better document than those of some of the applicants!! There must be more to it than that - did you ever get to the bottom of it?

Nope never did get to the bottom of it, due to laziness on my part. Will see if I can turn anything up.

Perhaps it was the advanced state of the Catham Bid that put them off, even so I would have thought that the rigor of submitting a proposal would have been useful in setting out a managment plan, and also just the prestige associated with it would have been big for very minimal outputs.

I may be making a trip to either Portsmouth or Catham dockyards to talk to the teams in the next month or so. Will have an ask around and see if it sheds any light.

Yes there is some "prestige" even in just putting a site forward. I noticed the other day the borough of Merton mentioned in one of those "we are a great place to live/invest" type of adverts that they had a site which had been "shortlisted" for WHS status (Merton Priory). Given that all it did was put it forward (unsuccessfully) for inclusion on the T List that does seem to be stretching the truth somewhat!!!

Funny you should mention Merton Priory's claims. It featured in my daily heritage update today.

Apparently the borough can also boast a Medieval Priory shortlisted for World Heritage Status, not bad for what is essentially a motorway underpass.