I've got some new ones:

Libraries: Guadalupe
Hospitals: Guadalupe
>> do these buildings still exist?

Religious relics: Sukhothai (prang)
>> which relic is/was housed here?

Living Fossils : Gondwana - "Few places on Earth contain so many plants and animals whose ancestors can be traced therough the ofssil recors to Gondwanan origins that remain relatively unchanged. There is concentration of primitive plant families that shows a direct link with the origin of flowering plants over 100 million years ago, as well as some of the oldest of the world's ferns and conifers." (ICOMOS)
>> Please explain (A living fossil is a group of organisms that disappears from one or more periods of the fossil record, only to appear again later

Glazed tiles - Kilwa
>> ceramics I can find, but tiles? Please provide a source/link/photo

Natural sites with indigenous human population
Nahanni - Navaho and Metis
>> Dene & Metis?? Proof that they live within the borders?

Ports - Pisa
>> WHS is limited to the Piazza del Duomo

The library (scriptorum) of Santa Maria de Guadalupe still exists and can even be visited. I don't know about the hospital.
In Nahanni the park expanded to territories belonging to the Navaho and Metis but they don't actually live there.

And some more:

(3716) Dependent territories
Gulf of Porto
>> Corsica is a French région. As a territorial collectivity, it enjoys greater powers than other French régions, but for the most part its status is quite similar.

Ogasawara Islands
>> I believe it is governed as a municipality, has no special status

(3715) Cultural sites taking up an entire island
Meroe
>> Meroe is not a real island, just perceived that way by Ancient Greeks

(3711) Coffee
Harar
"Ethiopian Harar" is a coffee bean of the species arabica that is grown in the region of Harar
>> no coffee-links to the in the included city?

(3708) Botanical Gardens
Persian Garden
West Lake
>> are these botanical? please explain

(3707) Atlantic Ocean
Bridgetown
>> Caribbean Sea

(3714) Cultural sites rejected for Natural criteria
Al Ain
>> nominated as cultural site, certainly not rejected in 2011 for natural criteria

The core zone is covered Hangzhou Botanical Garden (NW of the lake)



I understand this maybe Wat Phra Sri Rattana Mahathat at Sri Satchanalai, part of Sukhothai WHS, inside the temple is housed relics of the Lord Buddha.

You may be right Durian but I can't find reference to it. This site provides a reasonable statement on what is "on show" at Si Satchanalai but doesn't mention it.
http://sukhothai.thaiwebsites.com/watphrasirattanamahathat-sisatchanalai.asp


Regarding Harar and coffee (Els's post above) - Historically Harar was a location for coffee trading (naturally enough as the major town in a coffee producing area). Famously Rimbaud went there as a coffee trader and his house is well worth seeing for those who go there. But, with the Connection as currently defined ("Where coffee is or was grown"), that doesn't provide a link and indeed the site covers only the area inside the city walls so not really a "growing area"! This modern link indicates that no coffee trading takes place now - instead Dire Dawa (on the railway) became the centre. The French-built railway reached Dire Dawa from Djibouti in 1901 and, suspicious of French motives, the Emperor forbad a route via Harar.
http://www.sweetmarias.com/Ethiopia_Dire_Dawa_Harar_2008/Ethiopia_Dire_Dawa_Harar_200 8.html

Three more:

(3722) Goddesses
Krakow - Zbruch Idol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbruch_Idol
>> it's in a museum, I see no direct link to the city

(3714) Cultural sites rejected for Natural criteria
Coffee Cultural Landscape
>> when and by whom???

(3706) Bridges
Causses and Cévennes : Viaduc de Millau
>> is this within the core zone?

Some connections have gotten a bit out of hand: long lists with not much specifics.

As a starting idea, I would like to limit:
- Tombs: to only include tombs of named individuals, not every tomb on earth
- Bridges: bridges must be named, and be remarkable because of their length/height/way of construction/age

Any other limitations you can think of?

"Cultural Sites Located Within a National Park".

I am not saying we shouldn't have this "Connection" but i think it is important to be aware of difficulties about it regarding the definition of a "National Park".

The phrase "National Park" means different things in different countries - even leaving aside the problems of translation! The nearest thing to a Worldwide "official" definition is that provided by IUCN as their "Category II". See http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/

This web link from UK's National Parks Authority points out that UK's "National Parks" are in fact what IUCN designates as Category V "Protected Landscapes and Seascapes". Such areas in China are called, in English translation "Scenic Areas" and other countries have their own terms. See http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/
So Northumberland NP includes part of Hadrians wall - but is a Category V protected area according to IUCN despite being designated by UK as a National Park

Strictly speaking "Gwaii Haanas" is not a full NP even in Canada but rather its full and correct title is "Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve" ("A National Park Reserve is an area that has been set aside with the intention of becoming a National Park, pending the settlement of native land claims" - Wiki). IUCN however recognises it as a "National Park" according to its definition

The US National Park Service utilises over 20 different titles for the various types of unit it looks after including "National Memorial", "National Historic Park, "National Reserve" etc etc -each has different rules for creation and protection etc. So Gyeongju NP in Korea would probably be called a "National historic park" in USA -the Korean NP Web site ( http://english.knps.or.kr/Knp/Gyeongju/Intro/Introduction.aspx?MenuNum=1&Submenu=Npp ) states "Gyeongju, the only national historic park in Korea, was designated as the second national park in Korea after jirisan in 1968" IUCN consider it a Category V "protected Area" (called a "Protected Landscape or seascape") rather than a "National Park". Gayasan NP on the other hand does meet the IUCN definition of a "National park" (as does Nikko in Japan and Mesa Verde)

This web site ( http://protectedplanet.net/ ) provides details on every (??) protected area in the World including the IUCN assigned category (where available - IUCN hasn't assigned categories to all protected areas e.g East Rennell see :- http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/PAPS-016/7.%20International%20conservation%20initi atives.html )


So, in order to determine what is/is not a "National Park" should we use the designation used by the country concerned (in its English translation where applicable) or should we use the official IUCN categorisation? My preference is for the latter.

I think using the enlish translation where applicable is the best choice, but there may be certain exeptions if it is clear the name is highly interchangeable and roughly the same. Even though this connection is somewhat broad, this is not a connection that will have a huge number of sites. The requirement of the connection is within a national park, but a cultural WHS that is the national park would not be included. For example Gyeongju National Park includes many areas not inscribed by the WHS. I wanted to highlight national parks that are connected to WHS, but may be less well-known. For example, many visitors of Haeinsa Temple, do not realize that they are at the entrace of a beautiful national park. Nevertheless, it may be neccessary to add a bit of requirements regarding names, and potential exeptions? Up to you Els.

OK - could I suggest an alternative approach which gives us both what we want!
a. winterkjm gets a connection for cultural sites set in recognised protected natural areas
b. solivagent gets the use of internationally accepted terms and definitions.

Proposal
a. Drop the use of nationally ascribed definitions for protected areas, in particular, "National Park", to determine the Connection
b. Instead include any Cultural WHS which has been assigned ANY of the IUCN "protected area" categories whatever the "local" title of the site/park etc

Thus the Connection becomes
"Cultural WHS set within an IUCN recognised protected area"
(where "cultural" = sites inscribed solely on Cultural criteria and "IUCN protected area" = any park, scenic area, landscape, seascape etc which has been assigned an IUCN "protected area" category). The heading for the Connection could list or link to the IUCN category definitions -such categories are of course only assignedby IUCN for Natural factors

If the area solely inscribed for cultural reasons is exactly the same in as the IUCN defined area then in my view it is still worth identifying the site's "Natural credentials"! This indeed would be the case with Mesa Verde - it is UNESCO inscribed solely on Crit iii - but has IUCN recognition as a National Park for Natural reasons! This seems "worth knowing"! Similarly, if the UNESCO Cultural site is bigger (unlikely??) or smaller then or even only partially within the IUCN Natural site - the purpose for identifying it remains equally valid - namely to identify a cultural site set in an area with Internationally accepted natural values.
The only WHS which could get missed out of this definition would be Cultural sites set in a Natural area which only has national recognition - none of the sites so far identified for the current definition fits into such a category. In any case I think this is a small price to pay for avoiding cultural sites set in a site called a "National Park" by the country concerned whose "Natural values" haven't even been identified by IUCN.

The text would identify
a. The IUCN protected areas category
b. The National title of the protected area. This might be "National Park", whatever that term menas in the country concenred or some alternative title such as Scenic Area

Further to this issue - I have long thought that we should also have a series of Connections which link all sites inscribed on Natural criteria (including mixed sites but excluding all sites inscribed on solely Cultual criteria - which have been covered above), which have the same IUCN category. Thus

Natural/mixed WHS in IUCN Protected Areas Category 1a
Natural/mixed WHS in IUCN Protected Areas Category 1b
etc etc through Categories II, III, IV, V and VI (though whether there are examples of all of these I don't know). We would also need a Connection for
Natural/mixed WHS not assigned an IUCN Protected Areas category.

As we have done with the timelines I would propose that we don't impose the "3 site" rule for these Connections. They are in their way a "Natural site" equivalent to Timelines for cultural sites in that the full set would cover ALL Natural and Mixed sites and identify how these are spread across "types" of Natural protection (Strict Reserve, NP etc etc). Similarly some Natural sites cover more than one category just as some Cultural sites cover more than one timeline period.

Solvigant you have convinced me! While proposing this connection, I was focused on connecting National Parks and WHS that are not always viewed together, but are indeed linked sharing some of the same borders. It is perfectly logical to include IUCN protected areas in additon to National Parks.

Hi Els,

what about the "Theatres" connection, which currently contains 72 sites? Would it maybe be an idea to split it into two:
a) "Theatres" as such, where the focus is on acting / other performances not primarily involving music
b) "Concert halls and Opera houses", where the focus is on performances primarily involving music?

From the descriptions of the 72 sites, it seems to me that the list could be split into two relatively easily. Some sites may of course fit into both connections.

Wikipedia BTW also excludes opera and ballet from its article on theatre. :-)

The Wiki article on "Theatre" referred to, which excludes opera and ballet (as being "outside the scope of this article") is concerned with "Theatre as an art form". The "Disambiguation" section at the start identifies another article concerned with "Theatre as a Structure". Surely we are dealing with the latter rather than the former? The "Theatre as a Structure" article uses "Opera Houses" and the role of opera in developing "theatres as structures" as examples.

That said I agree with the conclusion that the Connection has grown too unwieldy but I think the proposed split by type of art form (primarily music/non music) would be very difficult to sustain. The list contains a large number of Greek and Roman "theatres" (as structures) and Greek and Roman theatre (as art form) made significant use of music. What about the Chinese "Theatres as structures" - Chinese theatre makes much use of music? In Europe the word "opera house" often didn't mean that only opera was played and most theatres would have performed both in their earlier days even if they later became "segregated" by type of art form. E.g The Manoel Theatre in Valletta happily mixed the 2 art forms (and may well still do so!) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoel_Theatre . There are the opera houses built as part of royal palaces etc and the huge 19C opera houses of Europe built specifically for "Grand Opera" with orchestra pits etc but most European "theatres" were multi purpose stuructures.

Possibly the easiest way of achieving a menaingful split would be to put all the Greek and Roman "structures" into a separate Connection e.g "Theatres - Ancient" - but even that leaves problems with the remainder which would still contain e.g Chinese theatres!

Agree.

I also see your point re the difficulty of differentiating between opera houses and theatres.

What about a three-way split?

- "Theatres - Ancient" (containing the Greek and Roman theatres, which seem to form a homogeneous connection - I think even ICOMOS once did a study on Greek and Roman theatres
- "Theatres - Asian" (encompassing the Chinese ones)
- "Theatres - Western tradition / post-ancient" (or whatever it could be called; would encompass the theatres and opera houses which are neither ancient Greek or Roman, nor deriving from the Chinese theatre tradition)

I am not really a supporter of setting these apart.

I was looking at the Bridges Connection myself today, with many Roman bridges, and discovered this Icomos study: http://www.icomos.org/studies/bridges.htm (a study into WH relevant bridges, very eurocentric by the way)

I think it is more illuminating to keep all the Bridges (or Theaters) together in one Connection, but show the different styles and or traditions by displaying subgroups, photos or more clear explanations (maybe in tables)