I note the 5 Sep report in the "News" section of this Web site about the DNA analysis of the Denisova Neanderthal "Cave Girl"
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19423147 )

But which WHS or TWHS does this refer to? I can't see anything suitable in Russia's T List so it must be in the "Golden Altai"?

The UNESCO Golden Altai dcoumentation doesn't mention Denisova as far as I can find (but of course the inscription is solely as a "Natural Site" so it might not be mentioned even if the cave were inside the nominated area). So next, I looked at where Denisova is situated. Wiki says of it - "Located in Altai Krai, at the border of the Altai Republic, the cave is near the village of Chorny Anui (Чёрный Ануй), and some 150 km south of Barnaul, the nearest major city."

The maps on the UNESCO web site are not wonderful but there is one titled "Location of Nominated clusters" ( http://whc.unesco.org/download.cfm?id_document=101363 ). This shows that the 3 inscribed areas are situated right down in the far corner of the area where Russia meets Kazakhstan, China and Mongolia. This is some distance (unspecified on the map which lacks a readable scale) to the SE of a town named Biysk and, right on the NW edge of the map is another town called Novoaltaylsk. Google maps tells me that Novoaltaysk is just east of Barnaul. Google maps also tells me that the distance from Biysk to the inscribed Ukok Plateau is 657kms. Biysk to Barnaul is 157kms. There seems no way that a cave situated "150kms south of Barnaul" can be inside the borders of Golden Altai which must be around 750kms from Barnaul (a bit less to Teletskoye lake but that is moving even further east from Bernaul).

Have I missed something?

The subject is of particular interest because UK is of course preparing Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar for nomination in 2015 for consideration at the 2016 WHC. As far as I am aware there are no Neanderthal sites currently inscribed and Gorham's Cave would, if successful be the first. But obviously not if Denisova had got there first!
I have had a look at the technical evaluation which led to the decision to go forward with the Gorham's cave nomination and this certainly indicates that the evaluating team didn't know of ANY Neanderthal sites on either the Inscribed or the Tentative Lists
"There are currently no sites on the World Heritage List that are representative of the Neanderthals and their culture. It follows that there are none that incorporate the arrival of Modern Humans into a site previously occupied by the Neanderthals. With the exception of Cresswell Crags, a site on the United Kingdom Tentative List, there is currently no other site on any Tentative List published in the UNESCO web site, that is representative of the Neanderthals."
See http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Gorhams_Cave_Technical_Evaluation.pdf

Mt Carmel caves has Neandertal remains


On the link: I was also in doubt, but added it because we already had a connection too mentioning this cave.

So Golden Altai needs to be removed from the "Cave Dwellings" Connection - at least unless/until a cave other than Denisova is cited?


Yes - I hadn't picked that up from this year's inscriptions. I wonder also if UK's Department of culture had picked it up - their decision to put forward Gorham Cavve in 2015 was justified by comments such as
"There are currently no sites on the World Heritage List that are representative of the Neanderthals and their culture. It follows that there are none that incorporate the arrival of Modern Humans into a site previously occupied by the Neanderthals. With the exception of Cresswell Crags, a site on the United Kingdom Tentative List, there is currently no other site on any Tentative List published in the UNESCO web site, that is representative of the Neanderthals." (Gorham's Cave Technical Evaluation - Apr 2012) - this was clearly not correct as Mount Carmel had been on Israel's T List since 2000.

Galapagos Island rat extermination.

http://news.msn.com/world/rat-kill-in-galapagos-islands-targets-180-million

This one ticks so many of my boxes that I couldn't help but post a link to it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1114/1224326573295.html

It may even give me the stimulus to finally write up my review of the Dublin Tentative site, from the perspective of a former North Dublin resident.

Hill Forts nomination update.

http://m.timesofindia.com/city/jaipur/Unesco-team-in-Jaipur-to-review-hill-forts-for- world-heritage-tag/articleshow/18917445.cms

Phra Bang Buddha got a new home

Phra Bang Buddha which Luangphabang named after is finally move to new hall in Royal Palace Museum Complex.

http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/FreeContent/FreeConten_Sacred.htm

Beijing Forbidden City will be closed every Monday

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-01/05/c_133019785.htm



Western-style building in Forbidden City under repair

Wow! never know that there is a western style building in the palace!

http://www.ecns.cn/2013/12-25/94127.shtml

Updates on East Asia nominations:

Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution (Japan - 2015)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/17/national/plan-approved-to-seek-heritage-s tatus-for-japanese-industrial-sites/#.UtjSC0nTljo

Daegokcheon Stream Petroglyphs (South Korea - 2017)
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/culturesports/2014/01/16/57/0701000000AEN201401160089 00315F.html

Valparaíso site under investigation for the building of a shopping mall (that seems to be a common problem, since what happened to Castro in Chiloé)
URL
With the situations of Seville, Istanbul, Dresden and others. And the possible deletion of Liverpool and Panama City, it shows the magnitude of the quarrel between 'protecting' and 'developing' in various urban areas of the world. That shouldn't be so.

Bath UK was another city which ran into conflict over development plans. As often happens, its World Heritage status was used as a lever by those who were opposed to the developments - but, on this occasion, ICOMOS/UNESCO decided NOT to fight the Shopping Mall and housing development - merely making some anodyne recommendations regarding the latter ("The report emphasised the need for "social facilities" – schools, clinics, pubs, cinemas, bus stations – to go with the flats, and recommended an architectural competition for the second and third phases of the enormous development"). I reallly don't see it as being the job of ICOMOS to recommend the inclusion of "social facilities" in a housing development. Surely their remit should be limited SOLELY to assessing impact on OUV?? But, no doubt it gave them a way out to make such comments!

Here are some historical links

a. The expected "No" from ICOMOS/UNESCO
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/06/bath-heritage-architecture
b. The surprising "ducking" of the issue
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/nov/10/bath-world-heritage-status
c. The Shopping Mall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SouthGate,_Bath
d. The Housing Development
http://www.bathwesternriverside.com/

Several state of conservation reports are up 38COM (2014)

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/38COM/documents/

Devastating critique of China's handling of the "preservation" of Kashgar. One element of Kashgar is included in the the Silk Road nomination - Mehmud Qeshqeri Tomb - Kashgar City

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/asia/china-remodels-an-ancient-silk-road-city -and-an-ethnic-rift-widens.html

A sad story, though reminiscent of how China "preserves" its other cities (eg hutongs in Beijing).