Joseon tombs - MAYBE - (Eurocentricity alert!) If one equates "Korea" within Asia with some of the smaller nations of Europe (I know there are many differences). If we can regard e.g "Portugal" as justifying sites with its own particular style (E.g Belem) can we really exclude a Korean example?
This seems like a slippery slope to me to limit sites in Asia or other continents based on equating "eurocentricity". Korea does not (in my mind)
equate to smaller nations in Europe like Portugal or the Netherlands. Korea has been one entity for at least 1,300 years (2000+ counting Three Kingdoms period) and is one of a small handful of nations (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam) within the Far East Asian cultural sphere. That is not to say Korean sites are more important, but I just don't find much that is comparable or equatable.
primarily yet another set of Korean dynastic tombs and needs to compete with the others (Joseon plus 2 Koguryo) for (at most) 1 place
I certainly agree here, we should not feel obliged to recognize every Chinese, Korea, Vietnamese, or Japanese kingdom/dynasty. We will have to narrow down the most important (OUV), most representative example, and is the site truly exceptional?
Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla to me is very hard to select what site can possibly be selected above the other. Goryeo, while very important regionally came after and was hugely influenced by the Three Kingdoms which came before. Furthermore, so much was lost in Kaesong (Goryeo sites in general)
following the Joseon Dynasty and Korea's modern period, that Kaesong should not be selected.
That leaves the Joseon Tombs, and for me its between these well-preserved Confucian tombs and (1) selected site from the Three Kingdoms of Korea. I hesitate to leave out Silla and Baekje, but I find the Goguryeo sites in China perhaps (slightly)
more outstanding. Therefore, I would support both the Koguryo Capital and Tombs (China)
and the Joseon Royal Tombs
. Selecting these (2) sites cover the full scope of Korean Burial sites - exquisite tombs murals, step pyramid, moratory statues/altars, tumuli, buddhist/taoist/feng shui/confucian traditions. The Goguryeo WHS in China also has special significance, because it highlights better than others Korean sites the unique relationship and influence of dynastic China with the Korean peninsula.
The Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties
are special, but they are not as well preserved or intact (generally)
as the burial sites in Korea and Northeast China/Korean Border. Therefore, I think including the Gogryeo WHS located in China which is an important site for Chinese and Koreans is a logical alternative than promoting the Imperial Tombs WHS.
Surely, the Etruscan Necropolises
are being included because they are exceptional. I also supported this burial site, seemingly stunning. Yet, if we are talking Eurocentricity, how could these necropolises be included and nothing from a 2,000 year burial tradition in East Asia? I do not count the Qin Mausoleum because we are not really selecting this site because of its burial mound or tomb, but because of the amazing terra-cotta statues, which are probably the product of an egomaniac mad Emperor and certainly not a burial tradition!