The "Guru" who discovered this early agriculture in the 1960s was a guy called Richard Stockton MacNeish (April 29, 1918 – January 16, 2001) He is referred to in the AB - See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_MacNeish
I have just looked at a reference book I have titled "People of the Past". the area figures significantly in a chapter titled "Farmers of the New World".
It looks to be an important area for its archaeology - but, as Khuft says - how much to see is another matter. The WHC discussed the issue of Tourism but I guess people could well go more for the nature than the archaeology!

It "introduced the domestication of maize", but that is also already part of the OUV of Yagul and Mitla. So was it really innovative enough for this connection? https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Innovations+in+Agriculture

And it is not on the list of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, so no connection there as well
http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahsaroundtheworld/designated-sites/latin-america-and-the-c aribbean/en/

My book (2004) doesn't even mention Yagul/Mitla. I think that there is no doubt of the prime importance of the Tehuacan Valley in this context - I suspect that it is Yagul/Mitla which has overhyped its role. See academic papers like this one - http://www.pnas.org/content/102/27/9438
Surprisingly the AB doesn't mention the "type site" of Coxcatlan Cave - Is it even inside the boundaries? I would presume so. We will have to wait for the Nomination Fiel

As for why it isn't a GIAH - I think they are all important for STILL carrying out their traditional agricultural practices whereas Tehuacan is archaeology!!-
"The Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Partnership Initiative was conceptualized and presented by Parviz Koohafkan the Task Manager of Chapter 10 of Agenda 21 in Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations, FAO in 2002 during World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.[citation needed] This UN Partnership Initiative aims to identify, support and safeguard Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems and their livelihoods, agricultural and associated biodiversity, landscapes, knowledge systems and cultures around the world. The GIAHS Partnership recognizes the crucial importance of the well-being of family farming communities in an integrated approach while directing activities towards sustainable agriculture and rural development."

The GIAHS seems to still be in its infancy - similarly to the WHC in the 1980s and 1990s. A few countries - China and Japan especially - seem to be prolific nominators; Europe, the Americas and Africa mostly ignore it (with few exceptions). It may be more representative in years to come. In addition, the GIAHS seem to focus on living agricultural systems. Tehuacan is a very much relict one.

Apparently not - The Guilá Naquitz Cave at Yagul seems to have a perfectly reputable history for itds early maize remains!! Discoverd a bit later than those at Tehucan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guil%C3%A1_Naquitz_Cave
It isn't that far from Tehuacan of course but doesn't seem to be a part of a wider area of such remains. I always found its linkage with Mitla to be a very "unsatiisfactory" pairing from completely different eras!!!!

Overall, maybe not the strongest year. And a less adventurous traveller like myself will probably not be able to visit many of these sites, which is a shame. I will probably only be able to visit Göbekli Tepe, Naumburg, Hedeby, Medina Azahara, Ivrea and the Chaîne de Puys.

What surprised me was that Naumburg finally made it. I thought we had long passed the point of adding more cathedrals to the list, but apparently, we are not. That means France shouldn't be too discouraged Nîmes didn't make it. It will probably get on the list in one of the coming years. In my opinion, Nîmes is definitely worthy of the Unesco label.

I'm also a bit disappointed the WWI sites didn't make it because of the ties to the war, but I still think the have a great universal value. The sites are a place of remembrance for victims from all over the world, and are a tangible representation of the folies of war. They are more like a call for peace than places that celebrate a victory. When seeing the enormity of the sites and the huge amount of graves, one immediately becomes silent.

That I think is the big difference with the WWII sites like the Normandy beaches. I visited then last April, and my impression of them was different to the WWI sites, of which I also visited some during that trip. The sites of the beaches felt, to me, to concentrate more on the victory of the allies, whereas the WWI sites (I visited Vimy Ridge, which I very much recommend, and Notre Dame de Lorette) led me to much more reflection about the horrors of the war.

I do hope the WWI sites get inscribed in future. They are great sites that are a real part of the world's shared consciousness.

Quite a lot of interest today regarding
a. Review of nomination and evaluation procedures
b. Sites of Memory Working Group remit

Worth catching up on if you have time and interest.
Sites of Memory - lots of arguments about what is meant by "recent", trying to ensure that e.g slavery sites. are still allowed. It seems that Rwanda isn't an issue as the Nomination File was considered "incomplete"

Not 100% sure if I caught it correctly but it was mentioned that Tunisia was going to put itself forward next year ...... but for what? The WHC????
Would no doubt be a rational way of trying to kick start its Tourism industry after the terrorist attack at Sousse in 2015.
Some UK tours have started going again and Tunisia is advertising but arrivals are still way down.
But can it really go to another "Arab" state even if on a different continent??

I really enjoyed visiting Nimes, even though it was the last in a series of Roman ruin day trips I took from Avignon earlier this year. My issue is that multiple Roman ruin sites in a relatively small geographically area have been added individually (Arles, Orange, Pont du Gard), rather than in a single listing. (For political reasons, undoubtedly!)

It's a shame that sites can't retroactively be regrouped in a larger whole. Nîmes, Arles and Orange would make a fine inscription as "Roman cities of the Provincia".

NO!!

Tanzania is offering to host (Where?? Arusha is its normal "Conference" site). BUT -it has heard that Azerbaijan had also submitted - "immediately after". It had felt etc etc that it was important that the WHC be held a second time in Africa (after RSA) ............Tanzania clearly wants it to be known that it submitted FIRST!!!
So -the 2 countries have been asked to sit together under Brazil as chair to sort it out!!.
Tanzania has decided to withdraw in the spirit of Consensus - So - BAKU it is to be!!! (well if they can host the Eurovision Song contest They can manage the WHC ok!)
Tunisia points out that It, Morocco AND Egypt have also hosted the WHC - "and WE are also from Africa"!! (dig...dig!)
Everyone is promising to "prioritise" Africa at the 43rd WHC " ....... "Priority AFRICA!!" is to be the Theme.
Azerbaijan lists its credentials for holding such a conference - but doesn't mention Eurovision in its "CV"!!
Burkina Faso gets a job of Vice Chair. Not really anything special for Africa as there are multiple "Vice Chairs" for each region so Indonesia, Tunisia, Norway and are also given this illustrious job with Brazil continuing for Latin America). - the Minister of Culture of Azerbaijan is of course to be "Chair"
China nominates an Australian as Rapporteur

Azerbaijan ALREADY has a video ready to show to this WHC - "Welcome to the 43rd Committee"!!!! It would have been a shame if it hadn't got the job!! "Baku is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful cities in the World" -and it DOES mention Eurovision!

They discuss next WHC agenda - As well as "Nomination Process" there is to be an Item on "Priority Africa" but where in the agenda?? Tunisia points out that most of the members of the Convention GO HOME after discussion of "New Inscriptions" - Better to put such items at the beginning rather than at the end!! It is important that everyone is present to hear such items discussed. Uganda says - move the New Inscriptions to the end in order to ensure a "full house"! Reply is that Items can be moved around whatever their "number".

It's a shame if WH is a competition, otherwise it doesn't really matter as long as World heritage is protected.
But you're right, it looks like a competition in reality, and gather together sites in one property could be a solution. But which country is supposed to be the leader at the end of this competition? I personally support St Denis inscription due to its cultural, historical, and popular importance considerably more relevant than other european cathedrals (despite of their real beauty), and if the solution is the gathering of all the cathedrals in one property, i really don't mind and the comittee should also really not care. Is it the St Denis' fault if christianism let us a lot of wonders and if the state parties like France, Italy, Germany or Spain decided to make their own priorities generally based on political reasons? Hence i support your inscription proposal!! ;) :)))

:) Nothing says prioritising Africa like ignoring the African bid and hosting it in Europe/Asia instead.

Let's hope they spend the money they save that way on supporting a bid for the List.

Azerbaijan will have the occasion to get a property on the List by virtue of being the Host. Is there an Azerbaijani entry next year?

JurreThey can come back with Sheki

That's what I suspected... So the palace in Sheki is a shoo-in for next year.