I have a suggestion for a connection. World heritage sites somehow connected to homosexuality (though I realise this may be a bit broad). As a gay man I would find it interesting to see such a connection :)

Em... Calton Hill in Edinburgh is sorta known as a bit of a historic cruisin' site, although maybe that's not something that CEC would like to continue!

;-)

Calton Hill is the site of anarchic pagan festivities at the feast of Beltane in May, and at night it's a popular cruising area for the nearby gay community.

http://livingmemory.org.uk/rememberwhen/queering/

http://www.footprintguides.com/Edinburgh/Calton-Hill-and-Broughton.php

Bath also has a lively gay scene I think, and it's such a beautiful city to visit:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Bath-Gay-Bars&id=1968822

http://people.bath.ac.uk/su4lgbs/scene.php

The history of Roman baths and homosexuality I leave you to google.

I will enquire about Liverpool further...

Could make an interesting UK tour! Classical architecture connects?

Tired scaffolding that disfigure your souvenir photo when you visit a heritage site? I propose to create a connection that recency sites wholesale restoration, update regularly. So you can postpone your visit at a later date, when it's less ugly.

Example :
http://peccadille.net/2015/09/08/azay-le-rideau-le-chantier-du-siecle-a-visiter/
http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/Indre-et-Loire/Communes/Azay-le-Rideau/n/Contenus/ Articles/2015/04/18/Ateliers-au-chateau-pendant-les-travaux-2298744

In case it has been "missed"! Tsunami's latest review of The cultural landscape of the Benedictine settlements in medieval Italy suggests a new Connection without actually specifying it!

Situated on the "Sword of Michael" ley line
WHS situated on the Sword of St Michael ley line. "Ley lines are apparent alignments of landmarks, religious sites, and man-made structures. The pseudoscientific belief that these apparent lines are not accidental speculates that they are straight navigable paths and have spiritual significance". See Wiki for more and for a detailed map of the Sword of Michael ley line.

Skellig Michael
St Michael's Mount
Longobards in Italy - Sanctuary of San Michele

I think it's a different San Michele -> the Sword one is in Turin, while the Longobards one is near Naples

Our Map of the Longobards shows the Sanctuary of San Michele on the Gargano peninsular at Monte Sant'Angelo - towards the Adriatic coast - as per the Ley line map.
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/Longobards+in+Italy

Is our map wrong?? No. See http://www.naplesldm.com/lombards.php
This is one of the 7 Longobards locations, relates to St Michael AND is "on" the Ley Line as per my Wiki link map -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line#/media/File:Mappa_Linea_Sacra_di_San_Michele.j pg

Of course Tsunami's "Sacra di San Michele" West of Turin doesn't count (yet!) as it is still T List - but we still have 3

I was a bit confused by his review, but indeed there are 2 in Italy called San Michele of which 1 already is a WHS

In his review of Danxia, Nan says "We don't have a phallic connection (yet?), but Danxiashan would be on it."
I have looked at this possibility in the past but haven't to date reached a satisfactory "definition" on which to base a proposal which has 3 WHS. Maybe others can take it further.

An immediate problem is what constitutes "Phallic" - such an association can be largely "in the mind"! So what about e.g the Leaning tower of Pisa or many a columnar monument. They surely should be excluded?

Then there is the division between "natural" formations considered "Phallic" and "man-made" representations - these wouldn't seem to lie within the same Connection? Then the former creates definitional problems where there are examples when a natural formation has been "enhanced"/"improved". The latter where there are man made objects which might or might not have been intended to be "phallic". And finally there are "symbolic" rather than "realistic" man made representations - e.g any Hindu shrine will contain a Lingam so these would really need to be excluded

Manmade
There are a large number of "manmade" genuine representations - many of these are not usually "pointed out" (sorry about that!) during visits - but we already have a few identified under the Brothel Connection - https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Brothels Do we want to duplicate these?
Delos has a famous massive Dionyisus statue
Edirne Zuu has the Kharkhorin Rock.
Amsterdam has the modern "Penis fountain" - but should we include that?? I have also read that it might have been "removed" - presumably as part of the "gentrification" of the Red Light area?
I am sure we could find more - the definition would have to include words like "realistic representation" and "erect"!!! The latter to exclude less "graphic" representations of male genitalia such as that of the David statue in Florence! Should we also make it a requirement for the representation to be carved (at least bas relief) to exclude prehistoric cave paintings?

Natural
Goreme Cappadocia - the infamous "Love Valley" is perhaps the most egregious example of commercial exploitation of "phallic" natural phenomena - 10s of thousands of tourists nod and wink as they sit on heart shaped "love seats" etc etc.
China Danxia - the "Penis Rock" as referred to by Nan

But I have, so far, been unable to discover a 3rd Natural site which would meet the requirements of being "overtly" marketed as a phallic representation (rather than just being generally "phallic"!). We have a fair number of "Hoodoos" in our Connection so there may be another one among them - https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Hoodoo
Danxia isn't included in the Hoodoo Connection at the moment and I am not sure whether its pillars are actually "Hoodoos" in the strict geological sense of the word . This Management plan document does call them as such however (page 10)so perhaps we should add it.

PS To avoid any allegations of "sexism" or "gender bias" the same exercise with the same caveats/definitions could be carried out for Vulva/Vagina manmade and natural images!!
Natural
2 are fairly easy (Definition to include "widely depicted/referred to as such") but I haven't yet found a "definite" 3rd
Danxia - Yin Yuan Stone or Yinyuan hole also known as "Vagina Rock"
Tongariro - Hells gate/Vulva
Then there is the stalagmite in Chauvet which, whilst being "Natural", has perhaps been "enhanced" somewhat! (I would probably "allow" it, and alter the "definition to allow "enhancements of natural ofrmations, since the overall "natural" shape clearly represented such an important part of the "association" in the Aurignacian mind!)

Manmade
There are many prehistoric carvings which would meet this definition if we wanted to pursue it - including of course the Chauvet one above if that were not to be defined as "Natural"

Aimed primarily at Els!!
Following Zoe's question about the separate inscription of the 2 Sundarban WHS I have investigated
a. Indian and Bangladeshi Sundarbans
b. Argentine and Brazilian Iguassu
c. Argentine/Brazilian and Paraguayan Missions.

See - https://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=10&topic=1542 &page=5

All 6 are still separately inscribed despite expressions/"requests" at the time of inscription by the WHC and ABs for the States Parties to work together to create single sites rather than separate "national" ones. We thus have 3 examples/6 WHS which COULD make Connection of "Combination into a single trans-boundary site requested at inscription by WHC - but not carried out"

HOWEVER - We already have a Connection for "Contiguous Transnational sites" - and have had "problems" with this title before because it is ambiguous. The official UNESCO nomenclature for sites covering more than 1 country is (I believe???) "Transboundary Sites". These "contiguous" sites are not "Transboundary" but it might be better to make this clear in the text for the Connection and to change the Connection title to e.g "Contiguous separate sites across national boundaries".

The question then occurs - how many of them were inscribed with a desire/request from WHC that they should get together to create a "Transboundary site" - unfortunately terms such as "International WH property", "transfrontier property" and just "joint inscription" have been used in WHC/AB papers. We have to accept that any such wording implies a request to create a "Transboundary site"

It could be that rather more than the 6 I have identified so far had their inscription accompanied by a request. It will require more investigation to establish this!!! Perhaps it might be better for now just to separately identify by text within the EXISTING Connection, those WHS where we have evidence for the request being made - rather than introducing a new Connection which might eventually encompass all the WHS in the existing Connection anyway!! We could change our mind later if needed???

Done!

I have looked at the remaining WHS within this "Connection"
2 extra "complexities" emerge
a. When I suggested above the clarification of the title of this connection from "Contiguous Transnational sites" to "Contiguous separate sites across national boundaries" I failed to recognise that both titles are invalid in relation to the currently identified/connected WHS in that some of the pairs of sites are NOT actually "Contiguous" but are rather "sites of similar subject matter in a similar region"!
i The DPRK and Chinese Koguryo sites
ii. The Belgian and French Mining sites
iii. The French and Spanish Santiago Routes
iv. The Polish and Slovakian Wooden Churches

So? What do we do?
a. Remove the need for "contiguity" from the Connection definition and change it to e.g "Separate WHS of similar subject matter in the same geographic area" (or some shorter phrase!!). But - how "close" do sites have to be to be in the same area but not "contiguous"? We have wooden churches of Peace in a similar area is that similar enough to a wooden church in Slovakia - i.e the decision has to be subjective based on criteria related to inscription. and what about e.g separate Gothic cathedrals in in the same geographic area? Etc etc
b. Remove non contiguous sites from the Connection
This at least has the merit of "objectivity" - the 2 sites are either contiguous or not - "end of"! Unfortunately it would result in the removal of 2 pairs of non-contiguous sites where the AB/WHC considered that the similarities were so great that they would have preferred a combined nomination or a later combination (Koguryo and Santiago)

b. The "recommendation" for combination by the AB/WHC can take place in different ways - either right from the start when the first nomination is made or later when the second is made. The latter happened in the case of Los Katios -IUCN was happy to inscribe Darien in 1981 with no mention that Los Katios on the Columbian side should also be inscribed (Compare with e.g the Indian Sundarbans where is stated right from the start that the Bangladeshi side should also be included). In terms of our "request for combination by AB ev" statement do we apply it in these cases to both sites or just to the latter??

In terms of the remaining "pairs" the situation was as follows
a. Darien and Los Katios (1981 and 1994)
These ARE contiguous but only the latter was requested/suggested for combination - "Los Katios should be added to the WH list on the basis of Crit 11 and iv and it should be inscribed as a transfrontier site with Panama's Darien NP" (IUCN AB) . The minutes of the 1994 WHC state (AFTER inscribing Los Katios!!)"that it "recommended that the 2 SPs consider the inscription of the transfrontier site as a single entry on the list"
b. Koguryo China and Koguryo DPRK (both 2004)
NOT Contiguous
Both were requested by AB AND WHC to consider combining later - "Encourages the Chinese authorities and the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to consider the possibility of a future joint, transboundary nomination of the Koguryan culture."
c. Mining Sites in Wallonia and Nord Pas (both 2012)
NOT Contiguous
AB and WHC accept that there are enough differences between the history/geology/culture etc of the 2 as to not justify a combination!
d. Rome and Vatican (1980 and 84)
Contiguous
Never suggested for combination
e, Santiago routes Spain and France ( 1993 and 98)
NOT Contiguous
At time of Spanish nomination "ICOMOS suggests therefore that consideration be given by the relevant States Parties to the possibility of
an eventual extension of the property to other lengths of the Route outside Spain"
French AB Eval "It hopes, however, that the two States Parties concerned (France and Spain) will give serious consideration to combining their respective stretches of the Route in a single inscription, comparable with the joint Franco-Spanish inscription of the cultural landscape of Pyrénées-Mount Perdu in 1997."
French WHC minutes - "The Delegate of France, responding to a question raised by the Delegate of Thailand, stated that his country was ready to examine a joint inscription of the two sites of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela with Spain."
f. Virunga and Ruwenzori (1979 and 1994)
Contiguous
No mention of "combination" For Virunga and IUCN specifically states that "it does not regard Rwenzori to be and extension of Virunga at this point in time"
g. Tassili and Tadrart (1982 and 85) NB Tassili is a "mixed" site and Tadrart is "cultural"
Contiguous
. at the time of Tassili's nomination it was noted "The natural and cultural zone of Tassili
extends beyond the Algerian border, and thus complementary requests for inscription may be introduced, in the future, by the other state parties concerned. Already (March 1982), Mali has agreed, in principle, to an extension of the zone to the Adrar from the Iforas." But No recommendation for combination by ICOMOS was made at the time of Tadrart's nomination (possibly because of the "Mixed" aspect of Tassili?)
h. Polish and Slovak Wooden Chruches (2003 and 08)
NOT contiguous
ICOMOS accepted the different stylistic and historic nature of the Slovak churches v those in Poland so - no recom for combination

After that analysis I think my conclusion is
a. to have 2 separate "Connections" -1 for "separate Contiguous transboundary sites" and one for "Recommended by AB and/or WHC for later combination". These are genuinely 2 different "statuses" and, whilst having significant overlap, are not totally so - and in both directions
b. Remove non Contiguous WHS (as above) from the existing Connection
c. Place ONLY the following in the new Connection (ignoring whether the recommendation was made for 1 or 2 of the sites - since it covers both)
i. Darien , Los Katios
ii. Iguassu, Iguazu
iii. Missions, Missions.
iv. Koguryo, Koguryo
v. Santiago routes, Santiago routes
vi . Sundarbans, Sundarbans

A result of this approach is that the Belg/Fr mining sites and the Pol/Slovak churches would disappear from both Connections -being neither "contiguous" NOR "recommended for Combination". So??? Are they really worth identifying as being special for being "similar" subjects in a "similar" region - albeit that the AB/WHC hasn't considered them "combinable"?

We leave the 'contiguous' requirement out here then? There is already an existing connection for that https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Recommended+for+combination+by+AB


I'd do the latter. This has already been applied at the current connection (at least I believe so...)

I had forgotten that!!!
We seem to adopted a "different" convention for it - so Los Katios is mentioned but not Darien. This presumably covers the point that Darien was inscribed without the comment - and it was only made for Los Katios. And only one of the "combinable" missions is listed. How do we decide when to list BOTH WHS to be combined and when to list only one?
There are some completely missing - e.g The 2 Koguryos and the 2 Santiago routes??

I've updated both connections. Something that I missed?
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Contiguous+separate+sites+across+nationa l+boundaries
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Recommended+for+combination+by+AB

Both Iguassu sites in the "recommended for combination"??

You have decided not to include Darien on the basis that Los Katios was intended to join IT as an extension rather than that e.g the 2 Iguassu sites were given "equal" recommendation into something else completely new?