Advertisement

National Concerns in the Preservation of the Archaeological Heritage Within the Process of Globalization: A View from Turkey

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Archaeology book series (BRIEFSARCHAE, volume 8)

Abstract

The World Heritage Convention chartered by UNESCO in 1972 is a milestone in the history of preservation as it puts forth the concept of the preservation of cultural and natural properties in a global scale. As a result of the developments in the 40 years since the initiation of the World Heritage Convention, cultural properties that hold a special place in the history of culture on a global scale are now defined as “World Heritage,” ensuring that their preservation by the relevant state is a priority. Turkey signed the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1983, hence undertaking to identify and protect its cultural and natural properties in accordance with global criteria. An analysis of the ten properties which Turkey has included in the World Heritage List shows that most of them are archaeological. The efforts of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to introduce archaeological heritage sites on the list demonstrate that Turkey regards including archaeological sites that easily meet the “outstanding universal value” as well as “authenticity” and “integrity” criteria of the World Heritage List for reasons of prestige (demonstrating the special position of the country in the history of universal culture) and for the tourism it generates. Here, it is worth noting that, to be included in the list, besides being of outstanding importance or unique, the site must meet other criteria that are relevant to its present-day profiling, such as sustainable management. Archaeological sites comprise only a small part of the World Heritage List, while they make up most of the listed sites of Turkey.

This article summarizes the legal and institutional dimensions of the preservation approach that evolved from the first Turkish legislation regarding the preservation of archaeological heritage from 1869 to the present. Emphasis is particularly on its relations with international conventions. In addition to addressing legal and institutional organization, the approach of the local administrations, NGOs, the public, and the press to the preservation of the archaeological heritage in recent years, particularly in terms of the special meaning given to the World Heritage List concept, will be considered. On the other hand, the policies pursued in the preservation of archaeological sites that are not on the agenda of the World Heritage List and their presentation to the public, and public sensitivity to the issue, will be explored. The new standpoint brought by the concept of World Heritage to archaeological heritage as a whole will be discussed.

Keywords

Cultural Heritage Archaeological Site Cultural Property World Heritage Heritage Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahunbay, Z., & İzmirligil, Ü. (Eds.). (2006). Management and preservation of archaeological sites. Türkiye/Istanbul: ICOMOS/YEM Yayınları.Google Scholar
  2. Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Singapore: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  3. Çal, H. (1990). Türkiye’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eski Eser Politikası. Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  4. Çambel, H. (1993). Das Freilichtmuseum von Karatepe-Aslantaş. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 43, 495–509.Google Scholar
  5. Çambel, H. (2010). Karatepe-Aslantaş Açık Hava Müzesi: Çok Yönlü Bir Proje. TÜBAKED, 8, 131–136.Google Scholar
  6. Eres, Z. (Ed.). (2010). Türkiye’de Tarihöncesi Kazı Alanlarında Koruma ve Sergileme Çalışmaları – ­protection and public display of excavated prehistoric sites in Turkey, Special Section, TÜBAKED, 8, 101–300.Google Scholar
  7. Karaduman, H. (2004). Belgelerle İlk Türk Asar-I Atika Nizamnamesi. Belgeler Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi XXV/29, 73–92.Google Scholar
  8. Özdoğan, M. (1998). Ideology and archaeology in Turkey. In L. Meskell (Ed.), Archaeology under fire – nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (pp. 111–123). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Özdoğan, M. (2011a). Arkeolojik Kazılar Bilimsel Çalışma mı? Toprak Hafriyatı mı? İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.Google Scholar
  10. Özdoğan, M. (2011b). 50 Soruda Arkeoloji. İstanbul: Bilim ve Gelecek Yayınları.Google Scholar
  11. Pulhan, G. (Ed.). (2009). Dünya Mirasında Türkiye (2nd ed.). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
  12. Rona, Z. (Ed.). (1993). Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.Google Scholar
  13. Schmidt, H. (1993). Wiederaufbau. Stuttgart: Architekturreferat des Deutschen Achäologischen Instituts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureIstanbul Technical UniversityTaksim, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Istanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations