Advertisement

World Heritage Manufacture in Turkey and the Introduction of a New Public Policy System

  • Julien Boucly
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyses the administrative and political processes of both application to World Heritage status and management of World Heritage sites. It endeavors to establish whether one may speak of a Turkish United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO policy. It examines how a UNESCO project emerges, is drawn up, and leads to a site being inscribed on the World Heritage List. It explores local, national, and international levels of action, and identifies the different actors (political, administrative, and expert) involved in each stage of the process running from drawing up a tentative list (amounting to a national selection of potential candidates) through to the final decision by the World Heritage Committee. The chapter examines the case study of Diyarbakır Fortress and Hevsel Gardens Cultural Landscape.

Keywords

World Heritage site Heritagization Institutions Heritage management UNESCO Diyarbakir 

Bibliography

  1. Aykan, B. 2014. Whose Tradition, Whose Identity? The Politics of Constructing “Nevruz” as Intangible Heritage in Turkey. European Journal of Turkish Studies 19. http://ejts.revues.org/5000. Accessed 22 Dec 2014.
  2. Bortolotto, C., éd. 2011. Le Patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2013. L’Unesco comme arène de traduction. La fabrique globale du patrimoine immatériel. Gradhiva 18: 50–73. https://doi.org/10.4000/gradhiva.2708. Accessed Dec 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozarslan, H. 2006. Rompre avec l’hypothèse d’une singularité kurde. Entretien avec Hamit Bozarslan. European Journal of Turkish Studies 5. http://ejts.revues.org/761. Accessed 31 May 2017.
  5. Brumann, C. 2013. Comment le patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco devient immatériel. Gradhiva 18: 22–49. https://doi.org/10.4000/gradhiva.2698. Accessed Dec 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cousin, S. 2008. L’Unesco et la doctrine du tourisme culturel. Civilisations 57: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crozier, M., and E. Friedberg. 1977. L’acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  8. Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyesi. 2014. Diyarbakır Fortress and Hevsel Gardens Cultural Landscape, Nomination for Inscription on the World Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1488.pdf
  9. Gambetti, Z. 2009. Decolonizing Diyarbakır: Culture, Identity and the Struggle to Appropriate Urban Space. In Comparing Cities—The Middle East and South Asia, ed. K. Ali and M. Rieker, 97–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Girard, M., and C. Scalbert-Yücel. 2015. Heritage as a Category of Public Policy in the Southeastern Anatolia Region. In Order and Compromise. Government Practices in Turkey from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early 21st Century, ed. M. Aymes, B. Gourisse, and E. Massicard, 192–218. Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
  11. Gourisse, B. 2015. Order and Compromise: The Concrete Realities of Public Action in Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. In Order and Compromise. Government Practices in Turkey from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early 21st Century, ed. M. Aymes, B. Gourisse, and E. Massicard, 1–24. Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
  12. Grojean, O. 2014. Turquie: le mouvement kurde à l’heure du “processus de paix”. Politique étrangère 2: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassenteufel, P. 2008. Sociologie politique: l’action publique. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
  14. ICOMOS. 2015. Evaluation des propositions d’inscription de biens mixtes et culturels sur la liste du patrimoine mondialPaysage culturel de la forteresse de Diyarbakır et des jardins de l’Hevsel, rapport de l’ICOMOS pour le Comité du patrimoine mondial, 337–345.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2016. Turquie C 1518 Site archéologique d’Ani. In Évaluations des propositions d’inscription de biens mixtes et culturels, rapport de l’ICOMOS pour le Comité du patrimoine mondial 40e session ordinaire, Istanbul, 10–20 juillet 2016, 261–275.Google Scholar
  16. Joost, J., M. Casier, and N. Walker. 2013. Turkey’s Kurdish Movement and the AKP’s Kurdish Opening. In The Kurdish Spring. Geopolitical Changes and the Kurds, ed. M.M.A. Ahmed and M.M. Gunter, 135–162. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Lascoumes, P., and P. Le Galès, eds. 2004. Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  18. Marquart, V. 2014. Insurmontable Tension? On the Relation of World Heritage and Rapid Urban Transformation in Istanbul. European Journal of Turkish Studies 19. http://ejts.revues.org/5044. Accessed 22 Dec 2014.
  19. Nicot, B.-H., and B. Özdirlik. 2008. Les impacts socio-économiques de l’inscription d’un site sur la liste du patrimoine mondial: deux comparaisons en Turquie. In Les impacts socio-économiques de l’inscription d’un site sur la liste du patrimoine mondial: trois études, ed. R. Prud’homme, M. Gravaris-Barbas, S. Jacquot, M. Talandier, B.-H. Nicot, and B. Özdirlik, 1–44. Paris: rapport préparé à la demande du Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO.Google Scholar
  20. Pérouse, J.-F. 2010. Cinq raisons d’un éventuel déclassement UNESCO. Urbanisme 374: 66.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2015. Les productions patrimoniales alternatives: le cas des municipalités et associations kurdes de Turquie. Anatolia 6: 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters, G.B. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science. The “New Institutionnalism”. Londres, NY: Pinter.Google Scholar
  23. Şahin Güçhan, N., and E. Kurul. 2009. A History of the Development of Conservation Measures in Turkey: From the Mid 19th Century Until 2004. METU JFA 26: 19–44. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2009.2.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Somuncu, M., and T. Yiğit. 2010. World Heritage Sites in Turkey. Current Status and Problems of Conservation and Management. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi 8: 1–26.Google Scholar
  25. Ter Minassian, T. 2015. Le patrimoine arménien en Turquie: de la négation à l’inversion patrimoniale. European Journal of Turkish Studies 20. http://ejts.revues.org/4948. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
  26. Titchen, S. 1995. On the Construction of Outstanding Universal Value. UNESCO’S World Heritage Convention (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the Identification and Assessment of Cultural Places for Inclusion in the World Heritage List. PhD diss., Australian National University.Google Scholar
  27. Turgeon, L. 2010. Introduction. Du matériel à l’immatériel. Nouveaux défis, nouveaux enjeux. Ethnologie Française 40 (3): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.3917/ethn.103.0389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turtinen, J. 2000. Globalising Heritage: On UNESCO and the Transnational Construction of a World Heritage. SCORE-working paper, Stockholm Center for Organisational Research.Google Scholar
  29. UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2003. The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2010. Managing Historic Cities. World Heritage Paper 27.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2015. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris.Google Scholar
  33. UNESCO and ICCROM. 2004. Monitoring World Heritage. World Heritage Papers 10.Google Scholar
  34. Van Der Aa, B.J.M. 2005. Preserving the Heritage of Humanity. PhD diss., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  35. Watts, N. 2010. Activists in Office. Kurdish Politics and Protest in Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  36. Yildirim, E. 2016. Aspirations for Sustainable Development: The Case of the Mudurnu Site Management Process. In Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Turkey, ed. Z. Ahunbay, D. Mazlum, and Z. Eres, 181–196. Istanbul: ICOMOS TURKEY, Ege Yayınları.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Boucly
    • 1
  1. 1.École des hautes études en sciences socialesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations