Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Heritage in the Context of Globalization

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Archaeology ((BRIEFSARCHHERIT,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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although all land was the property of the state in the classical Ottoman establishment, the Rescript of Gülhane dated 1839 and the Land Legislation dated 1858 permitted private individuals to buy land.

  2. 2.

    Osman Hamdi Bey (1842–1910) is known as the first Turkish archaeologist and museologist. At the same time, he was one of the first Turkish painters. He is a successful representative of the modern Ottoman intellectual of the period (Rona 1993).

  3. 3.

    In this respect rescue operations carried out in the reservoir area of the Keban dam between 1967 and 1976 stands as an exceptional case (Özdoğan 2011a).

  4. 4.

    In this respect, the media played a big role in developing a public awareness, pointing the thread on the major sites such as Zeugma, Allianoi, and Hasankeyf.

References

  • Ahunbay, Z., & İzmirligil, Ü. (Eds.). (2006). Management and preservation of archaeological sites. Türkiye/Istanbul: ICOMOS/YEM Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Singapore: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çal, H. (1990). Türkiye’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eski Eser Politikası. Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çambel, H. (1993). Das Freilichtmuseum von Karatepe-Aslantaş. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 43, 495–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çambel, H. (2010). Karatepe-Aslantaş Açık Hava Müzesi: Çok Yönlü Bir Proje. TÜBAKED, 8, 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Karaduman, H. (2004). Belgelerle İlk Türk Asar-I Atika Nizamnamesi. Belgeler Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi XXV/29, 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Özdoğan, M. (2011a). Arkeolojik Kazılar Bilimsel Çalışma mı? Toprak Hafriyatı mı? İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özdoğan, M. (2011b). 50 Soruda Arkeoloji. İstanbul: Bilim ve Gelecek Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulhan, G. (Ed.). (2009). Dünya Mirasında Türkiye (2nd ed.). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rona, Z. (Ed.). (1993). Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. (1993). Wiederaufbau. Stuttgart: Architekturreferat des Deutschen Achäologischen Instituts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Eres .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eres, Z., Yalman, N. (2013). National Concerns in the Preservation of the Archaeological Heritage Within the Process of Globalization: A View from Turkey. In: Heritage in the Context of Globalization. SpringerBriefs in Archaeology, vol 8. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6077-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics