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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Singapore: University of Washington Press.
Çal, H. (1990). Türkiye’nin Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eski Eser Politikası. Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi.
Çambel, H. (1993). Das Freilichtmuseum von Karatepe-Aslantaş. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 43, 495–509.
Çambel, H. (2010). Karatepe-Aslantaş Açık Hava Müzesi: Çok Yönlü Bir Proje. TÜBAKED, 8, 131–136.
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.
Karaduman, H. (2004). Belgelerle İlk Türk Asar-I Atika Nizamnamesi. Belgeler Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi XXV/29, 73–92.
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.
Özdoğan, M. (2011a). Arkeolojik Kazılar Bilimsel Çalışma mı? Toprak Hafriyatı mı? İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Özdoğan, M. (2011b). 50 Soruda Arkeoloji. İstanbul: Bilim ve Gelecek Yayınları.
Pulhan, G. (Ed.). (2009). Dünya Mirasında Türkiye (2nd ed.). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
Rona, Z. (Ed.). (1993). Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.
Schmidt, H. (1993). Wiederaufbau. Stuttgart: Architekturreferat des Deutschen Achäologischen Instituts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6077-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6076-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6077-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)