Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

UNESCO DÜNYA MİRAS LİSTESİNDE ARKEOLOJİNİN TEMSİLİYETİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2020, , 119 - 134, 11.05.2020
https://doi.org/10.26809/joa.5.010

Öz

UNESCO Dünya Miras Listesi’nin oluşturulmasındaki temel amaç, dünya genelinde ‘üstün evrensel değer’ niteliği olan kültürel ve doğal mirası korumak ve gelecek kuşaklara aktarımını sağlamaktır. Ancak mevcut liste tematik, coğrafi ve kronolojik olarak eşit olmayan bir dağılım içermektedir. Listenin belli bir temsil dengesinde ilerlemesini sağlamak üzere 1994 yılında, Dünya Miras Komitesi’nin kabul ettiği ‘Temsili, Dengeli ve Güvenilir bir Dünya Miras Listesi için Küresel Strateji // Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List” taraf devletlere rehberlik etmektedir.
Bu makalede, UNESCO’nun belirlediği stratejilere katkıda bulunmak üzere, Türkiye’nin Dünya Miras Listesi ve Geçici Listesi’nde yer alan arkeolojik mirasın temsiliyeti değerlendirilmiştir. Konuyu daha iyi irdelemek için Dünya Miras Listesi hakkında özet bilgilere yer verildikten sonra, söz konusu listede yer alan miraslar, arkeoloji biliminin alt ana bilim dalları göz önünde bulundurularak temsiliyet oranları incelenmiş ve daha dengeli bir dağılımın sağlanmasına yönelik çeşitli öneriler ele alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • AYTEK, A.H., (2017), “Paleolitik Dönem Anadolu Fosil İnsan Buluntuları” AÜDTCF, Antropoloji Dergisi, Sayı:34:19–30.
  • BANDARİN, F., (2007), “Looking ahead: the World Heritage Convention in the twenty-first century”. In: S. Labadi (director). World heritage – Challenges for the millennium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 192–196.
  • CAMERON, C - RÖSSLER, M., (2013), Many Voices, One Vision: The Early History of the World Heritage Convention. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
  • CLEERE, H., (1996), “The Concept of 'Outstanding Universal Value in the World Heritage Convention” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (1996) Volume 1:227-233.
  • FREY, B & STEİNER, L., (2011), “World Heritage List: Does it make sense?” International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 17, No. 5 (2011): 555–573.
  • ICOMOS (1986) , UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/377/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2005), “The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps-An Action Plan for Future”, www.international.icomos.org/world_heritage/whlgaps.htm.adresinden Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2008), “Submission by ICOMOS, Reflection Workshop on The Future of The World Heritage Convention” http://www.icomos.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WHC-reflection-workshop.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 20 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2011),” World Heritage Hominid Sites”, Prepared and edited by UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre. Updated by Francesca Giliberto. UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre.Paris.
  • ICOMOS (2017), UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1519/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 15 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2018), UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • JOKİLEHTO, J., (2006), “World Heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value”. City & Time 2 (2): 1-10.
  • JOKİLEHTO, J., (2008), “The World Heritage List: what is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties” Paris: An ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto, with contributions from Christina Cameron, Michel Parent and Michael Petzet. International Secretariat of ICOMOS, Paris.
  • KÖKTEN, İ.K., (1963), “Karain’in Türkiye Prehistoryası’ndaki Yeri”, Türkiye Coğrafya Dergisi, XVIII – XIX, sayı 22-23:17-27.
  • LABADİ, S., (2005), “A review of the Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List, 1994–2004”. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7:89–102.
  • MESKELL, L., (2002), “Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archeology”. Anthropological Quarterly, 75: 557–574
  • POSHYANANDANA, S., (2019), “Serial Cultural Heritage: Concept, Applications, Categorization and Its Roles in Present Day Contexts”, Journal of Environmental Design and Planning Volume 16, 69-84.
  • RAO, K., (2010), “A New Paradigm for the Identification, Nomination and Inscription of Properties on the World Heritage List”. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16: 161–72.
  • SHACKLEY, M., (2006), Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Site. Oxford,England: Butterworth-Heinemann
  • SLATYER, R.O., (1983), “The Origin and Evolution of the World Heritage Committee”. Ambio, 12 (3/4), 138–140.
  • STRASSER, P., (2002), “Putting Reform Into Action– Thirty Years of the World Heritage Convention: How to Reform a Convention without Changing Its Regulations”. International Journal of Cultural Property 11:215-266.
  • ŞENYÜREK, M., (1949), “Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Karain Kazısında Bulunan İki Fosil Dişe Dair Kısa Ön Rapor”, Belleten, 52, 833–837.
  • TAŞKIRAN, H., (2018), “Prehistorik Arkeoloji ve Mağaralar” Mavi Gezegen 24: 63-68.
  • TİTCHEN, S., (1996), “On the Construction of 'Outstanding Universal Value' Some comments on the Implementation of the1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention” Conservation And Management of Archaeological Sites, Volume 1 Pages 235-242
  • UNESCO (1972), https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ Erişim Tarihi: 4 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO (1977), http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide77a.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 4 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Global Strategy” http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO (2019), UNESCO World Heritage Centre “Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention”. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines Erişim Tarihi: 5 Aralık 2019.
  • YALÇINKAYA, I., TAŞKIRAN, H., KARTAL, M., ÖZÇELİK, K., KÖSEM, M.B., KARTAL, G., (2007), “2005 Yılı Karain Mağarası Kazıları”, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1.Cilt, Dösimm Basımevi, Ankara: 539-558.

REPRESENTATION OF ARCHEOLOGY IN THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST: CASE OF TURKEY

Yıl 2020, , 119 - 134, 11.05.2020
https://doi.org/10.26809/joa.5.010

Öz

The main purpose of the UNESCO World Heritage List is to preserve the cultural and natural heritage considered to be of ‘outstanding universal value’ throughout the world and to transfer it to future generations. However, the current list includes thematic, geographical and chronologically unequal distribution. Since 1994“Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List)”, adopted by the World Heritage Committee, has guided the states parties to improve the list in the balance of representation.
In this article, in order to contribute the strategies of UNESCO, Turkey's Archaeological heritage represented in World Heritage List and Tentative List were evaluated. After providing brief information about the World Heritage List, the representation rates of heritage in the both list were examined considering sub-disciplines of archaeology and various suggestions were discussed in order to achieve a more balanced distribution.

Kaynakça

  • AYTEK, A.H., (2017), “Paleolitik Dönem Anadolu Fosil İnsan Buluntuları” AÜDTCF, Antropoloji Dergisi, Sayı:34:19–30.
  • BANDARİN, F., (2007), “Looking ahead: the World Heritage Convention in the twenty-first century”. In: S. Labadi (director). World heritage – Challenges for the millennium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 192–196.
  • CAMERON, C - RÖSSLER, M., (2013), Many Voices, One Vision: The Early History of the World Heritage Convention. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
  • CLEERE, H., (1996), “The Concept of 'Outstanding Universal Value in the World Heritage Convention” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (1996) Volume 1:227-233.
  • FREY, B & STEİNER, L., (2011), “World Heritage List: Does it make sense?” International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 17, No. 5 (2011): 555–573.
  • ICOMOS (1986) , UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/377/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2005), “The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps-An Action Plan for Future”, www.international.icomos.org/world_heritage/whlgaps.htm.adresinden Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2008), “Submission by ICOMOS, Reflection Workshop on The Future of The World Heritage Convention” http://www.icomos.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WHC-reflection-workshop.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 20 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2011),” World Heritage Hominid Sites”, Prepared and edited by UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre. Updated by Francesca Giliberto. UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre.Paris.
  • ICOMOS (2017), UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1519/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 15 Aralık 2019.
  • ICOMOS (2018), UNESCO World Heritage Center “Advisory Body Evaluation” (ICOMOS) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1572/documents/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • JOKİLEHTO, J., (2006), “World Heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value”. City & Time 2 (2): 1-10.
  • JOKİLEHTO, J., (2008), “The World Heritage List: what is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties” Paris: An ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto, with contributions from Christina Cameron, Michel Parent and Michael Petzet. International Secretariat of ICOMOS, Paris.
  • KÖKTEN, İ.K., (1963), “Karain’in Türkiye Prehistoryası’ndaki Yeri”, Türkiye Coğrafya Dergisi, XVIII – XIX, sayı 22-23:17-27.
  • LABADİ, S., (2005), “A review of the Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List, 1994–2004”. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7:89–102.
  • MESKELL, L., (2002), “Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archeology”. Anthropological Quarterly, 75: 557–574
  • POSHYANANDANA, S., (2019), “Serial Cultural Heritage: Concept, Applications, Categorization and Its Roles in Present Day Contexts”, Journal of Environmental Design and Planning Volume 16, 69-84.
  • RAO, K., (2010), “A New Paradigm for the Identification, Nomination and Inscription of Properties on the World Heritage List”. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16: 161–72.
  • SHACKLEY, M., (2006), Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Site. Oxford,England: Butterworth-Heinemann
  • SLATYER, R.O., (1983), “The Origin and Evolution of the World Heritage Committee”. Ambio, 12 (3/4), 138–140.
  • STRASSER, P., (2002), “Putting Reform Into Action– Thirty Years of the World Heritage Convention: How to Reform a Convention without Changing Its Regulations”. International Journal of Cultural Property 11:215-266.
  • ŞENYÜREK, M., (1949), “Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Karain Kazısında Bulunan İki Fosil Dişe Dair Kısa Ön Rapor”, Belleten, 52, 833–837.
  • TAŞKIRAN, H., (2018), “Prehistorik Arkeoloji ve Mağaralar” Mavi Gezegen 24: 63-68.
  • TİTCHEN, S., (1996), “On the Construction of 'Outstanding Universal Value' Some comments on the Implementation of the1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention” Conservation And Management of Archaeological Sites, Volume 1 Pages 235-242
  • UNESCO (1972), https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ Erişim Tarihi: 4 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO (1977), http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide77a.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 4 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Global Strategy” http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/ Erişim Tarihi: 2 Aralık 2019.
  • UNESCO (2019), UNESCO World Heritage Centre “Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention”. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines Erişim Tarihi: 5 Aralık 2019.
  • YALÇINKAYA, I., TAŞKIRAN, H., KARTAL, M., ÖZÇELİK, K., KÖSEM, M.B., KARTAL, G., (2007), “2005 Yılı Karain Mağarası Kazıları”, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1.Cilt, Dösimm Basımevi, Ankara: 539-558.
Toplam 29 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Arkeoloji
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Şehnaz Eraslan 0000-0002-1874-9488

Yayımlanma Tarihi 11 Mayıs 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Eraslan, Ş. (2020). UNESCO DÜNYA MİRAS LİSTESİNDE ARKEOLOJİNİN TEMSİLİYETİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Journal of Awareness, 5(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.26809/joa.5.010