Kültürel Mirasın Korunmasında Mülkiyetten Mekana Dayalı Koruma Yaklaşımına: Hattuşa Örneği ve Anadolu’nun İnsanlaştırılması

Öz

Bu makale Hattuşa’nın arkeolojik mirasının iade sürecinin kültürel mirasın korunmasına ilişkin tartışmalara nasıl katkı sunduğunu incelemektedir. Bu katkı, odağın mülkiyet temelli iade anlayışından anlamın kendi yerinde korunmasına kaydırılmasıyla ortaya çıkar. Boğazköy buluntularının aşamalı iadesine odaklanan çalışma kültürel nesnelerin nasıl olup da kendi coğrafi ve kültürel bağlamları içinde korunması gereken bir miras olarak çerçevelendiğini sorgulamaktadır. Analiz Veysel Donbaz ve Ertuğrul Günay’ın anılarına, iade sürecine ilişkin kamusal beyanlara ve Boğazköy buluntularına dair TRT belgeseline dayanmaktadır. Çalışma erken dönemdeki köken ve belge temelli argümanları daha sonraki dönemde öne çıkan duygusal bağlılık, kolektif hafıza ve eserler ile Anadolu arasındaki ilişkiyi vurgulayan anlatılarla karşılaştırmaktadır. Makale, bu vakanın, korunma anlayışında yer temelli bakım ve koruyuculuk ekseninde şekillenen ilişkisel bir modele doğru önemli bir dönüşümü ortaya koyduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Çalışmanın katkısı Anadolu’nun insanlaştırılması kavramını önererek toprağın nasıl yaşayan bir hafıza, kayıp ve geri dönüş mekânı olarak temsil edildiğini açıklamasında yatmaktadır. Söz konusu yaklaşım koruma tartışmalarını hukuki mülkiyet ve fiziksel muhafaza sınırlarının ötesine taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel Mirasın Korunması
• İade
• Yer Temelli Bakım
• Kolektif Hafıza
• Anadolu’nun İnsanlaştırılması.

From Ownership to Place-Based Care in Cultural Heritage Preservation: The Case of Hattusa and Anthropomorphizing Anatolia

Öz

This article examines how the restitution of Hattusa’s archaeological heritage contributes to debates on the preservation of cultural heritage by shifting attention from ownership-based restitution to the preservation of meaning in place. Focusing on the phased return of the Boğazköy finds, the study asks how cultural objects come to be framed as heritage that requires protection within its original geographical and cultural setting. The analysis draws on memoirs by Veysel Donbaz and Ertuğrul Günay, public statements surrounding the restitution process, and the TRT documentary on the Boğazköy finds. It compares earlier provenance- and documentation-based arguments with later narratives that emphasized emotional attachment, collective memory, and the bond between artifacts and Anatolia. The article argues that this case reveals an important shift in preservation thinking toward a relational model grounded in place-based care and guardianship. Its contribution lies in proposing the concept of Anthropomorphizing Anatolia to explain how land itself was represented as a living locus of memory, loss, and return, thereby expanding preservation debates beyond legal possession and physical conservation alone.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cultural Heritage Preservation
• Restitution
• Place-based Care
• Collective Memory
• Anthropomorphizing Anatolia.

Kaynakça

1. Altuncu, Ö. (2011, May 13). Bakan Günay, Or-Gi Havalimanı’na yeni isim buldu [Minister Günay a new name for ORGI airport]. Hürriyet. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/bakan-gunay-or-gi-havalimanina-yeni-isim-buldu 18351243
2. Bachleitner, K. (2022). Collective memory and the social creation of identities: Linking the past with the present and future. In S. M. O’Mara (Ed.), Collective memory (Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 274, pp. 167–176). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2022.07.002
3. Bai, N., Nourian, P., & Roders, A. P. (2021). Global citizens and world heritage: Social inclusion of online communities in heritage planning. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVI-M-1-2021, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-M-1-2021-23-2021
4. Becker, J., & Schachner, A. (2025). Boğazköy, Türkei. Ausgrabungen auf Büyükkale, dem Palastareal der hethitischen Hauptstadt Ḫ attuša. Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2021 bis 2024. e Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 2025(2), § 1–23. https://doi.org/10.34780/twvy2a06
5. Bell, A., & Hutson, J. (2025). Legislative frameworks, cross-cultural insights, and the future of Indigenous Australian heritage protection. ISRG Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15129003
6. Bendix, R., & Hafstein, V. T. (2009). Culture and property: An introduction. Ethnologia Europaea, 39(2), 5–10.
7. Bienkowski, P. (2016). Authority and the power of place: Exploring the legitimacy of authorized and alternative voices in the restitution discourse. In L. Tythacott & K. Arvanitis (Eds.), Museums and restitution: New practices, new approaches (pp. 37–52). Routledge.
8. Blake, J. (2000). On defining the cultural heritage. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002058930006396X

9. Brumann, C. (2018). Anthropological utopia, closet Eurocentrism, and culture chaos in the UNESCO World Heritage arena. Anthropological Quarterly, 91(4), 1203–1233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2018.0063
10. Bryce, T. (2019). Warriors of Anatolia: A concise history of the Hittites. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. Caligiuri, A. (2024). Legal aspects concerning the restitution of cultural property removed during colonial occupation. Questions of International Law, 103, 47–62. claims.
11. Campfens, E. (2020). Whose cultural objects? Introducing heritage title for cross-border cultural property Netherlands International https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-020-00174-3 Law Review, 67(2), 257–295. Canby, J. V. (1989). Hittite art. The Biblical Archaeologist, 52(2/3), 109–129. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210203
12. Casini, L. (2026). Who owns the past? Politics and law in the restitution of cultural property (IMT Papers No. 2/2026). IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca.
13. Coşkun, Y. (2023, June 13). Eve dönen miras | Boğazköy eserleri | 1. Bölüm [The returning heritage Boğazköy artifacts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbVFLvb9trs Episode 1] [Video]. YouTube.
14. Craith, M. N. (2008). Intangible cultural heritages: The challenge for Europe. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 17(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.3167/ajec.2008.01701004
15. Donbaz, V. (2014). Bin kral bin anı: Bir sümeroloğun anıları [A thousand kings, a thousand memories: Memories of a Sumerologist]. Togan Yayınları.
16. Flam, H. (2023). Introduction: The sociology of emotion. In H. Flam (Ed.), Research handbook on the sociology of emotion (pp. 1–36). Edward Elgar Publishing. Geismar, H. (2015). Anthropology and heritage regimes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 71 85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014217
17. Gerstenblith, P. (2020). Provenience and provenance intersecting with international law in the market for antiquities. North Carolina Journal of International Law, 45(2), 457–496.
18. Gerstenblith, P. (2023). Cultural objects and reparative justice: A legal and historical analysis. Oxford University Press.
19. Güçlütürk, A. T., Genç, U., & Avşar, A. O. (2012, April 1–5). Boğazköy-Hattuşaş sfenksi’nin Türkiye’ye getirilişi ve koruma-onarım çalışmaları [The return of the Boğazköy-Hattusa sphinx to Türkiye and its maintenance-conservation] [Paper presentation]. 21. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, Marmaris, Türkiye.
20. Günay, E. (2019). Sevgili Anadolu [Dear Anatolia]. Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık.
21. Günay, P. (2019). Önsöz yerine bir kavuşma öyküsü [The story of a reunion instead of a preface]. In E. Günay (Ed.), Sevgili Anadolu (pp. 14–15). Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık. Haas, V., Eskinazi, R. H., & Jodelet, D. (2025). Collective memory and social representations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 66, 102123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102123 Hamilakis, Y. (2007). The nation and its ruins: Antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination in Greece. Oxford University Press.
22. Hamilakis, Y. (2011). Indigenous archaeologies in Ottoman Greeks. In Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem (Eds.), Scramble for the past: A story of archaeology in the Ottoman empire, 1753–1914 (pp. 49–70). SALT.
23. Hassan, H. A., & Ahmed, K. (2026). Narrative power and the construction of social reality in fiction. Journal of Language & Literature Review, 4(1), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19331934
24. Kanmazalp, G. (2023a). Negotiating the return: The long road to repatriating Boğazköy’s Hittite treasures. transfer – Journal for Provenance Research and the History of Collection, 2, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.48640/tf.2023.1.101815
25. Kanmazalp, G. (2023b). Beyond Sun, Sand, and Sea: The Role of Hittite Heritage in the Transformation of Turkey’s Cultural Heritage Regimes. TARE: Türk Arkeoloji ve Kültürel Miras Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3, 25-50. https://doi.org/10.54930/TARE.2023.29475
26. Kelpšienė, I., Armakauskaitė, D., Denisenko, V., Kirtiklis, K., Laužikas, R., Stonytė, R.,
27. Murinienė, L., & Dallas, C. (2023). Difficult heritage on social network sites: An integrative review. New Media & https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122186 Society, 25(11), 3137–3164.
28. Kowalski, W. (2005). Types of claims for recovery of lost cultural property. Museum International, 57(4), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.2005.00543.x
29. Liu, Y., Dupre, K., & Jin, X. (2020). A systematic review of literature on contested heritage. Current Issues in Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1774516
30. Lixinski, L. (2008). World heritage and the heritage of the world. European Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1), 382–397.
31. Londoño, W. (2021). Indigenous archaeology, community archaeology, and decolonial archaeology: What are we talking about? A look at the current archaeological theory in South America with examples. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-021-09433-y
32. MacMillan, F. (2013). The protection of cultural heritage: Common heritage of humankind, national cultural patrimony or private property. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(3), 351 364.
33. Maynard, D. W., & Heritage, J. (2023). Ethnomethodology’s legacies and prospects. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-033738
34. McDonnell, T. E. (2023). Cultural objects, material culture, and materiality. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-041439
35. McNiven, I. J. (2024). Towards an archaeology of Country. Australian Archaeology, 90(1), 82 84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2024.2317553
36. Meskell, L. (2009). Introduction: Cosmopolitan heritage ethics. In L. Meskell (Ed.), Cosmopolitan archaeologies (pp. 1–27). Duke University Press.
37. Meskell, L. (2015). Gridlock: UNESCO, global conflict and failed ambitions. World Archaeology, 47(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1017598
38. Morgan, C. (2022). Current digital archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 51, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101
39. Müller, L. (2021). Returns of cultural artefacts and human remains in a (post)colonial context: Mapping claims between the mid-19th century and the 1970s (Working Paper). Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. https://doi.org/10.25360/01-2021-00017
40. Nicholas, G. P., & Andrews, T. D. (Eds.). (1997). At a crossroads: Archaeology and first peoples in Canada. Archaeology Press.