Understanding cultural heritage in Turkey: institutional context and organisational Issues

This paper explores Turkey’s cultural heritage system from the perspective of the ‘Heritage Chain’, which sees the heritage sector as an interconnected series of relationships and activities including protection and conservation, archaeological activity, research and museum presentation. By reviewing quantitative data along each step of the chain, we construct a holistic perspective that shows interrelationships between activities and illustrates which parts of the system are underdeveloped. By demonstrating the effects of Turkey’s distinct combination of bureaucratic fragmentation and centralisation on professional practice among conservators, archaeologists and museums, we argue for increased attention to administrative issues within heritage studies.     

From universal to local: perspectives on cultural landscape heritage in South Africa

The concept of cultural landscapes relates to the multifaceted links between people, place and identity. From a professional perspective, the concept refers to a category of designated conservation areas with specific biocultural heritage values. From a local perspective, it may refer to a landscape that is associated with the provision of a culturally-specific sense of identity and belonging. We explore these two perspectives through a comparative analysis of three cultural landscapes in South Africa, the ‘expert’ designated Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape and the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape, and the local associative landscape of emaXhoseni, which is not formally recognised. We propose that a biocultural diversity perspective of heritage not only recognises the inextricable relationship between nature and culture, but it also gives prominence to the beliefs, values and practices of local people, and to strengthening their agency to safeguard their heritage in ways and forms that are relevant to them.     

Politics of tangibility,intangibility, and place in the making of a European cultural heritage in EU heritage policy

The EU has recently launched several initiatives that aim to foster the idea of a common European cultural heritage. The notion of a European cultural heritage in EU policy discourse is extremely abstract, referring to various ideas and values detached from physical locations or places. Nevertheless the EU initiatives put the abstract policy discourse into practice and concretize its notions about a European cultural heritage. A common strategy in this practice is ‘placing heritage’ – affixing the idea of a European cultural heritage to certain places in order to turn them into specific European heritage sites. The materialisation of a European cultural heritage and the production of physical European heritage sites are crucial elements in the policy through which the EU seeks to govern both the actors and the meanings of heritage. On the basis of a qualitative content analysis of diverse policy documents and informational and promotional material, this article presents five strategies of ‘placing heritage’ used in the EU initiatives. In addition, the article presents a theoretical model of circulation of the tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage in the EU heritage policy discourse and discusses the EU’s political intents included in the practices of ‘placing heritage’.     

The process of privatisation of cultural heritage and the arts in Italy: analysis and perspectives

During the last decade, institutional changes in the cultural heritage sector triggered some fierce debate in Europe. This paper analyses the complex process of privatising cultural heritage and the arts in Italy, showing how the relationship between this process and urban regeneration policies is tacitly legitimising it, despite the harsh controversies it previously provoked. From a perspective of ‘territorialisation’ discussed in this paper, this policy process could enhance the involvement of the private sector, bringing to light new fields of research and application in the international heritage debate.     

Destruction,mitigation, and reconciliation of cultural heritage

Attacks on built cultural heritage often occur during times of armed conflict. Many such acts are not collateral damage, but rather are deliberate and ideologically driven assaults intended to eradicate the adversary’s identity and collective memory. They represent ‘urbicide’ and ‘identicide’. The victims typically attempt to mitigate the loss, frequently by reconstructing the lost historic place and thereby restoring tangible evidence of their identity. Reconstruction, however, is itself an ideological act and a destructive activity, since it erases memories of the violence and removes physical evidence. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has commemorated several cultural heritage sites that have been destroyed and subsequently reconstructed, by inscribing them on the World Heritage List. Although this ensures the perpetuation of their memory, it may distort the original purpose of the list as a celebration of ‘outstanding universal value’. Beyond commemoration, a desired outcome is reconciliation. True reconciliation requires the release of anger and pain, so that memories of the violence may be retained without a desire for retribution. This article looks at a selection of acts intended at destroying cultural heritage, including some that did not occur during war, and examines means and motives for achieving mitigation and reconciliation.     

Global heritage: perspectives from the Northern Territory,Australia

This article examines the way in which selected cultural institutions, government and non‐government organisations and individuals in Australia’s Northern Territory have responded to globalising influences on the preservation, interpretation and public face of its history and heritage. It draws upon a number of interviews with local practitioners and professionals in the field to explore the multiple understandings of cultural heritage, history and identity in the Territory, to investigate how competing interests and expectations are managed at the state and local level, and to address issues of sovereignty in the context of global heritage. Respondents indicate that, despite a strong resurgence of local cultural identities, without people on the ground who care about their heritage, efforts by international bodies will have little effect. There has been increasing concern about the protection of local cultures in the face of globalisation, and research such as this is critical in providing feedback to international heritage organisations. Without strong local support for cultural heritage and identities, they can become increasingly vulnerable in a rapidly globalising world. In Australia’s Northern Territory, however, there seems little indication of this happening.     

The securitisation of cultural heritage

ABSTRACT

It is not a novelty for art to come under attack: cultural heritage has always been endangered by wars, conflicts and political violence. Since the last century, the international community has started reacting, moved by the concern that these threatened monuments be protected. Lately, cultural heritage can be seen to undergo a veritable crescendo from politicisation to criminalisation and securitisation. Accordingly, this article seeks to analyse the pathway that characterises the international protection of cultural heritage in crisis-torn contexts, employing a discursive lens and mapping the narrative threads that the main international actors have constructed in reaction to recent attacks on archaeological sites (i.e. Palmyra) and historical artefacts, especially in the Middle East (namely Syria and Iraq). After having traced this process, we will offer a tentative explanation of what we consider a process of securitising an under-researched field (i.e. cultural heritage).     

Protecting contemporary cultural soundscapes as intangible cultural heritage: sounds of Istanbul

This paper aims to evaluate culture and traditions of everyday life from a sonic perspective and to suggest ways for protecting characteristic sounds and soundscapes. This multidisciplinary research, having roots in such fields as soundscape studies, intangible cultural heritage (ICH), museum studies and sensory studies, explores the larger contemporary cultural soundscape of Istanbul. This paper also draws on the project The Soundscape of Istanbul (https://soundscapeofistanbul.ku.edu.tr/), which is archiving the contemporary elements of the cultural soundscape of Istanbul that were determined by public contribution, and outlines examples from this collection. Sounds constitute an inevitable part of daily life and are therefore very important as ICH. Thus, they deserve to be protected to strengthen cultural memory. However, sonic culture is twice endangered due to the physical characteristics of sound itself and the dynamic structure of intangible culture. Therefore, urgent protection of contemporary cultural soundscapes in the context of ICH is crucial for transferring the present sonic environments to following generations in order to maintain cultural identity.     

Post-conflict heritage: symbolic healing and cultural renewal

Heritage is invoked for post-conflict development by international organisations, governments, and sub-national groups to provide emotional and cultural, including economic, healing for individuals and societies. However, academic critiques of healing-heritage typically cite the failure of heritage to heal, either because it cannot, or because it is managed incorrectly. Thus, an anomalous situation exists between expectations and critiques, which this study describes and explores through international policies and national and sub-national post-conflict healing-heritage initiatives from Rwanda and Uganda. Drawing on concepts of heritage as a cultural process, cultural trauma, and symbolic healing, this study proposes that heritage is neither an essentially positive nor negative post-conflict development strategy to select or avoid respectively. Instead, heritage is better understood as a common element of post-conflict renewal, which becomes intensified as the past is aggressively negotiated to provide healing related to conflict traumas. By moving beyond the ‘does heritage heal or hurt?’ distraction the meaning and function of heritage in post-conflict contexts as a common element of post-conflict healing complexes is elucidated. The implication for those who wish to manage post-conflict development through heritage is that they are just the latest in a long history of symbolic healers, from whom they have a lot to learn.