Foreword...

Prof. Dr. Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN
Scientific Advisor of the Project
Member of the Executive Commitee of KUMID,
Head of the Section of Prehistoria of the Department of Archeology in the Faculty of Letter of İstanbul University

The Cultural heritage of Turkey is not only exceedingly rich and multifaceted, but it also constitutes an indispensable asset of the common memory of our civilization; these are facts that we are proud to speak up about. However, we mostly overlook the fact that, being in possession of such an asset puts us under certain obligations that also demand the fulfilling of certain commitments. Here we should consider seriously that cultural heritage is the common data bank of past civilizations, a storage archive of the cognitive memories of human culture. Remnants of cultural heritage are extremely varied, so varied that they cannot be considered under a single heading; still in a simplistic way these can be categorized as buried and on the surface ones. Those buried underground might have been preserved for thousands, ten thousands and even for hundreds of thousands years, while others preserved above the surface can be of more recent dates, even of a single generation before us. Most of those remnants that are above the ground are ruins or other architectural remains that can easily noted even by a non-expert eye as being from the past; however, only an expert can detect, even the presence of remnants buried underground. In both cases, whether they are visible on the surface or buried underground, still it is necessary to have an expert to asses their significance for cultural history. To put it in other words, remnants of cultural heritage are dead archives that can only be activated if they are processed by experts, such as archaeologists or art historians and only then they can be beneficial to our society. Accordingly, in most cases, no matter how significant they may be for understanding the past, their presence goes unnoticed; thus, they are under constant threat of destruction. The threat upon our cultural heritage is most worrisome, as it will result in the destruction of the knowledge imbedded in such remains, even without having the chance to learn what sort of knowledge has been destroyed. The pace of destructive agents is overwhelming: all sorts of construction works, rapid process of urbanization, expanding industrial areas, extensive quarrying for raw materials that end up altering underground artefacts. Thus now it is possible to speak of a mass devastation of our cultural heritage. This eventually implies erasing a part of the common memory of civilization without even having the chance to know what has been lost forever; accordingly, it cannot be viewed simply as the removal of a historic structure.

It is also the responsibility of our generation to safeguard cultural remains that have been studied; we must ensure that these can be passed over to future generations. However, mainly due to the increased pressure of tourism, hastily done restorations by unqualified constructors end up in irreversible alteration and downgrading of our cultural assets; and even in some cases to the total loss of their authenticity.

Evidently, factors that constitute a threat on our cultural patrimony are not limited to those we have accounted here; at present the pressure on cultural heritage is much heavier then it ever had been in the past. Until recently, the protection of cultural heritage and fulfilling of the requirements of modern living standards were considered as irreconcilable alternatives, with mostly the preservation of cultural heritage ending up on the loosing side. During the last decade or so, a new approach, considering the preservation of cultural heritage and the necessities of modern living, not as uncompromising adversaries, but on the contrary, as complementary entities that through a rational planning based on holistic approaches are apt to enrich each other, has been developed. In this respect, not only state based organisations, but more specifically, various associations and foundations, being conscious of developing a new approach to cultural heritage, have initiated a debate that seeks solutions. This new approach requires a revolutionary change in our system of thinking. A considerable time lapse has been needed to allow for trial and error before proper application. Upon looking at a synopsis of the developments that took place during the last fifty years, we can clearly see the difficulties encountered even in formulating what now seems to us to be evident. Eventually, not only a new approach, but also new concepts have emerged, at the same time broadening the definition of “cultural heritage.” In this context, we consider worth noting the fact that, while in earlier years, the meaning of cultural heritage was restricted to “selected” and “specific” identities, by the introduction of the term cultural landscape, it has now attained a new dimension.

It is highly regrettable that our country has fallen behind in the ongoing discussion on redefining cultural heritage and integrating to the present; it seems possible that the abundance of monumental remains and the problems encountered in their protection have over shadowed following up conceptual changes that took place on the international platform. Thus, not only have we remained behind innovative changes, but also we became alien to the newly developing terminology. It is also a fact that during this time, a number of international conventions have been ratified by the Turkish parliament; however, the implications of these conventions have not been properly understood, and as the thinking system has not undergone a process of reform, they have not been reflected either to our legislative system or to the management of cultural heritage. Nevertheless, during the last few years, activated relations with the European Council and the European Union, and convergence with major international funding bodies such as the World Bank have inevitably begun putting pressure on the system to upgrade. It is also of significance that during this period of time, there have been personal initiatives of eminent academicians to introduce these newly developing concepts from the international platforms to Turkey; in this respect major documents have been meticulously translated to Turkish and printed. However, considering the pace of developments that is taking part around the world, it is evident that personal initiatives would fall short of compensating to fill in this gap.

At present, there is a growing concern in Turkey towards developing sustainable models and upgrading our system of cultural heritage to the level of internationally acceptable standards. It would be wrong to consider this positivistic development only as the result of activated relations with the European Union; the stress brought on by crooked urbanisation and environmental and cultural deterioration has triggered and impact on the search of new ways of relief. It should also be considered that the cultural heritage present in our country is on a scale incomparable to those in most other countries; it is exceedingly rich, varied and extensive, thus the problems encountered are totally different. Accordingly, it necessitates devising different ways of approach that would be in accordance with our requirements. Accordingly, models that has been devised, for example, for west European countries would fall short in implementing realistic solutions. It is absolutely necessary to work towards models that would concur with the quantity, scale and condition of our cultural remains, without overlooking their outstanding significance. In this respect, needless to say, whatever models might be developed, they would not fall behind the internationally accepted standards in their basic approaches. Evidently, to accomplish this, it is necessary to have an access to and a proper comprehension of current approaches, codes, systems and of legislations.

It for this reason that the present endeavour carried out by KUMID in translating the relevant documents issued by major organizations such as UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS is of importance in filling in the gap. Academic media should not be considered as the target group of this volume since the documents presented here are anyhow known by academicians who have an interest in cultural heritage. On the other hand, it is evident that the steadily increasing number of civil organisations, individuals, and young experts who are developing an interest in cultural heritage are facing serious problems in having an access to such documents. It is also a fact that what is presented here cannot be considered as a holistic coverage of all relevant documents; we can only anticipate that this will stimulate similar undertakings that will help in keeping up with the current happenings in the intellectual world.

In our undertaking, the troubles we have encountered are far beyond what we anticipated in the beginning. As already noted above, the main problem we had to face was finding equivalents in Turkish to the new terms and concepts that had developed in the world for decades. Many of the terms have attained new meanings. Our group has undertaken a meticulous effort to find appropriate terms in Turkish to cover these, in most cases failing to do so. We have confidence that in the near future, a new generation will take over this task: young colleagues who have been much better acquainted with these problems then our generation was. They will not only come up with better terms, but more significantly will take a leading role in developing new concepts. If we are proud to be the owners of one of the richest countries in possession of cultural heritage, then it should be our mission to formulate new ideas, concepts, methodologies and solutions on related issues. Only then we can justify our position as the leading custodian of world heritage.

October 2007, İstanbul