CHAPTER


DOI :10.26650/B/AA9PS34.2024.006.006   IUP :10.26650/B/AA9PS34.2024.006.006    Full Text (PDF)

A Classification-based Assessment of the Unesco Tentative List of Turkiye

Veysel ÖzbeyDuygu Saban

On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the UNESCO World Heritage List currently contains a high number of heritage sites that have begun pushing controllable limits. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has undertaken the responsibility for selecting the heritage sites to be inscribed on the list and has had to develop various restrictions and strategies regarding the list. After the Convention, the 2005 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention took the first step toward changing the types of classifications of heritage sites on the list and defined four new specific types of heritages. Some revisions were made in the 2008 Operational Guidelines, and minor revisions have been made to the Operational Guidelines up to 2021. This study conducts an analysis based on the heritage classifications found in the Operational Guidelines up to the 2021 revision. The analysis accepts the cultural and mixed heritage sites that have been inscribed on the list since 2009, uses those that have been included in the UNESCO Tentative List of Türkiye (UTLoT) as observations, and examines the distributions for the observations based on classification type. An agglomeration has been observed to be present in the monuments classification, with the number of heritage sites in the Groups of Buildings and Cultural Landscapes classifications remaining proportionally low. In addition, the four heritage sites in UTLoT were seen to not have been included under any classification following the Operational Guidelines instructions. In this context, suggestions have been developed for UTLoT to show a more homogeneous distribution in terms of classification.



References

  • ICOMOS (2004). The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps - an Action Plan for the Future (An Analysis by ICOMOS). Paris: International Council on Monuments and Sites. google scholar
  • Labadi, S. (2013). UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value. Plymouth: AltaMira Press. google scholar
  • Merryman, J. H. (1986). Two ways of thinking about cultural property. The American Journal of International Law, 80(4), 831-853. google scholar
  • Reid, D. M. (1992). Cultural imperialism and nationalism: The struggle to define and control the heritage of Arab art in Egypt. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24(1), 57-76. google scholar
  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. google scholar
  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. google scholar
  • Ürün, Ş. (2016). Dünya Kültürel ve Doğal Mirasın Korunmasına Dair Sözleşme: Doğal Miras Alanları Başvuru, Adaylık ve Değerlendirme Süreçleri. Ankara: UNESCO Türkiye Millî Komisyonu. google scholar


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.