Author:Eisuke Tanaka (Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University)
Paper short abstract:
Focusing on the case of Patara, south Turkey, this paper explores how a ‘heritage’ site is produced through collaborations of diverse commitments of stakeholders (archaeology, heritage administration, tourism and the local community etc.) to the idea of protection.
Paper long abstract:
Recent discussions concerning heritage have pointed out the production and reproduction of normative discourse of heritage at the expense of local narratives of the past. They have also shown that anthropological and archaeological practices themselves have been implicated in the construction of such dominant heritage discourse. However, it is worth noting that actors and stakeholders (experts, government officials, locals etc.) commonly show their commitments to the notion of protection although what it means to protect heritage are different for these people. In other words, claiming control over things marked as 'heritage' assumes the idea that such objects should be protected.
This paper explores how the idea of protection works in the production of heritage using the concept of collaboration. It particularly examines the ways in which commitments of different stakeholders to the idea of protection work together to constitute material remains of the past as a 'heritage' site. In doing so, the paper specifically focuses on the case of Patara, south Turkey. In Patara, tourism and archaeological excavation arrived almost at the same time, which produced tension between archaeologists and the locals who wanted to promote tourism. However, as the ancient city remains emerged out of the sand through excavations and the following restoration works, the relationship between archaeologists and the locals also changed. Analysing the production of Patara as a 'heritage' site, this paper attempts to suggest how the notion of protection works as a common ground for collaboration between archaeology, heritage administration, tourism and the local community.
Exploring the complexity of heritage practices through cooperation