No abstract

Recent decades have witnessed an increasing involvement of archaeology projects in planning and carrying out heritage education programmes to increase heritage awareness among the public. This paper aims to explore ways in which models of education programmes in public archaeology could be more effective in ensuring the protection of heritage sites by examining the one of the worlds longest-running education programme, run by the Çatalhöyük Research Project in Turkey. It is important to pay attention to multi-vocal elements such as social, political and educational backgrounds of the communities to develop more effective education programmes, and most importantly it is crucial to assess the effectiveness and success of those programmes. However, most of archaeological education programmes have failed to carry out this important component. In order to be effective and successful, the success of the education programmes and the ways in which they are implemented and their results must be known and critically examined. Specifically, this paper will discuss the necessity of measuring the effectiveness of education programmes, suggest the most suitable methodology for assessment through examining the Çatalhöyük education programmes. Introduction: why do heritage and education matter? Over the last few decades, community engagement within the heritage sector has increased substantially and has gone through transformation in terms of research and methodologies. Additionally, recent studies have focused on how formal education can reach large numbers of people (Planel 1994; Copeland 2004; Corbishley 2004; Henson 2004a, 2004b; Apaydin 2015, forthcoming-a). Researchers argue that heritage related subjects have been neglected in comparison with other subjects. The oversimplification and undermining of archaeology and heritage subjects in formal education is a more or less global phenomenon. Although the quality of, and time spent on, the teaching of archaeology and heritage has increased in some countries, such as the United Kingdom and some other European countries, students still need to have a 'hands on' relationship with archaeology and heritage. This means not only informing people about local heritage but also giving them opportunities to see, touch and feel archaeology and heritage objects, which can increase the interest of people towards their local heritage. An example of this is the Shoreditch Park Community Project, which allows community members access to all stages of the project from 'research to excavation and process[ing] of the finds' (see Simpson 2011, 115).

This paper explores the ways in which heritage as a practice and concept has been used and diverse meanings and values ascribed to heritage by different claimants, using the medieval site of Ani in eastern Turkey as a case study. On one hand, the site marks a point of conflict between Turks and Armenians, with the heritage and the past of the site playing an important role for identity making and construction of national narratives, as well as developing what might be seen as the authorised heritage discourses for both sides. On other hand, the local community around the site has developed a different relationship to the site Ani because of their daily relationship with its landscape and built environment. This has revealed meaning and values embodied in the site that are beyond the national and political level. This paper considers to what extent the built environment in particular, can play a role in identity making and add to the political tension. It also examines how the value and meaning of a heritage site can be distinct for local communities from national political meanings and uses, and, as a consequence, can be used to resist authorised heritage discourses.

The plundering, looting and neglect of archaeological and heritage sites are quite common in many parts of the world. Turkey is one such country that has a poor record of preservation of archaeological and heritage sites, particularly those of minority ethnic groups and from the prehistoric and ancient periods. In other words, those which are not part of the national/official past of Turkey. The main reason for this is that Turkish formal education neglects the prehistoric and ancient past, and ‘others’ the past of minority groups. This paper will examine and discuss how and to what extent archaeology and heritage related topics are presented in formal education in Turkey, i.e., national, minority groups, prehistoric and ancient pasts and antiquities by analysing the curriculum and textbooks from 2013. Specifically, this paper will demonstrate that history education in schools has a major impact on the development and re-configuration of heritage perception, which can either lead to the protection or neglect of heritage.

Communities construct themselves differently, depending on the diverse socio-political environments which they inhabit. This also impacts their worldviews and their perceptions of heritage. In addition, in nation states such as Turkey, heritage perceptions are shaped by state ideology through formal education, which often transfers one-sided and programmatic knowledge to students, mostly focusing on the official history of the state. As a result, communities are deprived of opportunities to learn about 'other' pasts, such as those concerned with prehistory and minorities in antiquity. Community archaeology projects and local museums hold an important role in closing the gap created by formal education methods, and can have a profound impact on community perceptions of the past. At the same time, the exchange of knowledge with communities can be troublesome. This article examines heritage perceptions and discusses the importance of public archaeology and local museums by comparing three different sites and their associated communities.