View of Hagia Sophia from Sultanahmet Square (Aykaç, 2017)

Pınar Aykaç, Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey

Rights-based Approaches in Heritage Studies

Recent scholarship on heritage sites places great emphasis on a human rights–based approach, which recognises “the ability to access and enjoy cultural heritage” as an integral part of cultural life, guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHRC, 2016). While the definition of access, which ranges from physical access to access to decision-making, is relatively straightforward, the discussion regarding whom these rights accord to and for which heritage is more complicated (Shaheed, 2011).

The Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, more commonly known as the Faro Convention, highlights that “every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice,” “independently of ownership” (COE, 2005). The issue of ownership here is crucial and rather complicated. That is, by placing ownership at the very centre of such heritage rights discourse not only does it overlook different notions of ownership but it also ignores different ways of interacting with heritage, as the ownership of heritage is often assumed to be collective (Hodder, 2010).

This complex character of ownership can be traced in the policy documents of UNESCO and ICOMOS, which see heritage as belonging to humanity, nation-states, communities, and peoples. However, they also identify the nation-state as the sovereign power responsible for the identification, conservation, and management of heritage. This rather traditional perception of nation-states as the guardians of heritage not only promotes the state’s monopoly over the rights to heritage but also paves the way for the state’s exercise of power over politically underrepresented groups or indigenous peoples through heritage. Similarly, conceptualising heritage as the “common heritage of humanity” and assigning an “outstanding universal value” runs the risk of homogenising the notion of heritage and marginalising minorities and other groups’ heritage claims (Meskell, 2010). Therefore, operational devices of UNESCO or heritage conservation regulations of nation-states are still inadequate for fully embracing a rights-based approach that aims to fully democratize heritage access claims.

Hagia Sophia in Istanbul: A Contested Heritage Site between Secularists and Islamists in Turkey

My most recent research in Turkey surfaces this cleavage well (Aykaç, 2023). In my research, I discuss how the conversion of Hagia Sophia from a museum back into a mosque reflects the dominance of one group over another from a human rights perspective. Additionally, it suggests that reconceptualizing heritage as commons can serve as a useful theoretical framework for achieving reconciliation.

In 2020, Turkey’s Council of State overruled the 1934 cabinet decree that converted Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia – the principal church of Byzantine Constantinople later converted into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul – from a mosque into a museum. The court's ruling focused on property rights, stating that Hagia Sophia cannot be used for any purpose other than a mosque as it was part of the charitable trust of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II. As I have demonstrated in my research, Hagia Sophia’s reconversion into a mosque has sparked heated debates both nationally and internationally, with many raising concerns about the glorification of the Ottoman past over a multi-layered monument in the present (Aykaç, 2023).

Unlike these concerns, the Council of State’s decision concentrated on its ownership status and property rights. The ruling specifically highlighted that the monument “cannot be prevented from being used by society” as a mosque since charitable services like mosques are left to the “use of the public” by their trustees. In my examination of this ruling, I argue that the Council of State therefore not only overlooked various claims by diverse groups but also disregarded any other heritage right to the monument.

In terms of national legislation, the Council of State referred to the Foundations Law (date: 20 February 2008, no: 5737, https://www.vgm.gov.tr/about-us/about-us/the-regulation-for-foundations), which states that religious charitable services—such as places of worship, hospitals, and soup kitchens—are originally designated for the “use of the public.” These properties are protected against third parties regarding their use for purposes other than their intended ones. Therefore, the Council concluded that assigning these properties to functions other than their intended purposes would contradict the legislation and principles of universal jurisprudence.

The ruling applied a limited reading of accessibility to physical use and features, without referring to its broader definition as any process related to heritage conservation. Similarly, my research highlights how the council evaluated “society” or “the public” as a uniform entity, discounting its diverse and transnational character composed of various religious and ethnic communities, civil society, and heritage professionals with contrasting claims.

The naos of Hagia Sophia, designated for Muslim prayers (Aykaç, 2024)

Meanwhile, state authorities presented a united front by claiming that international calls to overrule the court decision would be seen as an attack on “national sovereignty.” The emphasis on “national sovereignty” was deliberate, referring specifically to the World Heritage Convention, which underlines respect for the “sovereignty of the states.” In my legal analysis of the case, I find that legal experts mostly asserted that the ruling of the Council of State was lawfully based on the legal status of the foundation deed of Mehmed II according to Turkish laws, even though the council had completely reversed its earlier decisions. The ruling’s legality remains open to scrutiny.

Rethinking Heritage as Commons

The Turkey’s Council of State’s ruling raises broader questions about heritage ownership, access, and enjoyment, which international law recognises as a human right. Recent scholarship reframes heritage as “commons,” viewing it as a “public good, inherently a commons concept” (Gould, 2017). My research suggests that conceptualising heritage as commons sees it as a shared resource and opens the way toward a discussion of how a right and access to heritage can be achieved beyond legal ownership, and how it can be managed by the commoners, meaning the people associating themselves with heritage, in the participatory act of “commoning.” Conceptualising heritage as commons acts as an alternative to private and public modes of governance by placing them “under collective control for the common benefit of society” (Kioupkiolis, 2020).

Entrance to the upper gallery of Hagia Sophia, designated for tourists (Aykaç, 2024)

For contested heritage sites, commons-based management strategies remain a debated solution, but they provide a starting point by recognising diverse communities as equal parties in conservation. However, my research highlights the challenges of implementing commons-based strategies, as international and national legal frameworks still favour states or property owners as heritage guardians. They are seen as carrying the responsibility, financially and socially, for the management and maintenance of these places, which also inheres in the rights discourses. Nonetheless, in an era where heritage’s social role is widely acknowledged, embracing the commons framework, at least conceptually, offers a way to address competing claims in a globalised world.

As I have argued regarding Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia, reconceptualising it as commons primarily helps us accept any heritage claim to the monument as legitimate without prioritising the nation-state. This perspective ensures equal recognition for all groups associated with the monument, expanding heritage rights from physical access to participation in decision-making and conservation efforts. More importantly, it calls for a conservation management approach that is a “socially mediated, collective, and distributed activity,” which encourages negotiation and reconciliation among different groups without privileging one group over another (Lekakis, 2020).

Even though there is a long way to go in increasingly authoritarian contexts like Turkey, I argue that it is time to discuss the status of contested heritage sites through the lens of the commons, which offers an alternative to the back-and-forth bickering or disagreements that have dominated the discussions until now.

Bibliography

Aykaç, P. 2023. Right(s) to Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia: Rethinking heritage as “commons.” In B. Faedda (Ed.), A shared global heritage: Architectural history, conservation, and preservation pp. 29–43. New York: Columbia University Press.

Council of Europe (COE). 2005. The Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) (Council of Europe Treaty Series 199). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680083746

Gould, P. G. 2017. “Considerations on governing heritage as a commons resource” In P. G. Gould & K. A. Pyburn (Eds.), Collision or collaboration: Archaeology encounters economic development, pp. 171-187. Cham: Springer International.

Hodder, I. 2010. Cultural heritage rights: From ownership and descent to justice and well-being. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4), 861–882.

Kioupkiolis, A. 2020. The Alternative of the Commons, New Politics and Cities. In Lekakis, S. (ed.) Cultural Heritage in the Realm of the Commons: Conversations on the Case of Greece. pp. 229–252. London: Ubiquity Press

Lekakis, S. 2020. “A political economy of heritage and the commons: a first sketch focusing on Greece,” Cultural Heritage in the Realm of the Commons: Conversations on the Case of Greece, 17-44. London: Ubiquity Press

Meskell, L. 2010. Human rights and heritage ethics. Anthropological quarterly, 83(4), 839-859.

Shaheed, F. 2011. Report of the independent expert in the field of cultural rights (UNHRC). Retrieved from https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/HRC/17/38

Pınar Aykaç is an Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture at Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara, Turkey. She holds an MSc in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage from METU and a PhD from The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL. Her research focuses on the relationship between heritage sites and museums, heritage politics and contestations, and the interpretation and presentation of heritage places. She is the author of Sultanahmet, Istanbul’s Historic Peninsula: Musealization and Urban Conservation (Lexington Books, 2022) and co-editor of Architectures of Emergency in Turkey: Heritage, Displacement, and Catastrophe (I.B. Tauris, 2021), alongside Eray Çaylı and Sevcan Ercan. Currently, she serves as a co-editor of the journal Heritage & Society.

RETHINKING HERITAGE AS COMMONS