Effective or not? Success or failure? Assessing heritage and archaeological education programmes – the case of Çatalhöyük

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).

Should I stay or should I go? Ideals and realities of archaeology in the conflict regions

“…One of the significant contributions of the programme was to consider the social, cultural and economic backgrounds of the participants and running the programme accordingly. This significant aspect of informal education is very often neglected in devising education programmes (Apaydin 2016b). The education board of the city and local NGOs assisted in the selection process of children for the education programme.…”

Heritage Values and Communities: Examining Heritage Perceptions and Public Engagements

“…Community engagement projects include meetings and festivals held in collaboration with the locals who live in close proximity to the site (see Atalay 2012). However, a recent study that focused on the evaluation of these programs revealed that public engagement and heritage education is still necessary, preferably from a bottom-up perspective (see Apaydin 2015Apaydin , 2016b. The inhabitants of Konya and villages near Çatalhöyük understand the past along specifically religious dimensions, emphasizing Ottoman history and the history of Islam.…”

“…While it is important to protect and preserve the Islamic and Ottoman heritage and it is only natural that people will value the particular version of the past that reflects and legitimizes their worldview, the lack of the community's identification with the prehistoric site of Çatalhöyük is largely the outcome of statesupported school education, which prioritizes family, national, and religious identity. By contrast, prehistoric and other eras of antiquity, which are seen as largely unrelated to contemporary Turkish identity, are given little coverage (Apaydin 2016a). As a member of this community stated:…”

“…Types of public archaeology can include: formal education whereby history is taught to students; community archaeologies, education and public outreach, particularly those practiced by museums and archaeological projects; archaeological digs involving community collaboration; and through the media, such as newspapers, magazines and TV, all of which can have a great impact on forming and shaping the public's understanding of the past. Arguably, history education in schools has the greatest impact on people's worldviews, collective consciousness, and heritage perceptions (Apaydin 2016a). In nation states, particularly those constructed on the premise of single ethnicity, history education in schools is usually one-sided and programmatic, silencing aspects of the past which do not align closely with the national agenda, such as the histories of minority groups and prehistory (Apaydin 2016a).…”

“…Arguably, history education in schools has the greatest impact on people's worldviews, collective consciousness, and heritage perceptions (Apaydin 2016a). In nation states, particularly those constructed on the premise of single ethnicity, history education in schools is usually one-sided and programmatic, silencing aspects of the past which do not align closely with the national agenda, such as the histories of minority groups and prehistory (Apaydin 2016a). The strong effect of state ideology (which, in the case of Turkey, is filtered both through nationalism and religion) limits community understandings of heritage and exposure to different dimensions of the past, which foments neglect towards certain archaeological sites as well as plundering and looting.…”