Economic Rights , Heritage Sites and Communities : Sustainability and Protection Derechos económicos , sitios patrimoniales y comunidades : sostenibilidad y protección

Recent studies have widely discussed cultural heritage and property rights, rights to knowledge for indigenous and local communities, human rights in relation to cultural heritage, as well as impact of tourism on local communities and sustainable development through cultural heritage and past materials. This paper raises the ethical issues of economic income from cultural heritage by addressing the issue of why local and indigenous communities should have the right to design their economic development and directly benefit through and from their local heritage. In this paper, I argue that, as part of their human rights, local and indigenous communities should have the right to decide how to develop and use their local heritage as an ‘economic resource’ and, furthermore, that the profit from heritage tourism (i.e., sites, museums) should return to local and indigenous communities. I will look at three archaeological/heritage sites and their associated local communities in Turkey in order to demonstrate the pitfalls of neglecting the communities’ rights to decide on local heritage and to directly benefit economically from the heritage sites. By using an economic rights-centered approach, I will address the potential benefits of acknowledging these aspects and offer sustainable solutions.


Introduction
The discipline of archaeology has greatly transformed, especially in its theoretical approaches and methodologies, in the last several decades.The development of public archaeology and cultural heritage studies has, without doubt, substantially changed archaeology and the perception of archaeologists regarding archaeological and heritage sites as well as past materials.Since these transformations began within the discipline, cultural heritage and intellectual property rights (Meskell and Pels 2005;Carman 2005; Nicholas and Bannister 2004;Smith 2004); rights to knowledge (Atalay 2012; Nicholas and Hollowell 2004); political and ideological use of past and the use of nationalist approaches to archaeology (Kohl and Fawcett 1995;Meskell 1998);colonialism (McGuire 2008); engagement with indigenous and local communities (Jameson 1997;Merriman 2004; Okamura and Matsuda 2011; see Silberman 2007); top down, participatory and bottom up approaches (Apaydin 2015); heritage and tourism (Chhabra 2010); the ethics of cultural heritage (Ireland and Schofield 2015); and the importance of archaeology and education (Apaydin 2016a;Corbishley 2011;Henson 2004) have all been widely discussed and implemented in many projects around the world.The importance of human past and heritage materials has been recognized and international treaties, such as the Venice Charter and the Nara Document, and international heritage bodies, such as ICOMOS and UNESCO, have put forth criteria and norms for the protection and preservation of heritage sites and have acknowledged the local and indigenous communities' rights to participate in the management of the cultural heritage in their local areas in theory.
However, cultural heritage and the approach to past materials have become a 'selling point' (Francis-Lindsay 2009: 152; see Silberman 2007) of capitalism and become 'engines of local and regional development' (Silberman 2007), or tools of tourism and trade (Baram and Rowan 2004) for individual countries, particularly since neoliberal policies were introduced beginning in the 1980s (Apaydin 2016b).Having specific heritage and archae-ological sites listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites has become no more than a means to bring more tourists to regions of countries, with the corresponding profit.Within these new approaches to archaeology and heritage, the UNESCO-World Heritage Convention has also made the development of site management plans for nominated World Heritage status heritage sites compulsory.Most of these site management plans have aimed at sustainable development for the local communities by bringing more visitors and tourists to the region.However, in most cases, most of the communities, in practice, have been excluded from being or only partly involved with the development of heritage management plans.The local communities are also deprived of using their local heritage resource and get no direct income from it.Most countries' heritage laws and legislation have also oversimplified this important component of protecting and preserving heritage in the long term; these laws are also often in conflict with the norms and criteria of the international heritage bodies.
In this paper, I will address the issue of why local and indigenous communities should have the right to design their economic development and directly benefit through and from their local heritage.Further, I will discuss how this can impact on heritage awareness of local communities.To contextualize the concept of heritage, I will first briefly discuss the practice and historical context of heritage; followed by a discussion on how heritage become a tool of capitalism.This is later followed by a justification of why local communities have the right to directly benefit economically, as part of their economic rights.Finally, I will introduce three case studies, bringing local communities' views into account.

Aims and methodology
The aims of this paper are 1) to understand the importance of the economic development of local and indigenous communities through local heritage and 2) to show that local and indigenous communities have the right to manage and economically benefit from local heritage, and 3) to understand the impact of direct economic benefit from local heritage on local and indigenous communities' heritage awareness and protection of heritage sites.To achieve these aims, this paper contextualizes the use of heritage concept historically, discusses three internationally significant sites, which have been listed as World Heritage Sites by UNES-CO, and then looks at the views of the communities associated with these three heritage sites.
In this study, I used an ethnographic methodology that includes qualitative semi-structured interviews and participant observations.This was used to assess local community perceptions of their local heritage from the aspect of participating in the management and benefitting economically from the heritage site, and its impact on their heritage awareness.The interviews allowed me to understand local opinions regarding participation in the economic development of their region through heritage sites and the impact of benefitting economically from the site on their heritage perception.Questions asked included: 'Have you participated in the management of the heritage site?', 'Do you get any economic benefit from the site?', 'What are your economic priorities?' and 'What do you expect from the heritage site?'.The participant observations then helped me to understand the daily lives, needs and priorities of the local communities.

The Practice and Historical Context of Heritage
The concept and use of heritage are not recent developments, but have always been with people; values have been ascribed by different people in different periods with different requirements (Harvey 2001: 320).Because of this, heritage is a socio-cultural practice that has meaning as well as knowledge and power (Smith 2006: 14-15).Heritage, then, is a discourse (Smith 2006) rather than simply a 'historical narrative' (Harvey 2007: 21).Discourses are structures of skill that comprise the formation of information and anything that encompasses knowledge is related to power (Foucault 1991).Therefore, heritage has been considered as powerful objects or powerful discourses that have developed over time and have been used for different purposes.
The discourse of heritage goes back in time many years and the heritage as a concept started in the Renaissance (Lowenthal 2006).The Renaissance was a period of societal and intellectual transformation spanning from the 14 th to 17 th centuries in Europe (West and Ansell 2010).The 17 th through 19 th centuries witnessed another large transformation in Europe, which resulted new ways of thinking, new worldviews, as well as the development of sciences and interest in the material culture of the past.Therefore, the approach to the past and past materials also changed (West and Ansell 2010).For instance, during the 18 th century, the establishment of museums became quite common and were considered as a representation of the 'knowledge of the world' (o.c.), and therefore a representation of power as Foucault (1991: 887-104) points out.
During the 19 th century, colonial and imperial powers faced ethnic and regional uprisings that led to increasing nationalism, especially in Europe (Trigger 2006), and resulted in new nation states.The concept of heritage had also been affected and shifted once again.During this period and into the 20 th century, which is also known as the centuries of 'invented traditions' (Hobsbawn 1983: 1-14), the interest, purpose of use and studying the past transformed, and the past was used and considered as a tool to search for traces of the past (Kohl and Fawcett 1995;Trigger 2006).The main reason for the political interest and use of archaeology, heritage and past materials was instability and conflict of countries and nations during the 19 th and 20 th centuries (Diaz-Andreu 1995;Trigger 2006: 249).The argument was that instability and political unrest could be solved by learning from the past (Trigger 2006: 249); 'knowledge' of the past could also legitimize particular people's national past.For instance, Greeks delved deeply into their national and ethnic past and made connections with Classical and Byzantine heritage (Trigger 2006: 249).In the case of Turkey, during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalists saw the solution by gathering around nationalistic values to construct and consolidate a nation and nation state, which had to be legitimized historically by linking it with the past (Atakuman 2008;Apaydin 2015).
Although the political use of the past and heritage was nothing new, during the 20 th century, cultural heritage and past materials became more of an international subject.The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which aimed to create a global heritage framework, which could monitor each member country's attitude towards heritage, was established.In the following years, sub-bodies and institutions were established to protect heritage and past materials, such as the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).Agreements were signed, including the Venice Charter and the Nara Document.In 1972, the World Heritage Convention was established under UNESCO, which aimed to protect the world cultural and natural heritage, and in 2003, the convention for Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage (Logan et al 2010: 6) was founded to safeguard intangible heritage, such as oral histories, traditions, skill, knowledge, songs, dance, and music.

The Use of Heritage as a Commodity
The use of heritage and past materials were mostly related to politics, ideology and ownership rights of the territories in last couple of centuries, though new forms and meanings have been ascribed since Neoliberalism was introduced, which widely impacted in every part of society as well as state institutions (Harvey 2005).The use and implementation of Neoliberal policies have greatly negatively impacted societies, because they have changed, often destroying, lifeways, people's perception of life and economical structure (Harvey 2005: 3).These negative changes have also left large portions of the population in poverty.The main reason for this massive transformation is that Neoliberalism needs resources to continue with its 'free markets'.Hence, archaeological and heritage sites and even museums have become resources for the free markets; they have become places for creating profit (Apaydin 2016b).With this new form of structure, the role of archaeologists has also shifted.Previ-ously, during the nation-building process, archaeologists served the national interest of the nation states (Kohl and Fawcett 1995), however, with the strong pressure of Neoliberalism, archaeologists, as well as heritage professionals, have served the interests of Neoliberal policies by offering cultural heritage to the 'free market' in many parts of the world.
Many archaeological and heritage sites have been funded, or 'sponsored', by big corporations.Sites that can attract more tourists and, therefore, bring in more money, are funded, creating job opportunities for archaeologists and heritage specialists.This has made archaeologists and heritage specialists dependent on big corporations and sponsors.The case of UNESCO World Heritage Site, Çatalhöyük, is a good example as it has been sponsored by many big corporations in the past as well as the present (Hamilakis 2007-34;see Çatalhöyük Management Plan 2013).In Turkey, since the introduction of neoliberal policies, the construction and reconstruction of heritage sites, especially those in cities with monumental architecture that can bring in more tourists, has become quite common.For example, there was a project, run by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture in Diyarbakir (southeast Turkey) in 2013, which was called 'Reconstructing the city walls for tourism 1 '.In 2015, the city walls, enclosing a town, were listed as a UN-ESCO World Heritage Site.In the UK, the British Museum has been roundly criticized by environmentalists and others for accepting sponsorship from BP (British Petroleum); this sponsorship also involves ethical issues.
There are many other cases that could be mentioned.However, what can clearly be seen is that every stakeholder, e.g.archaeologists, heritage specialists, local councils, central government, tourism companies, economically benefits from large sums of the profit, and these stakeholders are highly involved with the development of the local region through heritage and dominate the decision-making process.But local communities do not benefit and are not part of the decision-making process.Some argue that, for example, cultural heritage tourism brings in job opportunities to local communities and contributes to the local economy (Silberman 2013).It is also true that some heritage sites can attract tourists (Silberman 2013: 221) and develop heritage tourism (Chhabra 2010).However, how is this sustainable?And how is this ethical when most of the profit shared by other stakeholders but not by local communities?As archaeologists and heritage specialists, we need to raise the question of how ethical our work is while we work in the local regions; consuming local heritage and making a profit from it through academia?How fair is excluding local communities while consuming local heritage?How is this different from colonizing lands and countries and imposing economic values?Is this not a breach of the human rights of the local communities?Below, I aim to demonstrate how this Neoliberal heritage management works by excluding local communities, consuming the local heritage and taking the profit through the discussion of three case studies in Turkey.

Ani: A Monumental Heritage site
Ani is located on the border of modern Turkey and Armenia in east Turkey (map 1).The site contains a considerable amount of standing architecture, mainly dating to the Medieval Armenian period (Marr 1934;Strzygowski 1918;Cowe 2001) Tourists come to Ani for a day trip and go back to city because there are no facilities, such as hotels and restaurants, to keep them there (Apaydin 2015).
The village of Ocakli is quite undeveloped.The closest health center is in the Kars city, which is 50km away.There are no sustainable Map 1. Location of case studies and surrounding communities.economic opportunities for the local communities, even for their basic needs.I asked local community members to describe their priorities.Almost all participants raise the issues of 'drinking water' and 'employment' (Apaydin 2015).In contrast, although they live nearby an internationally significant heritage site, no one pointed out the protection of Ani as an issue.Most of the locals complain about the fact that none of the tourists stay, so there is no resultant income.The site itself attracts 20.000 to 30.000 tourists every year, according to the tourism office in the city center.The site has an entrance fee (8 Turkish lira) which goes directly to the central government.Although the amount of money is not comparable to other tourist sites, it would still help to meet the basic needs of the community, something which has been pointed out by the locals.
The restoration and excavation projects are run during summer and for only a couple of months.The current excavation project is run by Turkish University and includes archaeologists and specialists, and the conservation proj-ect is run by the World Monument Fund.The projects employ locals, but only a limited number, and therefore, it makes little difference for their economic condition.Having said that, some of the locals did point out that during their employment, their health insurance was also paid for, which surely contributes to local's economy (Orbaşlı 2013 for contribution of sustainable excavation to local economies).Only four of the local community members are constantly employed (as guards for the site) and therefore, only four community members are directly benefitting economically of their heritage.Four people out of 650.In contrast, the central government, local council, hotels, tourism agencies and business in the city receive the large income from Ani.
During the development of the site management plan for the inscription to the UNESCO World Heritage List, local views were asked about regarding of Ani and the village governor was able to join some of the meetings with the council, the Tourism and Culture Ministry, heritage consultants and specialists about the management of Ani.However, there has been no initiative taken to solve the local community's problems (poverty, lack of infrastructure, etc) and their demands to benefit directly from the heritage site.Additionally, locals have not been even informed on how to participate on the management of the site.This, without doubt, is indicative of the 'top down approach', which excludes ordinary people from any decision-making processes.Therefore, while the local community has vitally important issues, such as lack of suitable drinking water and housing, and people are struggling to survive, is it ethical to deprive them of the direct economic benefit of Ani tourism and managing local heritage without the locals' participation?

Çatalhöyük: A Neolithic e
Çatalhöyük is located on the Konya plain in south central Turkey (see map 1).The site is significant because of its size, complex structure and status as one of the earliest Neolithic sites in Near East.The site has unique characteristics, such as sculpture and paintings on the walls of the houses and other elaborate finds (see During 2006; figs 3 and 4).The closest modern settlement is Küçükköy village, which is 10 minutes' walking distance from the site.Küçükköy village is populated by 695 people who have lived for generations in the area and used the site of Çatalhöyük as part of their landscape.The local economy is dependent mostly on agriculture and animal husbandry.Although the city, Konya, has considerable tourism because of its religious sites, Küçükköy village gets no benefit from tourism as it is quite isolated.Similarly, to the situation at Ani, tourists do not stay around Çatalhöyük; after visiting the site they go back to the city, and as such, locals do not have any opportunity to benefit from the heritage tourism.
The village is not developed but wealthier than the village of Ocakli, as they produce a high percentage of wheat and other agricultural products.Therefore, their priority is also shaping their economic structure: the locals pointed out in interviews that their priority is 'improvement in agriculture, health, infrastructure, education'.However, they also have a high economic expectation from the heritage sites which are located in their landscape.These sites have been protected until the present because of the local communities' existence around the heritage site: locals are the natural guards for heritage sites (Pearson and Sullivan 1995).
The site of Çatalhöyük has been excavated and systematic research has been carried out for 23 years by over 100 archaeologists and specialists, who come in for the excavation season from many different countries and represent 11 different scientific institutions (see Çatalhöyük Site Management Plan 2013: 39).In the past and today, the project has employed many community members as laborers at the site during the excavation season and their insurance is also paid for (see Orbaşlı 2013).Only three local members of the community are employed as site guards (thus providing constant employment).As with the case of Ani, the guards who economically benefit from the site do not represent the majority of the local community.
Çatalhöyük was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012 and since then, local ex-pectations have risen, regarding tourism increase and becoming more widespread.Most of the locals expect economic income and support from the site for the village development.This is also a reflection of Neoliberal policies, which imposes the idea of considering everything as a commodity from which to exact a profit.This thought process is common in many undeveloped regions of the world (Francis-Lindsay 2009: 153), and it is fair to say that nobody should expect locals to think otherwise, because they have very basic needs to address.
During the development of the site management plan, although the Çatalhöyük Research Project aimed to include local communities (see Çatalhöyük Site Management Plan 2013), most of the locals pointed out to the fact that they were not even aware of this process.Similarly, during the inscription of the site to UNSECO World Heritage List, it can clearly be seen that during the meetings, every stakeholder attended and took part in the decision making process, except for the local community members (not even the representative of the community was in the meeting) (see Human 2015).The Çatalhöyük Site Management Plan (2013: 40) also highlights one of the realities of top down approaches in countries where the centralized decision-making process is quite dominant.In the section, 'decision makers', included in the Site Management Plan are: 'Governance (Ministry of the Interior), Culture and Tourism (Ministry of culture and Tourism), Tourism Agencies.'However, the local voices were completely neglected.The Çatalhöyük Research Project runs a festival every field season in which all locals are invited to join a site tour, visit the house excavation and attend a lecture.During these lectures, locals are informed in detail about the development of the site and excavations (see Çatalhöyük Archive Reports).This is, surely, well-intended, however, it is not enough for locals to be able to take part in the management of the development of local heritage.

Hattuşa: A Prehistoric Site
The site is in north central Turkey, in the city of Çorum (see map 1).The history of the site dates to the 3 rd millennium BC.It was the capital of Hittite Empire, which dominated the region during the second millennium BC (Seeher 1995(Seeher , 2002)).The town of Boğazköy/Boğaz-kale is located right next to Hattuşa (see figures 5 and 6).The site used to be an important part of the daily lives of the locals: it was where they used to graze their animals in the valleys and streams of the site, until it was declared a first degree protected area.The population of the town is 1290, and their economy is mostly dependent on agriculture and animal husbandry.
The small town is quite developed as it has education and health facilities, however, locals still have expectations on the improvement in agriculture, income from tourism, and employment as well as concerns about the protection law that bans them from grazing their animals on the site.In contrast to the cases of Ani and Çatalhöyük, the site attracts a considerable number of tourists, and the town has tourist facilities with hotels, restaurants and souvenir shops.However, most of the tourists do not stay, after a day trip, the tourists go back to the city or other touristy places.Because of the tourist attraction, locals have had the opportunity to develop some skills, such as stone carving, the products of which can be sold to tourists.The important part of this skill development is that it has become a tradition and the knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next (Apaydin 2015).Many of the locals earn in- come during the high tourist season, which is a positive impact and which can be seen in many heritage sites (Chhabra 2009: 4) However, like the other case studies, large sums of the site income, such as site entrance fees, go to the central government, or to tourism agencies.Most of the locals in the town point out this unequal proportioning of the site income, as it is noted for other parts of the world (Silberman 2013).
Another difference of this site, compared to Ani and Çatalhöyük, is that the town of Boğazköy also has a local museum where the findings of Hattuşa are exhibited.I discuss elsewhere the importance of local museums, where local communities can see and feel the sense of objects, which is quite empowering (see Apaydin 2017).However, this local museum also raises another ethical issue: again, the locals do not directly economically benefit because the entrance fee and museum profits go directly to the central government.
The site was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1989, and has been excavated and researched for over 100 years.In the past, locals were employed as laborers for as long as six months of the year, and therefore, it had quite a large impact on their economy.Today, the research project still employs many locals, but for a much shorter period.The local community is still neglected in terms of the decision-making process, because they are not taking part in the management of their local heritage.
In contrast to Çatalhöyük and Ani, the archaeologists of the site have had quite exceptional relationships with the locals and some of the locals are employed as specialists at the site and laboratory.Opportunities have been offered to locals to develop skills.Some locals became masonry specialists because they had much experience during the work at the site and their local knowledge had been taken into account.Additionally, and most importantly, some of the locals were given training and became ceramic specialists, and thus were able to evaluate the finds from the heritage site.This, without doubt, has given locals an opportunity to take part in the interpretation of their local heritage.This is also a right of local communities (Silberman 2012: 9); it also increased their heritage awareness, resulting in Hattuşa being highly protected by the locals (Apaydin 2017).
However, the issues of having the right to manage economic development, economically benefitting and managing local heritage sites continues for the local community of Hattuşa because they are excluded from important stages.All in all, these three different heritage sites and associated communities, differing in scales, emphasize that local communities need to have the right to manage their local heritage and have economic rights to those sites, rights which I argue should be considered as human rights.More importance should be paid to this significant aspect as I will discuss below.

Discussion: Economic Rights as Human Right
The concepts of the rights of individuals, groups and communities has been disputed and widely discussed for a long time.During the 18 th century, liberalism brought the idea of free speech, which argued that all people (although it was mostly for male Western bourgeois) had the right to act and speak freely.However, liberalism enabled capitalism to spread capitalist ideas under the umbrella of the 'rights of the people', because the general public was excluded from having rights.In contrast, during the 19 th century, socialist movements advocated that human rights had to be valid internationally, and should include everyone (Ishay 2004).Just after World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was accepted by the general assembly of the United Nations (Ishay 2004).The declaration focused on basic liberties, e.g.freedom of life, expressing thought freely, practicing religion freely (Ishay 2004).
Following the Human Rights declaration, in 1954 Hague Convention was adopted after specific events such as ethnic cleaning of groups of people and the destruction of cultural heritage during WWI and II.However, it was still not sufficiently clarified the linkage between and the importance of cultural heritage as part of human rights and therefore, in 1966, the UNESCO Declaration on the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation (see Logan et al 2010: 5) stated and acknowledged this significant aspect more explicitly in relation to human rights.In 1972, the World Heritage Convention was declared (Logan et al. 2010: 6), which more clearly elucidated aspects of cultural heritage, and brought certain norms to be followed by countries for the protection of heritage.It also adopted criteria, which conditioned the participation of local communities in the management and economic development, such as tourism, of local heritage (see UNESCO action plan [2013][2014][2015].Finally, in 2003, with the convention of the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage (Logan et al. 2010: 6), intangible heritage, e.g.oral histories, traditions, skills, knowledge, songs, dance, and music, was also included in the heritage concept and put under protection.
All of these declarations happened after catastrophic events such as wars and cultural destruction in order to protect human rights and cultural heritage.However, no concerns have been raised and no international declarations have been made and constituted after the introduction of Neoliberalism, which has consumed local resources, including natural, tangible, and intangible heritage by large corporations, and which have become increasingly more common.The concept of Neoliberalism is surely very connected to human rights in relation to cultural heritage.Neoliberal ideas have 'marketed the past' (Silberman 2007) Vision (2012) where it was stated that 'benefits derived from well protected cultural and natural heritage properties should be equitably distributed to communities to foster their sustainable development'.That there should be 'participation' of individuals and communities (Shaheed 2011: 18) was pointed out by the Human Rights Council.This idea of local 'participation' needs to be critically examined, re-evaluated and questioned and new ideas must be implemented across individual sites and communities, because economic rights should be considered as a human right, too.Therefore, local communities who have direct relationship with the heritage sites should be at the center of any decision-making process of those heritage sites, not just 'participating'.The word 'participating' brings already ethical issues, and raises the question of why local communities or indigenous peoples should only 'participate' in the management of their heritage, which was and is developed and valued by the past and current local communities in actual fact.Is it ethical to ask them to 'participate' in something that already belongs to them? (see Document on Best Practices in World Heritage: People and Communities 2015).
The current practice in archaeology and heritage sector is not placing local communities at the center of the decision-making process, but rather it considers locals as outsiders who can only 'participate' and perhaps receive some of the economic benefit.This is not different than, for instance, local people who work in the coffee bean farms in South America, carry out all the work, but only receive a very small, unethical, portion of the profit, which goes mostly to corporations.In the case of many management plans of heritage sites, the local councils, government officials, archaeologists, and heritage specialists take the initiative and make the decisions; part of the formality is that they 'consult' with local communities.In most cases, the consultant stays with a few of the local community members or with a representative, such as, in the case of Turkey, with village governor.Therefore, the consultation does not represent the actual proportion of the community because it only includes the 'leaders' of the community Logan 2012: 236;Timothy and Boyd 2003).
Excluding local communities from their local heritage is very dangerous in the long term.Instead of this current trend, which reflects Neoliberalism in the management of archaeology and heritage sites, local communities or indigenous peoples should be at the center of the process.The role of other stakeholders, such as councils, archaeologists and heritage spe-cialists, should be to encourage and empower locals to take the initiative, if necessary by giving them training and assistance (see Caldwell 1996 for the case study of Overhil program in Tennessee; Chhabra 2010: 67), to take the control of the heritage sites, which is also part of their habitus, and getting direct economic benefit from it.This is not a 'participatory' approach but an economic rights centered approach, which will also lead to the increase of heritage awareness of communities and lead to better protection of heritage sites, as similar to 'human rights based approach' (Logan 2012: 241).

Conclusion: As part of the hope to change things!
Indeed, natural, intangible or tangible heritage can attract tourists and offers opportunities for economic benefit.There is no way of avoiding this.Additionally, none has the right to deprive people of their right to gain knowledge through visiting cultural heritage sites and looking at past materials in the sites and museums.However, the question remains: 'Who has the right to benefit economically?'Without doubt, every stakeholder who spends energy, time and investment on cultural heritage, which is part of the human past, has the right to benefit economically.However, this economic benefit from heritage should be organized bottom-up, not top-down.Specifically, 'bottom up' means that the local community should be right at the center of managing and gaining economic benefit from cultural heritage, and local communities should not be considered stakeholders but 'rights-holders', such as it is advocated for indigenous peoples (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs 2012) and 'prime creators and owners' (Sullivan 2005: 51).
Many heritage sites, including Ani, Çatalhöyük, and Hattuşa, are also a part of the locals' lives, and at these sites the memories and values that have been ascribed to them by local communities.Therefore, local communities have first-degree ownership rights of this local heritage.Furthermore, it is not ethical for outsiders, such as archaeologists, heritage specialists, council or tourism agencies, to change the meanings and values, as well as the relationship between the heritage and local communities, without placing every single individual of each community at the center of the decision-making process.Some argue that in many undeveloped regions, locals do not have the capacity to manage economic development or heritage sites.However, this is very similar to colonialist ideas that oversimplifies local knowledge and tradition.The economic rights centered approach provides opportunities for locals to take action for managing their local heritage and gaining direct and ethical economic benefits from those heritage sites, which in turn will also increase the heritage awareness of the locals, and will reflect on the sustainable protection for any heritage sites.
, as well as Seljuk, Persian and Georgian remains (figs 1 and 2).The site has been inscribed to the World Heritage List of UNESCO.The closest modern settlement is Ocakli village, which is located right next to the heritage site.The village has a population of about 650 people.Most of the locals had lived in the caves of Ani until 1950s, and next to the site for generations until the present day.They have built a different dimensional relationship with the site, because it has been a part of their life.They have developed memories of and ascribed values to site over many years.The local community's economy is dependent on agriculture and animal farming.Locals do not receive much income from tourism of Ani.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.Over view of Hattuşa and modern town.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Archaeological excavation and restoration at the site.
, and have succeeded in excluding local communities from managing their local heritage, gaining direct and ethical economic benefits.Instead, most of the income from heritage has gone to corporations and other stakeholders.In places where resources are available, local communities have been considered only as cheap labor.