“BALKAN ÜLKELER‹ KÜTÜPHANELER ARASIB‹LG‹-BELGE YÖNET‹M‹ VE ‹fiB‹RL‹⁄‹”

SEMPOZYUMU B‹LD‹R‹LER‹5-7 Haziran 2008, Edirne / Türkiye

5-7 June 2008, Edirne / Turkey

Yay›na Haz›rlayanlar / EditorsEnder B‹LAR, Yaflagül EK‹NC‹

Edirne-2008

Trakya Üniversitesi Rektörlü¤ü Yay›nlar› No: 87

“Information –Documentation Management and Cooperation among the Libraries in the Balkan Countries” Symposium Papers

Summary: The word “balkan” in Turkish means therange of wooded mountains. It was first used for BalkanMountains in Bulgaria. Later in the 19th century, the wordwas used to describe the Balkan Peninsula as a geographi-cal region. The region was ruled by the Ottoman Empirefor a long time and harsh independence wars took placeduring the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the20th centuries. Great human tragedies were experiencedby the peoples of various languages, religions and ethnicbackrounds who then populated the region. The politicalunrest in the Balkans continued throughout the 20th centu-ry, especially during the the First and Second World Warsand the years after the Cold War ended. The process ofbuilding “nation states” in the region still continues.

The word “balkan” took on, albeit unjustly, a pejorativemeaning due to wars, turbulence and disarray experiencedin certain parts of the Balkans for the last two centuries andnew derivations of the word with negative connotations(e.g., “balkanization”) came into existence. This may wellbe the reason why Slovenia refused to be identified as a“Balkan country” after Yugosavia was dissolved in 1992.Countries in the Balkan Peninsula seem to prefer nowadaysbeing identified as “Southeast European” or (in the case ofSlovenia and Croatia) “Central European” countries(Balkans, 2008). Some sources continue to identify thewhole “Balkans” as a “dangerous place to live in”(Dangerous, 2008).

There are “currently” 12 independent states in theregion including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia,Albania and Macedonia. Some 75 million people live inthe Balkan Peninsula. If the people living in the Anatolianpart of Turkey, which does not geographically belong to theBalkans, is added, the total population of the Balkan coun-tries rises to 139 million (the 2007 data), which makes upsome 18% of the European population. The quality of lifein the region is much lower than that of the average of theEuropean Union (EU) countries. For instance, some 25.5%of the population have access to the Internet in Balkancountries as compared to 55.7% of the EU countries. Thereare some 35 million people with the Internet access in theregion (16 million of which are from Turkey).1 Compared

8

Balkan Ülkeleri Aras›nda Bilimsel ve Kültürel Bilgilerin Korunmas› ve Yönetiminde ‹flbirli¤i

Cooperation in the Preservation and Management of Scientific andCultural Information among Balkan Countries

Prof. Dr. Yaflar Tonta

Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü, Ankara. e-mail: tonta@hacettepe.edu.tr

Özet: Türkçe “balkan” sözcü¤ü ormanl›k s›rada¤lar an-lam›na gelmektedir. Günümüzde Bulgaristan s›n›rlar› için-de bulunan Balkan Da¤lar› için kullan›lan bu sözcük 19.yüzy›lda Balkan Yar›madas›n› tan›mlamak için de kullan›l-maya bafllanm›flt›r. Çeflitli dil ve dinlere mensup nüfusunyaflad›¤› ve uzun süre Osmanl› yönetiminde kalan bu top-raklarda 19. yüzy›l›n sonunda ve 20. yüzy›l›n bafllar›nda çe-tin ba¤›ms›zl›k savafllar› yap›lm›fl, büyük insani trajedileryaflanm›flt›r. I. ve II. Dünya Savafllar›nda ve So¤uk Savafl›izleyen y›llarda da siyasi çalkalanmalara sahne olan Bal-kanlarda 19. yüzy›lda bafllayan ba¤›ms›z “ulus-devletler”kurma süreci halen devam etmektedir.

Bölgede yaklafl›k iki yüzy›ld›r yaflanan geliflmeler za-manla “balkan” sözcü¤üne haks›z bir biçimde olumsuz biranlam yüklenmesine neden olmufl, “balkanlaflt›rma” gibinegatif anlam› olan yeni sözcükler türetilmifltir. Belki dek›smen bu nedenle 1992’de Yugoslavya’n›n da¤›lmas› s›ra-s›nda Slovenya bir “Balkan ülkesi” olarak an›lmay› reddet-mifltir. Günümüzde Balkan ülkeleri “Güneydo¤u Avrupa”ya da (Slovenya ve H›rvatistan’›n durumunda oldu¤u gibi)“Orta Avrupa” ülkeleri olarak da an›lmaktad›r (Balkans,2008). Ama baz› kaynaklarda halen ayr›m yap›lmaks›z›ntüm Balkan ülkeleri “tehlikeli” olarak nitelendirilebilmek-tedir (Dangerous, 2008).

Balkanlarda aralar›nda Yunanistan, Bulgaristan, Ro-manya, S›rbistan, Arnavutluk ve Makedonya’n›n da bulun-du¤u “halen” 12 ba¤›ms›z ülke bulunmakta ve bu ülkelerdeyaklafl›k 75 milyon insan yaflamaktad›r. Bu say›ya co¤rafiolarak Balkanlara dahil olmayan Anadolu’da yaflayan Tür-kiye nüfusu da eklendi¤inde toplam nüfus 2007 verilerinegöre 139 milyona yükselmektedir. Avrupa nüfusunun yak-lafl›k %18’ini oluflturan Balkan ülkelerinde yaflam standart-lar› Avrupa Birli¤i ülkeleri ortalamas›ndan çok daha düflük-tür. Örne¤in, Avrupa Birli¤i ülkelerinde nüfusun %55,7’siInternet’e eriflim olana¤›na sahipken bu oran Balkan ülke-lerinde %25,5’tir. Balkan ülkelerinde 16 milyonu Türki-ye’den olmak üzere yaklafl›k 35 milyon Internet kullanc›s›bulunmaktad›r.1 H›rvatistan, Slovenya ve nispeten Yunanis-

1 Yüzdeler “Internet World Stats: Usage and population statistics.”http://www.internetworldstats.com adresinden al›nm›flt›r. Balkanülkeleriyle ilgili yüzdeler ilgili kaynakta yer alan say›lara dayanarakhesaplanm›flt›r. Türkiye tüm Avrupa ülkeleri s›ralamas›nda en fazlaInternet kullan›c›s› olan 7. ülkedir.

1 Percentages come from “Internet World Stats: Usage and populationstatistics.” http://www.internetworldstats.com. Percentages for Balkancountries were calculated on the basis of figures provided. Turkeyranks 7th among European countries in terms of the number of totalInternet users.

Balkan Ülkeleri Aras›nda Bilimsel ve Kültürel Bilgilerin Korunmas› ve Yönetiminde ‹flbirli¤i 9

tan d›fl›nda di¤er Balkan ülkelerinin Avrupa Araflt›rma veE¤itim A¤› GÉANT2’ye ba¤lant› kapasiteleri di¤er Avrupaülkeleriyle karfl›laflt›r›ld›¤›nda son derece mütevaz›d›r (GÉ-ANT2’, 2008). Toplam 127 ülkeyi içeren 2007-2008 A¤aHaz›rl›kl› Olma Endeksinde (Network Readiness Index)Balkan ülkeleri genellikle alt s›ralarda yer almaktad›r (Slo-venya 30., H›rvatistan 49., Türkiye 55., Yunanistan 56., Ro-manya 61., Bulgaristan 68., Makedonya 83., Bosna-Hersek95., Arnavutluk 108. s›rada).2

Yay›n say›s› temel al›nd›¤›nda yaklafl›k 100.000 civa-r›nda yay›nla dünya s›ralamas›nda s›ras›yla 21. ve 22. olanTürkiye ve Yunanistan d›fl›ndaki Balkan ülkelerinin dünyabilimine katk›lar› s›n›rl›d›r. Di¤er Balkan ülkeleri aras›ndaBulgaristan (53.795 yay›n), Romanya (53.269) ve “Yugos-lavia” (49.018) öne ç›kmaktad›r.3 Bu ülkeleri Yugoslav-ya’dan ayr›larak kurulan Slovenya (25.033), H›rvatistan(24.116), S›rbistan (9910), Makedonya (2272) ve Bosna-Hersek (1124) izlemektedir. Di¤er Balkan ülkelerinin bili-me katk›lar› çok düflüktür (Arnavutluk 780 yay›n, Karada¤317 ve Kosova 51).

Balkan ülkeleri aras›ndaki bilimsel iflbirli¤i de s›n›rl›d›r.Balkan ülkelerinde yaflayan bilim insanlar› çok az say›daortaklafla bilimsel yay›n yapmaktad›rlar. Örne¤in,100.000’den fazla yay›n› bulunan Türk bilim insanlar› Yu-nanl›, Romen ve Bulgar meslektafllar›yla s›ras›yla 428, 267ve 214 ortak yay›n yapm›fllard›r (tüm yay›nlar›n %0,2’si ile%0,4’ü). Benzeri bir biçimde Yunanl› bilim insanlar›n›nBulgar ve Romen meslektafllar›yla s›ras›yla 671 ve 482 or-tak yay›n› bulunmaktad›r. Bulgaristan ve Romanya adresliortak yay›nlar d›fl›nda (526) di¤er Balkan ülkeleri aras›ndabilimsel iflbirli¤i daha da s›n›rl›d›r.4

Balkan ülkeleri aras›ndaki mevcut bilimsel iflbirli¤i s›-n›rl› olmas›na karfl›n, söz konusu ülkeler çok zengin birkültürel miras› paylaflmaktad›rlar. Kültürel zenginli¤i olufl-turan an›tlar, entellektüel ve sanatsal eserler Balkanlarda

to the other European countries, the Balkan countries areconnected to the GÉANT2, the high-speed EuropeanResearch and Education Network, with modest bandwidthcapacities (except Croatia, Slovenia and, to some extent,Greece) (GÉANT2, 2008). The Balkan countries usuallyranked low in the Networked Readiness Index of 2007-2008 comparing a total of 127 countries in the world(Slovenia ranks 30th, Croatia 49th, Turkey 55th, Greece56th, Romania 61st, Bulgaria 68th, Macedonia 83rd,Bosnia & Herzegovina 95th, and Albania 108th).2

Contributions of the Balkan countries to the world ofscience are limited. Based on the total number of publica-tions listed in citation indexes, Turkey and Greece, eachwith more than 100,000 publications to their credit, ranks21st and 22nd, respectively, in the world. Other Balkancountries have fewer publications (Bulgaria: 53,795 publi-cations; Romania: 53,269; and “Yugoslavia”: 49,018).3The newly established states (after Yugoslavia’s split) pub-lished even fewer papers (Slovenia: 25,033; Croatia:24,116; Serbia: 9,910; Macedonia: 2,272; and Bosnia &Herzegovina: 1,124). Albania, Montenegro and Kosovofollow these countries with 780, 317 and 51 papers, respec-tively.

The scientific cooperation among Balkan countries isalso limited. Very few joint papers were published in thepast by scholars living in the Balkan countries. Forinstance, Turkish scholars published 428 joint papers withtheir colleagues in Greece, 267 with Bulgaria and 214 withRomania (much less than 0.5% of all papers with theTurkish addresses). Similarly, Greek scholars published671 and 482 joint papers with their Bulgarian andRomanian colleagues, respectively. Bulgarian andRomanian scientists produced 526 scientific papers togeth-er. The scientific cooperation among other Balkan coun-tries is even scarcer.4

2 Bkz. “The Networked Readiness Index 2007–2008 rankings”. (2008).Danimarka, ‹sveç, ‹sviçre ve ABD ilk dört s›rada yer almaktad›r.

3 Balkan ülkelerinin yay›n say›lar›yla ilgili veriler ISI Web ofKnowledge (Thomson Scientific) veri taban›ndan (http://apps.isi-knowledge.com/) sa¤lanm›flt›r (21 Nisan 2008) (Thomson, 2008).Yugoslavya ile ilgili veriler do¤al olarak çeflitli dönemlerde bu adlaan›lan co¤rafi bölgeyi ve siyasi oluflumlar› kapsamaktad›r. (1992 önce-si Yugoslavya Sosyalist Federal Cumhuriyeti, 1992-2003 aras› Bosna-Hersek, H›rvatistan, Slovenya ve Makedonya’n›n ba¤›ms›zl›klar›n›ilan etmelerinden sonra kurulan ve S›rbistan ve Karada¤’dan oluflanYugoslavya Federal Cumhuriyeti, 2003-2006 aras› S›rbistan veKarada¤’dan oluflan birlik, Karada¤’›n 2006’da yap›lan referandumsonucu birlikten ayr›lmas›yla ayr› ayr› ülkeler olarak S›rbistan veKarada¤ (Federal, 2008). Son olarak Kosova fiubat 2008’de S›rbis-tan’dan ayr›larak ba¤›ms›zl›¤›n› ilan etmifltir.) Benzeri sorunlar di¤erBalkan ülkeleri için de geçerlidir. Örne¤in, Makedonya’n›n yay›nsay›s› hesaplan›rken Yunanistan’›n Makedonya bölgesindeki adresler-le Makedonya Cumhuriyetine ait adresler ayr› ayr› de¤erlendirilmifltir.

4 Ortak yay›n say›lar› ISI Web of Knowledge (Thomson Scientific) veritaban›ndaki (http://apps.isiknowledge.com/) “‹leri Arama” (AdvancedSearch) seçene¤i kullan›larak elde edilmifl, örne¤in, Bulgaristan veRomanya adresli ortak yay›n say›s›n› bulmak için sisteme “ad=(bul-garia and romania)” sorgusu girilmifltir.

2 See “The Networked Readiness Index 2007–2008 rankings”. (2008).Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA share the top ranks in thatorder.

3 Figures of the number of publications for Balkan countries wereobtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge database of ThomsonScientific, Inc. (http://apps.isiknowledge.com/) on 21 April 2008(Thomson, 2008). Data about Yugoslavia covers the geographic areaand the political entities that existed under the name of “Yugoslavia”during different time periods in the last century and beyond. (Forinstance, Yugoslavia was known as the Socialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia prior to 1992. Then Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia andBosnia & Herzegovina declared independence in 1992 and the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia comprising Serbia and Montenegro was set up.The Federal Republic was reconstituted in 2003 as the State Union ofSerbia and Montenegro. In 2006, a referendum was held and theMontenegrins chose to be an independent state. Therefore Serbia andMontenegro, the remnants of the former Yugoslavia, became separateindependent states (Federal, 2008). Lastly, Kosovo declared her inde-pendence from Serbia in February 2008). This was also the case forMacedonia: addresses that belonged to the Republic of Macedonia andthose that belonged to Greece’s Macedonia Region were identified andthe number of publications were calculated accordingly.

4 Figures of the number of joint papers for Balkan countries wereobtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge database of ThomsonScientific, Inc. (http://apps.isiknowledge.com/) through the “AdvancedSearch” option. For example, the search query “ad=bulgaria and roma-nia” was used in order to identify papers jointly published by theBulgarian and Romanian scholars.

10 Y. Tonta

son iki yüzy›ld›r yaflanan çalkant›l› dönemlerden etkilen-mifl, savafllar ve ihmal ne yaz›k ki Balkan toplumlar›n›n ba-z› yarat›c› ürünlerinin kayb›na ve dolay›s›yla ortak kültürelzenginli¤inin azalmas›na neden olmufltur (Riedlmayer,1995a, 1995b).5

Bunun nedenlerinden biri de “ulus-devlet” yaratma sü-recinin kendisidir. Çünkü her devlet kendi vatandafllar›n›insani ödev ve haklar› temel alarak de¤il, genellikle dil, dinya da etnik köken birli¤ini temel alarak tan›mlama yolunagitmektedirler. Bu durum “öteki” (other) olarak tan›mlananve daha önce ayn› topraklarda yaflayan toplumlar›n üretti¤ikültürel zenginliklerin yeni “ulus-devlet”in vatandafllar› ta-raf›ndan ihmal edilmesine yol açmaktad›r. Asl›na bak›l›rsabu yaklafl›m yeni oluflturulan “ulus-devlet”in baflat kimli¤iya da kültürü aç›s›ndan da iyi bir deneyim oluflturmamakta,ortak kültürel zenginlik ürünleri bundan olumsuz etkilen-mektedir (Mac an Airchinnigh, Sotirova ve Tonta, 2006).Bunun son örneklerinden biri 25-26 A¤ustos 1992 gecesiBosna-Hersek Ulusal ve Üniverite Kütüphanesi yak›ld›¤›zaman yafland›. Zgonjanin (2005, s. 136-137) kütüphanedebulunan çeflitli kültürlere ait nesnelerin kayb›n› flöyle ta-n›mlamaktad›r:

Bosnal› S›rp güçler taraf›ndan düflman hedefi olarak se-çildi¤i iddia edilen Saraybosna Ulusal ve Üniversite Kütüp-hanesinin Bosna-Hersek’te yaflam›fl olan Müslüman, S›rp,H›rvat, Yahudi ve di¤er tüm milletlerin tarihini ve kültürelmiras›n› içermesi ironiktir. O bölgede yüzy›llarca var olankültürel ço¤ulculu¤un parças› oldu¤u için kendi kültürelmiras›n› yok etmek kültürel intihar anlam›na gelmekteolup, ayn› zamanda kültürün girift do¤as›n› da a盤a ç›kar-maktad›r. Bu [kütüphanenin yok edilmesi], kültürün soyut-lanm›fl bir varl›k olmad›¤›n›, baflka milletlerin kültürünüyok etmekle ayn› zamanda kendi kültürümüzü de yok etti-¤imizi, çünkü tüm kültürlerin iç içe geçti¤ini ve birbirineba¤›ml› oldu¤unu gösteren örnek bir vakayd›.

Belki de “Balkan Alzheimer’› hastal›¤›” “öteki”nin ken-di kültürümüze yapt›¤› katk›lar› hat›rlamam›z› engellemek-tedir (De Bernières, 2008, s. 51).6

Saraybosna örne¤inin de gösterdi¤i gibi, kültürel mira-s›n yok edilmesi baflat kültürün kazand›¤›, “öteki”nin kül-türünün kaybetti¤i toplam› s›f›r olan bir oyun (zero-sum ga-me) de¤ildir. Hatta bu deneyim sadece her iki taraf›n dakaybetti¤i bir oyun olarak bile nitelendirilemez. Durum da-ha da kötüdür. Çünkü “öteki”nin kültürünün baflat oldu¤uülkelerde de genellikle benzeri bir deneyim yaflanmaktad›r.Sonuçta her iki kültürün zenginliklerinin yok olmas›na ek

Although the scientific cooperation is limited amongBalkan countries, these countries share a very rich culturalheritage. Monuments, intellectual and artistic works mak-ing up the cultural heritage have been affected by the tur-bulent times experienced in the Balkans for the last twocenturies. Some creative works of the Balkan communitieswere unfortunately lost forever due to wars and negligence,thereby decreasing the common cultural riches of theregion (Riedlmayer, 1995a, 1995b).5

One of the causes of this is the nation-building processitself. For, each nation identifies its citizens not on thebasis of civic duties and rights, but, usually, on the basis oflanguage, religion, ethnic background or a combinationthereof. In the end, the cultural heritage of the people wholived in the same country earlier but were identified as the“other” in the nation-building process, tends to get neglect-ed by the citizens of the new “nation state”. As a matter offact, this is not a good experience for the dominant cultureof the new nation state, either, as the works of the commoncultural heritage gets affected negatively (Mac anAirchinnigh, Sotirova ve Tonta, 2006). A recent example ofthis was experienced when the National and UniversityLibrary of Bosnia and Herzegovina was destructed duringthe night of August 25/26, 1992. Zgonjanin (2005, p. 136-137) describes the loss of the artifacts of all culturesinvolved more eloquently:

It is ironic that the National and University Library ofSarajevo, identified as an enemy target allegedly by Bosnian Serbforces, contained the history and cultural heritage of all the peo-ples who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Muslims, Serbs,Croats, Jews, and others. Destroying one’s own cultural heritagebecause it is part of the cultural pluralism that existed on that ter-ritory for centuries seemed to be cultural suicide and at the sametime exposed the intricate nature of culture. This was an exempla-ry case showing that culture is not an isolated entity and that bydestroying other people’s culture one destroys one’s own at thesame time, for all cultures are interwoven and depend on eachother.

Perhaps “the Balkan Alzheimer’s disease” prevents usfrom remembering the contributions of the “other” to ourvery own culture! (De Bernières, 2008, s. 51).6

As the Sarajevo example shows, destroying culturalheritage is not a “zero-sum game” in which the dominantculture wins and the culture of the “other” loses. This can-not even strictly be described as a game in which both par-ties lose. It is worse than that because a similar experienceis usually repeated in the country where the culture of the“other” is the dominant one. Consequently, not only do thecultural riches of both countries get lost, but also the

5 Savafllar›n kültürel zenginlik üzerindeki y›k›c› etkileri günümüzdeBalkanlara çok uzak olmayan ülkelerde de sürmektedir. Profesör Macan Airchinnigh’nin (2004) dijital korumayla ilgili yaz›s› Mart 2003’teIrak Milli Kütüphanesi dermelerinin yak›larak yok edilmesi ile ilgiliçarp›c› bir giriflle bafllamaktad›r.

6 Louis de Bernières (2008) A Partisan’s Daughter adl› son roman›ndaTürklerden, H›rvatlardan, Arnavutlardan ve hemen hemen herkestennefret eden Roza adl› bir S›rp kad›n›n› betimlerken “BalkanAlzheimer’› hastal›¤›” esprisini kullanm›flt›r. “Hasta”n›n kin d›fl›ndaher fleyi unutmas› vurgulanmaktad›r (s. 51).

5 The destructive effects of wars on cultural riches are still being expe-rienced in geographical regions not too far from the Balkans.Professor Mac an Airchinnigh’s paper on digital preservation (2004)starts with a moving account of the destruction of the collections of theNational Library of Iraq in March 2003.

6 In his last novel entitled A Partisan’s Daughter, the author Louis deBernières characterizes a Serbian woman (Roza) who hates Turks,Croats, Albanians and almost everyone and jokingly depicts her as aperson having “the Balkan Alzheimer’s disease” that would make one“forget everything but a grudge” (De Bernières, 2008, p. 51).

Balkan Ülkeleri Aras›nda Bilimsel ve Kültürel Bilgilerin Korunmas› ve Yönetiminde ‹flbirli¤i 11

olarak tüm insanl›k da bundan zarar görmektedir.

‹letiflim ve bilgi teknolojilerinin geliflmesiyle birlikte in-sanl›¤›n flimdiye kadar sahip oldu¤u bilgi (knowledge) deküreselleflmekte, farkl› yerlerde birden fazla kopyas› üreti-lebilen insanl›¤›n ortak belle¤i herkesin eriflimine aç›lmak-tad›r (Dyson, 1997, s. 10-11). Oysa kültürel zenginli¤imizioluflturan eserler yok oldu¤unda bunlar› geri getirmek ço¤uzaman mümkün de¤ildir. Kültürel zenginlikler sadece en-tellektüel ve sanatsal eserlerle s›n›rl› de¤ildir. Gösteriler veinsanlar›n di¤er yarat›c› ürünleri de bu zenginli¤in bir par-ças›d›r. Kültür olarak tan›mlanan söz konusu yarat›c› ürün-ler kaydedilmedikleri takdirde zamanla unutulmaktad›r.Kaydedilenlerin ömrü daha uzun olmakta ama sonunda on-lar da yok olmakad›r (Lyman ve Kahle, 1998).

Neyse ki son 10 y›lda dijitallefltirme çal›flmalar› h›z ka-zanm›fl, böylece ortak kültürel miras ürünlerini daha kal›c›kay›t alt›na alma olanaklar› do¤mufltur. 24 A¤ustos 2006 ta-rihli tavsiye karar› ile Avrupa Konseyi, üye ülkelerin kültü-rel materyalleri dijitallefltirme, bu materyallere çevrimiçieriflim sa¤lama ve dijital koruma ile ilgili önlemler almala-r›n› istemektedir. Bu amaçla içeri¤in dijitallefltirilmesi içinbüyük ölçekli dijitallefltirme olanaklar› yarat›lmas›, Avrupakültürel miras›na çevrimiçi eriflim sa¤lamak için AvrupaDijital Kütüphanesi’nin gelifltirilmesi, dijital materyallereeriflim sa¤lanmas› ve bu materyallerin uzun süreli korun-mas› için ulusal strateji ve planlar gelifltirilmesi önerilmek-tedir (Tonta, 2007a). Bu flekilde oluflturulan “dijital kültür”,kültürün genellikle iliflkili oldu¤u ulusal ve toplumsal s›n›r-lar› aflmaktad›r (Mac an Airchinnigh, 2008).7

Öte yandan, UNESCO’nun 2005 tarihli Kültürel Anla-t›mlar›n Çeflitlili¤inin Korunmas› ve Yüceltilmesi Konvan-siyonuna göre az›nl›klar›n ve yerli halklar›n kültürleri dedahil tüm kültürlere eflit itibar ve sayg› gösterilmesi gerek-mektedir (Mac an Airchinnigh, Sotirova ve Tonta, 2006).Bu konvansiyon, 1972 tarihli Dünya Kültürel ve Do¤al Mi-ras›n›n Korunmas› ve 2003 tarihli Manevi (Intangible) Kül-türel Miras›n Korunmas› konvansiyonlar›yla birlikte yarat›-c› çeflitlili¤in korunmas› ve yüceltilmesinin üç temel dire¤i-ni oluflturmaktad›r (Convention, 2005). Az›nl›klara ait kül-türel miras›n dijital ortama aktar›lmas› bu kültürleri tüm in-sanl›¤›n mal› haline getirmekte ve kültürel miras›n uzun dö-nemli korunmas› konusunda uluslararas› düzeyde iflbirli¤iyap›lmas›n› mümkün k›lmaktad›r.

Kütüphaneler, arflivler ve müzeler sahip olduklar› bilim-sel ve kültürel içeri¤i web arac›l›¤›yla herkesin eriflimineaçmak için çaba harcamakta ve giderek sanal güzergâhlarhaline gelmektedir (Tonta, 2007a, 2007b). Standartlar›n ge-lifltirilmesi ve birlikte çal›flabilir (interoperable) sistemlerinkurulmas› ile birlikte binlerce “aç›k arfliv” üzerinde ayn›anda “federe arama” yap›labilmektedir. Bu tür uygulamalar

humanity gets deprived of the part of its whole cultural her-itage.

The development of information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs) globalized the human knowledge and itis now possible to make the whole human memory accessi-ble to every individual and to reproduce it exactly in differ-ent places (Dyson, 1997, pp. 10-11). Yet, once lost it isalmost impossible to reproduce or recreate the cultural her-itage. Cultural riches are not limited with intellectual andartistic works only: performances and other creative prod-ucts of human beings (such as intangible cultural activities)are also a part of this cultural heritage. Cultural objects getforgotten as time passes, unless they are recorded.Although the recorded ones have longer lives, they tooeventually decay (Lyman & Kahle, 1998).

Fortunately, the efforts to digitize the works of culturalheritage in order to preserve them in perpetuum have accel-erated within the last decade. On August 24, 2006, theEuropean Commission (EC) adopted a “Recommendationon the Digitisation and Online Accessibility of CulturalMaterial and Digital Preservation” urging members to setup large scale digitization facilities for cultural materials, toprovide online access to Europe’s cultural heritage throughthe European Digital Library, and to develop nationalstrategies and plans for the long-term preservation of andaccess to digital material

(Tonta, 2007a). The “digital culture” thus created“transcends the national and social boundaries with whichculture is usually associated” (Mac an Airchinnigh, 2008).7

On the other hand, the 2005 Convention on theProtection and Promotion of the Diversity of CulturalExpressions of UNESCO presupposes “recognition ofequal dignity of and respect for all cultures, including thecultures of persons belonging to minorities and indigenouspeoples” (Mac an Airchinnigh, Sotirova & Tonta, 2006).“Along with the 1972 Convention concerning theProtection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage andthe 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the IntangibleCultural Heritage, this Convention is one of the three pillarsof the preservation and promotion of creative diversity”(Convention, 2005). The digitization of the works of thecultural heritage of minorities makes them the property ofall the humanity and facilitates cooperation on an interna-tional level for long-term preservation of the cultural her-itage.

As libraries, archives and museums all over the worldstrive to make their contents accessible by everyonethrough the World Wide Web, they are becoming virtualdestinations (Tonta, 2007a, 2007b). The development ofstandards and interoperable systems makes it possible toperform simultaneous “federated searches” on thousands of“open archives”. As such applications become more wide-spread, the number of stakeholders responsible for the pro-

7 Bu sempozyuma sundu¤u bildiriyi önceden benimle paylaflmainceli¤ini gösteren ve beni “dijital kültürün yeniden keflfi” kavram›ylatan›flt›ran arkadafl›m Prof. Dr. Mícheál Mac an Airchinnigh’yeteflekkür ederim.

7 I would like to thank my colleague and friend Professor Mícheál Macan Airchinnigh who kindly shared with me in advance of his papersubmitted to this symposium and introduced me to the concept of the“digital re-discovery of culture”.

12 Y. Tonta

yayg›nlaflt›kça bilimsel ve kültürel miras›n korunmas›ndanve yaflat›lmas›ndan sorumlu olan paydafl say›s› da artmak-tad›r. Böylece farkl› ülkelerin ve toplumlar›n bilim, kültürve sanata katk›lar› daha görünür hale gelmekte ve bilimselve kültürel miras giderek evrenselleflmektedir.

“Dijital kültür” ve “dijital bilim” hem Balkan ülkeleriaras›nda hem de uluslararas› düzeyde iflbirli¤i çal›flmalar›n›bafllatmak ve gelifltirmek için sa¤lam bir zemin olufltur-maktad›r. Avrupa Komisyonu’nun “i2010: Dijital Kütüpha-neler Giriflimi” bir t›klamayla Avupa’n›n kültürel ve bilim-sel miras›na eriflebilmelerini hedeflemektedir (European,2005). Avrupa Birli¤i’nin DIGICULT (Digital Heritage andCultural Content Programme of the European Commissi-on), CALIMERA (Cultural Applications: Local InstitutionsMediating Electronic Resources), COINE (Cultural Objectsin Networked Environments), ERPANET (Electronic Reso-urces Preservation and Access Network) ve NEDLIB (Net-worked European Digital Library) gibi dijitallefltirme prog-ramlar› web arac›l›¤›yla daha zengin bir bilimsel ve kültü-rel mirasa eriflimi kolaylaflt›rmaktad›r.

i2010 politikas›n›n bir parças› olarak Avrupa Komisyo-nu eContentplus program› alt›nda Europeana projesini(www.europeana.eu) desteklemektedir. Avrupa müze, kü-tüphane, arfliv ve görsel-iflitsel dermelerindeki dijital içeri-¤e çevrimiçi eriflim sa¤lamay› amaçlayan Europeana proje-sine 90 civar›nda Avrupa kültürel miras ve bilgi kurumukatk›da bulunmaktad›r. Bunlar›n içinde 20 ulusal kütüpha-ne de bulunmaktad›r. Kas›m 2008’de hizmete girecek olanEuropeana prototip web sitesi çok dilli bir kullan›c› arayü-zü arac›l›¤›yla iki milyon civar›nda dijital içeri¤e (film, fo-to¤raf, resim, ses, harita, yazma, kitap, gazete, arfliv malze-mesi vd.) do¤rudan eriflim sa¤layacakt›r. Dijital nesne sa-y›s›n›n 2010 y›l›na kadar alt› milyona ulaflmas› planlan-maktad›r.8

Fakat Europeana projesinde Balkan ülkelerinden sadecebirkaç kültürel miras kurumu temsil edilmektedir (TheNew Bulgaria Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, Yunanistan VeriaMerkezi Halk Kütüphanesi, Slovenya Ulusal Kütüphanesive Romanya Kültürel Bellek Enstitüsü). Benzeri bir biçim-de Avrupa Kütüphanesi (The European Library: www.the-europeanlibrary.org) Balkan ülkelerinden sadece dört ulu-sal kütüphanenin içeri¤ine eriflim sa¤lamaktad›r (H›rvatis-tan, Yunanistan, S›rbistan ve Slovenya).

Gerek bölgesel gerekse uluslararas› düzeyde “dijital bi-lim” ve “dijital kültür” arflivleri kurmak için iflbirli¤i yap-mak, kaynak ve hizmetler yönünden nispeten daha iyi du-rumda olan kurumlar›n ya da ülkelerin kendilerinden dahaflanss›z olanlara “yard›m etmeleri” olarak anlafl›lmamal›d›r.Bu anlay›flla yola ç›k›ld›¤›nda iflbirli¤i projeleri genelde ba-flar›s›zl›kla sonuçlanmaktad›r. ‹flbirli¤i iki ya da daha fazlakurumun veya ülkenin kullan›c›lar›na daha geliflmifl ve da-ha çeflitli hizmet vermek için birlikte çal›flmalar› fleklinde

tection and promotion of scientific and cultural heritageincreases. Contributions to science, culture and art by dif-ferent countries and societies become more visible and thescientific and cultural heritage of the humanity thusbecomes more universal.

The “digital culture” and “digital science” provide asound base to initiate and streamline cooperation onregional (e.g., among Balkan countries) as well as interna-tional levels. The European Commission’s “i2010: DigitalLibraries Initiative” aims to provide access to “Europe’scultural and scientific heritage at a click of a mouse”(European, 2005). Several digitization programmes suchas DIGICULT (Digital Heritage and Cultural ContentProgramme of the European Commission), CALIMERA(Cultural Applications: Local Institutions MediatingElectronic Resources), COINE (Cultural Objects inNetworked Environments), ERPANET (ElectronicResources Preservation and Access Network) and NEDLIB(Networked European Digital Library) have been intro-duced to facilitate access to a richer European scientific andcultural heritage through the Web.

As part of the i2010 policy, EC funded the Europeana(www.europeana.eu) - Europe’s digital library, museumand archive – under the eContentplus programme. TheEuropeana aims to provide online access to the digital con-tent of European museums, libraries, archives and audio-visual collections and involves 90 representatives ofEuropean heritage and knowledge institutions including 20national libraries. The Europeana prototype website will belaunched in November 2008 “giving users direct access tosome 2 million digital objects, including film material, pho-tos, paintings, sounds, maps, manuscripts, books, newspa-pers and archival papers” through a multilingual user inter-face. The number of digital objects available through theEuropeana portal will reach 6 million by the year 2010.8

However, the cultural heritage institutions of Balkancountries are underrepresented in the Europeana Project(The New Bulgarian University Library, Veria CentralPublic Library of Greece, The National Library ofSlovenia, and the Institute for Cultural Memory ofRomania). Similarly, the European Library (www.theeuro-peanlibrary.org) provides access to the contents of only fourBalkan national libraries (Croatia, Greece, Serbia, andSlovenia).

The cooperation on both regional and international lev-els to set up the “digital science” and “digital culture”repositories should not be seen as such that countries andinstitutions with relatively more resources and services are“helping out” the less fortunate ones. The cooperative ini-tiatives set out with this approach are usually doomed tofailure. The word “cooperation” can be defined as that thattwo or more institutions, countries, etc. are working togeth-er to provide more developed and varied services to theirusers and stakeholders. This definition presupposes that

8 Bu paragraftaki bilgiler Europeana web sitesinden (http://www.euro-peana.eu) al›nm›flt›r.

8 Information in this paragraph comes from the Europeana website(http://www.europeana.eu).

Kaynakça / ReferencesNot: Kaynakçada yer alan tüm çevrimiçi adreslere 23 Nisan

2008 tarihinde eriflilmifltir. Balkans. (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversityof Cultural Expressions. (2005).

h t t p : / / p o r t a l . u n e s c o . o r g / c u l t u r e / e n / e v. p h p -URL_ID=35405&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTI-ON=201.html

Dangerous countries to live in. (2008).

http://www.aneki.com/dangerous.html

De Bernières, L. (2008). A partisan’s daughter. London: Har-vill Secker.

Dyson, G. (1997). Darwin among the machines. London: Pen-guin Books.

European Commission. (2005). Staff Working Document. An-nex to the Communication from the Commission “i2010:Digital Libraries.” COM(2005) 465.h t t p : / / e u r o p a . e u . i n t / i n f o r m a t i o n _ s o c i e t y / a c -tivit ies/digital_libraries/doc/communication/an-nex1_en.pdf

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (2008).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Yugos-lavia

GÉANT2, Lighting the pathway for European Research andEducation. (2008). http://www.geant2.net/up-load/pdf/PUB-07-179_GN2_Topology_Jan_08_final.pdf

Internet World Stats: Usage and population statistics. (2008).http://www.internetworldstats.com

Lyman, P. ve Kahle, B. (1998). Archiving digital cultural ar-tifacts: Organizing an agenda for action. D-Lib Magazine,4,7. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/07lyman.html

Mac an Airchinnigh, M. (2008). The digital culture. BalkanÜlkeleri Kütüphaneleraras› Bilgi-Belge Yönetimi ve ‹flbir-li¤i Sempozyumu, 5-7 Haziran 2008, Edirne içinde. Edir-ne: Trakya Üniversitesi.

Mac an Airchinnigh, M. (2004). Practical sense of philosop-hizing: Why preserve anything at all, even digitally?Review of the National Center for Digitization, 4, 111-134.http://www.ncd.matf.bg.ac.yu/casopis/04/d014/down-load.pdf

Mac an Airchinnigh, M., Sotirova, K. ve Tonta, Y. (2006).Digital re-discovery of culture game of inquiry & thephysicality of soul. Review of the National Center forDigitization, 9, 19-37. http://www.ncd.matf.bg.ac.yu/casopis/09/NCD09019.pdf

The Networked Readiness Index 2007–2008 rankings. (2008).http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gitr/2008/Rankings.pdf

Riedlmayer, A. (1995a). Maziyi silmek: Bosna-Hersek’tekikütüphanelerin ve arflivlerin tahribi. Türk Kütüphanecili¤i,9, 337-341.

Riedlmayer, A. (1995b). Erasing the past: The destruction oflibraries and archives in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Middle EastStudies Association Bulletin, 29, 7-11.

Thomson Scientific, Inc. (2008). ISI Web of Knowledge.http://apps.isiknowledge.com/

Tonta, Y. (2007a). Libraries and museums in the flat world:Are they becoming virtual destinations? Herbert K. Ach-leitner ve Alexander Georgiev Dimchev (ed.). Sofia 2006:Globalization, Digitization, Access, and Preservation ofCultural Heritage, 8-10 November 2006, Sofia, Bulgaria.Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski, University of Sofia.http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/tonta-sofia-paper-2006-final.pdf

Tonta, Y. (2007b). Kütüphaneler sanal güzergâhlara m›dönüflüyor? I. Uluslararas› Bilgi Hizmetleri Sempozyumu:‹letiflim, 25-26 May›s 2006, ‹stanbul (Bildiriler) içinde (s.353-366). Yay. haz. Ayfle Üstün ve Ümit Konya. ‹stanbul:Türk Kütüphaneciler Derne¤i ‹stanbul fiubesi.http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/tonta-istan-bul-mayis-2006-bildiri.pdf

Zgonjanin, S. (2005). The prosecution of war crimes for thedestruction of libraries and archives during times of armedconflict. Libraries & Culture, 40(2): 128-144.

Balkan Ülkeleri Aras›nda Bilimsel ve Kültürel Bilgilerin Korunmas› ve Yönetiminde ‹flbirli¤i 13

tan›mlanabilir. Bu tan›m kurumlar›n söz konusu hizmetleritek bafl›na hareket ettikleri takdirde tatminkâr bir biçimdeverememeleri anlam›na da gelmektedir. Yani gerçek anlam-da “iflbirli¤i”, iflbirli¤i yapmak isteyen ülkelerin kütüphane,arfliv ve müzelerinin bir bak›ma birbirlerine “karfl›l›kl› ba-¤›ml›” olmalar› demektir.

Bu bildiride bilimsel ve kültürel bilgilerin korunmas›ndave yönetiminde Balkan ülkelerinde gerçeklefltirilen bölgeselve uluslararas› iflbirli¤i programlar› gözden geçirilecektir.Bilgi kaynaklar›n›n baflar›l› bir biçimde dijitalleflirilmesi,korunmas› ve yönetimi mevcut a¤ olanaklar›yla yak›ndan il-gili oldu¤undan, Balkan ülkelerinin “dijital bilim” ve “diji-tal kültür”ü desteklemek için gereken Internet a¤ alt yap›la-r› incelenerek iflbirli¤i giriflimleriyle h›zland›r›labilecek uy-gulama ve hizmetler saptanmaya çal›fl›lacakt›r.

institutions or countries cannot usually provide such servic-es satisfactorily if they acted alone. Then, cooperation in areal sense requires, to some extent, “interdependence”between the interested parties such as libraries, archives,and museums of respective countries.

In this paper the regional and international cooperativeprogrammes carried out to preserve and manage the scien-tific and cultural information sources in the Balkan coun-tries will be reviewed. As successful digitization, protec-tion and management of information sources is closelyrelated with the availability of the networking facilities, theInternet infrastructures of the Balkan countries needed tosupport the “digital science” and “digital culture” will bestudied to identify applications and services that can bestreamlined through cooperative endeavors.