Who Protects What! Actors of Conservation from Late Ottoman Empire to Republican Turkey
Panel 070, 2017 Annual Meeting
On Sunday, November 19 at 1:00 pm
Panel Description
This panel aims to discuss the actors of conservation of built environment spanning a century roughly from mid 19th to mid 20th ct. It aims to focus on their role on different phases of conservation of selected historic sites.
Conservation of built environment is a process that starts from the very basic but crucial questions of to preserve what, why and how. The process that begins through developing an ideological approach to a certain built environment continues through asking 'what' and 'why' and goes onto different methods of practical aspects through asking 'how'. Accordingly, papers in this panel will discuss both ideological and practical aspects of conservation. Rather than the sites however, it will focus on agencies of the actors and their networks. Through different positions, these actors (personas or institutions) have personified a significant approach and transformed the conventions of conservation as a process either through their writings or praxis and marked a turn.
Within this perspective first paper will focus on Alexander Paspates and Greek Literary Society and their role on the 'heritagization' of the Byzantine remnants in Istanbul. Through selected sites it will discuss their perspective towards these sites and the research and documentation projects developed as initial steps of conservation of those.
The second paper will focus on Mehmed Ziya (1866-1930) It aims at analyzing his role in the history of preservation of heritage in Turkey through his writings, conferences and organization of commemorations. The focus is particularly on his contribution to the popularization of the concept of Âsâr-? Atîka and its commemoration through its creators. For that purpose, the paper will further pursue the legacy of Mehmed Ziya in commemorations of Sinan and Ottoman architecture during early republican period.
The third paper will focus on Muhafaza-i Asar-? Atika Encümeni for the institutionalization of heritage conservation. The paper discusses the Council's role in recognizing which inherited remnants of Istanbul's diverse past are valued above the others and the conservation approaches and practices encouraged for their survival through its negotiations and confrontations with other state actors.
The fourth paper will focus on Tahsin Öz (1887-1973) deputy director of the Museum of Antiquities. It aims to introduce Öz and his controversial approaches to the conservation of monuments, particularly in Topkapi Palace Museum, and later focus on the atmosphere of heritage preservation in Turkey until 1950s with different voices from intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.
Being established in 1861, effective until 1922 and accompanied with an annual journal, the Greek Literary Society (Sillogos) was almost the most enduring and productive society of Ottoman intellectual milieu. Although it was founded by a small group of Ottoman-Greek intellectuals, mostly doctors, the Sillogos very quickly drove the attention of many intellectuals, either from different communities of Istanbul, (Muslim, Armenian etc.) or of European origin. Formed as a “literary society”, major aim of the Sillogos was to enhance studies on Greek language and to empower the education of Greek youth within the Ottoman Empire. Yet, in accordance with their focus on the sustainability of the Greek culture as an integral part of their identity, members of the Sillogos also conducted extensive research on the architectural and archaeological remnants of the Greek past within the Ottoman lands, from Antiquity to Byzantine periods, a significant part of which was on Istanbul.
Among many members of Sillogos, a doctor named Alexandros Paspates, had a significant position. He was a prominent doctor who had been the head of Bal?kl? Greek Hospital in Istanbul, but at the same time he was an antiquarian historian who also had conducted extensive in situ research on Byzantine era buildings. He presented the outcomes of his work at monthly meetings of Sillogos and published them within its journal. One such work was his research on the Land Walls of Istanbul which he had started when he still was working at Bal?kl?. This research also had invoked a significant interest among the members of Sillogos which had resulted in the initiation of a map making project around the turn of 1870s, the end product of which was an extensive documentation of the Land Walls. It was also published within Sillogos’s journal. Following this project, Paspates also published his research on the Land Walls together with an extensive study of Byzantine Churches and Palaces was published as a book entitled as “Byzantine Studies”.
Within this background, this paper will focus on Sillogos and Paspates, and their role on the ‘heritagization’ of the Byzantine remnants in Istanbul. Through cases of Land Walls, the Great Palace excavation and several other churches it will focus on the transformative role of these works for the appropriation of them as “Heritage”. It will underline the impact of them both on the succeeding literature and praxis on those remnants.
Mehmed Ziya (b.1866-d.1930) was an avid promoter and writer of architectural monuments in the last decades of Ottoman Empire and the early decades of the Turkish Republic following his middle rank position in the civil bureaucracy. He was in a unique position as both member of pioneering civil organisations (The Society of Friends of Istanbul - Istanbul Muhibleri Cemiyeti) and the official associations for conservation (Association of Conservation of Ancient Monuments - Muhafaza-i Asar-i Atika Cemiyeti). In the latter, he was one of the key people for recording and archiving the ancient monuments of Istanbul. This paper aims at analysing his role in the history of preservation of heritage in Turkey through his writings, conferences and organisation of commemorations. The focus will be particularly on his contribution to the popularisation of the concept of the ancient monument (Âsâr-? Atîka) and its promotion by commemorating the creators of the monuments. Drawing on his conferences and publications, I will present that Ziya’s selection of ancient monuments were towards a self-defining identity of the city and its architectural heritage. In it, how he reconciled the pre-Ottoman heritage of the city with Turkish patriotism and pride of citizenry will be one of the main discussion points. The paper will further discuss Ziya’s prominent role in commemoration of poets (Sheikh Galip – d.1799) and architects (Sinan- d.1588) as Ottoman heroes and linking them to the architectural heritage in contemporary Istanbul. Focusing on the commemorations of anniversaries of Sinan’s demise, I will reveal how his personal passion in ancient monuments of Istanbul coalesced with the patriotism of the First world War years as well as with the pride in citizenry. Beginning in 1921, these commemorations took place in front of Sinan’s tomb and covered speeches about and visits to his monuments. In their heydays in 1920s and 1930s, they promoted Istanbul as a composition of ancient monuments within the officially sanctioned rhetoric over the Turkish national genius in architecture. I will look at how Ziya positioned himself in the burgeoning division over the definition of the architectural heritage of the nation. Drawing on the analysis of these primary sources, the paper conclude with recognising the role of individual voices in the formation of idea of architectural heritage of the nation.
Nation states are formed and legitimated through homogenisation of a diverse, contested and at times mythical past, to construct a collective national memory. Historic monuments, among many other instruments of memory, have been significant devices for nation-states to represent a shared past, present and future to their citizens and to reinforce national identity. Having its roots in the late 19th century, the search for collective history and origins of Ottoman architecture and the rise of national consciousness eventually led to the idea of ‘national monument’ in the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the century.
With the enactment of 1906 Antiquities Regulation, Islamic artefacts and buildings that are part of the Ottoman urban life were considered as antiquities for the first time. The regulation defined antiquities as the remnants of any civilisation that had formerly inhabited within the Ottoman territories. However a legal framework for how to preserve the monuments that are part of the Ottoman urban life was only defined by the Regulation for the Preservation of Monuments in 1912. Consequently, the Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities (Muhafaza-? Asar-? Atika Encümeni) was formed in 1915, which was responsible from the preservation of historic monuments within Istanbul and functioned as an advisory board for restoration projects.
After the foundation of the Turkish Republic, the Republican authorities recognised the commission as a supervisory body for preservation activities in the old imperial capital of Istanbul. With the distancing of the secular Republic from its imperial and religious past, the Ottoman monuments were appropriated as ‘national monuments’, disassociating them from their multi-ethnic and multi-religious origins. Moreover, the antiquities were amalgamated with the nationalist historiography by being regarded as the imprints of Turkish culture throughout history and their classification such as Hittite, Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman served useful for periodisation.
Within this context, the paper will focus on the role of the Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities in the institutionalisation of preservation activities in Istanbul. By presenting its negotiations and confrontations with other state actors through selected cases, the paper will discuss the Council’s contribution in recognising which inherited remnants of Istanbul’s diverse past are valued above the others as national monuments and the conservation approaches and practices it encouraged for their survival.
State-led heritage conservation was first experienced in Tanzimat Period in Ottoman Empire and continued until 1950’s in the Turkish Republican times. During this time, the institutions founded towards the end of 19th century stayed almost unchanged, like the small group of professionals on the scene of conservation of architectural heritage. The general approach towards conservation of these early years was the maintenance and safeguarding of symbolic historic buildings that had been regarded as monuments. Yet, we can speak of a selective ideal of determining which monument to conserve and which period to exhibit after the extensive restorations conducted by these institutions.
Starting his career in 1907 as the chief accountant and later in 1923 the deputy director of the Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul, Tahsin Öz (1887-1973) was among these people who dominated the field of heritage preservation. He acted throughout his life as an influential figure in decision making processes of the conservation of Ottoman heritage. Öz was appointed as the director of Topkapi Palace Museum in 1928, right after 1924 when the already abandoned palace complex had become a museum with the approval of the parliament. Although much neglected and in need of urgent repair, the buildings of the palace were still witnessing the 19th century Ottoman style and taste. During his role which lasted in 1953, Tahsin Öz was responsible of the decisions for some rather ambitous restorations, which favored to erase the traces of one period and return back to a specific one.
This paper aims to introduce Öz and his controversial approaches to the conservation of monuments, particularly in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what had done and he had written, and focus simulteanously on the atmosphere of heritage preservation in Turkey until 1950s with different voices from intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.
