The Place of Istanbul Archaeological Museums in Ottoman Museology
-
Upload
isilay-gursu -
Category
Documents
-
view
135 -
download
24
Transcript of The Place of Istanbul Archaeological Museums in Ottoman Museology
The Place of Istanbul Archaeological Museums in the Evolution of Museology in Ottoman
Empire and Early Turkish Republic
by
Evinç Doğan and Işılay Gürsu
In 12 February 2009, Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism has signed a protocol with The
Turkish Travel Agencies Association (TURSAB)1 regarding the support of the activities of the
Istanbul Archaeological Museums and to increase its contributions to the country's culture
and tourism.2 The Istanbul Archaeological Museums Development Project which is created
based on this protocol will last for 8 years.
Once the project was announced to public, there were many positive and negative reactions.
The way the Ministry has defended this project, which was the first of its kind in Turkey,
depended on the assumption that it would increase the number of local visitors. In line with
this, one of the most important impetuses for designing such a protocol was to create a
model which would enable private initiatives to contribute to public cultural institutions.
These new partnerships were needed, according to the official opinion, to increase public
awareness about the museums, their collections and cultural heritage at a general extent.
This protocol did not come out of blue. One can very easily evaluate it within the umbrella of
neo-liberal political movements introduced by the current Turkish government which is
extremely welcoming to any kind of private intervention to public fields. However one can
not underestimate the importance of the official declaration: for most of the local
population of Istanbul, the museum is out of the mental map.
Recently many researchers are considering the reasons of this ignorance/deliberate
negligence of public cultural institutions in the Turkish Republic. For instance in her
1 The Association of Turkish Travel Agencies is a Professional, non-profit organization having the status of legal person, established by Law in 1972. The main aims of the Association are, the development of the travel agency profession in harmony with the country’s economy and tourism sector, and protection of professional ethics and solidarity. http://www.tursab.org.tr/en/tursab/about-tursab_1061.html
2 The full name of the protocol is: “Istanbul Archaeological Museums Sponsorship, Service and Cooperation Protocol, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Destekçilik, Hizmet ve İşbirliği Sözleşmesi”
remarkable book “Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization
of History in the Late Ottoman Empire” Wendy Shaw states:
“When we ask ourselves why the number of local visitors to Turkish museums is very
less, we have to consider:
– what kind of needs did these museums address,
– who used to determine these needs
– how these needs were satisfied “
In parallel to this, our aim is to dig this case further for the context of Istanbul Archaeological
Museums with an historical approach. Being the first museum in the Ottoman Empire and
Turkish Republic, this particular museum offers us the opportunity to evaluate the
understanding of “archaeology, museum, collection, display and even legislation” in the late
Ottoman Empire and early Turkish Republic era. Accordingly, the Ottoman interpretation of
museum which is, in some ways, remarkably different from European perspective will be
touched upon with the discussion of the evolution of museuology in the 19th century
Ottoman Empire.
Founding the “Imperial Museum”
Political Context
The path which has lead to the creation of the “Imperial Museum of the Ottoman Empire”,
which would in time become Istanbul Archaeological Museums, needs to be evaluated in the
light of the political conditions surrounding the Empire and Europe.
In a broader political context, 19th century refers to the period of decline of the Empire. It
came to an end with the Ottomans under the political and economic domination of
European powers with the Empire having difficulty of repaying the public debt to European
banks and dealing with the rising nationalism. The rise of nationalism swept through many
countries during the 19th century, and it affected territories within the Ottoman Empire. A
burgeoning national consciousness, together with a growing sense of ethnic nationalism,
made nationalistic thought one of the most significant Western ideas imported to the
Ottoman Empire. Ottoman State had to face nationalism both within and beyond its borders.
As a reaction to this situation, the Tanzimât (meaning reorganization of the Empire, 1839-
1876) emerged. This era of reform was characterized by various attempts to modernize the
Empire, to secure its territorial integrity against nationalist movements and aggressive
powers. The reforms encouraged Ottomanism among the diverse ethnic groups of the
Empire, attempting to stem the tide of nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire.
Under these political conditions, which obviously had negative economic results, most of the
antique monuments within the borders of the Empire were in a ruinous state. Moreover,
they were subject to increasing European interest which had already started as early as 17th
century in the form of acquisition of antique objects of Greek and Roman civilizations from
the Ottoman Lands.
In the history of Ottoman Empire, Sultan Abdülaziz (1861-1876) was the first in his dynasty
to leave the empire for a purpose other than war and made a trip to the capital cities of
Europe. The main destination was the 1867 Universal Exhibition in Paris. The visit was also
very widely discussed in the French and other European papers and many people were
curious to see the Sultan. The aim of the Ottoman officials to show up in the exhibition can
be the desire to used the opportunity to convince European powers of their commitment to
modernization and hence their desire to become part of the European system.
During this visit, Sultan Abdülaziz visited Napoleon III in the Elysée Palace in Paris and he
made some visits to fine arts galleries. The French newspaper L’Illustration had published an
illustration of the Sultan during his visit to the Abras Gallery which had a remarkable Greco-
Roman collection.3 So the Greco-Roman antiquities were among the signs of European
civilization to which the Sultan was exposed in Europe. Accordingly, Le Figaro newspaper of 7
July 1867 gave the account:
3 Shaw,W. “Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire” pg. 103.
“Abdülaziz stopped in front of "les plus beaux meubles" and "les bronzes les plus
artistiques" in the furniture section of the exhibition before going on to visit the fine
arts gallery.”4
In his book, Innocent Abroad, however Mark Twain was defining Napoleon III and Abdülaziz
as two figures that represented opposite worlds:
“Napoleon III, the representative of the highest modern civilization, progress, and
refinement; Abdul-Aziz, the representative of a people by nature and training filthy,
brutish, ignorant, unprogressive, superstitious—and a government whose Three
Graces are Tyranny, Rapacity, Blood. Here in brilliant Paris, under the majestic Arch of
Triumph, the First Century greets the Nineteenth!”5
The Ottoman interest in antiquities began to rise soon after Sultan Abdülaziz’s visit to
Europe. For centuries as the Westerners did, the Ottomans did not deem it necessary to
collect or conserve these values except in palace collections and vakıf (foundation) works.6 In
Ottoman Empire, the action of collecting did not find its roots in the private collections like
the ones in Europe, the first systematic collection activities were based on the state
initiative.
Aya İrini Collection
Since the early 18th century, the 6th century Byzantine church, Aya İrini, which was located
within the first courtyard of the Ottoman Imperial Palace, Topkapı, was used as a store for
armors in addition to antiquities.
4 Çelik, Zeynep. Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1992 1992. <http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8x0nb62g/>
5 Twain,M. “Innocent Abroad”, 126. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=TwaInno.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
6 Gürol, P. “Conflicting Visualities on Display: National Museums from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic” < http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/030/008/ecp0830008.pdf>
Although the church was very close to the palace, it was one of those churches which were
never converted into a mosque. Historical accounts point out to the fact that it has been
started to be used as an arsenal right after Ottomans captured Istanbul.7 This may be the
reason why it was always kept as a non-practicing church.
In mid 19th century (1846), the building hosted two different collections and was used as a
military storage. The collections that were kept in Aya İrini were:
- The Magazine of Antique Weapons and
- The Magazine of Antiquities including remains of Constantinople, Christian and
Islamic Relics.
The first collection which is the antique weapons collections forms the core of the Modern
Military Museum. The second one becomes the “Imperial Museum” which would form the
core of today’s Istanbul Archaeological Museums.
These collections belonged to the state and were composed of objects which were collected
based on the Sultans orders. This is why one should not be surprised to find a special
chamber for the Sultan to be used during his visits in the church of Aya İrini.
The travelers’ accounts give information about the condition of the collection in the 19 th
century. These accounts indicate that the collection in Aya irini was open to elite and
preferably to foreign visitors.8 Nonetheless these visitors were not allowed to see everything
which was part of the collections. A simple catalogue of the collections of Aya İrini was
prepared by the French archaeologist Albert Dumont in 1867 and it was published as an
article (Les Musee Saint-Irene a Constantinople Antiquites Grecites, Grecoromaines et
Byzantines) in Revue Archeologique in 1868. He mentioned that “in the galleries of Aya Irini,
the sculptures, inscriptions and reliefs were exhibited randomly. Most of the objects are
hard to be examined since they are placed behind many unrelated objects; some of them
7 Shaw,W. “Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire” pg. 21
8 Flaubert, Gustave, Oeuvres Completes: Voyages and Gautier, Constinanople.
suffer from humidity. The labels contain very limited information regarding the place of
origin. Ottoman State needs a European archaeologist who can organize this collection9”
These collections were strictly closed to the local people of the city. The first courtyard of
the palace was where the locals would go for many reasons including administrative issues,
and the public access to this courtyard was unlimited. Although the collections were kept
within a building which was located at a point with unlimited public access, no one was
allowed to see what was inside unless they were an Ottoman elite/high rank official or a
foreigner. The power of this collection stemmed from the fact that it was a source of
curiosity.
When Sultan Abdülaziz made his trip to Europe and was exposed to the European way of
displaying antiquities which are mostly Greco-Roman, he supported the idea of creating an
Imperial Museum. Since there were already two collections in Aya İrini, the Magazine of
Antiquities became the subject of first attempts to found an institution.
The second collection which was the Magazine of Antique Weapons were not even
candidates for becoming the collections of the empire’s museum because the military
failures were tried to be kept away from the memoirs of Ottoman people whereas an appeal
to the instant past, embodied by antiquities, could construct new ways of incorporating a
European identity into the empire without chafing against the recurrent concerns of politics
and war. Additionally, the antiquities would serve as an integral part of Empire’s latest
communication strategies. To do so, it used a new language of archaeological ownership
that could avoid the recent memory of humiliating military defeats.
Renaming the Aya Irini Collection- From Magazine to Museum
As already mentioned, the Imperial Museum would emerge from the Magazine of
Antiquities which was kept in Aya İrini church. It is important to note that the Ottoman word
for “Magazine”, (Mecmua) means two things as its English translation: collection and journal.
The new organization of this collection institutionalized it and in 1869 the “Magazine of
Antiquities” was renamed as “Imperial Museum- Müze-i Hümayun.”
9 Pasinli, A. Istanbul Archaeology Museum, pg.12
As an “imperial” museum, the institution became representative of the entire empire as a
conglomeration of various territories represented by antiquities. In conjunction with the
announcement of the new museum, a memorandum was issued to various regions. The
request of the capital was clear: send almost every ancient object which is found within your
territories to Istanbul. Right after the establishment of the museum, many governors were
rushing to obey the order of the capital. For them, this was a way of legitimizing their power
and control of their governorship.
It is also important to underline the use of the term “Museum” (Müze) for this new
institution. By using a European origin word, the empire emphasized that Museum implied
new cultural functions similar to those European museums. In this regard, the state becomes
a participant in an international elite culture. Additionally, an educational function similar to
that of European museums is evident: this new institution is supposed to be a place where
the public- in this case the Ottoman elite and foreign tourists- could learn about the state
power through the appreciation of antiquities in a carefully orchestrated setting.
The official order stipulating the foundation of the museum started with a reference to
museums in Europe:
“It is not right for a museum not to exist in our country when the museums of
Europe are decorated with rare works taken from here.”10
The first director of the Imperial Museum was Edward Goold who was a British professor
teaching in Istanbul. One of the first tasks that the he did was to complete the inventories of
the museum with special notes to the donors who were composed of different governors, so
each province came to be represented in the collection through antiquities that had been
located in it. After the short directorship of Edward Goold, the second director was again
chosen from Europe. This time German Dr. Phillip Anton Dethier, who unlike Goold, had a
background in history, classics, philology, archaeology and art history at Berlin University,
was appointed as the second director.11
10 Kocabas, R. “Müzecilik hareketi ve ilk müze okulunun açılışı (Museology Movement and the Opening of the First Museum Academy)”, pg.75
11 Pasinli, A. Istanbul Archaeology Museum.
From Aya İrini to Tiled Kiosk
During the directorship of Dethier,(1872-1880) the collections were expanding both due to
the objects which were sent from different governorships and to the excavation campaigns
which were conducted in the empire. The number of collections rose from 160 to 650 in 8
years of his service. This situation created a need for a larger space since Aya İrini was too
small for expanding collections.
The construction of a new building was considered for a while but the economic difficulties
surrounding the empire did not allow it to happen.
Under these circumstances, the search for an appropriate building resulted in the decision in
favor of the Tiled Kiosk (Çinili Köşk). The Tiled Kiosk was built in the era of Sultan Mehmed II
the Conqueror, in mid 15th century. It was in the gardens of the Imperial Palace and it was
not used after the reign of Sultan Mehmet II. It was convenient to use this building as the
second home for the Imperial collections due to its physical proximity to Aya İrini and its
symbolic location which lied at the heart of the city within the borders of the palace.
During the transfer of the collections from Aya İrini to Tiled Kiosk, a “museum commission”
was established to oversee:
“completion of the repairs to the tiled pavilion that were being made into a
museum, the transport of the antiquities and coins already in the collection to the
new place without being damaged, to conserve antiquities outside of the
museum in their present state, to make a path for excavation and research, to
make the museum into a place of spectacle that would attract everybody’s
attention and to categorize and organize the existing works”12
This commission was composed of:
- Dr. Dethier as the museum director,
- Kirkar Efendi (the guard) and Sebilyan Efendi (coin expert) as the museum
personnel,
12 Cezar, Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi, I. Cilt, (Westernization in Art and Osman Hamdi, I.volume), pg28
- Mustafa Efendi, the Turkish and Muslim member from the education commission
- Monsieur Mosali and Monsieur Delaine -two Levantine bureaucrats
- Osman Hamdi Bey : The Mayor of Istanbul 6th District13
The responsibilities assigned to this commission reveal some interesting perspectives which
encircle the understanding of the new museum. First of all, there is a concern about the
conservation of the antiquities. Secondly, the emphasis on the excavation, research and
enhancement issues prove that Ottomans are deeply inspired by the European ideologies on
museums and its functions. Another interesting point is the assignment of the mayor of the
6th district. This indicates that the museum, at a very close point to the Imperial Palace is not
meant be a local attraction point but instead a spectacle place for foreign tourists.
After the restoration project which converted Tiled Kiosk into a museum was finalized, the
Kiosk had lost most of its original decorations. In the later years, this intervention was
recognized as an irreversible mistake. This rash restoration indicates the fact that the
Ottoman heritage was not perceived as a part of the heritage that the Imperial Museum was
targeting.
The opening of the Imperial Museum in Tiled Kiosk
The Imperial Museum in Tiled Kiosk was opened to public on 17 August 188014. The Minister
of Education, Munif Pasha, at the opening stated:
“There is no need to go at length about the benefits of such museums. They show the
level of civilization of past peoples and their step-by-step progress. From this, many
13 In Late Ottoman Era, the city is divided into different districts with their own municipalities. Although the museum was located within the 1st district which is mainly composed of merchants of Muslim-Turkish origin, the commission welcomed the major of the 6th district which is the Pera region and is highly populated with the European population living in Istanbul. Çelik,Z. “The remaking of Istanbul: portrait of an Ottoman city in the nineteenth century” 14
? The new museum can be visited everyday but there is an entrance fee. Wednesdays are reserved for women, the entrance on Tuesdays is 5 Kuruş and other days 2,5 kuruş. Pasinli, A. Istanbul Archaeology Museum.
historical, scientific and artistic benefits can be obtained. Everybody knows the great
effects of archaeology on European civilization” 15
The Minister underlines the great effects and their potential benefits to Ottoman Empire.
These effects could be:
“To reify national identity, to gain historical depth and transform this into material
wealth. To justify possession and then to claim it. To produce a determinative
narrative of progress and thus to ensure the hierarchical position of modern Europe
in relation to the narrative of history.
If archaeology could do this for Europe why could not do it for Ottoman Empire?”16
The display in this new museum aimed to give a political message. The two lion statues of
Bodrum (Halicarnassus) Mausoleum which were confiscated after the excavation carried out
by British archaeologist/diplomat Charles Newton were placed at the entrance of the
building. Inside the museum, the display of the collection was rather fragmented and no
initiative was taken to make it more complete; rather fragments were preferred since they
were a reflection of Empire’s struggle to keep the antiquities within their borders.
Osman Hamdi Bey
The growth of the imperial museum from a small collection into an institution depended on
a great extent on the efforts of a single man who embodied many of the intellectual
aspirations of his age: Osman Hamdi Bey.
Being the third and the most influential director of the Imperial Museum, Osman Hamdi Bey
was a painter, archaeologist and an important bureaucrat of his time. 17
15 Cezar, Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi, I. Cilt, s241-242 (Westernization in Art and Osman Hamdi, I.volume)
16 Shaw, W. “Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire” pg. 94.17 Osman Hamdi Bey is considered to be among the most prominent Turkish painters. His famous painting “The Tortoise Trainer” was purchased by a Turkish private museum, Pera, in 2004 for 3.5 million dollars which was the record sale in Turkish history.
He was born in 1842 into a family integrated into the imperial bureaucracy and one of the
most western-oriented families in the country. His father was a government official with high
level administrative positions including the minister of internal affairs and grand vizier. Most
of the letters he wrote to his father were in French though he was brought up as an Ottoman
and royal to the Ottoman State. He was trained in France – initially for law but then ended
up receiving fine arts education from French orientalist painters Jean-Leon Gerome and
Gustave Boulanger.
After 9 years in Paris, he came back to Istanbul and then was sent to Baghdad as a part of
the administrative team of Midhat Pasha who was one of the most important
tanzimat/reformation builders. Upon his return from Baghdad, his father assigned him as the
commissioner for the Ottoman delegation to the Vienna International Exposition where he
was able to combine his bureaucrat and artist identities for the first time.
After his return he held many positions in the foreign affairs and he became the director of
sixth municipality. He left this position to become the museum director. And he remained as
the museum director for 29 years although he was offered the position of “Minister of
Foreign Affairs”
While he was the director, he never stopped painting but he did not make any direct
reference to the museum in his paintings: he did not depict museum spaces nor did he
attempt to contextualize antiquities in ancient sites.
He used his position to develop the museum, rewrite the antiquities law, to create nationally
sponsored archaeological expeditions and to institute a school of the arts.
Legislation
After becoming the director of the museum, one of the first steps taken by Osman Hamdi
Bey was preparing a regulation. (Asar-ı Atika Nizamnamesi - Ancient Artifacts Regulation,
1883)
The previous regulation prepared by Dr. Dethiér in 1874 had not included provisions aimed
at preventing artifacts found within the Ottoman borders from being shipped to foreign
countries.
The regulation of 1874 stated:
“wherever antiquities are discovered (lying upon the ground) they belong to the
state..as for the antiquities that are found by those with research permission a third
belongs to the excavator, a third to the state treasury, and a third to the land owner…
the state is responsible for the preservation of sites that cannot be moved and for the
appointment of an administrator of such sites..” 18
Osman Hamdi Bey rewrote this law governing antiquities in 1883–84 which enabled the
state to prohibit archaeological finds from leaving Ottoman territory.
To emphasize how things had changed, the salnames19 made sure to mention Ottoman
authorities’ control of foreign explorers when describing archaeological excavations.
According to the Aydın salname of 1901, Germans were working in Pergamon with the
permission of the government. The Mosul salname of 1910 reports that Germans had also
been excavating in Şirkat with the authorization of the Ottoman state since 1904 and had
discovered a“glorious and regular city.” The artifacts from the site were taken, not to
Germany this time, but to the Imperial Museum in Istanbul by special envoys assigned to the
task.20
In this regard, Osman Hamdi Bey became the gatekeeper, to whom all foreign archaeologists
had to answer and his museum, rather than its European counterparts, became the
repository of all new discoveries.21
18 Temelkuran,T. “Ülkemizden Götürülen Tarih ve Sanat Hazineleri, İlk Eski Eserler Nizamnamesi”
19 Ottoman yearbooks
20 Çelik, Zeynep. “Defining Empire’s Partimony: Ottoman Perception of Antiquities” in Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands.
21 Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands: The Artist Archaeologist and Bureaucrat: <http://www.ottomanlands.com/about/preface>
The antiquities law, in theory, was strict in its terms however it was more flexible in practice:
“gifts” could be presented to obliging foreign archaeologists as part of Osman Hamdi Bey’s
diplomatic strategy. In this way, he was trying to create sympathy among his colleagues
towards Ottoman Empire which was aspiring to be accepted as a part of scientific
community.
Reactions of International Community
Upon the enactment of the law and its applications, the foreigners who used to excavate
within the borders of the empire without difficulty were now faced with new and serious
regulations regarding their “scientific” conducts. Their reactions, as one may expect, were
very negative at the beginning. The issue of excavation permission meant that even their
presence in the empire as archaeologists is subject to limitation; additionally taking the
excavated material to their home countries was strictly restricted by this new law.
One of the interesting reactions came from the American archaeologists who were
excavating in Assos:
“The American excavations at Assos had been undertaken before the law was
rewritten, but the effrontery of its young director J.T. Clarke had so offended Hamdi
Bey that he had not issued the export permit; Haynes had to later intervene,
although he was hardly of the same stature as Hamdi Bey. Peters in turn arrived in
Constantinople thinking that anything in the Imperial Museum was for sale; he was
rebuffed. Then, not realizing Hamdi Bey was the author of the new antiquities
legislation, Peters criticized it to his face. He did not make a favorable impression.
Hilprecht fared much better, for not only was he a master of obsequiousness, he was
also a European gentleman who could appeal to Hamdi Bey’s European identity.
Moreover, he arrived with an important bargaining chip—a rare understanding of
Assyriology and cuneiform scripts that could be put to full advantage in setting up the
new museum.”22
22 Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands: The Artist Archaeologist and Bureaucrat: <http://www.ottomanlands.com/about/preface>
Following the negative reactions and offences, most of the foreign archaeologists have
accepted the fact that these were the new rules of excavating in the Empire. This acceptance
has resulted in the approval of Osman Hamdi Bey to the international scientific community.
Due to his success in excavation campaigns has been awarded by many international
institutions: French Institute, Oxford University in addition to two other British and 3
German Universities and Membership in Berlin, London, Vien, Philadelphia, Boston and
Athen Archaeology Institutes to name a few23.
He engaged in a publicity campaign, mostly through the publication of his finds, but also by
hiring scholars to help him catalogue and organizing the materials.
Trained in Paris, Osman Hamdi Bey was a European gentleman who was working as an
Ottoman bureaucrat. This dual situation was raised by the scholar Edhem Eldem as follows:
“The more European Osman Hamdi appeared in dress, profession, and painterly
expression, the more his activities aimed to counterbalance the cultural effects of
European dominance over the interpretation of antiquities in their historical and
nationalist context. The similarity between his multifarious professional activities and
those of European institutions designed to present the Orient as territory in need of
colonial expansion camouflaged his subversive anti-imperialist and Ottoman-
nationalist agenda. At the same time, the appropriation of the Orientalist gaze
allowed Osman Hamdi to use his paintings as expressions of the political motivations
and frustrations behind his activities as the director of the Ottoman Imperial
Museum”24
Excavations
Osman Hamdi Bey played a distinct role in changing the direction of archaeology not only for
the Ottomans, but for all those excavating in the lands of the empire.
23 Pasinli, Alpay: Istanbul Archaeology Museum, Akbank, 200324 Eldem, E. “An Ottoman Archaeologist Caught between Two Worlds: Osman Hamdi Bey (1842–1910).”
He conducted many excavations within the borders of the empire including: Nemrut
Mountain, Sidon Royal Necropolis, Lagina and Magnesia on Meander and Tralles.
With the major excavation in 1887 at the Royal Cemetery at Sidon, numerous grand marble
sarcophagi were unearthed, including the famed Alexander Sarcophagus. This excavation
was an important turn point for the success of the museum and for its placement among the
respected and famous museums around the world.
One Ottoman report about the Sarcophagus from Sidon states regarding the Alexander
Sarcophagus:
“decorated exquisitely with bas-reliefs and embroideries , and deserving to be exhibited
in the best museums of the world,”
The new museum was publicized with so much pride that many European and American
scholars came to Istanbul to see it.
Academy of Fine Arts – Ancient Orient Museum
Another important project which was realized during the directorship of Osman Hamdi Bey
was the establishment of the first School of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi) of Ottoman
Empire in 1883. The building, which currently houses the Ancient Near Eastern section of
Istanbul Archaeological Museums was designed by the Levantine architect Alexander
Vallaury who was also among the professors of the school.
The aim in founding this institution was to produce local knowledge and appreciation for the
arts and the expanding collections of the Imperial Museum. This institution, which was
transferred to another building in 1917, is the core of the current Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
Academy of Istanbul and following the directorship of Osman Hamdi Bey, many graduates of
this academy were assigned as the museum directors.
The establishment of this particular educational department was an important attempt
because the production and public display of sculpture and painting were discouraged in the
Ottoman rule. This dislike for the representation of living creatures was mainly based on
religious beliefs.
As founder of the art academy, originally adjacent to the museum, Osman Hamdi Bey
continued to paint in the French manner and to train students. While he did not exhibit his
paintings within Turkey, they began to gain attention abroad, and were exhibited and sold in
Europe and America.
Since Osman Hamdi Bey had already became the gateway for excavation permits, these sales
can be interpreted as the initiatives to build bridges between this important figure and those
who were interested in acquiring permits to excavate or to export antiquities.
Thus, for example, in 1892 two of his paintings were exhibited at the Palais d’Industrie in
Paris; one was purchased by the French, through the ministrations of Léon Heurzey, Curator
of Oriental Antiquities at the Louvre, who was subsequently congratulated, because
“nothing could be more pleasing to an artist who can render us services and who is
important to satisfy.” 25
In the following year, Hamdi Bey was elected corresponding member of the Institut de
France; the French in turn received a coveted antique. The purchased painting was not
exhibited and ended up in the Musée des Colonies.
Although he made no direct reference to the museum or its collections in his paintings, one
of his works can be interpreted as the symbolic relationship between the conservation of
ancient sarcophagi and the conservation of the Ottoman culture. The “Dervish at the
Shehzade Tomb” which he painted in 1908, shows Osman Hamdi Bey as the dervish who
stands in front of two tombs. He reflects his role as the director of the museum of
sarcophagi in a framework of Ottoman character. He depicts himself as a person who has a
lot of respect for the Ottoman past, as possessing a second identity which guards ostensibly
the sarcophagus and symbolically the memory. Transferring this image to his occupation, he
means while conserving the Helen-Byzantine sarcophagi at the museum he conserves the
25 Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands: The Artist Archaeologist and Bureaucrat: <http://www.ottomanlands.com/about/preface>
tombs. It is as if he is trying to create the imaginaries based on his daily real activities.
Disclosing his Ottoman dressing beneath his European one and disclosing the Ottoman
heritage beneath the Helen-Byzantine heritage, he reflects the main issue for Ottomans to
safeguard this heritage.26
The Museum of Sarcophagi (Archaeological Museum)
After the excavations in Sidon, it was obvious that Tiled Kiosk did not have enough and
suitable space for the display of these magnificent findings. A new museum building was
needed in order to display the artifacts such as the Alexander Sarcophagus, the Sarcophagus
of the Crying Women, the Lycian Sarcophagus and the Sarcophagus of Tabnit brought to
İstanbul after the Royal Necropolis excavations in Sidon, Lebanon led by Osman Hamdi Bey
in 1887 and 1888.
The Empire was in the middle of a financial crisis and the construction of such a building
seemed very challenging. However, the possession of these important and well-recognized
artifacts from Sidon had a particular importance in the communication strategies of the
State. Under these circumstances, Osman Hamdi Bey’s call for the construction of a new
building did not go unanswered by the Sultan of the time, Abdulhamit II.
The Sarcophagi Museum, was built against the Tiled Kiosk by architect Alexander Vallaury,
who had designed the Academy of Fine Arts, and was opened to visits on June 13, 1891. This
day is still celebrated as the Museum Day in Turkey. It was among the few buildings in the
world constructed as a museum building including a library, workshop and photography
studio.
The museum did not only owe its name to the sarcophagi which were unearthed in Sidon,
but also its architectural design was heavily inspired by one of these sarcophagi, the
Sarcophagus of the Crying Women. Today’s Archaeological Museum, which was called “The
Sarcophagi Museum” upon its first opening, is one of the most glorious examples of the neo-
classical architecture in İstanbul. It has a very spectacular architecture especially due to its 26 Shaw, W. “Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire” pg. 234
gorgeous façade. With the two entrances on the long façade, which are reached through
wide stairs, and each of which is decorated with four columns and a pediment, it appears
like a temple.
The selection of this particular architectural style is not a random one. Neo classical style
echoed the primary collection of Greco-Roman art displayed in the museum and additionally
it was copying the ideologies of world museums like British Museum in London (1823-46) or
the Altes Museum in Berlin (1823-30). Classicism was considered to central to the concept of
nationalism in the 19th century and monumental structures represented “the idealised
power of civilisation and the paternalistic concerns of the nation state”.27
Under these circumstances, the museum which primarily aimed to show Europe that
Ottoman Empire was sharing the same cultural heritage with them copies the European
trends. However it had also one additional purpose: To show that Ottoman Empire was the
owner of these artifacts. The symbolic representation of this situation was found on the
pediment of this new museum building. The inscription on the pediment in Ottoman Turkish
says 'Asar-ı Atika Müzesi' (Ancient Artifacts Museum). The tughra (calligraphic seal) above
this script belongs to the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II. It was the signature of the
Sultan/Ottoman Empire on the heritage that was claimed by Europe.
The architectural style which uses the model of a sarcophagus found within the borders of
the Empire reinterprets this heritage as a local one and emphasizes the shared roots of
Ottomans and Europeans and the inclusion of the Empire to Europe. This new building was
facing the Tiled Kiosk as if trying to strengthen the relation between two styles.
In the following years after the opening of the Sarcophagi Museum, the excavations in the
Empire continued and soon the northern and the southern wings were added to the main
building in 1903 and 1907 respectively.
French historian Charles Diehl explained the rationale for the foundation of this new
museum in the following words:
“No doubt trying to appear European and civilized, Turkey wanted to give itself27 Gürol, P. “Conflicting Visualities on Display: National Museums from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic” <http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/030/008/ecp0830008.pdf>
the luxury of collecting antiquities; and, as it possesses at this time more than half
of the ancient Greek world, it did not have to go through much trouble to satisfy
this ambition.” 28
When we consider the contributions of Osman Hamdi Bey in establishing this new museum
we need to underline his success in balancing his position between two worlds to satisfy
both personal and national agendas. He recognized that the continuing contacts with the
West were a necessary component to modernism, just as his position within the Ottoman
bureaucracy was necessary to its success. During his directorship, Imperial Museum became
an institution which could spread the state ideologies from a collection which was formed
rather randomly. His undertakings during the first 10 years of directorship indicate his
willingness to give a national Ottoman identity to the museum of archaeology and his
understanding of the importance to locate the museum in the minds of the local population.
As already been discussed, the museum of archaeology had strong connotations with the
state agenda. Displaying objects, which were mainly Greco-Roman and Byzantine heritage,
found by excavations on the lands under Ottoman hegemony assigns Imperial Museum as a
communicative device to show how the Empire embraced various cultures under its roof.
While European Museums brought collections from around the world, particularly colonized
dependants to emphasize their imperial power, Ottomans used it as a tool to legitimize their
presence on these lands and to cope with increasing nationalism movements.
From Empire to Republic…
Upon the construction of Turkish Republic, one can expect fundamental changes in the
perception of the Imperial Museum, starting from its name. The current name, Istanbul
Archaeological Museums is an outcome of this change. Imperial connotations are not
welcomed anymore. The Imperial Museum, under the supervision of Ministry of Education,
was considered to be a public building with didactic purpose. The purpose was to emphasize
28 Çelik, Zeynep. “Defining Empire’s Partimony: Ottoman Perception of Antiquities” in Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands.
the unity of Empire through a collective display of historical commonwealth. The birth of the
Imperial Museum from the collection of archaeological artifacts refers to the empire’s
European aspirations and link to Greco-Roman heritage in addition to empire’s territorial
right to lands claimed by European archaeologists.
In the early Republican era, the museums were still under the supervision of Ministry of
Education until 1970s when they were assigned to Ministry of Culture. However the main
purpose of the display changes radically. The Republican era underlines the importance of
display for the viewing of “locals” who were not taken into consideration in Ottoman
agenda. This change in the perception results in an increasing number of displays of objects
of everyday use. It can also be considered as a one way evolution towards “modern civilized
nation” which includes reforms to homogenize polity and building nation state and national
identity. The readily available Greco-Roman and Byzantine heritage is only referred as the
memoirs of a distant past, however the new attempt is to stretch the origins of Turkish
presence in pre-classical cultures (ie. Hittites & Phyrigians). The physical space of the
museum becomes the place to negotiate boundaries of the past & present and museums
monopolize places and means by which the collective memory was to be stored. 29
Museums were used as effective instruments for the declaration of nationalistic idealism and
progress through modernization for the Republican regime in the early 20th century. The
practice of exhibiting was confined to the collection of historical works, designated to be
displayed as the best representation of the national past. Indeed, the nations which had
revolutions would utilize the museum idea which was for praising historical national entities.
In that sense, the museums in the early Republican era were appropriate tools to suggest a
collective identity for the nation based on the idea of a common culture rooted in common
history.
The first archaeological museum of the new Republic, the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations
displayed the archaeological heritage of the new nation, which was claimed to have been
built mainly upon the Hittites instead of the Greco-Roman culture. In the process of nation
building, the goal of the government was to create a new Turkish identity and Turkish past,
29 Kezer,Z. “Familiar Things in Strange Places: Ankara’s Ethography Museum and The Legacy of Islam in Republican Turkey.”
which depended upon new symbols. And the designated representation was neither
Ottoman nor Greco-Roman, rather Turkish history was constructed through Anatolian
civilizations which was viewed as its own past.30 Besides this, the establishment of those
museums in Ankara, the new capital city of Turkish Republic, in the cradle of Anatolia, was
also a representation of an attempt for a complete break with the Ottoman past. In that
sense, the government decided to make serious rules and regulations about how to classify,
preserve and display the antiquities. The palaces of the Ottoman Sultans which symbolize
the earlier political system of the empire were converted into museums in early republican
years. 31
The Topkapı Palace became a museum in 1924, just after the foundation of the republic, and
it was connected to “Istanbul Archeological Museums” which was now honored with the
transformational assignments. After the declaration of the republic, Santa Sophia and
Topkapı Palace were converted into museums and their directorship was given to Istanbul
Archaeology Museums which no longer was a young institution translating official messages
but a rooted and well-organized institution which was inherited voluntarily by the Turkish
Republic.
And Now….
Due to the need for new exhibition halls, a new building adjacent to the southeastern side of
the main museum building was constructed between 1969 and 1983 and this section was
named the Additional Building (new building) which was opened in 1991 in order to
celebrate the 100th anniversary of the museum.
With this re-organization the İstanbul Archaeological Museums was nominated EMYA
(European Museum of the Year Award) and it received the European Council Museum Prize,
together with the Kobariski Museum in Slovenia.
These additions gave the museum its final shape and space. Currently, on the ground floor
of the Archaeological Museum, sculptures from the Ancient Age from the Archaic Era to the
30 Gürol, P. “Conflicting Visualities on Display: National Museums from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic” < http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/030/008/ecp0830008.pdf>
31 Tanyeri-Erdemir ,T. “Archaeology as a Source of National Pride in the Early Years of Turkish REpublic”
Roman Era may be seen in addition to sarcophagi such as the Alexander Sarcophagus, the
Sarcophagus of Crying Women and the Sarcophagus of Tabnit that came from the Royal
Necropolis in Sidon.
On the upper floor of the two-storey building, there are the Treasury section, the Non-
Islamic and Islamic Coin Cabinets and the Library.
The "Surrounding Cultures of İstanbul" section, which was opened in the cellar of the new
building in 1998, is a hall where artifacts from various ages found during excavations at the
surrounding archaeological sites and tumuli. It has sub-sections of "Thrace-Bithynia and
Byzantium". The ground floor of the new building hosts the "Children's Museum" exhibition.
The "İstanbul Through the Ages" collection is exhibited on the first floor of the new building,
the "Anatolia and Troy Through the Ages" collection on the second floor and the
"Surrounding Cultures of Anatolia: Artifacts from Syria, Palestine and Cyprus" collection on
the third floor, in chronological order.
The other two museums which are a part of current Istanbul Archaeological Museums are
The Ancient Orient Museum and Tiled Kiosk Museum. The first one consists of the sections
of Pre-Islamic Arabian Art, Egypt Collection, Mesopotamia Collection, Anatolia Collection,
Urartu Collection and Cuneiform Documents, arranged according to regions.
The collections of the Tiled Kiosk Museum consist of artifacts belonging to the Seljuk and
Ottoman eras, dating from the 11th-20th centuries.
Bibliography:
1. Cezar, M. Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi, I. Cilt, (Westernization in Art and
Osman Hamdi, I.volume), Erol Kerim Aksoy Vakfı: Istanbul,1971.
2. Çelik, Z. Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century
World's Fairs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
<http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8x0nb62g/>
3. Çelik,Z. The remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the nineteenth
century Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
4. Çelik, Z. “Defining Empire’s Partimony: Ottoman Perception of Antiquities” in
Archaeologists and Travelers in Ottoman Lands, 2010
< http://www.ottomanlands.com/sites/default/files/pdf/CelikEssay_0.pdf>
5. Eldem, E. “An Ottoman Archaeologist Caught between Two Worlds: Osman Hamdi
Bey (1842–1910).” In Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage in the Balkans and
Anatolia: The Life and Times of F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, 3 vols., edited by David
Shankland, Istanbul: Isis Press, 2004.
6. Flaubert, G. Oeuvres Competes: Voyages II. (Paris: Societe des Belles Lettres, 1948)
7. Gürol, P. “Conflicting Visualities on Display: National Museums from the Ottoman
Empire to the Turkish Republic”, in Conference Proceedings of Comparing: National
Museums, Territories, Nation-Building and Change, 2008
<http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/030/008/ecp0830008.pdf>
8. Kocabas, R. “Müzecilik hareketi ve ilk müze okulunun açılışı (Museology Movement
and the Opening of the First Museum Academy)”, in Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi 21,
1969.
9. Kezer, Z. “Familiar Things in Strange Places: Ankara’s Ethography Museum and The
Legacy of Islam in Republican Turkey”, Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, Vol8,
2000, 101-116.
10. Shaw, W. Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology and the Visualization of
History in the Late Ottoman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004
11. Pasinli, A. Istanbul Archaeology Museum, Akbank: Istanbul, 2003.
12. Tanyeri-Erdemir ,T. “Archaeology as a Source of National Pride in the Early Years of
Turkish Republic” in Journal of Field Archaeology, (34,6), 2006, 381-393.
13. Temelkuran, T. “Ülkemizden Götürülen Tarih ve Sanat Hazineleri, İlk Eski Eserler
Nizamnamesi (The Historical and Artistic Objects which were taken out of Turkey:
The First Legislation)” in Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi 65, 1973.
14. Twain, M. “Innocent Abroad”, 1869 < http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?
id=TwaInno.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/
parsed&tag=public&part=all>