CUL
TURAL
HERI
TAGE
PRESERVATI
ON
DEVEL
OPMENT
I
N
TURKEY
THROUGH CASE STUDIES FROM ISTANBUL A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE TO RESTORATION
TESI
DI
L
AUREA
MAGI
STRAL
E
School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction Engineering MSc. in Architectural Design and History
CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY THROUGH CASE STUDIES FROM ISTANBUL
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE TO RESTORATION
Master of Science Thesis Hilal DEMIRHAN
873668
Supervisor: Arch. Ph.D. Antonio Giovanni MAZZERI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must express my very profound gratitude to my friends and family, especially to my mother, for providing me with endless support, love and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of this thesis.
I would also like to thank my thesis advisor Arch. Ph.D. Antonio Giovanni Mazzeri for the continuous support of my thesis, for his patience and knowledge.
My sincere thanks also go to Prof. Dr. Deniz Mazlum from Istanbul Technical University, for all the advices she gave me.
This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.
April 2019 Hilal Demirhan
ABSTRACT
This thesis explores the development of cultural heritage preservation in Turkey through restoration works from Istanbul. The aim of the study is to detect the problems related to preservation in Turkey through literature review and case studies from identified periods and provide solutions that will help the current practices.
The thesis consists of four chapters. In the Introduction, general background information was given to describe the context of the study. In the following two chapters, the history of cultural heritage preservation analyzed in two main periods: Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic. Selected timeline divided into five periods; until 1839 and 1839-1922 as Ottoman Empire Period; 1923-1951, 1951-1983 and 1983- to present as Turkish Republic Period. For each period, firstly, significant political, socio-economic and cultural situation was given; secondly, the preservation of cultural heritage was analyzed through practices, institutions and laws; and finally, one or more related case studies from Istanbul was examined. The chosen case studies are the restorations of Hagia Sophia, Tiled Pavilion and Colossus from 1839 – 1922 Period; Topkapı Palace and Tiled Pavilion from 1923 – 1951 Period; Galata Tower from 1951 – 1983 Period and Topkapı Palace from Period after 1983.
In the Conclusion, for each period, results of the study were given. The results showed that the traditional practices before 1839 was replaced withdual conservation approach of traditions and modernity. The perception of preservation that emerged by the influence of the European states was shaped by the political tendencies of the periods. From 1923 to 1983 self-repetitive actions, lack of cooperation of institutions and legal deficiencies prevented the perpetual advancement. Since 1983, a more consistent preservation approach has been achieved. Nowadays, international restoration trends become the norm, which eliminated cultural specificity. Overall, Turkey’s different perspective to restoration became quite ordinary.
ABSTRACT (ITALIAN)
La tesi ripercorre lo sviluppo della tutela del dei beni culturali in Turchia attraverso l’analisi di interventi di restauro significativi a partire dalla metà del XIX secolo. Lo scopo dello studio è quello di analizzare le forme che ha assunto la conservazione dei monumenti, attraverso la ricerca bibliografica e l’individuazione di casi studio selezionati per i diversi periodi identificati al fine di fornire interpretazioni e comprensione delle pratiche attuali.
La tesi è composta da quattro capitoli. Nell'introduzione sono presentate informazioni generali per descrivere il contesto dello studio. Nei successivi capitoli, la storia della tutela del patrimonio culturale viene analizzata in due periodi principali: l'Impero Ottomano e la Repubblica Turca. L’arco cronologico è quindi articolato in cinque sotto-periodi: fino al 1839 e 1839-1922 per l'Impero Ottomano; 1923-1951, 1951-1983 e dal 1983 a oggi, per la Repubblica Turca. Per ogni periodo è stata presa in considerazione la situazione politica, socio-economica e culturale; in riferimento alle questioni relative alla conservazione del patrimonio culturale, analizzato attraverso leggi, istituzioni e interventi. Per ciascun periodo, vengono esaminati uno o più casi studio relativi al patrimonio di Istanbul. I casi studio scelti riguardano i restauri di Hagia Sophia, Tiled Pavilion e Colosso del periodo 1839-1922; Palazzo Topkapi e Tiled Pavilion dal 1923 al 1951; Torre di Galata dal 1951 al 1983 Periodo e Palazzo Topkapi dal Periodo successivo al 1983.
La ricerca mostra come le pratiche tradizionali precedenti al 1839 sono state sostituite da un duplice approccio di conservazione, con contributi sia tradizionali che legati alla modernità. La visione della conservazione emersa dall'influenza degli stati europei è stata modellata dalle tendenze politiche dei diversi periodi. Dal 1923 al 1983 automatismi amministrativi, mancanza di cooperazione tra istituzioni e carenze legislative, ne hanno impedito un significativo progresso. Dal 1983, è stato raggiunto un approccio di conservazione più coerente e negli ultimi anni, le tendenze di restauro internazionali sono diventate la norma, eliminando le specificità culturali.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...17 1.1. Purpose of the Thesis
1.2. Aim and Methodology
2. OTTOMAN EMPIRE PERIOD...21 2.1. Period until 1839
2.1.1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage (until 1839) 2.2. 1839 – 1922 Period
2.2.1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage (1839 – 1922) Case Study 1: Hagia Sophia Restoration (1847 – 1851)
Case Study 2: Tiled Pavilion Restoration (1873 – 1880) Case Study 3: Colossus Restoration (1889 – 1895)
3. TURKISH REPUBLIC PERIOD...67 3.1. 1923 – 1951 Period
3.1.1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage (1923 – 1951) Case Study 4: Topkapı Palace Restoration (1939 – 1944) Case Study 5: Tiled Pavilion Restoration (1942 – 1953) 3.2. 1951 – 1983 Period
3.2.1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage (1951 – 1983) Case Study 6: Galata Tower Restoration (1964 – 1968)
3.3. Period after 1983
3.3.1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage (1983 – to date) Case Study 7: Topkapı Palace Restoration (2010 – 2014)
4. CONCLUSION...121 REFERENCES...130
LIST OF FIGURES
Cover. Adapted from Ara Güler’s photographs (n.d.).
Figure 1. Sultan Abdulaziz’s visit to Abras Gallery published in French Journal L’Illustration, 1867.
(Shaw, 2003, p.84)
Figure 2. Inside of Hagia Irene as a Military Museum. (Sebah & Joaillier, 1880)
Figure 3. Example of use of spolia in Basilica Cistern, Medusa head as column base. (Lang, 2013) Figure 4. Reused byzantine doorframe in an Ottoman building, Hudavendigar Mosque, Assos.
(Ousterhout, 1995, p.53).
Figure 5. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey. (Hagia Sophia Museum Website, n.d.).
Figure 6. Drawing by M. Wilzinger, comparing the old and new Fatih Mosque. (Salt Research). Figure 7. Suleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey. (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, n.d.).
Figure 8. Byzantine Constantinople before the conquest of Ottomans, 1422 map of Christoforo
Buondelmonte. (Kubilay, 2010, p.31).
Figure 9. Matrakçı Nasuh’s Map from 1535 showing the Ottoman Istanbul. (Kayra, 1990, p.69). Figure 10. Fatih Mosque Complex Plan; including school, madrasah, caravanserai, soup kitchen,
mosque, hospital and mausoleum. (Adapted from Eyice, 1995, p. 245).
Figure 11. Fatih Mosque and Imaret in a 16th century engraving by Melchior Lorichs showing the
surrounding neighborhood. (Eyice, 1995, p. 247).
Figure 12. Map of Constantinople, engraved by Benjamin Rees Davies, published by Society for the
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1840 (Kubilay, 2010, p.154).
Figure 13. Plan d’Ensemble de la Ville de Constantinople, 1922, Société Anonyme Ottomane d'Etudes
et d'Enterprises Urbaines (Kubilay, 2010, p.232).
Figure 14. The area affected by the Hocapaşa fire (Adapted from Çelik, 1986; Kubilay, 2010). Figure 15. After the demolition of Galata city walls, remaining Galata Tower (Berggren, 1875). Figure 16. Cemberlitas Bath after the demolitions on Divanyolu Street, photograph of Guillaume
Berggren (Nelson, 2004, p.86).
Figure 18. Vienna map before Ringstrasse Project, published by John Murray Albemarle Street London,
1858. (Grids Blog by Dutton Architects, 2012).
Figure 19. Ringstrasse Plan, Vienna, 1860. (Grids Blog by Dutton Architects, 2012). Figure 20. Panorama of Istanbul from Galata Tower by Guillaume Berggren, 1870.
Figure 21. “Panoramic view of the Seraglio Point from one of the minarets of Hagia Sophia. On the
left the University of Abdülmecid. In the background the Mosque of Sultan Ahmet I, the Obelisks of the Hippodrome of Constantinople and the Sea of Marmara (Fossati, 1852)”.
Figure 22. First Orient Express poster by Jules Chéret, 1888 (den Boer, n.d.).
Figure 23. Topkapı Palace aerial view, 1950s, showing the railway passing through palace gardens. Figure 24. Sidon excavations, 1887. (Mansel, 1960).
Figure 25. Second part of Museum of Sarcophagi construction. (Mansel, 1960).
Figure 26. New modern capital of Turkey, Ankara, 19 Mayıs Square, 1940s (BYEGM arşivinden
1930-1960'lı yıllarında Ankara)
Figure 27. Istanbul in 1928, with Sultanahmet Mosque and Hagia Sophia (Havadan Sultanahmet Bölgesi, 1928).
Figure 28.Henry Prost in Istanbul (Henri Prost’un İstanbul Planlaması, 2016).
Figure 29. Prost’s circulation plan of the Istanbul (Cengizkan, 2011).
Figure 30.Prost’s Proposal for a new Fatih Square, Istanbul (Unknown, 2012).
Figure 31. Prost’s Proposal for metro in the historical peninsula under Covered Bazaar, Istanbul
(Unknown, 2012).
Figure 32.Prost’s Proposal for Taksim Square, Istanbul (Unknown, 2012).
Figure 33.Prost’s Proposal for Atatürk Boulevard (Unknown, 2012).
Figure 34.Atatürk Boulevard before the construction (İgüs & İsmailoğlu, 2016).
Figure 35. Atatürk Boulevard after implementation (Unknown, 2012).
Figure 36. Sketch of a street in Istanbul by Le Corbusier, 1911 (Roig & Perez, 2016).
Figure 37. Atatürk’s visit to Pergamon Amphitheatre in 1934 (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Bergama'da
tatbikat kritiğini dinlerken, Pergamon Anfitiyatrosu).
Figure 38. Atatürk’s visit to The Roman theatre in Aspendos in 1930 (Antalya gezisinde Aspendos Antik Tiyatrosu önünde halkla beraber).
Figure 40. First Mimarlık journal, an article about the restoration of the Sokullu Mehmet Pasha Mosque
(Mimarlık, 1944).
Figure 41. Restoration of the mosaics in Hagia Sophia (The Church Fathers in the Tympana of Hagia Sophia, n.d.).
Figure 42.Planning of Istanbul, meeting with Adnan Menderes in 1950s (Yazman, 2010).
Figure 43.Demolitions in Istanbul, expansion of Kemeraltı Street, Tophane, 1956-57 (Çetintaş, 2012).
Figure 44.Aerial photo of the Vatan Street in 1959 (Vatan Caddesi Havadan Görünümü).
Figure 45. Demolition of the city walls during construction of Millet Street (Topkapı Surları yeni yıkılmış, Millet Caddesi'ne giriş yapılıyor, n.d.).
Figure 46.Istanbul Hilton Hotel, designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merill (SOM), opened in 1955 (Öztürk, 2010).
Figure 47.View of the Dolmabahce shoreline from the Bosporus, Hilton Hotel visible on the left, 1960-65 (Havadan Dolmabahçe ve Çevresi).
Figure 48. Partially demolished Şimkeşhane after the construction of a road (Şimkeşhane / Beyazıt, n.d.).
Figure 49. Rumelihisarı in 1956, after restoration (Rumelihisarı, 1956).
Figure 50. Chora Church/Mosque, before the restoration of Byzantine monuments (Tamer, 2003). Figure 51. Okmeydanı urban renewal project (2012-to date), Beyoğlu, Istanbul (Okmeydanı Kentsel
Dönüşüm Projesi, n.d.)
Figure 52. Okmeydanı urban renewal project detail (2012-to date), Beyoğlu, Istanbul (Okmeydanı Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesi, n.d.)
Figure 53.Diagram showing the structure related to conservation of cultural properties of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
Figure 54. New metro bridge in Golden Horn, Istanbul (Haliç Metro köprüsü, 15 Şubat'ta açılacak, 2014).
Figure 55.Poster of European Capital of Culture 2010, Hagia Sophia in the background (Avrupa Kültür Başkenti Ajansı, 2010).
1. INTRODUCTION
Istanbul always has a strategic importance as the threshold between Europe and Asia, divided by the Bosporus and connecting three seas: The Black Sea, the Marmara Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Until the 19th century, the city consisted only of the
peninsula surrounded by Golden Horn, Bosporus and Marmara Sea surrounded by small settlements. Since Neolithic age many civilizations settled in the area and enrichened its heritage. Being the capital of Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires created a unique city, not really part of east or west, but a mix of both cultures. With the inscription of the ‘Historical Areas of Istanbul’ to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985, importance of the city as a cultural site has been accepted internationally. Although there was no conscious awareness for preserving cultural heritage until the 19th century, the continuity of the structures was ensured through traditional institutions and practices. In 19th century, the economic and political disempowerment
of the Ottoman Empire, led to transformation of Istanbul based on a Western model. Since the beginning, modernization process of Istanbul, caused many changes in the texture of the city and initiated an ongoing process of change. The modernization efforts, which are not developed naturally, have created the environment in which people perceive the concept of “new” as a good and “old” as bad. Cultural heritage became the victim of the change and change became indistinguishable from the demolition.
Starting from 1869 steps have been taken to preserve the cultural heritage; however, it stayed limited to the archeological excavations and movable cultural properties. In this context, the law issued in 1912, Conservation of Monuments Decree (Muhafaza-ı Abidat Nizamnamesi), can be considered as a first legal step for the protection of immovable cultural assets. As the name of the law suggested, immovable cultural heritage was limited to monuments which was the norm until the new legislation in 1973. Although the institutionalization efforts were made following the proclamation of the Turkish Republic (1923), decentralization policy in the first years of the republic
led to chaos in the preservation of cultural properties and the continued use of the outdated laws left the restorations open for interpretation. After the World War II, international and national developments triggered the developments that shaped today’s perception for preserving the heritage in Istanbul. From the establishment of the High Council of Real Estate Antiquities and Monuments (1951-1983) to 2863 Protection of Cultural and Natural Property Law (1983), developments in the field of preservation have not reached the pace of urbanization. The first law that concerning the preservation of heritage in Turkish Republic enacted in 1973, to be replaced in ten years since it could not respond the needs of the period.
Starting from 1983, preservation of cultural heritage has developed legal standing and organizational structure. Having twenty-nine percent of immovable cultural heritage (2017) in Turkey and nomination as a World Heritage brought responsibilities to Istanbul as a center for initiatives and developments. The new government in power, from 2002 to today, established new laws and made amendments to existing laws to promote cultural heritage. However, the decision by UNESCO on Istanbul in 2010 revealed that, if necessary are steps not taken, the inscription of the property to the List of World Heritage in Danger was imminent. Eventhough, the status of the Istanbul did not change in the World Heritage List, recent restoration projects give rise to some doubts.
1.1. Aim of the Thesis
The main aim of the study is to analyze the development of cultural heritage preservation in Turkey through restoration interventions in Istanbul and determining the consistency in legal, institutional and practical context; to specify the problems and to find solutions to current practices. Despite the ongoing legal and institutional progression since 19th century, it is clear from the UNESCO decision in 2010 that there
is an incoherency in preservation practices. To ascertain the reasons for the contradiction and to suggest solutions; the research aims to identify:
- the consistency between the preservation laws and practices,
- the effects of the institutions on the preservation laws, the effect of the political economical situations on the preservation approach and practices,
- the adequacy of the preservation laws within the applied period,
- the progress in the field of preservation within the framework of the practices, regarding Istanbul’s cultural heritage context.
1.2. Scope and Methodology
The thesis is the outcome of the Architectural Design and History, Master of Science Programme in Politecnico di Milano. The most challenging situation encountered drafting the thesis is the translation of the institutions, laws and terminology; since most of the sources are in Turkish. Limited English publications and personal translations are used to achieve the logical terms and the original names are given in parenthesis.
Historical development is divided into five periods that is considered a turning point in terms of preservation. Selected timeline divided into, period until 1839 and 1839-1922 as Ottoman Empire Period; 1923-1951, 1951-1983 and 1983-present as Turkish Republic Period. For each period, preservation of cultural heritage and the conservation approach examined, first as the practices related to the period considering architectural, urban development and social situation and secondly developments of institutions and regulations. As a conclusion to each period, one or more case study is analyzed and compared to determine the consistency in preservation.
To achieve the necessary background, literature review concerning the research topic is done. Academic articles, dissertations, books and periodicals related to Istanbul and Turkey in terms of architecture, history, urban planning and restoration are used to give detailed information of the selected period. Especially, journals which started to be published in the Turkish Republic, Arkitekt (1931-1980), Vakıflar Dergisi (1938-) and Mimarlık (1944-), formed a good source for the understanding the approach of preservation in their respective periods. For the thesis to be success, selection of the case studies was critical. The identification of case study was managed considering the preservation approach of the selected period. Multiple case studies were intended to reflect different aspects of the restoration approach. After the selection process, a template was prepared for analysis of each example.
2. OTTOMAN EMPIRE PERIOD
Conservation of cultural heritage was not a fact accepted by all in Ottoman Empire since it came into being in 13th century, the need to preserve historic buildings depended political, religious, strategical importance or usefulness. During the centuries there were organizations that aided the longevity for the ancient buildings. While these organizations were efficient during the powerful times, when the Ottoman Empire declined, they did not escape the consequences.
Starting from the 18th century, increased contact with Europe led to looking for solutions in more scientifically advanced West. 19th century was the turning point for the Ottoman Empire to make reforms in its institutions to overcome the new modern needs. Defining moment of 19th century was the declaration of Imperial Edict of Reorganization (Tanzimat Fermanı) in 3 November 1939, which is the first step for Ottoman Empire to have a modern legal and administrative system (Seyitdanlıoğlu, 2006, p.258). Modernization efforts, besides being primarily in military, carried out in many aspects and started most of the laws and institutions to preserve heritage in Turkish Republic today. Although cultural reformation not being focus, visionary and influential people of the period tried to protect the antiquities.
The period between 1839 and 1876 was named Tanzimat for the reforms done to keep up with a modern West. Because of the empire's weakness, diplomacy became more important for the Ottoman Empire, and the protecting of the interests of state has become more dependent on the search for diplomacy and reconciliation than the use of the armed forces (Davison, 2006). For this reason, the relations between Europe and became critical and in 1793 first embassy of the Ottoman Empire inaugurated in London. With the help of embassies in the important points of Europe, it became easier to follow the developments and implement them in the Empire. In Tanzimat, the idea of looking solutions in West led Ottoman Empire to send students Europe to get an education and serve the State in high positions to achieve a modern system.
The most important cultural development in Tanzimat was the establishment of a museum. Starting from the 1840s, there were articles in newspapers about antiquities and the need for a museum in the capital (Cezar, cited in Türkseven, 2010, p.24). Ahmed Fethi Pasha who served as an ambassador in Vienna, Paris and London before, played a big role in the cultural reformations. As the Marshal of the Imperial Arsenal, he re-organized the former Byzantine church Hagia Irene as a museum in 1846. Hagia Irene had been converted into an arsenal after the conquest and used for storing military equipment, spolia of war and relics. Eventhough some academics consider first attempt of museum was in 1726, general opinion is that Ahmed Fethi Pasha was the founder. The building could only be visited by Sultan, eminent people or with a permission from the State which was contrary to today’s museum.
Ahmed Fethi Pasha divided the building in two sections: old armory collection (Mecma-i Esliha-i Atika) and antiquities collection (Mecma-i Asar-ı Atika). He had made important renovations in the Hagia Irene, asked to provinces to make inventories of the artefacts in their own regions, and in 1852, sent an instruction to all districts and directorates to prevent damage to old buildings and artifacts (Türkseven, 2010, p. 31). As it can be seen from above, The Empire started to get an understanding of the importance for protecting the antiquities. There were direct and legal approaches to protect ancient heritage not as a singular element but as a whole. According to 1858 Criminal Code (Ceza Kanunnamesi) article 133, actions that harm the holy and monumental structures will be punished (T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2003, p. 15). To give an example, according to a document in 1860, administrators banned the use of immovable antiquities in new constructions and punished who violated the ban (Türkseven, 2010, p. 34). In another directive from 1863, during an excavation if same two pieces were found, one will belong to the State and the other will belong to the excavator; and if there is only one object, it will belong to the excavator (Su, cited in Çal, 1990, p.12). Eventhough, there were steps for development of protection of antiquities, it was not enough for the necessities of the period. Giving most of the objects to the excavator might be thought as an incentive. Since Empire did not have the qualified personnel and enough economic power for excavations, this decree might be a quicker way to get enough antiquities for the museum.
In 1867, Sultan Abdülaziz accepted French Emperor’s invitation to Exposition
Universelle. He was the first Ottoman Sultan to travel outside of imperial lands.
According to his secretary Halimi Efendi’s notes, the Sultan wanted to observe the modern European systems to achieve the same progression within his Empire and to improve amiable relations between Europe (Gök, 2003). In Vienna, he toured the extensive antique collection in Abras Gallery and after his return to the Empire developments for antiquities escalated (Shaw, 2003, pp. 83-87) (Figure 1). In 1869, antiques collection in the Hagia Irene renamed as Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun) and the term ‘museum’ was used first time (Figure 2). According to Shaw, Minister of Public Education, Safvet Pasha, sent a directive to the several regions of Empire to collect antiquities, even buying them if necessary, to send them to Istanbul. He also cautioned for a meticulous packaging and transport; and asked for administrators to add information about the pieces (2003, pp. 83-87). State’s increasing of interest in antiquities led to having a legislative regulation.
Internal causes of the Ottoman Empire were not the only reason that led to formation of antiquities laws and institutions. Even after the Imperial Edict of Reorganization, awareness of antiquities did not develop in Ottoman Empire naturally, it came into existence as the effects of interest from Europe. Fascination with antiquities appeared in Italy during Renaissance, first construction of new buildings taking inspiration from ancient works of art, then restoration of the ancient monuments. Following centuries, due to the increased interest in collecting antiquities, archeological excavations became popular. With the excavations in Herculaneum and Pompei starting in 1738 and 1748 respectively, all lands which have ancient remains turned into a source for antiquarians.
Ottoman Empire was an easy source for European antiquarians in terms of plenty lands rich with ancient ruins, not enough technical staff with sufficient knowledge for excavations and economic problems of the Empire. For instance, British engineer T. Wood excavated Ayasuluk (near Ephesus) in 1866 and found the Temple of Artemis which has big architectural pieces in British Museum today (T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2003, p. 17).
FIGURE 1. Sultan Abdulaziz’s visit to Abras Gallery published in French Journal
L’Illustration, 1867. (Shaw, 2003, p.84)
.
After such events, it is not surprising that the Ottoman Empire was forced to implement regulations to cease legal or illegal removal of antiquities abroad. With the help of a new established museum in Istanbul, in 1869, first law for protection of antiquities created. Consequently, Ottoman Empire did not have any system dedicated to protecting antiquities until the 19th century apart from some institutions and practices that indirectly helped to preserve them. On the other hand, in 19th century, because of European influences and modernization, Ottoman Empire created a system to protect the heritage which became the basis for Turkish Republic. Taking all into the account, heritage approach and developments during Ottoman Empire Period is examined in two parts that is divided by the Imperial Edict of Reorganization (1839) as it was the turning point for the Empire in terms of modernity.
2.1. Period until 1839
2.2. Preservation of Cultural Heritage until 1839 2.1.1.1 Practices
In the Ottoman Empire, as it was mentioned before, only protection for antiquities were the indirect consequences of some practices and institutions before the 19th century. To begin with, use of a variety of spolia- re-use of ancient columns, bricks, stones, capitals, doorframes etc. for new construction- can be contemplated as a practice for continuation of heritage. Re-use of earlier building materials in new architectural compositions has been a common practice, like many civilizations, first in Byzantine then in Ottoman architecture. One of the examples for the use of spolia in Byzantine Empire is Basilica Cistern (Yerebatan Sarnıcı) in Istanbul, where two medusa heads have been used as a column base which is thought to came from Didyma Apollon Temple (Önlü, 2010) (Figure 3). Since Medusa heads still exist in Basilica Cistern for visitors to observe, obviously the practice of using spolia can be considered as a tool for continuation of heritage.1
1 Madran (1985) suggests that use of spolia can be considered as destruction (tahribat) and gives an
FIGURE 3.Example of use of spolia in Basilica
Cistern, Medusa head as column base. (Lang, 2013).
FIGURE 4. Reused byzantine doorframe in an
Ottoman building, Hüdavendigar Mosque, Assos. (Ousterhout, 1995, p.53).
FIGURE 5. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey. (Hagia Sophia Museum Website, n.d.).
As for the Ottoman Empire, according to Ousterhout (1995), common utilization of spolia in the early Ottoman buildings, such as components from ancient and Byzantine buildings in the construction of mosques and using similar building methods to Late Byzantine architecture make scholars confused about identifying the period of the building. Archeological Institute of America’s mistake in categorizing
Hüdavendigar Mosque in Assos as
church caused by its being built by mostly ancient and Byzantine spolia, including inscribed doorframe from a church of St. Cornelius (pp. 54-55) (Figure 4). In the light of this, it can be said from early dates, Ottoman Empire repurposed the ancient and Byzantine heritage to be a part of Ottoman history and culture.
Besides using spolia, repurposing the ancient buildings can be thought as an indirect practice for protection of the cultural heritage. In 1453, when Constantinople became part of Ottoman Empire, Mehmed II converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque (Figure 5).
It was a tradition for the Ottoman to convert the most important church into a mosque after a conquest, repurposing significant buildings from the previous rulers as a symbol of their power. According to Keskin, for the churches from Byzantine period; intentional demolition of churches was minimal, the materials from most of the ruinous churches used in new construction and the converted ones had only minor changes. While these conditions led converted Byzantine churches to keep their authenticity, unconverted churches did not fare well due to the restrictions made by Ottoman authority for non-Muslim religious buildings. To be able built new churches, occasionally, the congregations deliberately damaged the churches (2018). Clearly, repurposing the buildings helped them exist today as it can be seen in Istanbul. With more Muslim population, it is practical to convert earlier buildings into mosques. Regardless, in both situations -conversion or not-, the practice did not come from the need to preserve; instead, it was for establishing dominance over a conquered population.
Another thing to consider that affects the whole outlook to the conservation of heritage is the influential people of the period, especially the Sultans. Jean Henri Abdolonyme Ubicini, a French historian from 19th century, narrates that the Turks kept the Greek
name of Saint Sophia, just as they respected the building. The day Constantinople fell into Mehmed II’s power, in front of the famous basilica, he saw a soldier breaking the marbles of the court and told him "I left you the booty, but the buildings belong to me"(1855, p. 70). Atasoy mentions about the Mehmed II’s collection of sarcophagus and column heads from the Byzantine period in the second garden of Topkapı Palace (as cited in Türkseven, 2010, p. 8). In another instance Babinger remarks that, thanks to Mehmed II’s intervention, famous Serpentine column in the hippodrome2 (Sultan
Ahmet Square) and a horsed statue of Iustinianus in Augustaion square (Hagia Sophia Square) did not become a victim to the bigoted soldiers (2003, p. 397). In view of this information, it can be claimed Mehmed II had an interest in antiquities; but he did not do any regulations to protect antiquities; therefore, his interest did not go further than a hobby.
On the other hand, Cezar explains that, Osman II3 threw away the collection of
paintings, vases and other furniture that made in West by the reason that they are products by heretics (as cited in Madran, 1985, p. 501). It is impossible to expect from a ruler that cannot stand few European furniture to protect the ancient remains. These two Sultans show that the approach of the influential people can help for cultural heritage to be protected or lead to its destruction. Osman II outlook also shows another problem for protection of antiquities in the Empire: religious beliefs.
Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople during the years 1554-1562, shares his experiences in his letters:
“We spent the following day at Nicaea (Isnic)… The city walls and gates are well preserved… the ancient Latin inscriptions stating that the city was restored by Antonius…Remains of his bath also exist, which the Turks were using as a quarry for public buildings in Constantinople. While we were there, they had discovered a fine statue, almost intact, representing an armed soldier, but they quickly mutilated it by blows from their hammers. When showed our annoyance, the workmen laughed at us and asked whether we wished, in accordance with our custom, to worship it and pray to it…”
(Forster, 2005, p. 45).
In Islam, idolatry4 was forbidden which was the reason for prohibition of sculptures
and paintings of people and animals. As Busbecq’s incident shows, Muslim society in Ottoman Empire had the same abhorrence for statues which certainly caused many destructions.5 However, it should be also remembered that, some statues still exist. So,
the experience of Busbecq in Nicaea can be also interpreted as ignorance of the society. Ignorance of people can be also seen during Busbecq’s travel to Amasya, which he tells as:
3 Osman II was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire between 1618–1622. 4 Worship of physical images, such as statues.
5 It should be also noted that the perspective to the paintings and statues changes in different periods.
“… we found everywhere a great abundance of ancient coins…In many places the Turks use them as weights … and call them giaur manguri or ‘infidels’ money’... A coppersmith, from whom I inquired for coins, greatly aroused my wrath by telling me that, a few days before, he had had a whole jarful of them and had made some bronze vessels out of them, thinking they were of no use or value. I was very much grieved at the loss off all these relics of antiquity...’ (Forster, 2005, p. 49).
It is clear from the incident that while there is an understanding of antiquities in Europe during 16th century -as Busbecq’s sadness due to the destruction of antique relics
shows -, in Ottoman society there was a state of ignorance which only sees the monetary value of an object. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who was living in Constantinople in 1717, confirms this in her letters:
“…I have already made some progress in a collection of Greek medals. Here are several professed antiquaries who are ready to serve anybody that desires them…I have got some very valuable ones of the Macedonian kings…I have a porphyry head finely cut, of the true Greek sculpture… For you are not to suppose these antiquaries (who are all Greeks) know any thing. Their trade is only sell; they have correspondents at Aleppo, Grand Cairo, in Arabia and Palestine, who send them all they can find…They get the best price from them, without knowing those that are valuable from those that are not…I have bespoken a mummy, which I hope will come safe to my hands…” (1856, pp. 94-95).
What Lady Montagu tells shows that the ignorant society, who do not know the value of antiquities, turn ancient objects into a trade where anyone can order and buy anything they want with some money. This shows that; besides, ignorance, society also have an indifference to antiquities with the exception of monetary gain from them. As indicated above; while religion, ignorance and indifference of Ottoman the society led to many destructions; depending on the perspective of the influential people, protection occurred. At the same time, use of spolia and repurposing ancient buildings helped for antiquities to remain today. In brief, it can be said that there was no consciousness about the protecting ancient and Byzantine buildings.
Previous examples contain only the buildings and artworks that exist before the Ottoman Empire, while cultural heritage today also contains the buildings from Ottoman period. Although there was no direct protection for buildings in the sense of heritage, there were two institutions that help them exist today: Ottoman Guild of Architects and Foundation System.
2.1.1.2 Institutions
Ottoman Guild of Architects6(Hassa Mimarlar Ocağı)
Ottoman Guild of Architects was the official organization for the construction and repair works in the Ottoman Empire. The exact date of the establishment is not known, but the Guild functioned during 15th and 19th century. The Guild was not dedicated to
the preservation; however, they were responsible for all the official construction works done in the empire lands, primarily in the capital, Istanbul. Main task for the Guild was to make the drawings for construction and repairs, calculate the cost, prepare the project and then according to all data to carry out the construction for all works ordered by sultan and paid by the treasury (Turan, 1964).
Turan explains the tasks of the Guild in nine categories: construction and repairs of the buildings belonging to the Sultan and his family members, construction and repairs of the foundation buildings, regulation of the religious building repairs of non-Muslim population, building and urbanization services of Istanbul, military services, determination of the construction worker wages, regulation of the construction materials condition and price, supervising the architects in all provinces of Ottoman empire and education of new architects-engineers to be part of the Guild (1964, pp.163-177). The numbers of the Guild Architects have changed between seven to forty-five from 1526 to 1802 (Dündar, 1999, pp.164-166). Taking into the account of all the responsibilities and the number of members, it can be said there were not enough Guild architects for all the empire lands. Obviously, the Guild, worked as a superintendent for the entire architects and construction works of the empire. As it is
6 The translation changes depending on the source. It can be also found as Imperial Guild of Ottoman
understood from the above, there was no special task to preserve heritage, however; repairs done to continue the functionality of the buildings helped them exist today. In the years Guild was active, the term ‘restoration’ did not exist; instead, damaged buildings were repaired or if reparation was not possible, demolished to re-built again. For example, after the earthquake in 1766, Fatih Mosque7 in Istanbul, deemed too
damaged to be repaired so it was demolished and rebuilt in a new plan scheme (Mazlum, 2001, p.126) (Figure 6).
The most well-known architect today from the Ottoman Guild of Architects was Architect Sinan, who was the chief architect from 1538 to 1558. He tells in Tezkiret’ül Bünyan8 that in the construction of the Süleymaniye Mosque (Figure 7), with the
orders of the Sultan, marble columns for the building came from different parts of empire (Develi, 2003, pp. 61-63). One of the columns, located in the Istanbul was mentioned in one of the documents in the period; where it has been told that the buildings are damaged during the extraction (Barkan, cited in Develi, 2003, p.61). Also, in other instance, during a project, Architect Sinan excavates the marble gutters part of the Byzantium Water system, repairs arches and build new things to accomplish bringing water to the city (Develi, 2003, pp. 48-60). In the memories there is a general pressure about making the Sultan happy and accomplishing his wants for not losing the position of chief architect. The approach of the architect does not seem as protection of ancient remains but making the project more economical by using them. Approach to repairs changes in different instances. According to Mazlum, after the earthquake in 1766, the repairs mostly consist of re-erecting the existing debris (enkaz-ı mevcude) from previous structures. She explains that in the documents from that period, general approach to repairs was to build as it was before (vaz-ı kadim üzerine tecdid) and elaborates that the repairs done in 18th century, excluding economical restrictions, did not show the style of the period but respected the existing materials and construction details of each building (2001, pp. 127-128).
7 Fatih Mosque was first built in 16th century.
FIGURE 6. Drawing by M. Wilzinger, comparing the old and new Fatih Mosque.(Salt Research).
On the other hand, Turan explains that the estimation of construction and repairs were estimated by the Chief Architect and reported to the Defterdarlık9 who decides that the
necessity of the expense and what is its contribution to the imperial treasury. For example, before the repairs on a bath in Hama, expense of the repairs and income after the repairs were calculated for the decision to sell the building or repair it (1964, p. 166). All the information above implicates that until the 19th century modernizations,
repairs were based on economy and functionality with taking consideration of the traditional building approach.
In 19th century, Ottoman Guild of Architects was having problems performing its
tasks. According to Can, starting from 18th century, the Guild did not have enough
educated members. Although the members tried to be trained, it was a failure, resulting in unqualified people to put in leading positions. Also, the members did not earn enough money to support themselves which led to embezzlements and corruption in the system (2007, pp. 105-106).
The Ottoman Guild of Architects was disbanded during the reforms ordered by Sultan Mahmud II in 1831. It was thought that the Guild could not satisfy the modern necessities with a traditionalist structure, that was the reason all the functions of the Guild transferred to the new-established government institutions (Can, 2007, p.106). The Ottoman Guild of Architects and Şehreminliği 10, which had conflicting tasks,
abolished and became Directorate of Imperial Buildings (Ebniye-i Hassa Müdürlüğü) with the Chief Architect Abdülhalim Efendi as the director (Turan, 1963, p.178). Indifference of central government, lack of qualified architects and lack of funds led to debt of 271120 kuruş in 1837 and for architects to leave the directorate (Can, 2007, p.107). This is not surprising because in that period Ottoman Empire was having economic problems. This can be understood that from first foreign loan of Ottoman Empire in 1854 to 1875, nominal public dept was £200 million (without interest) which was more than half of the national revenue (Shaw & Yapp, 2018). Can explains that in 1848, under the Directorate of Imperial Buildings, Building Council (Ebniye
9 Official organization in charge of finance.
10 It was a position in Palace Organization which had the different tasks from paying salaries to the
Meclisi) was established with the tasks of initiating tender (münakaşa) for buildings works and making contracts with the contractors. In 1849, Directorate of Imperial Buildings came under the authorization of the Ministry of Public Works (Nafia Nezareti) and became Building Department (Ebniye Muavinliği) which was short-lived because of the continuation of economic and educational problems11 in the
Building Council (2007, pp. 107-109). According to an Ottoman archive document from 1850, the Building Council was incapable to manage its tasks and there was an irregularity in the estimates and accounts (Wharton, 2015, p. 28).
In 1852, since the members of the Building Council have been involved in corruption and tolerated the construction of improper buildings in Istanbul and surrounding empty areas, Building Department has been abolished and the Building Council met under Council of Public Works (Nafia Meclisi) which was a part of the Ministry of Trade (Ticaret Nezareti) (Can, 2007, pp. 107-109). As Can explains, due to the persistence of the same problems, it was thought that a re-organization should be made and in 1861 Directorate of Buildings was re-established under the Building Council. With a healthier organization, in 1866, Building Council became part of Municipality (Şehreminliği)12 and existed until the end of the Empire (2007, pp. 107-109). Starting
from the 18th century, organizations for building works were having economic and
educational problems which led to disorder in the system.
There was a one building organization that was specifically worked on repairs and maintenance. It was called Repair Warehouse (Tamirat Ambarı) in Topkapı Palace which worked under the Guild and handled the repairs of the palaces and imperial pavilions (Can, 2007, p. 107). However, the Repair Warehouse was limited to the buildings that is used for the royal family. During the changes in 1831, Repair Warehouse, became Imperial Buildings Repair Directorate (Ebniye-i Mîriyye13
Tamirat Müdürlüğü) (Çobanoğlu, n.d.). Over time its responsibilities increased, it became responsible for not just the repairs and maintenance palaces but many
11 There was an idea of opening a school for architecture, however; it was not possible until 1882. 12 The same name used for 2 different functions. After it was abolished in 1831, it has not been used
until 1855 to name the organization for municipal work in Istanbul (Akyıldız, 2010).
13 Ebniye-i miriyye means a building that belongs to the Empire. It differs from Ebniye-i Hassa which
government buildings such as barracks and hospitals, then in 1863 it was converted into Imperial Buildings Administration (Ebniye-i Seniyye İdaresi) to function until the end of the empire (Can, 2007, pp. 108-109).
Imperial Building Administration helped for palaces and imperial pavilions (kasr-ı hümayun) to be here. According to Terzi, it periodically controlled the buildings, maintain and repair them. When kalfas and engineers notice damage during controls, they prepare a report and classified the damage in two categories according to its urgency to cause more damage. Due to the distinguished quality of the palaces during the repairs they pay attention to the original characteristics and building materials and did not change them (1998, pp. 111-112).
From the abolishment of Ottoman Guild of Architects (1831), in the next thirty-five years there were many changes in the building organizations, most happened after the Imperial Edict of Reorganization (1939). This many changes in short amount of time shows the ineffectiveness of the systems. Even though these changes made for adaption to the modern necessities, they were not fully successful. However, the protection of the buildings that considered as important such as the palaces have been accomplished with the help of these organizations.
Foundation14 System
In the Ottoman Empire many social, economic and cultural necessities provided by the foundations. Sultans, his family, high positioned officials or wealthy citizens donated money or property with certain conditions for a service carried out in the future with the idea of eternal charity. It was a system used before in other Islamic countries, where it is believed for the mercy of the God, people should do charitable things. İnalcık explains that starting from formation, foundations functioned independently from governmental influence. To make a foundation, benefactors needed to create a legal document called vakfiye which identifies foundation resources and usage conditions. While the government inspected and approved them; starting from its founding, there was the concept of only the God has legal claims on foundations (2009, p.148).
FIGURE 8.Byzantine Constantinople before the conquest of Ottomans, 1422 map of Christoforo Buondelmonte.
Foundation buildings were the answer to many necessities in the society. For education madrasah, school, library; for religion mosques, dervish lodges; for social needs cemeteries, hospitals, kitchens; for infrastructure aqueducts, fountains, roads, bridges; and for paying for the expenses of these caravanserais, shops, bakeries, butchers, baths were some foundations built by the benefactors for the good of the society.
Foundations helped the formation of the Ottoman cities. According to Inalcık, Istanbul's distinctive Ottoman-Turkish appearance was created by the foundations (Figure 8 and 9). Few years after the conquest, Mehmed II encouraged this by asking important people in the Empire to build an imaret15 in a place of their choosing (Figure
10). The benefactors founded a mosque named after them, surrounded by the other foundation buildings and after a while people moved to the area and formed neighborhoods (2009, p.149) (Figure 11). Continuation of these foundations depended on their sources of incomes. Benefactors founded shops, baths, houses etc. to operate through rental agreements for maintenance and repairs of the foundations (Yediyıldız, 2012, p.482).
Not all the foundations were new buildings. Hürrem Sultan16 have an 14th century
building repaired and enlarged to use as an imaret in Jerusalem (Singer, 2002, pp. 73-74). After converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque, Mehmed II founded a bedesten, today known as Grand Bazaar (Kapalıçarşı) and other foundations which have the income of thirteen thousand ducat for the maintenance (Inalcık, 2009, pp. 148-150). One of the essential concepts of the foundations was not to have a time limit for their existence and being eternal. To accomplish that maintenance and repair considered essential. According to Çal, in the vakfiye one of the main conditions was to have a certain amount of money reserved for repair and maintenance permanently. For this reason, the foundation buildings were under constant maintenance and did not need major architectural changes (1990, pp. 28-32).
15 Imaret, also known as külliye, was a multi-functional complex, generally built as a foundation,
includes many buildings such as mosque, madrasah, hospital, soup kitchen, guesthouse, caravanserai, bath etc. There is a confusion in the name of imaret because it has two different definitions: the general name of the complex and the kitchen in the complex.
FIGURE 10. Fatih Mosque Complex Plan; including school, madrasah,
caravanserai, soup kitchen, mosque, hospital and mausoleum. (Adapted from Eyice, 1995, p. 245).
FIGURE 11.Fatih Mosque and Imaret in a16th century engraving by Melchior
However, if you consider many earthquakes and fires Istanbul undergo during the Ottoman Period, it is not surprising for the need for repairs. Madran mentions that in two vakfiyes from 18th century, repair priority was given to the buildings which
brought income to the foundation. After their repair, residual money was used for the main building’s repairment. In this way, continuity of the maintenance of the main building was accomplished (Madran, 1985, p. 521). In this sense the amount of income of a foundation was essential for prolongation. While this was easier to accomplish in the classical age of the Empire, with the diminishing economic incomes in 19th century
caused foundations to not have enough money for repairs and led to destruction. The repair process in the foundations were highly organized. According Yılmaz’s research the repair process started with a repair request from director of the foundation (mütevelli)17 to the local court where kadı18 formed a committee (heyet) which has at
least one architect from Ottoman Guild of Architects (2017). Depending on the importance of the building and quality of the repair, the number of the committee and the variety of professions changed (Madran, 1985, p. 528). This committee investigated the building and created a repair report (onarım keşfi) which included the location of the damages, necessary materials for the repair, amount and cost of materials, amount of workers needed for the repair and showed the approximate cost for the project; then submitted to the local court for ratification (Yılmaz, 2017). From the description of the report, it seems that it only consists of written information. However, Madran makes an inference from some documents that they included drawings (1985, p. 531)19.
As Yılmaz elaborates, ratified repair report was first sent to the Ottoman Guild of Architects and then to the Imperial Council (Divan-ı Hümayun) to be examined. If every condition was met, a ratification document was sent to the local court to start the repair. The repairs made under the supervision of the foundation architect, or a Guild architect according to the previous repair report and ratification document from the Imperial Council. At the end of the repair, local court was notified, and the committee
17 The request may come from the local people or others. 18 Kadi had authority as judge and local administrator. 19 I could not find any drawings to confirm it.
controlled the quality of work done and reported it. After the ratification from the kadı the repair considered finished (2017). While there was no restoration as we now today, there was a certain organization. However, as understood from the process, there were no common principles for the method, for each building repair approach considered individually. The regular maintenance helped for the foundation buildings to exist today.
While the idea of eternal charity was genuine, this led to a disproportionate amount of foundations. Köprülü remarks that the problems caused by the abundance of the foundations toward the imperial treasury started from 15th century and became evident
in 17th century. At the beginning of the 19th century, most of the immovable property
was foundations (1983, pp. 351-394). Some of the income of the foundations came from the foundation lands20 (vakıf arazisi). While most of the lands owned by the
Ottoman State in the beginning, the number of state lands became foundation land overtime. According to Yediyıldız during the 19th and 20th centuries one third of the
empire income belonged to the foundations (2012, p.484) However, as it was mentioned before the economic conditions of the empire was not very bright. According to Mazlum, after the earthquake in 18th century, Fatih Mosque foundation did not have enough money for the repairs. Sultan Mustafa III was saddened by this news and ordered for repairs to be done with the money from the imperial treasury. However, the other foundation who did not fare well and did repairs as much as their economic conditions allow (2001, p. 126).
Solution to all these problems tried to solve during the centralization movement during Mahmud II. In 1826 with the establishment of Imperial Foundations Ministry (Evkaf-ı Humayun Nezareti) all the foundations managed under the supervision of government. Mustafa Nuri Pasha21 explains in his book that over time private lands in
Istanbul became foundation lands which caused director of the foundations to involve in corruption during the buying and selling of lands and that led the establishment of the Ministry (cited in Ertem, 2011, p.47). Unfortunately, the Ministry did not solve the
20 General land types in the Ottoman was mülk arazisi (private lands), vakıf arazisi (foundation lands)
and miri arazi (state land).
problems for the foundations. According to Ertem, the corruption in the system increased, and the buildings did not repair. All income of the foundations collected in the Ministry to provide all foundations, but instead it was transferred to imperial treasury to meet the deficit (2011, p.49). This shows that the problem of the empire effected the condition of the foundations and led them to became dilapidated.
To conclude, indirectly the Ottoman Guild of Architects and Foundation systems helped with repairs for buildings to remain. Most effective protection was periodical maintenance of the buildings. However, the problems of the empire affected all its institutions and that extinguish the minimal protection of the cultural heritage. 2.3. 1839 – 1922 Period
2.2.1 Preservation of Cultural Heritage (1839 – 1922) 2.2.1.1 Practices
In the 19th century Ottoman Empire had conflicting policies and practices regarding the preservation of cultural heritage. The consequences of modernization, which accelerated with the declaration of Imperial Edict of Reorganization, on the one hand, created effective systems for the preservation of cultural assets, on the other hand led to destruction. Tekeli explains Ottoman modernity as top-down model, initiated by Sultan in two manners: institutional reforms which led to extensive infrastructure projects and entry to the international commerce (2010). The modernization which started with the disbandment of traditional systems and new government institutions was spread to all areas (military, culture, education, etc.) and implemented in the capital, Istanbul. Traditional Istanbul had 4 settlements; Dersaadet, Galata, Eyüp and
Üsküdar (Gül, 2009). Dersaadet, today known as historical peninsula, was limited by
Golden Horn in the north, Bosporus in the east, Theodosian city walls in the east and Marmara Sea at the west. Until the 19th century historical peninsula was the residence of the Sultan, center for trade22 and where most of the monumental buildings located
(Figure 12 and 13).
FIGURE 12. Map of Constantinople, engraved by Benjamin Rees Davies,
published by Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1840 (Kubilay, 2010, p.154).
1. Dersaadet (historical peninsula, Constantinople); 2. Galata, Pera; 3. Üsküdar; 4. Eyüp
A. Topkapı Palace; B. Dolmabahce Palace
FIGURE 13. Plan d’Ensemble de la Ville de Constantinople, 1922, Société
Beginning with 1838 trade agreement with Great Britain, Ottoman Empire, especially Istanbul, has become an attractive location for many European traders, bankers and businessmen (Gül, 2009). Galata located across the Golden Horn and district on the hill above which named Pera, became the new center for the Europeans. This can be understood clearly from the increase in land values. Between 1838 and 1847 while the land values in Pera increased by 75 percent, there was a 90 percent decrease of in the traditional bazaar area (Gül, 2009). In addition to this, change of residence of the Sultan from Topkapı Palace (in the historic peninsula) to the Dolmabahçe Palace (located across the Golden Horn) in 1856 and two new bridges to connect two sides (1836 and 1848) led for city center to move northward (Figure 12 and 13). The new modern needs and increasing European population give rise to the necessity for infrastructure. In 1855, a municipal system (Şehremaneti) established based on the French prefecture de la ville model (Gül, 2009). However, it was not overly successful and eventually Sixth District (Altıncı Daire) Administration was formed in the Galata area as a role model to all city.
According to Çelik, the first regulation about urban planning and construction activities was prepared in 1848. There were six major regulations issued between 1848 and 1882 (1986). The general approach in these regulations was to solve the biggest problem of the capital, fire23. The main components were the using masonry instead
of traditional timber in construction, expansion of roads and formation of public squares. In 1865, the biggest fire happened in Hocapasa and destroyed part of the historical peninsula (Figure 14) which led to the formation of Commission of Road Upgrading (Islahat-ı Turuk Konıisyonu, 1866) as it was not possible to extinguish fires existing narrow and unordered street system (Gül, 2009).
The Sixth District Administration and Commission of Road Upgrading has quite different structure. While, Commission of Road Upgrading worked in the historical peninsula and had all Muslim members, The Sixth District Administration had eclectic members from Europeans to Muslim and non- Muslim Ottomans (Gül, 2009). The contrast between two committees demonstrates the division in both sides of the city.
Despite the steps both commissions taken for Istanbul to have modern standards comparable to the other capitals in the Europe, preserving the cultural heritage was not the main issue for either committees. For example, the 14thcentury city walls around the Galata
region was demolished by the order of Sixth District Administration in 1865, due to the expansion of the Galata and Pera (Figure 15). Çelik explains that the reason Galata Tower, which was part of the city walls built by Genoese, survived the demolition was not just about its functionality but its importance as the symbol of the area which is underlined by the multiple reparations during 19th
century (1986). On the other side of the city, Commission of Road Upgrading (1866 – 1869) was also responsible for some destruction. During the expansion works of the main road of the historical peninsula, Divanyolu, and for creation of new public squares historical buildings were moved, partially or fully demolished (Gül, 2009). The effects of the modernization of the city can still be seen from the example of Cemberlitas Bath, where the dome was cut to allow for building of the new road (Figure 16).
FIGURE 15. After the demolition of Galata city
walls, remaining Galata Tower (Berggren, 1875).
FIGURE 14. The area affected by the Hocapaşa
FIGURE 16.Cemberlitas Bath after the demolitions on
Divanyolu Street, photograph of Guillaume Berggren (Nelson, 2004, p.86).
FIGURE 17.Theodosian walls in 19th century (Van, 1899,
p. 46).
24 Çelik elaborates that this led to a public interest in
Byzantium city walls, a detailed map of the city walls (1891) made and a book by Alexander Van Millingen named “Byzantine Constantinople, The Walls and
Nevertheless, not all demolitions are realized. Çelik mentions that there were several proposals for the demolition of the Theodosian city walls, which were not in good shape (Figure 17). In 1972, Grand Vizier Mithat Pasha’s suggestion for demolition was not received well and stopped by a group named ‘British protectors of antique works’24. In 1909, another proposal
was published in a newspaper (Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar), where the city walls Istanbul articulated as having no architectural, historical or military value and should be replaced with new modern buildings like Vienna’s Ringstrasse (1986) (Figure 18 and 19). Thanks to the conditions of the period, Istanbul did not lose one of its the ‘outstanding universal value’ that make it a World Heritage site explained in UNESCO website as “… 6,650-meter terrestrial wall of
Adjoining Historical Sites (London, 1899)” was published.
FIGURE 18. Vienna map before Ringstrasse Project,
published by John Murray Albemarle Street London, 1858. (Grids Blog by Dutton Architects, 2012).
FIGURE 19.Ringstrasse Plan, Vienna, 1860. (Grids Blog
by Dutton Architects, 2012).
Theodosius II with its second line of defense, created in 447, was one of the leading references for architecture…”. The reason for not having larger scale demolition can be explained with the economic conditions of the Ottoman Empire and the antiquarian societies’ effectiveness in late 19th and early
20th century. For instance, founded
in 1911, Friends of Istanbul Society (Istanbul Muhipleri Cemiyeti or Société des Amis de Stamboul) promoted many repairs, worked on public awareness of historical buildings by conferences and publications (Cephanecigil, 2009). Another thing that affected the preservation of cultural heritage was the changes in the field of architecture. Starting from the disbandment of Ottoman Guild of Architects, European architects and non-Muslim Ottoman architects were the responsible for the new
buildings that introduced new architectural styles. Particularly classic revivalism(neo-classic), gothic revivalism, Islamic revivalism and Art Nouveau was used in new buildings (Çelik, 1986). Increased construction of new buildings caused two sides of the city started to have a different characteristic (Figure 20). Historical peninsula had the silhouettes of minarets and domes of the monuments while across the Golden Horn new modern buildings dominated the skyline. The new construction was not limited to the Galata area. One of the most striking examples to this was the Darülfünun, a university building designed by Gaspare Trajano Fossati, built between 1846 -1863 next to the Hagia Sophia. In neoclassical style, 3 story building’s proportion was massive and its effect on the silhouette of the historical peninsula was overly explicit (Figure 21). Darülfünun’s construction also shows a conflictive ideology of the period’s urban planning approach. In 19th century, Haussmann’s renovation of Paris
has been accepted as model for a modern city with placing the monuments in the center of public squares. Eventhough there were new monuments that was built for the modern needs, it did not take attention from the historical symbols of the city. Constructing a building with Darülfünun’s monumental style next to the Hagia Sophia, which was a symbol of the city from Byzantine period to Ottoman Period as its main religious artefact, shows that the Empire did not find a clear attitude for how to balance history and modernity.
The new styles in architecture was not limited to new buildings. According to Mazlum, in 19th century, it was common to use the architectural language of the period while
repairing the buildings such as using baroque decorations in Architect Sinan’s buildings (2001). Also, foreign architects’ effects in architecture was not restricted to the new constructions. Louis Leon Parvillée25, Giovanni Battista Barborini, Raimondo
D’aranco, Gaspare Fossati worked on the repair of the historical buildings. The most important restoration of the period can be seen as Gaspare Fossati’s restoration of the Hagia Sophia between 1847-1849(Case study 1).
Another effect of Imperial Edict of Reorganization is that the restrictions on the building of new religious structures by non-Muslim people have been removed. As Yerasimos says, especially after the Tanzimat, when the church was granted permission to make, change and enlarge freely, the old buildings of many of them were demolished to make place for larger ones which were more modern (2011).
During the modernization, one of the most debated topics was transportation. During the 19th century, as the settlement in Istanbul spread, connecting the city through trams,
25 Parvillée was a student of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. He was invited to restore Bursa Yeşil Mosque and
Yeşil Tomb. According to Alsac, during the restoration almost all of the exterior tiles were dismantled and replaced with new produced ones (cited in Coşkun, 2012, p.54). In recent years, the tiles discovered in the Victoria and Albert Museum by an academic named Hayal Gulec to be proven that they and pieces from other monumental buildings were illegally taken to Paris during the restoration and sold to the museum after his death (Eroğlu & Güleç, 2016).
