Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, Which Operated Between 1895 and 1914
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Theses Online 1 The London School of Economics and Political Science BYZANTINE HERITAGE, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND POLITICS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: RUSSIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE IN CONSTANTINOPLE (1894-1914) Pınar Üre A dissertation submitted to the Department of International History of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2014. 2 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 77,540 words. 3 Abstract This dissertation will analyse the history of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, which operated between 1895 and 1914. Established under the administrative structure of the Russian Embassy in Constantinople, the institute occupied a place at the intersection of science and politics. Focusing nearly exclusively on Byzantine and Slavic antiquities in the Ottoman Empire, the activities of the institute reflected the imperial identity of Russia at the turn of the century. As was explicitly expressed by Russian diplomats, bureaucrats, and scholars, the establishment of an archaeological institution in the Ottoman capital was regarded as a foreign policy tool to extend Russia’s influence in the Near East, a tool of “soft power” in modern parlance. On the Ottoman side, foreign archaeological activities were regarded with suspicion especially in the later part of the 19th century. In an attempt to preserve its vulnerable sovereignty, Ottoman Empire closely monitored foreign archaeological activities on its territories. For the Ottoman Empire, archaeology was also a way of projecting its image as a modern, Westernised empire. For both Russian and Ottoman archaeologists, European scholarship was regarded as an example that should be followed, and a rival at the same time. Russian archaeologists had to close down their office with the outbreak of World War I. The complications that arose with the disintegration of the institute were solved only in the late 1920s between the Soviet Union and Republican Turkey, under completely different political circumstances. 4 Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 1: Regenerating Distant Past: Nationalist and Imperialist Uses of Ancient History in the 19th Century .............................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2: The Double-Headed Eagle: Interest in Byzantine Antiquities in Russia and the Ottoman Empire ............................................................................................................................ 47 2.1 Academic Archaeology in the Russian Empire ................................................................... 48 2.2 Archaeology in the Black Sea Region .................................................................................... 54 2.3 Byzantine Studies in the Russian Empire ............................................................................. 60 2.4 Byzantine Studies in the Ottoman Empire ............................................................................ 84 2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 3: Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire: Cultural Property as a Symbol of Sovereignty............................................................................................................................................ 93 3.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 123 Chapter 4: At the Intersection of Science and Politics: The Establishment of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople ............................................................... 125 Chapter 5: Expeditions of the Russian Archaeological Institute and Contacts with Ottoman Authorities ......................................................................................................................... 170 5.1 Studies in Constantinople ........................................................................................................ 205 5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 209 Chapter 6: On the Eve of the Balkan Wars: Archaeology in the Midst of Political Unrest .................................................................................................................................................... 215 6.1 The Establishment of the Slavic Department within RAIK ........................................... 223 6.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 233 Chapter 7: The Doom of Empires: The Fate of the Russian Archaeological Institute After 1914 ............................................................................................................................................ 235 7.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 257 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 259 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 271 5 Acknowledgements Ph.D. is a long and difficult journey, but I was lucky enough to be supported by a wonderful group of people. It would not have been possible to write this thesis without the help of a number of individuals, who are too many to name. Unfortunately, I will be able to name only a few of them here. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dominic Lieven for his helpfulness, his never-ending support and encouragement through the twists and turns of the Ph.D. process. His supervision provided me with invaluable academic insight and guidance. I also would like to thank Prof. Simon Dixon from UCL and Prof. Peter Waldron from UEA for their valuable comments during my viva. I would like to extend thanks to my colleagues at the International History Department at the LSE. I feel very lucky to be part of such an intellectually stimulating and socially supportive community. I am also grateful to my colleagues at Istanbul Kemerburgaz University. Without their support, my research in Russia would be impossible. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Bianca Kaiser and Prof. Aysu İnsel for their support during my research in Russia. I am especially grateful to my colleagues at Istanbul Kemerburgaz University for making me feel a part of the family and for bearing with me whenever I went through the typical existential crises of a Ph.D. student. Special thanks to Prof. Kaan Ökten and the members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for their invaluable mentorship and for helping me get ready for the Ph.D. examination. I also owe thanks to Adil Usturalı, Anıl Üstünel, Emre Sünter and Gülay Erdoğan for their academic and personal support. I also owe thanks to the staff of Istanbul Archaeological Museums for making the marvellous museum library available for me. In particular, I am indebted to Havva Koç, who shared her deep knowledge with me. I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of Russian Academy of Sciences. I am indebted to Maria Karacaören for helping me decipher the mostly unintelligible hand-writing of Russian archaeologists. I am grateful to my friend and colleague Natasha Telepneva and her family for their hospitality during my research in St. Petersburg. 6 I would like to thank Prof. Peter Holquist from the University of Pennsylvania for his valuable academic support in the very first years of my Ph.D. career. I also would like to thank Prof. Hakan Kırımlı from Bilkent University, Turkey for being there and giving me strength whenever I needed. On a personal note, I would like to thank all the wonderful people I met in Ankara, Istanbul, London, Philadelphia and St. Petersburg, who supported me in one way or another during my Ph.D. journey. They include, but are not limited to, Aslı Yiğit, Başak Taraktaş, Berkay Gülen, Büşra Arslantaş, Çağlayan Arslan, Durukan