Tahsin Öz and His Stylistic Restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • 1-12 Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum

Burcu Selcen COŞKUN [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul, Turkey

Received: January 2018 • Final Acceptance: September 2018

Abstract State-led heritage conservation was first experienced in Tanzimat Period in Ottoman Empire. State continued being the major custodian of cultural heritage throughout the 1950s. The general approach towards conservation of these early years was the maintenance of symbolic buildings that had been regarded as monuments. Yet, we can speak of a selective ideal of determining which monument to conserve and which period to exhibit. Starting his career as the chief accountant and later the deputy director of the Museum of Antiquities, Tahsin Öz was among the people who dominated the field of heritage preservation in the early Republican years. He acted throughout his life as an influential figure in decision making processes of heritage conservation. As one of the most important roles in his career, Öz was appointed as the director of Topkapı Palace Museum, which became a museum in 1924 with the approval of the young parliament. Although much neglected and in need of urgent repair, the buildings of the palace were still witnesses of the 19th century Ottoman taste. Un- til 1953, he was responsible and in charge of some rather ambitious restorations, which favored to erase the traces of one period and return back to a specific one. This paper aims to introduce the controversial approaches of Öz in Topkapi Palace Museum with an overview of what he realized and wrote, and focus simul- taneously on the atmosphere of preservation in Turkey until 1950s with voices of intellectuals and professionals supporting or disagreeing his decisions.

Keywords doi: 10.5505/itujfa.2018.41033 doi: Tahsin Öz, Topkapı Palace Museum, Viollet le-Duc, Restoration. 2

1. Introduction favour of conservation and repair (Or- By the 19th century, approaches to başlı, 2008, 21). historic monuments by Eugéne Vio- Although conservation theory has llet-le-Duc in France and Sir George adopted the conservationist approach Gilbert Scott in England challenged as the main path to follow, in practice the idea of architectural conservation many others who have been occupied in Europe. For these architects, resto- with the restoration of monuments ration of monuments used to mean the followed the footsteps of Viollet le- completion and recreation of a build- Duc and proposals to rebuild historic ing according to its most significant buildings or to restore them with ad- period, using analogy and historical ditions that may have been used at the research. These monuments then be- time when they were built, continue to came ‘frozen illustrations of particular be proposed. When it is at stake to re- moments’ in one nation’s history (Jok- store historic buildings, it is not hard to ilehto, 1999, 7). The restorations they say that architectural conservation as had undertaken were mostly shaped a practice has never truly abandoned by their particular desire of creating an stylistic unity approach. imagined aesthetic unity and generally Tahsin Öz in Turkey, an influential disregarded the buildings’ history and figure in conservation history is among development over time. Today they are these ‘others’, who like Viollet le-Duc, considered as subjective interventions preferred to see historic buildings at by conservation experts, which caused a specific time of their lives. He guid- the loss of the authentic material of the ed the extensive restorations of 1940’s monument. at the Topkapı Palace Museum where In England A. W. N. Pugin, John he acted as the director. In order to Ruskin and William Morris opposed evaluate his contributions and his to Scott’s church restorations which personal approach to conservation of favored to return the monument to a monuments, one needs to have brief specific time of its history and scrape information on the period of Öz, in the off the later historic stratification and scope of architectural conservation in additions it had put on as it evolved Turkey. through time. Dehio (1905), another leading personality for anti-restoration 2. Conservation of monumental movement in Germany wrote in the heritage in Turkey throughout early years of 20th century: 1923-1950 The Historicism of the 19th century State-led heritage conservation ini- has- as well as its genuine daughter, Con- tially started to be institutionalized in servation- fathered an illegitimate child, Tanzimat Period (1839-1876) in Otto- Restoration. They are often confused but man Empire and continued throughout they are diametrically opposed. Conser- the early Republican period without vation strives to preserve existing things, many changes. The general approach of restoration aims to recreate nonexistant these early years towards architectur- things. The difference is striking. On the al conservation was the maintenance one hand sits reality, reduced and faded, and safeguarding of symbolic historic but always real- on the other sits fiction buildings that had been regarded as (Huse, 1996, 141). monuments. During the foundation The conservation theory which has years of the Republic, the nation lacked developed after the WWI, is based on enough economical sources in all fields this conservationist approach which and thus, there were also limited ac- had developed as a reaction to the tivities in the construction industry. ongoing restorations in Europe and The few conservation activities in the aimed at the preservation of histor- country generally aimed at saving the ic stratification and avoided falsifica- lives of symbolic buildings, such as tion. Athens Charter, as an outcome mosques, inns or caravanserais in Ana- of Athens Conference held in 1931 is tolia. Only a small group of architects the first international document out- and technicians were commissioned in lining modern conservation policy. It the restoration projects of these monu- discouraged stylistic restorations in mental buildings, some of which were

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 3

given new functions such as museums (Arseven), maintained their positions, or state offices. Whilst founding a new it acted as the main advisory body on state in the post-war period starting preservation in Istanbul (Altınyıldız, from 1920s, the focus was on the capital 2007, 287). The first official govern- city, Ankara and surroundings, which mental institution of the Republic carried undoubtedly new meanings which deals with issues of preservation for the nation building process. Bilsel of historic buildings throughout the (2011) suggests that İstanbul, as the country was established much later, in former capital city of Ottoman Empire 1951 and undertook the duties of this might have been intentionally deprived Comission. The mission of theHigh of public funds in the early republic Council for Historic Real Estate and years, in order to let the recent traces of Monuments (Gayrimenkul Eski Eserler the Imperial rule die away. On the oth- ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu) was to de- er hand, no matter how scarce the re- termine the principles of protection, sources had been, there was still a con- repair and restoration of architectural tinuous activity for rescuing significant and historical monuments in the coun- buildings from demolition. Decisions try and organize the programs relat- 1Shaw (2007) sees the conversion on how to preserve some of the most ed with these principles. The Council of the Empire’s important monuments, like Hagia So- primarily acted as the chief supervisor most important phia1 or Topkapi Palace complex were on the realization of these principles. ceremonial discussed thoroughly and they were It commented on complex issues and mosque, Hagia eventually given new functions as mu- solved conflicts related with historic Sophia into a 2 museum in 1934- seums (Coşkun, 2012; Açıkgöz, 2014). monuments while providing scientif- 35 as an act of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s telegram ic assessment in the decision making ‘memorializing the to İsmet Inonu from Konya during his process. Ottoman political Anatolia trip in March 1931 highlight- In 1943, Ali Saim Ülgen, an experi- power manifested ed the issue of neglected monumental enced state-architect who worked on in the conquest of the Byzantine buildings in the country which needed restoration of historic buildings pub- Empire and at urgent care. The telegram can be con- lished the first book in Turkey on the the same time sidered as a warning for the dilapidated topic of conservation of monuments. secularizing it.’ state of architectural heritage in central ‘Anıtların Korunması ve Onarılması 2Giving historic Anatolia. With the motivation derived I’ (‘The Conservation and Repair buildings new from the telegram, a commission for of Monuments I’) reflected Ülgen’s function as the protection of historic buildings was knowledge and experiences he gained museums was a immediately established. The commis- during his apprenticeship in France at preference that the sion published a report in 1933 which the beginning of his career and at the state favored in the early years of drew attention to issues like the need times he worked in state institutions the Republic, while for a central institution managing the responsible of various restorations of this allowed the facilities related with the conservation mainly monumental buildings (Ülgen, state to select and of monuments and the significance of 1943). Introduced by a short text by Al- easily visualize a raising public awareness for protection bert Gabriel, the book had a introduc- particular past, construct an of historic buildings (Madran, 2002). tion section on the history of architec- identity out of it The Turkish Republic had inherited tural conservation in Europe and gave and then represent ‘a comprehensive legislative framework information on some general concepts it to its people. and some weak institutions’ from the of conservation of historic buildings. This also helped late-Ottoman period (Şahin Güçhan In his bibliography, Ülgen included the clear off all the other (perhaps and Kurul, 2009). In Istanbul, the proceedings book of Athens Confer- contested?) Commission for the Preservation of ence, which involved the current dis- narratives these Antiquities (Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika cussions on the theory of architectural buildings used Encümeni), established in 1915, was conservation. In his book, it is clear to house. Shaw active for the decision making pro- that Ülgen respected the existing iden- (2003) argues that this helps reflect cesses of the preservation of historic tity of a monument and he simply sug- the perception monuments for a long while (Madran gested consolidation when there was of the past in 2002; Güçhan Şahin & Kurul, 2009). shortage of evidences on the building. the modern era, The commission was ratified by the re- He also preferred truth in materials, in when museums as publican government in 1925 and with other words, to show the additions and institutions became more established its founding members, Kemalettin Bey, new materials at the restorations (Bi- and expanded. Halil Edhem (Eldem), and Celâl Esad nan, 2001, 109-117).

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum 4

During the time when Ülgen pub- new era for the Topkapi Palace. Since 3Also the well- lished his book, Tahsin Öz was occu- then, the Imperial Palace was no lon- known miniature painting from pied with extensive restorations at the ger a place of residence for the sul- early 16th century, Topkapi Palace Museum and from his tan and his family and consequently Hünername depicts general attitude towards historic build- evolved into a ceremonial area, then the buildings and ings it can be suggested that either towards the beginning of 20th century, the ceremonies Öz hadn’t read Ülgen’s book or that to a visitor centre mostly for the high- performed in/ around these he didn’t take it seriously as a guide ly respectable foreign visitors of the buildings. throughout the restorations he had un- Empire. During these years the com- 4Tamer (1986, dertaken at the museum. plex was not looked after as well as it 139) who took deserved and many buildings in the responsibility at 3. Topkapı Palace, from the complex were in need of urgent care Topkapi Palace imperial palace to a museum and repair. As Altınyıldız (2007) stat- restorations many th times at different Topkapi Palace had been the home ed, towards the end of 19 century, the periods of her for Sultans; an educational institution demise of the Empire had also a direct career, mentions of the Empire and a administrative impact on Istanbul’s monuments, par- in her article that and judicial centre for the Empire. Its ticularly transforming them into dilap- these repairs often structural skeleton embodied an Otto- idated and dysfunctional buildings. neglected the authentic materials man language of imperial power hous- Tahsin Öz (1991) described the pal- and didn’t respect ing both government offices and the ace he personally witnessed in 1920s previous periods. monarch’s household (Mansel, 1995). as being “neglected for a long time and She writes she Having moved out from the Old Pal- dilapidated”5 and gave a detailed ob- witnessed many at ace in Beyazıt, the Ottoman dynas- servation: different parts of ty started residing in Topkapi Palace “During the time when the Repub- the palace rooms or th furniture with rich (a name given to the complex in 19 lic was being constituted, ... Imperial decorated surfaces century) in 16th century. Throughout Council (Kubbealtı) was in a rotten merely covered by its settlement during almost 400 years state, with its plaster, crumbling into limewash or plain and the population of palace inhab- pieces, due to the long period of derelic- paint which were traces of these itants growing larger, there was a de- tion. Because of the frowzy smell inside, late 19th century mand for new buildings which even- it was not easy to enter in. The kitchen restorations. tually gave the current appearance to rooms were all filthy and messy, having 5The other historic the palace. Buildings loosely grouped been abandoned for long years with- buildings in the city around courtyards had been built side out a proper lead roof cover over their had similarities by side with others which were used domes. The roof of the Enderun School with Topkapı as residential buildings. From archi- leaked and its cellars were packed with Palace complex 3 buildings as a val resources , it is known that some piles of worn-out stuff. ..the roof cover of whole. Sedad Hakkı of the initial structures had been swept Ağalar Mosque no longer existed, while Eldem (1908-88), a away due to inevitable disasters like the interior was full of rubble and dirt. prominent Turkish fires or earthquakes and some had Even from the dome of the Baghdad Pa- architect and and been heavily renovated with the taste villion, which used to be one of the most one of the members of the Council for of a new era (And, 2011, 100). Howev- cared and beloved places in the palace, the Preservation er, the palace complex still embodies water leaked inside. Not to mention the of Monuments, a uniquely Ottoman imperial tradi- Harem, all deserted, where there used to described Istanbul tion invented in the 15th century and be rooms of great importance with win- between 1925 and consolidated in the 16th (Necipoğlu, dows having neither frames, nor glass”. 1930 as “vacated neighborhoods, 1992). On the other hand, each sultan Eldem also noted that the palace but [with] houses, including Abdulmecid I, who moved remained the same as it was in 1908. mansions, and to Dolmabahce Palace and abandoned He described the palace he had seen in seaside residences Topkapı, ordered new additions and 1920’s as a place full of valuable trea- still standing as if repairs for the dilapidated parts of the sures piled on top of one another. Like living their final 4 days” (Altınyıldız, complex . Today it is easy to recognize Öz, Eldem also notes that many parts 2007). different tendencies in decoration and of the palace lost their unity and were architecture which had been applied falling apart and uses photographs tak- 6Many parts of the palace remained to the same buildings throughout en in 1937 to demonstrate the “before” closed until after their lives. images in his discussion (Eldem and renovations Sultan Abdülmecid I’s decision to Akozan, 1982; Shaw, 2007). undertaken move to Dolmabahçe Palace in the Önder (1990) states that having vis- between 1939 and midst of 19th century was the start of a ited and witnessed the neglected state 1942 (Shaw, 2007).

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 5

7The preservation The initial restorations of the palace board declared in were noted in different sources. One of a report dating 1935 that Topkapı the first ones, which was a structural Palace complex, consolidation, was conducted in 1925 a museum at that at Ağalar Mosque and was document- time, like Fatih, ed with an inscription on its masonry Süleymaniye and entrance wall. Later in Ülgen’s publica- Şehzade Complexes was about to tion, a tower in Topkapi Palace was in- collapse due to cluded in a list of monuments that had neglect (Altınyıldız, been restored. The tower which had 2007, 290). been restored in 1933 is likely to be the 8At those days, Tower of Justice. In the same list Bagh- the palace was dad Pavillion was listed as restored in officially part of 1935 and the Imperial Kitchens in 1936 the administration 7 of the Archaeology (Ülgen, 1943) . Museum, but it was run by its existing 4. Tahsin Öz, an influential figure staff, many of in the history of Topkapi Palace whom had been in service there since Museum early childhood, Tahsin Öz (Figure 1) was born in Figure 1. Tahsin Öz with his wife (Yücel, 1887 in Hakkari, a small city at the and none of whom 2009). had any concept of northern border of Turkey, due to his a museum (Shaw, of the complex, it was Mustafa Kemal father’s occupation, who was a judge 2007). in Ottoman Empire. He studied law 9 Atatürk who thought that opening the Halil Edhem, palace complex to visitors as a muse- at Istanbul University, but didn’t fully Osman Hamdi Bey’s younger um would be a convenient solution to accomplish his studies. At the age of brother, was an rescue the buildings with their impe- 20, he became an accountant at Asar-ı influential Ottoman rial belongings inside. He shared his Atika Museums (the Museum of An- intellectual in the idea with İsmet İnönü and Vasıf Çınar, cient Artifacts). He started his personal fields of history, the former minister of Education and researches on Turkish-Islamic monu- art, archaeology, architecture, and following a very short period after the ments around this time. In 1923 he be- preservation. He declaration of the Turkish Republic in came the deputy director to Museum had replaced his 1923, the palace complex was designat- of Antiquities/the Imperial Museum in brother Osman ed to a museum with the full approval Istanbul and in 1928, one year before Hamdi Bey as the of the former parliament. Following the Refik Bey, the traditional keeper of the director of Müze-i 8 Hümayun, the initial administrative work and basic palace who had become the first di- Imperial Museum, repairs, a small part of the palace was rector of the museum, retired, Öz was in 1910 and held opened to public visits on 9th Octo- appointed to the position of Topkapi this post for 21 ber 1924 (Karahasan, 2005, 33)6. Some Palace Museum director which he con- years, which also scholars’d rather interpret this fact as tinued until his retirement in 1953 (Yü- allowed him to 9 be responsible for a symbolic act “seeking to relegate the cel, 2009). Halil Edhem , the director of the supervision recently demised Ottoman Empire into the Imperial Museum was the person of monument a distant past, and terminate its con- who engaged him to this post and his preservation in temporary political relevance” (Shaw, future career in museum management. the Empire. He 2007 and Açıkgöz, 2014). Shaw (2007) Another important figure in Turkish had proposed the constitution of describes Turkish Republic at early history with whom Öz was aquainted, the Council for times of the republic as “a highly cen- was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Önder the Preservation tralized nation with highly ideological (1997) notes that from time to time of Monuments narratives of national cohesion”. In this Atatürk consulted Tahsin Öz on issues in 1915, as a regard, the program selected for Re- related with museums and cultural as- consultative body to the imperial public’s emerging museums also con- sets. He noted that Atatürk told Öz how museum. He sidered what was worthy of being told much he had been effected by Pergam- presided over the to visitors and had a consistency with on Museum on his visit to Berlin at the conversion of the national ideology of the period. Topka- end of 1917 with Vahdettin, who had Topkapı Palace pi Palace Museum would definitely try been a heir to the throne in those days. into a museum in 1924 as well as its to reflect a past that supported unity This indicates Atatürk’s special interest ensuing restoration and the glorious history of the Turks, on museums as part of the cultural life (Altınyıldız, 2007). rather than the years of decline. of a nation which he apperantly had

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum 6 on the days when he was a young and bright military officer serving the -Em pire and accompanying its future ruler. Tahsin Öz was undoubtedly one of the most influential actors of state led architectural conservation in Turkey. His holding the post of the director of Topkapi Palace Museum made him a natural member to the emerging advisory committees that reflected the national conservation approach towards historic monuments at different peri- Figure 2. Topkapi Palace in 1940’s, picture from Tahsin Öz’s ods. He was among the members of Is- article dating 1949 (Öz, 1949). tanbul Commission of Preservation of Ancient Buildings, as well as the com- Eski Eserler ve Anıtlar Yüksek Kurulu) mission10 which had been responsible as a committee member. of the decisions for the restorations of In 1951 Tahsin Öz was appointed as Hagia Sophia in 1930s (Akan, 2008, p. one of the first committee members of 36). Later in 1942-43, when Yeşil Tür- the High Council for Historic Real Es- be (Tomb) in Bursa was decided to be tate and Monuments (GEEAYK) and 5 restored, Öz acted as the head of the years later in 1956, he became the head advisory council, which consisted of of the council. He continued this po- Nihat Nigizberk, Sedat Çetintaş and sition until 196911. This period, when Zühtü Başar. The restoration which he was the head of the council, marked was undertaken by Macit Kural (Ku- the controversial urban transforma- ral, 1941) and has later been subject tions conducted by Istanbul Munici- to praises (Akın, 2006, p. 10) had been pality and the prime minister, Adnan approved by this council. Menderes himself. The council was It is known that Tahsin Öz under- criticized heavily by the intellectuals of took later some of the restorations and the time for not intervening on time to management of Sultan tombs in Istan- prevent the loss of the urban fabric of bul, as well. the historic core of Istanbul caused by He was a member of different in- the urban transformation project im- stitutions, such as Turkish History In- plemented between 1954-1958 (Ünsal, stitution, ICOM, Unesco Museology 1960; Eyice, 1993, p. 197). Branch and lectured at the History of Art Department in Istanbul Universi- 5. Tahsin Öz’s restorations at the ty and for a short period he taught at Topkapi Palace Museum English Highschool for Girls in Beyoğ- In 1939, the Topkapi Palace Muse- lu. After his retirement, Öz continued um Administration decided to close his career in the Directorate of Pious its doors to visitors to start the ex- Foundations in Istanbul. tensive restoration works at different Tahsin Öz (1949), who wrote arti- parts of the museum. During 4 years, cles generally on buildings of Turk- between 1940-44, most of the dilapi- ish-Islamic art in journals such as dated buildings of the palace were re- Vakıflar Dergisi (Journal of Pious stored, with a comparably high budget Foundations), Yedigün, Güzel Sanatlar derived from the government. These Mecmuası (Journal of Fine Arts), Türk restorations marked the first resto- Tarih Vesikaları also wrote a detailed, rations undertaken at the museum 70 page long article in Güzel Sanatlar complex after the palace had been con- on the restorations conducted in Top- verted into a museum. Although there kapı Palace Museum starting from were no project drawings developed 10Aziz Ogan 1940’s, when he was the director of the for the restorations, an advisory body was the head of this commission museum. consisting of experts (all architects: (Arkan, 2008). One of the most important responsi- Sedat Çetintaş, Ali Saim Ülgen, Nihat 11 bilities in Öz’s career was being involved Niğizberk, Arif Hikmet Holtay and Tahsin Öz remained a in the High Council for Historic Real Sedad Hakkı Eldem) had been asked member in the Estate and Monument (Gayrimenkul to give their remarks on the potential Council until 1973.

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 7

Tahsin Öz (1946, 17) also stated that “these repairs helped not only save the lives of the buildings, but also return back the full architectural character of these buildings by removing plaster on top of the tiles, liberating decoration under the limewash and unveiling the doors, windows and fireplaces behind the additions”. These are words to in- dicate that while consolidation works were the primary goal, there was special effort to return the buildings to the day they were built. After the restorations Selahattin Kandemir, an ar- chaeologist who published a book in 1935 entitled “Tarihi Eserleri Araştırma ve Koruma Kılavuzu” (A guidebook for the Investigation and Preservation of Ancient Monuments) wrote a cri- tique in 1949 in the TTOK Bulletin and blamed the Commission for the Pres- ervation of Antiquities for the wrong implementations that had taken place in the museum. Kandemir was not the only person to criticize the restorations in 1940’s. The controversial decisions taken primarily by Tahsin Öz, as he was the museum director, has long been a debate of discussion. In this point, some of these restorations will be studied in detail to dis- cuss the level of intervention in general (Figure 3).

5.1. Kubbealtı (High cupola)- Divan Figure 3. Topkapı Palace Complex general siteplan, the selected (The council hall) restorations are numbered (Eldem and Akozan, 1982). The building that used to house Im- restorations of some of the buildings perial Divan (the Council Hall) of the in the museum (the Tiled Kiosk, Fa- palace is located on the left of the sec- tih Pavillion, the Council Chamber ond courtyard next to the Treasury of and the Middle Gate) (Öz, 1949, 11, p. Mehmed II. It was built in 16th century. 14; Eldem ve Akozan, 1982, p. 96; Al- This was the chamber where the Grand tınyıldız, 1997). Vizier and other viziers debated regu- Later in 1949, in his long article larly (four times a week) on policy and Tahsin Öz described the decisions they decided law-suits (Figure 4). made during the restoration process In the early periods, also the Sultan liberating the buildings from additions used to be present in the Divan togeth- “stuck on during the period of decline” er with his viziers. However, due to (Shaw, 2007) (Figure 2). Admitting that security reasons this tradition gradu- there had been shortcomings during ally changed over time and the Sultan the restorations because of the inexpe- started attending the Divan behind rienced restoration crew, he expressed a curtain, sitting in an alcove which his thoughts for the restorations as: overlooked the council room. The al- “Although the dynasty neglected its cove was covered with a curtain inten- own home, Topkapı Palace, Turkish Re- tionally, so the viziers wouldn’t be sure public gave it a new life with the atten- whether the Sultan was behind it listen- tion it nourished for art” (Öz, 1949, 17). ing the issues being discussed, or not

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum 8

(Mansel, 1995). It was a place of interest for the foreign visitors. Early in 19th century, Antoine-Ignace Melling, who was commissioned by Hatice Sultan and came to Constantinople, depicted the Council of State in his engraving of the second courtyard (Figure 5). The High Cupola (Kubbealti) was the main room for the meetings of viziers. Divan (the council hall) had 3 rooms attached to eachother. In front of these 3 rooms, there is a portico covered by large eaves which are carried by 11 columns. Öz (1946) describes the High Cupola of 1920’s when the palace Figure 4. Divan, the current state (Coşkun, 2011). was converted into a museum as being in such a neglected state that it had almost been impossible to enter in (Fig- ure 6). During the restorations in Tahsin Öz’s period in 1940’s, there was quite a lot of intervention applied to the decoration of the room. The plaster on the interior walls had been scraped and samples of rococo style decoration and underneath the rococo decoration, 16th century style classical decorations had Figure 5. The second courtyard depicted in Melling’s picture been discovered. It was then decided to (Özgencil Yıldırım, 2008). remove all the rococo decoration and return back to the early period inside the first room which is located on the corner. The rococo style wooden panel placed on the centre of the dome was removed and carried to the dome of the next room. The porphyry panels on the walls were also removed and placed inside the next room. Classical Iznik tiles were preferred for the emp- ty surfaces where the porphyry panels used to stand. The latticework covering the alcove of the Sultan was taken off and replaced by a ironwrought railing, typical for 16th century. Öz didn’t refer to any archival document for these decisions, however D’Ohhson’s picture (Tableau general de l’Empire othoman) Figure 6. The Council Chamber before Tahsin Öz period depicts a feast featured both of these interventions (Karahasan, 2005). decorative elements, the ironwrought railing and the tiles (Figure 7). It is one in D’Ohhson’s picture (Necipoğlu, possible that Öz took his references 1992; Karahasan, 2005). Today these from this picture. Another element decisions can only be interpreted as which is seen in D’Ohhson’s picture is imaginary reconstructions of the past. the marble door frame between these Eldem, who had been a member of two rooms. In Tahsin Öz’s restorations the advisory group during the resto- a door frame, which is thought to have rations explained later (in 1982) that he belonged to Arz Odasi was carried and could not share in the decisions made placed between the rooms, probably to by the Museum concerning the Coun- reinstate a similar appearance as the cil Chamber (Shaw, 2007).

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 9

5. 2. The Bab-üs Selam (The gate off salutation / The middle gate) The stone gate to the second court from the first court had been the main entry to the palace and today serves as the main entrance of the museum for the visitors (Figure 8). It admits to the second court, a gath- ering place for courtiers and a place surrounded by a series of low, arcaded, wide-eaved buildings (Mansel, 1995). The gate was initially constructed in Mehmed II’s period and since then had been through some alterations. Archi- tect Vedad Bey was commissioned for Figure 7. D’Ohhson’s picture depicting a the first restoration of the gate in 1916. feast in Divanhane (the Council Chamber), During this restoration new windows (Tableau général de l’Empire othoman’dan had been added to the facade over- aktaran Necipoğlu, 1992, 94). looking the second court in order to hinder the humidity of the rooms of the gate keepers (kapı ağaları) (Kara- hasan, 2005). One of the major decisions of the restoration during 1941- 1944, conducted by Tahsin Öz was changing the form of the conical roofs of the octagonal towers rising on both sides of the entrance gate (Figure 9) which drastically transformed the ap- Figure 8. The middle gate, today (Coşkun, pearance of the gate. After the resto- 2011). ration the gate resembled the depic- tion in Grelot’s 1680 dated engraving. Although Öz (1949) mentioned in his article to have consulted some archival documents, he didn’t refer to a specific source which had inspired him to take this decision. During the restoration, decoration on the portico walls facing the 2nd courtyard which was dating to the late Ottoman period were cleared off, as well as the ones on the fringes of the vaults which faced the 1st courtyard. The rococo style ceiling above the passageway was also removed. The roof and its wide eaves needed Figure 9. Babüsselam, before 1942 restoration a thorough structural consolidation (Başgelen, 2006, 43). and when this was being implement- ed some decoration dating to earlier periods were discovered. This led to the scraping late period landscape de- pictions off the portico walls and the baroque decorations off the masonry walls on both sides of the gate (Figure 10). The 18th century decoration discovered was finally reproduced on the facades. Öz (1949), later mentioned the Figure 10. The baroque decorations which decorations that had been scraped off were scraped off the masonry walls on both the facades as “artifacts of voluptuous sides of the gate (Karahasan, 2005, 56). acts dating to the the late period of the

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum 10

Empire”. These words reveal Öz’s pref- erences very clearly which affected the whole decision making process for the restorations in the museum in 1940’s.

5.3. The quarters and the court of the Queen Mother (Valide) in Harem The palace was the residence of the Sultan and his household and the Ha- rem section of the palace consisted Figure 10. The baroque decorations which of a labyrinth of rooms, passages and were scraped off the masonry walls on both courtyards. Queen Mother’s quar- sides of the gate (Karahasan, 2005, 56). ters are the most imposing of the Ha- rem after the Sultan’s quarters. Queen Mother (Valide), the Queen Mother, enjoyed a majestic suite of bathroom, prayer room, throne hall, dining room and bedroom. Her quarters were easily accessible to all quarters of the Harem (Figure 11). The Valide apartments were rebuilt after the second fire in about 1667. In the 18th century other royal rooms were added to this area. Although the court of the Valide is known to be dating from several differ- Figure 11. The Valide Courtyard, today (Coşkun, 2011). ent periods, there are still traces of the works of the early period when Harem was first built (Goodwin, 1972), which can also be examined in the drawings of Eldem ve Akozan (1982), the scholars who studied the court’s spatial development in detail. In the restoration dating approx- imately 1942, the large eaves of the courtyard and the decoration on the facades of the buildings facing the courtyard were removed (Figure 12, Figure 12. 1942 restoration in charge of 13). The masonry walls around the Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi (Atay, 2016). Golden Path were stripped off their plaster and exhibited bare, unplastered. The late spatial additions consisting of rooms above the ground level carried 12Shaw (2007) by the wrought iron tie rods were de- states that the molished. The tiles which were placed questionable irregularly on the facades were re- restoration decisions can placed by reproduced tiles with similar be seen through patterns. Having been stripped off the a sequence of tiles and decoration resembling Iznik photographs tiles, the Valide Bath’s facade was also documenting the left plastered, without any decoration Figure 13. . The eaves on the facades of the reconstruction of a courtyard were removed during Tahsin Öz sixteenth century- (Karahasan, 2005). interventions (Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, 1986). style fireplace in Extensive repairs for the facade the chamber of the of Valide apartments were also un- clear that the repairs fundamentally sultan’s mother, dertaken the same year. The wooden aimed to bring back the first phase of replacing an coating on the masonry walls were re- the courtyard and the apartments and eighteenth-century niche and creating moved and the tiles underneath were present the history of a selected, in a visually confusing repaired. The fireplace discovered on other words ‘preferred’ period of time mix of decorative the niché was reconstructed12. It is by Tahsin Öz. features.

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun 11

6. Conclusion References Most of restorations during 1940- Açıkgöz, Ü. (2014). On the Uses 44, which Öz had personally un- and Meanings of Architectural Pres- dertaken involved consolidations as ervation in Early Republican Istanbul an intervention method, structural (1923-1950) Journal of the Ottoman and/or material consolidation. These and Turkish Studies Association, 1 (1:2), aimed primarily rescuing the build- 167-185. ings in the palace from their poor Altınyıldız, N. (1997). Tarihsel structural state. However, scraping Çevreyi Korumanın Türkiye’ye Özgü off the later additions on the walls, Koşulları (İstanbul 1923-1973) (Cir- especially the decoration of late pe- cumstances Specific to Turkey in the riod, to reproduce an earlier period Conservation of the Historical Environ- was another method which was much ment, Istanbul 1923–1973). (Unpub- favoured in the restorations. Some lished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul reconstructions undertaken during Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey the restorations ignored the authen- Altınyıldız, N. (2007). The Archi- tic material and craftmanship. Shaw tectural Heritage of İstanbul and the (2007) stated that the restoration of Ideology of Preservation, History and parts of the Ottoman Palace with little Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the proven evidence during 1940’s mini- Lands of Rum. Muqarnas, 24, 281-305. mized the later historical layers dating Akın, N. (2006). Koruma Alanının to eighteenth and nineteenth centu- Büyük Kaybı: Cahide Tamer, Mimarlık, ries and introduced a rather anach- 328, 10-11. ronistic view of the palace. Looking And, M. (2011). 16. Yüzyılda İstan- at what has been conserved and what bul: Kent - Saray - Günlük Yaşam. İs- has been lost, it is clear to see the per- tanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. ception, understanding, interest and Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, M. (1986). ambition which a person- whether ar- Topkapı Sarayı’nda Padişah Evi (Ha- chitect, conservator or restorer - has rem), İstanbul. approached an object. The presenta- Arkan, E. (2008). Cumhuriyet Döne- tion of the palace after 1940’s resto- minde Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia in Re- ration simply allows a single narrative publican times). (Unpublished master’s to its audience; the glorious past of thesis). Çanakkale On Sekiz Mart Uni- their ancestors throughout 16th cen- versity, Çanakkale, Turkey. tury, what Tahsin Öz probably wanted Atay, F. (2016). Ekrem Hakkı Ayver- to achieve. di (1899-1984), Restorasyon Konser- Sedad Hakki Eldem highlighted vasyon (19), 3-13. what was lost during these extensive Aygen, Z. (2013). International Her- interventions: “most of these places itage and Historic Building Conserva- he had mentioned had been cleaned, tion. USA: Routledge. destroyed, and the essential cut-stone Başgelen, N. (2006). İstanbul, City of foundations and arches brought out. the Sultans, İstanbul: Arkeoloji Sanat. Those dizzying, layered perspectives Bilsel, C. (2011). Les Transforma- reminiscent of Piranesi had disap- tions d’Istanbul: Henri Prost’s planning peared” (Eldem and Akozan, 1982). of Istanbul (1936-1951) , İTÜ AIZ, 8 Yerasimos (1995) touched upon the (1), 100-116. same issue more generally stating that Binan, C. (2001). Türkiye’de Anıtsal national history favoured a selective Mimari Mirasın Restorasyonu ve view and the nationalistic approach Özgünlüğünün Korunması ile İlgili to cultural heritage thought that there Riskler. TAÇ Vakfı 25. Yıl Kitabı (pp. was ‘good’ cultural heritage to be val- 109-117). İstanbul: TAÇ Vakfı Yayın- ued and ‘bad’ heritage to be looked ları. down on and ignored. Cultural heri- Coşkun, B. S. (2012). İstanbul’daki tage is being exploited in seeking ways Anıtsal Yapıların Cumhuriyet Döne- to justify certain periods of nation- mindeki Koruma ve Onarım Süreçleri al history. Restorations undertaken Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Unpublished during Tahsin Öz’s period is just one doctoral dissertation). Mimar Sinan example to Yerasimos’ thesis. Fine Arts University, İstanbul, Turkey.

Scraping the layers: Tahsin Öz and his stylistic restorations in Topkapı Palace Museum 12

Çal, H. (1990). Türkiye Cumhuriye- Öz, T. (1949). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi ti Devri Taşınmaz Eski Eser Tahribatı Onarımları, Güzel Sanatlar Dergisi, 6, ve Sebepleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve 2-71. Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1- Öz, T. (1991). Hayatım. İstanbul: 2), 353-80. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi. Eski Eserleri Koruma Encümeni Özgencil Yıldırım, S. (2008). Kentin 1949 Yılı Mesai Raporu, TTOK Bellete- Anlam Hritaları: Gravürlerde İstanbul. ni, Nisan (April) 1950, 99, 19-25. İstanbul: Kitabistanbul. Eldem, S. H. ve Akozan, F. (1982). Menteş, A. (1997). Topkapı Topkapı Sarayı, Bir Mimarî Araştırma, Sarayı’nın Müze Olarak Değerlendir- Kültür Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Mü- ilmesi ve İlk Onarımlar, Kuruluşunun zeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. 150. Yılında Türk Müzeciliği Sem- Eyice, S. (1993). Tahsin Öz, Dünden pozyumu III, 24- 26 Eylül 1996- İs- Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, 6, 197- tanbul, T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı 198, Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Yayını, 1997, Ankara. Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul. Şahin Güçhan, N.& Kurul, E. (2009). Huse, Norbert (ed.) (1996) Den- A History of the Development of Con- kmalpflege. Deutsche Texte aus drei servation Measures in Turkey: From Jahrhunderten. München: C.H.Beck. the Mid 19th Century until 2004. Goodwin, G. (1972). A History of METU JFA, 2009(2), 19-44. Ottoman Architecture. Baltimore: John Tamer, C. (1986). Topkapı Sarayı’nda Hopkins Press. 19. Yüzyıl Sonlarında Çekilmiş Birkaç Jokilehto, J. (1999). A History of Ar- Fotoğraf ve Bazı Eleştiriler, Topkapı chitectural Conservation. Oxford: But- Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık-1, 131-139. terworth- Heinemann. Tanman, M. B. (ed.), (2014). Ekrem Kandemir, S. (1935). Tarihi Eserleri Hakkı Ayverdi 1899-1984, Mimarlık Araştırma ve Koruma kılavuzu, İstan- Tarihçisi ve Restoratör, Koleksiyoner bul: Devlet Basımevi. (Catalogue of the exhibition). İstanbul: Kandemir, S. (1949). Topkapı Sarayı İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü. Hakkında. TTOKB, temmuz (july) Sakaoğlu, N. (2002). Saray-ı Hüma- 1949, 10-11. yun / Topkapı Sarayı, İstanbul: Deniz- Karahasan, Ü. (2005). Topkapı Sarayı bank. Müzesi Cumhuriyet Dönemi Restora- Shaw, W., (2003). Possessors and pos- syonları. (Unpublished doctoral dis- sessed: museums, archaeology and the sertation). Yıldız Technical University, visualization of history in the Late Ot- İstanbul, Turkey. toman Empire. Berkeley CA University Kural, M., 1941, Çelebi Mehmed’in of California Press. Yeşil Türbesi ve 1941-1943 Restora- Shaw, W. (2007). Museums and Nar- syonu, Güzel Sanatlar Dergisi, 5, 50-102. ratives of Display from the Late Otto- Madran, E. (2002) Tanzimat’tan man Empire to the Turkish Republic. Günümüze Cumhuriyet’e Kültür Muqarnas, 24, 253-279. Varlıklarının Korunmasına İlişkin Tu- Shaw, W. (2011). National Museums tumlar ve Düzenlemeler: 1800-1950. in the Republic of Turkey: Palimpsests Ankara: Middle East Technical Univer- within a Centralized State, Paper pre- sity Architecture Faculty. sented at “From EuNaMus, European Mansel, P. (1995). Constantinople National Museums: Identity Politics, City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924. the Uses of the Past and the European Cambridge: University Press. Citizen”, Bologna. Necipoğlu, G. (1992). Architecture, Ülgen, A. S. (1943). Anıtların Korun- Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi ması ve Onarılması-I. Ankara: Maarif Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Vekilliği. Centuries. The MIT Press. Ünsal, B. (1960) “İstanbul’un İmarı Orbaşlı, A. (2008). Architectural ve Eski Eser Kaybı”, Türk Sanat Tarihi Conservation. London: Blackwell. Aratırma ve İncelemeleri, C: 2, 6-61. Önder, M. (1990). Atatürk ve Mü- Yücel, E. (2009). Anılarıyla Tahsin Öz. zeler, Müze, 12-13. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Öz, T. (1946). Topkapı Sarayı Müze- Yerasimos, S. (1995). En Az Hasarla si, TTOK Belleteni, 15-17. Çölü Geçmek. İstanbul, 13, 57-60.

ITU A|Z • Vol 15 No 3 • November 2018 • B. S. Coşkun