This article was downloaded by: [171.67.216.23] On: 24 February 2013, At: 15:45 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Travel Writing Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rstw20 Recording the transformation of urban landscapes in Turkey: the diaries of Kurt Erdmann and Ernst Diez Patricia Blessing Version of record first published: 27 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Patricia Blessing (2012): Recording the transformation of urban landscapes in Turkey: the diaries of Kurt Erdmann and Ernst Diez, Studies in Travel Writing, 16:4, 415-425 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645145.2012.723862

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Studies in Travel Writing Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2012, 415–425

Recording the transformation of urban landscapes in Turkey: the diaries of Kurt Erdmann and Ernst Diez Patricia Blessing*

Two travel diaries by scholars working in Turkey in the 1940s and 1950s are at the centre of this article. The Austrian art historian, Ernst Diez (1878–1961), and his German colleague, Kurt Erdmann (1901–1964), both taught art history at University, although they were not in the city at the same time. Diez’s appointment, from 1943 to 1949, was interrupted during World War II, when citizens of the German Reich were interned in the small Anatolian city of K|rsehir. During this time, Diez recorded his discoveries of decaying historical buildings in his diary. Erdmann was Diez’s successor of sorts, teaching in Istanbul from 1951 to 1958. The diaries that Erdmann left record his travels throughout Turkey in minute detail, pairing a sense of humour with acute awareness of the changes that were taking place in rural Turkey. Together, the two scholars’ travel diaries are an invaluable source of information on a period in which the major transformations of provincial Turkish cities had just begun. Keywords: Ernst Diez; Kurt Erdmann; Turkey; urbanism; Anatolia; Sivas; Amasya; Kayseri; K|rsehir

Beginning in the late 1940s, cities in the provinces of Turkey began to experience changes that had started in the metropolises of Ankara and Istanbul in the previous decades. Projects for the modernisation of urban centres brought the construction of apartment blocks, new road patterns suited for increased automobile traffic, and the destruction of parts of the historical fabric of these cities, especially of older residential buildings. The study of these transformations has to rely, in addition to the official plans of construction projects, on the testimony of inhabitants and travellers. Extensive official records are available, often in published form, for the major cities of the time, Istanbul and Ankara, while for smaller provincial centres, the second type of sources is even more crucial.1 This study addresses the process of urban transformation and modernisation focusing Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 on two diaries that were written by two German-speaking art historians, Ernst Diez and Kurt Erdmann, who worked in Turkey during the 1940s and 1950s, respectively. It investigates how these scholars, both as external observers and trained art historians, recorded modifications in the fabric of Turkish urban environments and their historical neighbourhoods. These transformations were only just beginning at the time when the two diaries were written, yet they would soon significantly change the face of Turkish cities, affecting the ways in which art historians today can study the historical monuments within them. In the diaries, urban transformations in 1940s and 1950s Turkey are reflected through the eyes of observers who, by virtue of their profession, had a particular interest in cultural heritage. Both Erdmann and Diez kept their eyes open for decaying monuments, old

*Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1364–5145 print/ISSN 1755–7550 online 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645145.2012.723862 http://www.tandfonline.com 416 P. Blessing

structures being torn down and changes to the urban fabric caused by the increased introduction of cars in a period when the financial aid of the Marshall Plan supported large-scale projects of highway construction.2 Although the diaries mention modernisation projects and their effects on the cityscapes just in passing, they can help in establishing an additional perspective on a period of urban history in Turkey that has only just begun to be examined. This is especially true for provincial cities such as Sivas, Kayseri or Amasya, whereas Istanbul and Ankara have been more closely studied. As a source for art historical studies, the diaries give information on specific buildings that in several cases have disappeared or become otherwise inaccessible. The diary of the Austrian art historian, Ernst Diez (1878–1961), was written slightly earlier than Erdmann’s, and unfortunately has been preserved only in a small part, mostly dating to the year 1945.3 Diez was Erdmann’s predecessor on the chair of art history at Istanbul University, teaching with some interruptions from 1943 until 1949. During the last months of World War II, Diez was interned, first in Istanbul, then in the central Anatolian city of K|rsehir. Diez shared this fate of internment with other citizens of the German Reich, who were living in Turkey after the country had entered the war on the Allied side in February 1945. Most of the preserved section of the diary dates to this period, recording the differences between wartime Istanbul, and the small city in which Diez had to spend a hot summer and cold winter. The climate of the Anatolian plateau, harsh compared to that of Istanbul, was unfamiliar to Diez, and the simple accommodation in K|rsehir was likely not the most comfortable under these circumstances. In December 1945, after he had finally been released, Diez returned to Istanbul and continued to teach until 1949, when a controversy over a textbook that he had written led to his dismissal and return to Vienna.4 The main points of scholarly critique – further emphasised in newspaper articles – were directed towards Diez’s discussion of connections between Turkish, Byzantine and Armenian architecture. The critique was possibly exacerbated by the fact that the book was intended for use in the art history curriculum at Istanbul University.5 The diary of the German art historian, Kurt Erdmann (1901–1964), is the more extensive of the two sources. It consists of 37 school notebooks (okul defteri), filled with notes and drawings.6 The text records long trips (excursions, as the author refers to them) throughout Anatolia undertaken by Erdmann and his wife Hanna Erdmann, often Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 accompanied by students. Such excursions were common at the end of the summer term in German universities, although of course not usually on the large scale that Erdmann took them to once he transferred this practice to Turkey. From 1951 to 1958, Erdmann taught art history at Istanbul University. The excursions were an opportunity both to teach his students direct approaches to monuments and to explore a region that Erdmann had not previously visited. Together with changing groups of students, and usually with the help of his assistant, Oktay Aslanapa, Erdmann explored, measured and described the monuments, while his wife, Hanna, drew sketches and took detailed photographs of the architecture. Because of Erdmann’s untimely death in 1964, much of the research recorded in the diaries remained unpublished, although the scholar’s major publication, a three-volume work on medieval caravanserais, often refers to the diary.7 Two brief articles were also based on the diaries, suggesting perhaps that future publications would have made use of these extensive records in a similar way.8 Erdmann observed the monuments, often recording features that were changed in later restorations or withered away over time.9 Studies in Travel Writing 417

The scholar carefully traced the transition of a country that had been founded only three decades earlier, although his interest was focused on architecture and its preservation, without forays into politics. Erdmann himself became part of the formative process of the young state: several of his students later shaped art history and archaeology in Turkish academia.10 In the records of their work together, Erdmann observed his students with the keen and protective eye of a teacher who wanted to transmit his care for detail. Thus, the diaries are travel account, field notebook, architectural observation and autobiography all in one: they record how Erdmann saw his students and their ability to keep up with the long days working on monuments, the frustrations of travel and daily encounters, preserving the author’s careful observations on architecture.

Ernst Diez in Turkey The Austrian art historian, Ernst Diez, received his doctorate in 1902, under the supervision of Josef Strzygowski. Diez’s experience with Islamic art went back to working in the Museums between 1908 and 1911. The knowledge acquired there, more than his university training, qualified Diez to teach in Istanbul where the curriculum was to include the cultural heritage of Western Europe, as well as that of Turkey and the broader Islamic world. While working as Strzygowski’s assistant in Vienna from 1911 to 1916, Diez had the chance to travel to Cairo, where he had his initial first-hand experience of research on Islamic architecture. In 1912, he travelled to Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt and Asia Minor with Oskar von Niedermayer.11 Diez’s firsthand observations on architecture in Iran were published in 1918 at the encouragement of the Swiss epigrapher Max van Berchem.12 These journeys were key moments for Diez’s subsequent career path. After his Habilitation in 1919, Diez continued to teach at Vienna. From 1926 to 1939, he lived in the United States, teaching at Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia and intermittently at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. In 1939, Diez returned to Vienna, where he taught the history of Islamic and East Asian art.13 In 1943, Diez received an invitation to teach art history at Istanbul University. He has been credited with the creation of a department of art history, and its expansion.14 Diez’s work there was interrupted in 1945, when he was interned during the final months of World War II and beyond. Diez had to stay in K|rsehir from 7 August to 18 December 1945. During this time in the small Anatolian city, he studied the medieval monuments of

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 K|rsehir, and recorded his observations and drawings in a notebook that is mentioned in his diaries, but apparently has not been preserved.15 Once released, he returned to Istanbul and resumed teaching art history at the university there. In his diaries, Diez mentions receiving orders to move to K|rsehir on July 13, 1945 with the words: ‘Anatolia will interest me for a while, but it should not last too long’, expressing both the frustration at being sent to a relatively remote location, and the curiosity of the scholar who unexpectedly would be able to investigate a new place and its monuments.16 Diez clearly attempted to see the positive side of this involuntary expedition to central Anatolia. Upon arriving in K|rsehir, he was even looking forward to work on the medieval Islamic monuments of the town: ‘There are Seljuk ruins and monuments and I am looking forward to once again begin what the Englishman refers to as ‘‘field-work’’’.17 The details of such projected field-work are not recorded in the diaries, and the upbeat tone of the initial entries soon was replaced by a more sombre view. The city was still very far from the modern amenities of city life in Istanbul, a source of some grief for Diez: ‘An oasis of 15 to 20 km in diameter in the desert of the Anatolian plateau. Prehistoric conditions’.18 418 P. Blessing

In this environment, Diez could only look forward to a speedy release, yet the hope for a brief stay in Anatolia proved to be vain, and over the five months that Diez spent in K|rsehir, he recorded his frustration with the hot climate, yet occasional discoveries of architectural treasures lightened the scholar’s mood In an old mosque in the – open-air – bazaar area, that has been filled with grain for years and is now being emptied in order to be torn down, I found a lantern-ceiling, a modern, perhaps 80-year-old example of those age-old wooden ceilings over scaled rooms that lead to the Turkish dome. I am very pleased, wouldn’t have hoped to still find such a thing here.19 The interest in this wooden domical structure may be explained with Diez’s attempt, in an earlier work, to derive the structural process that led to the construction of domed mausolea built of brick in Iran, from wooden structures.20 This was the most fascinating discovery that Diez appears to have made in terms of architecture. The diary does not preserve a detailed record of Diez’s work on the medieval monuments of the city beyond such notes.21 Sadly, the nineteenth-century mosque was in the process of being torn down when Diez saw it; his description and pencil sketch provide the last known record of the building, and its location and name remain unknown. This shows how essential diaries of this kind are in studying the historic monuments of Turkey. Cases such as the one recorded by Diez abound, and even if in this specific example building was relatively recent, it demonstrates that the current state of such sites is very much a product of the twentieth century. In December 1945, Diez could finally return to Istanbul, where he resumed teaching and publishing on the art and architecture of Turkey. The regular entries in the diary end with his release, and only sporadically did he return to it, sometimes less than once a year. As discussed in the introduction, Diez left his position and Turkey in 1949 after a controversy arose over the publication of his book Tu¨rk Sanat{ (Turkish Art) that was widely criticised among Turkish scholars and in the national press.22

Kurt Erdmann in Turkey After a two-year hiatus during which Diez’s former assistant Oktay Aslanapa taught courses on Islamic art, Kurt Erdmann took over Diez’s position in 1951. Erdmann was trained as an art historian first in Marburg, and later as Erwin Panofsky’s student in .23 After completing his dissertation, Erdmann joined the Kaiser-Friedrich

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 Museum (now the Bode Museum) in Berlin in 1927, first in an unpaid position.24 Over the following years, Erdmann travelled extensively for research and to acquire new objects for the museum. While the museum remained closed during World War II, Erdmann continued to work until he was called to military service in fall 1944. He became a prisoner of war and had to take up residency in his home town Hamburg, rather than in Berlin, after the end of the war. While Erdmann was teaching in in 1949, he received an invitation from Istanbul University to replace Ernst Diez as professor of Islamic art. Erdmann remained in this position until he was appointed director of the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin in 1958. During his years in Istanbul, Erdmann greatly influenced a generation of Turkish scholars through his teaching and the fieldtrips in Anatolia.25 During his appointment at Istanbul University, Kurt Erdmann was the teacher of later influential future scholars of Turkish art such as Nurhan Atasoy and Semra O¨ gel. Oktay Aslanapa worked as Erdmann’s assistant, just as he did under Diez. They all at some point took part in his excursions, as he called the extensive fieldtrips throughout Anatolia, that were undertaken usually in the spring and summer months.26 In the company of Studies in Travel Writing 419

Erdmann’s wife Hanna, Erdmann and his students spent days documenting and measuring the medieval monuments of Anatolia. Unlike her husband, Hanna Erdmann knew Turkish and thus relieved some of the need for translation.27 Documenting all fieldtrips that Erdmann accomplished between 1951 and 1958, his diaries record the monuments in extensive descriptions and sketches that complement the photographic documentation. Moreover, the diaries give a quite personal picture of Erdmann as a scholar and teacher, recording the joys and frustrations of working intensively in the field. Erdmann describes his interactions with students, whom he expected to participate in the measuring and photographing of monuments often in strenuously long workdays. A few examples of entries in the diaries will show the scope of Erdmann’s record keeping, ranging from the difficulties of travel in central Anatolia, to the minute descriptions and sketches of the medieval monuments that he studied. On a visit to the central Anatolian city of Sivas, Erdmann describes how he travelled to the nearby town of Divrig˘i to study a monument there 1 October [1951]. Took a closer look at the Mu¨ zaffer Barucird Medrese. Another look at the monuments, lunch, to the 12:45 pm train to Divrik, tiring journey with a chatty Turk, divided in Turkish and German hours. Could not get rid of him ...28 Here, Erdmann described both the long train journey to a town that is not too far away from Sivas and an encounter with a local, one of numerous occasions on which Erdmann politely stayed on to chat, even though the demands of travel made him little inclined to do so. Three years later, again in Sivas, Erdmann described the arrival in the city, where his host immediately involved him in a long session of small talk, and where Erdmann gave some insights into his students’ coping with the daily routine of the excursions 29 [May] 1954. Shortly before Sivas change [of a flat tire, as ever so often]. No rain has fallen, the weather is clearing up. 3:15 pm Sivas – two carriages, we end up at the teachers’ college.29 Sezer is more capable than I thought. We are expected. The director makes an incredibly energetic (Americanised, was in Florida) impression. An hour-long wait in his office. He has a pedagogue-professor cover for him, who speaks German, has fifteen sons and addresses Barbara [Stelzer] as ‘my darling.’ Upstairs around 5 pm. I (with Oktay and Erichsen, who both haven’t arrived) in a sewing or fashion-design room. The Erteshs [illegible]. The kad{ns [‘women’] in the music room. Restrooms where? I put on a clean shirt, wash with cologne, find a toilet in the music room. Since they are not [illegible] I pass by the C¸ ifte M[inareli] M[edrese] and on to the post office. Got rid of the letters, but they go all by regular mail. Poste restante 30 Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 closed. Later that day Erdmann continued his notes on the continuation of the program, frustrated with the fact that it proved too ambitious, and that some sites would have to be left aside for later Tonight at 2 am the second group, consisting of Oktay, Hasim, Selim (?), M ...should arrive. If we meet Erichsen somewhere tomorrow, we are complete, although I am worried that Semra [O¨ gel] ...they are ‘exhausted’ again. Today they were pretty grim, but perhaps tomorrow things will look better. The itinerary will need to be shortened. Karamag˘ara will not be possible, and Malatya is questionable. We can decide the day after tomorrow. Therefore, I would like to work intensively tomorrow. First impression: the opposition – the juxtaposition in the true sense of the word – of imaret [the Sifaiye Medrese] and C¸ ifte M[inareli] M[edrese] is instructive. Can easily be exploited pedagogically.31 Here, Erdmann shows both his high expectations of his students, and the demands of travelling across Anatolia. Roads were not that well suited for cars and buses, leading to 420 P. Blessing

delays and difficulties along the way. The construction of highways had not yet reached far beyond the capital, Ankara, and its connection with Istanbul.32 Erdmann often had to travel by bus and train, relying on the available schedules, and frequently encountering delays. Occasionally, Erdmann could use the historian Franz Taeschner’s car and driver, another potential source of frustration as the aims of thorough research and rapidly reaching the next destination were not easily reconciled.33 Observations on daily life are not missing: several entries note how, especially in rural areas, traditions remained strong and only slowly absorbed the westernising influence that the Turkish state was trying to implement. While travelling to Kayseri in July 1951, Erdmann noted that in the surrounding villages, the women were mostly wearing traditional costume, while the men wore ‘Western’ clothing Following Rice’s34 advice to the Alemdar Hotel, [gets] better beginning with the second day, there is a shower [in Turkish], made good use of it. Lots of noise, warm, clean. Long stretches from before K|rsehir to the K|z|l Irmak grain fields, otherwise pure vegetation. A turtle, many molluscs, a small camel herd. Mud houses with haystacks on the roofs. No doors. Villages usually in the vicinity of tels. Women all in traditional dress, the men, with the exception of the elderly, European.35 Later during the same trip, a few days’ stay in Sivas provided an occasion to observe the large number of recent buildings and ongoing construction in the city 11 am to Sivas by Bus. Ate in Sark|sla, across mountain pass with fantastical boulders, colouring deep purple, down to Sivas, modern bridge across the K|z|l Irmak. Checkpoint just before Sivas. The city [is] modern, much of it has been recently built, much still isn’t complete. No bus to Divrik. To Sivas Palace Hotel. Sivas must have grown a lot since Gabriel’s visit. Large industrial suburbs. In the centre high-rises, in between the typical bustle of tattered people, many horse-drawn carts, hardly any cars. The historic downtown really only consists of the ruins of Seljuk monuments. A first tour from 5 to 6:30 pm.36 Traffic was hardly motorised, yet this was beginning to change, and soon large boulevards to accommodate cars, buses and trucks would criss-cross the city centres. In particular, Erdmann noted that compared to the account on the city that the French archaeologist and architectural historian, Albert Gabriel, published in 1931, much had changed due to the construction of high-rises in place of older houses.37 Gabriel, in his description of Sivas, based on field-work done in the 1920s, already deplored the recent destruction of the ruins of fortifications, and was not impressed by the rather summary character of restorations in the remaining monuments.38 Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 Thirty years later, Erdmann’s impression was equally unfavourable, and further accentuated by the effects of modern urban development. Thus, he notes signs of decay on many monuments that had not yet been restored, when new construction was more valued than historic preservation. In Sivas in 1951, Erdmann observed Daru¨ ssifasi of Kaykavus [the Sifaiye Medrese]. Today storage for boxes and inhabited by some people. The ‘pond’ in the interior entirely ruined. Only the main arch of the {wan is still preserved, everything very spacious and richly decorated.39 Three years later, Erdmann again visited Sivas together with his students, this time for a more detailed study of its monuments. In the passages that describe mostly medieval monuments, the main interest of his research, Erdmann displayed the same meticulous attention for detail that characterizes his publication of the caravanserais. He included the medieval monuments that he encountered during his visits, often analysing them repeatedly during one stay and returning at several years interval.40 During his second trip to Sivas, Erdmann did not comment on changes in the city, but rather devoted his full Studies in Travel Writing 421

attention to the study of the monuments, deploring that lack of time would likely prevent him from completing parts of the research that he had planned.41 The number of references to changes and destruction suggests that the problem was particularly acute in Amasya, a relatively small city with limited space for expansion due to its location in a narrow river valley Amasya, little care is taken of the buildings, few pious Muslims, very poor (unseen wealthy people???) population. Bazaar shows European influence. All large mosques closed as storage spaces etc. Since Gabriel many monuments razed, seems to continue.42 During his first visit in October 1951, Erdmann noted that several buildings that Gabriel had listed in his book had disappeared completely.43 The destruction apparently was still in progress, as Erdmann guessed from the many closed-down historic buildings that were used for other purposes. A last visit to Amasya in February 1958 was even less promising: in the seven years that had passed, the old bazaar had been completely destroyed. Erdmann noted that likely, the apparent poverty of much of the population prevented preservation efforts.44 Evidence of such destruction was also recorded in July 1954, on the way from Sivas to Tokat: a caravanserai about which Erdmann had heard could not be found, and a local farmer finally suggested that ruins he had seen in his childhood were later removed Yildiz Han near antique bridge, mostly one arch, looking at the mouldings probably Seljuk, the caravanserai has completely vanished, was supposedly torn down twenty years ago. Today a cemetery on the site, which could speak for the presence of a caravanserai, and a corn field, that even though not entirely level, doesn’t show any remains of a monument. Farmer states that he saw the ruin in his youth, remembers two storeys, estimates size at 20 20 meters. Ruin supposedly sold for destruction! Probably all nonsense.45 Erdmann did not find the story very credible based on his observation of the alleged site. Throughout the diary, he remained a somewhat detached observer, who does not show outrage at the state of monuments, but critically noted ruined buildings, the presence of squatters or local stories that seem somewhat improbable. Implicitly perhaps, Erdmann judged the ignorance of some locals about their historical heritage, and attributed the lack of care for the buildings to precisely this ignorance. He never comments on political and developmental efforts to transform cities that might be detrimental to the historical fabric, but rather keeps his observations on the level of inhabitants’ attitudes towards the monuments.

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 Examples of material that would have lent itself to publication abound in the detailed observations that fill many pages in the diaries. In one passage, for instance, Erdmann described the courtyard of the Go¨ k Medrese in Sivas (built in 670 AH/1271–1272 CE)asit was visible at the time of his visit in great detail and with close attention to structural problems and later changes.46 Such observations are valuable for art historical studies of the building because it has since gone through multiple restorations. Thus, certain features mentioned in Erdmann’s description no longer exist or are currently inaccessible. In Das anatolische Karavansaray, Erdmann’s primary intent was to document existing buildings and their state of preservation–many of them being already in ruins and threatened by the progress of urbanisation throughout provincial Anatolia that had just begun in the 1950s. The detailed descriptions, careful references to earlier publications, and the rich photographic documentation record monuments that have been much altered over the past six decades. Similarly, the diaries provide crucial information about the monuments and their urban surroundings, at a point in time when major changes were about to lead to irreversible effects on them. 422 P. Blessing

Conclusion: Politics and Urban Change in Turkey, 1920–1960 Diez’s and Erdmann’s observations reflect, however subtly, the far-reaching changes to provincial cities in Turkey that began in the late 1950s, and reached their peak in the 1960s and 1970s. These changes profoundly affected the historical urban fabric of cities such as Amasya, Tokat, Sivas and Kayseri, and thus the ability of today’s architectural historians to study the history of these urban centres. The details of these changes, the projects and persons involved, the impact of the transformation of housing on the population and the aesthetic implications of the notion of modernism in place have not yet been studied in detail. Thus, the diaries that have been discussed here are a first step in mapping changes that are still in need of in-depth analysis. The notions of modernity and urban development that were applied in the provincial cities reflect those that were established for the major urban centres of Turkey, Istanbul and Ankara only a few decades earlier. The latter have received much attention in recent scholarship, and especially Istanbul as the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2010 has been at the centre of a number of studies.47 With the end of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, new notions of modernity and modernisation emerged. These were to be applied to the major cities of Turkey over the following decades, beginning with the establishment of Ankara as the nation’s new capital. The master plan for Ankara, awarded to the German architect Hermann Jansen in a public competition, was designed to turn the sleepy central Anatolian city into a modern capital conforming to western standards.48 Istanbul, the centuries-old capital of the Ottoman Empire, was relatively neglected during the 1920s and 1940s, when the majority of new projects concentrated on Ankara.49 At the same time, rural communities received increased attention: schools were established, electricity networks expanded, and access to education improved. The implications of the concepts of modernity that were used in the capital and in Istanbul, the city that was to become the major economic centre of the country after a hiatus passed in neglect, eventually had an effect on provincial cities. After World War II, the influx of money through the Marshall Plan led to the mechanisation of agriculture, and eventually forced small farmers and share-croppers to abandon their rural homes for the cities.50 This process of modernisation advanced slowly, as still most funding and attention went to the new capital. Rural populations were discouraged from moving to the cities. This policy would prove unsuccessful as the soaring population of Istanbul and Ankara would show

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 over the following decades. The increasing use of machines for farm work in the 1940s and 1950s especially increased the need of rural populations to find housing in the cities, often in the so-called gecekondus (‘built over night’), temporary illegally built structures.51 Beginning in the late 1940s, and peaking in the 1960s, a renewed political interest in the modernisation and reshaping of Istanbul emerged.52 This entailed major projects to open large boulevards for car traffic, often across historical neighbourhoods, and profoundly changed the relationship between the historical fabric of the city and its emerging character as a modern metropolis.53 While these developments in Ankara and Istanbul are well known, the fate of provincial cities during the same time has been of little interest to scholars.54 During the 1950s, and into the 1960s and 1970s, major provincial cities such as Sivas, Tokat and Kayseri were subjected to projects of modernisation that significantly changed the historically grown structure. In some cases, the historical structure has almost entirely disappeared, leaving only major medieval and early modern monuments within cities that are otherwise shaped by anonymous apartment buildings and large, crowded thoroughfares. In understanding these transformations, sources recording the Studies in Travel Writing 423

changes as they happened are crucial. Therefore, the diaries presented here, especially that of Erdmann with its detailed attention to the cities that the author visited, provide a specific point of access to a time that needs yet to be understood, with their record of monuments that have been destroyed or changed by the transformation of urban centres, and with the special attention that Erdmann paid to monuments that were abandoned or had already disappeared.

Notes 1. Ali Cengizkan, Ankara’n{n Ilk Plan{: 1924–25 Lo¨rcher Plan{, Kentsel Mekan o¨zellikleri, 1932 Jansen Plan{’na ve Bugu¨ne Katk{lar{, Etki ve Kal{nt{lar{ (Ankara: Ankara Enstitu¨ su¨ Vakf|, 2004); Sener O¨ zler and Henri Prost, Cumhuriyet Do¨nemi Istanbul_ Planlama Raporlar{ 1934–1995 (Istanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odas| Istanbul_ Bu¨ yu¨ kkent Subesi, 2007). 2. Tolga To¨ ren, Yeniden yap{lan du¨nya ekonomisinde Marshall Plan{ ve Tu¨rkiye uygulamas{ (Istanbul: Sosyal Arast|rmalar| Vakf| Iktisadi_ I_sletmeler, 2007), 216–24. 3. The diary is held at the Paul Sacher Foundation, Basel, as part of the papers of Ernst Diez. I thank Dr Felix Meyer and the Paul Sacher Foundation for allowing me to quote and translate passages from the diaries in this article. 4. Burcu Dogramaci, Kulturtransfer und nationale Identita¨t – Deutschsprachige Architekten, Stadtplaner und Bildhauer in der Tu¨rkei nach 1927 (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2008), 335–7. 5. Dogramaci, Kulturtransfer, 334–40. A later edition, revised by Oktay Aslanapa, who had also translated Diez’s manuscript from German into Turkish, removed the problematic passages and remained in use as a textbook in many subsequent editions: Ernst Diez, Tu¨rk Sanat{, second edition, revised by Oktay Aslanapa (Istanbul: Istanbul_ U¨ niversitesi Edebiyat Faku¨ ltesi Yay|nlar|, 1955). For a detailed explanation of the critique, including quotes, see Burcu Dogramaci, ‘Kunstgeschichte in Istanbul. Die Begru¨ ndung der Disziplin durch den Wiener Kunsthistoriker Ernst Diez’, in Kunstgeschichte im ‘Dritten Reich’. Theorien, Methoden, Praktiken, eds. Ruth Heftrig, Olaf Peters, Barbara Schellewald (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008), 123–9. 6. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Museum fu¨ r Islamische Kunst. I thank Dr Jens Kro¨ ger, curator emeritus, for pointing me to the diaries and providing access, and generously giving permission for this publication. This article also benefitted from Dr Kro¨ ger’s comments on an earlier draft. 7. Kurt Erdmann, Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols., Istanbuler Forschungen Bd. 21, 31 (Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1961–76). 8. Kurt Erdmann, ‘Vorosmanische Medresen und Imarets vom Medresentyp in Anatolien’, in Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honour of Professor K. A. C. Creswell (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1965), 49–62; Kurt Erdmann, ‘Die Sonderstellung der anatolischen Moschee des 12. Jahrhunderts’, in First International Congress of Turkish Art, Ankara, October 19–24, 1959 (Ankara: Tu¨ rk Tarih Kurumu Bas|mevi, 1961), 94–101. 9. For a discussion of Erdmann’s diaries as a record of his travels and research, see: Robin

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 Wimmel and Tolga Bozkurt, ‘Zwei ‘‘Bahnbrechende’’ Reisende in Anatolien: Edmund Naumann und Kurt Erdmann,’ in Tu¨rkisch–Deutsche Beziehungen. Perspektiven aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Claus Scho¨ nig, Ramazan C¸ alik and Hatice Bayraktar, eds. (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2012), 234–58. I thank Dr Jens Kro¨ ger for drawing my attention to this article and providing me with a copy. 10. Bozkurt and Wimmel, 256–8 on the memories of Erdmann’s Turkish students. 11. Typescript of resume written by Diez around 1955, Sammlung Ernst Diez, Paul Sacher Stiftung Basel, microfilm 244.1.1429-32, pages 1–2. 12. Ernst Diez, Churasanische Baudenkma¨ler, mit einem Beitrage von Max van Berchem (Berlin: Reimer, 1918). 13. Typescript of resume written by Diez around 1955, Sammlung Ernst Diez, Paul Sacher Stiftung Basel, microfilm 244.1.1429-32, page 3. 14. Obituary by Haldun Taner, Vatan 4 August 1961, German translation by Michael Meinecke, Sammlung Ernst Diez, Paul Sacher Stiftung Basel, microfilm 244.1.1429-32. 15. Ernst Diez, Tagebuch 1945 bis 1960, microfilm 244.1.1381. The notebook is not among the papers from Diez’s estate that are preserved in Basel. 16. ‘Anatolien wird mich eine Weile interessieren, aber zu lange soll es nicht dauern.’ Ernst Diez, Tagebuch 1945 bis 1960, microfilm 244.1.1379. 424 P. Blessing

17. ‘Dort [in K|rsehir] sind seldschuk. Ruinen und Bauten und ich freue mich, endlich wieder damit zu beginnen, was der Engla¨ nder ‘‘field-work’’ nennt.’ Ernst Diez, Tagebuch 1945 bis 1960, microfilm 244.1.1381. 18. ‘Eine Oase von 15–20 km Durchmesser in der Wu¨ ste des anatol. Hochlandes. Steinzeitliche Verha¨ ltnisse.’ Ernst Diez, Tagebuch 1945 bis 1960, microfilm 244.1.1383. 19. ‘In einer alten Moschee im–offenen–Bazaarteil, die seit Jahren mit Weizen gefu¨ llt war und jetzt gera¨ umt wird, um abgerissen zu werden, fand ich eine Laternendecke, ein modernes, vielleicht 80 Jahre altes Beispiel jener uralten Holzdecken u¨ ber gradierten Ra¨ umen, die zur tu¨ rkischen Kuppel fu¨ hrten. Ich bin hocherfreut daru¨ ber, ha¨ tte nie gehofft, so etwas hier noch zu finden.’ Ernst Diez, Tagebuch 1945 bis 1960, microfilm 244.1.1391. 20. Ernst Diez, Persien–Islamische Baukunst in Churaˆsaˆn (Hagen i.W.: Folkwang-Verlag, 1923), 89– 91. I thank Dr Jens Kro¨ ger for this suggestion. 21. On Seljuk monuments in K|rsehir, see: Franz Taeschner, ‘K|rsehir, ein altes Kulturzentrum aus spa¨ t und nachseldschukischer Zeit,’ Necati Lug˘al Armag˘an{ (Ankara: Tu¨ rk Tarih Kurumu Bas|mevi, 1968), 577–92; Ali Saim U¨ lgen, ‘K|rsehir’de Tu¨ rk Eserleri,’ Vak{flar Dergisi II (1942), 253–61. 22. For references see above, notes 4 and 5. 23. Ettinghausen, ‘Kurt Erdmann,’ 253; Jens Kro¨ ger, ‘Kurt Erdmann – From European Painting to the Diversity of Islamic Art’, Hali 120 (2002), 84. 24. Kro¨ ger, ‘Kurt Erdmann’, 85. 25. Kro¨ ger, ‘Kurt Erdmann’, 86–91. Ernst J. Grube, ‘Hanna Erdmann’, Hali 92 (1997), 69. 26. Kro¨ ger, ‘Kurt Erdmann’, 89–90. 27. Bozkurt and Wimmel, 244 and 248–9. 28. Mu¨ zaffer Barucird Medrese genauer angesehen. Monumente noch einmal angesehen, gegessen, zur Bahn 1245 nach Divrik, anstrengende Fahrt mit redseligem und zutraulichem Tu¨ rken, aufgeteilt in tu¨ rkische und deutsche Stunden. War nicht loszuwerden ...Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band I, 57. 29. ‘Lehrerseminar’ in the original perhaps referring to the Turkish ‘o¨ g˘retmen evi,’ a boarding house for teachers, rather than the college implied in the German term. 30. ‘29. 5. 1954: Kurz vor Sivas Wechsel. Es ist kein Regen gefallen, es klart auf. 315 Sivas – 2 Droschken, wir landen im Lehrerseminar. Sezer tu¨ chtiger als ich annahm. Sind erwartet. Direktor macht einen ungemein energischen (amerikanisierten war in Florida) Eindruck. 1 Stunde warten in seinem Zimmer. Er la¨ sst sich vertreten durch einen Pa¨ dagogen Professor, der Deutsch spricht und 15 So¨ hne hat und Barbara [Stelzer] mit Ðmeine Kleine‘‘ anredet. Gegen 5 rauf. Ich (mit Oktay & Erichsen, die beide noch nicht da sind) in einem ...Na¨ h – oder Modezeichenraum. Die Erteshs (?) ? Die Kadins im Musikzimmer. Waschgelegenheit wo? Ich ziehe mir ein reines Hemd an. Wasche mich mit Eau de Cologne, finde den Lokus im Musikzimmer. Da sie nicht zu ...sind an Cifte M. M. vorbei und los zur Post. Briefe losgeworden, geht aber alles normal. Poste restante geschlossen.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XII, 1153. 31. ‘29. 5. 1954: Heute Nacht um 2 soll die Nachsendung Oktay, Hasim, Sesim (?), Mus...d

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 eintreffen. Wenn wir morgen irgendwo Erichsen treffen sind wir komplett. Allerdings fu¨ rchte ich, Semra ...die sind bereits Ðu¨ beranstrengt‘‘. Heute waren sie recht tru¨ b, aber vielleicht geht es morgen wieder. Das Reiseprogramm wird einige Abstriche bekommen. Karamag˘ara wird nicht mo¨ glich sein und Malatya ist recht fraglich. Das alles ko¨ nnen wir u¨ bermorgen kla¨ ren. Deswegen mo¨ chte ich gerne morgen intensiv arbeiten. Erster Eindruck: Lehrreich der Gegensatz–die Gegenu¨ berstellung im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes–von Imaret und Cifte M. M. Pa¨ dagogisch gut auszunu¨ tzen.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XII, 1154–55. 32. See n.1. 33. Bozkurt and Wimmel, 245–6. 34. Perhaps David Storm Rice (1913–1962), a scholar of Islamic manuscripts and metalwork, or David Talbot Rice (1903–1972), a scholar of both Byzantine and Islamic art. I thank Dr Jens Kro¨ ger for this suggestion. 35. ‘Auf Rat von Rice ins Alemdarhotel, wird ab 2. Tag besser, dusvar, ausgenu¨ tzt. Viel La¨ rm, warm, sauber. Lange Strecken vor K|rsehir bis zum K|z|l Irmak Getreidefelder, sonst reine Vegetation. Eine Schildkro¨ te, viele Muscheltiere, eine kleine Kamelherde. Lehmha¨ user mit Heuhaufen auf den Da¨ chern. Ohne Tu¨ ren. Do¨ rfer meistens in der Na¨ he von Tells. Frauen alle in alten Trachten, die Ma¨ nner außer den Alten europa¨ isch.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band I, 9. Studies in Travel Writing 425

36. ‘11 Uhr mit Bus nach Siwas. In Sark|sla gegessen, u¨ ber Paß mit fantastischen Felsbrocken, Fa¨ rbung bis tief rot violett, nach Siwas heru¨ ber, moderne Bru¨ cke u¨ ber K|z|l Irmak. Kontrolle kurz vor Siwas. Stadt modern, viel neu gebaut, viel noch nicht fertig. Kein Bus nach Divrik. Zum Siwas Palas Oteli. Siwas muß in den letzten Jahren seit Gabriels Besuch stark gewachsen sein. Große Fabrikvorsta¨ dte. Im Innern (Hochha¨ user) dazwischen das typische Gewimmel zerlumpter Leute, sehr viele Pferdewagen, kaum Autos. Die Altstadt besteht eigentlich nur aus den Ruinen selcukischer (sic!) Bauten. 1. Rundgang von 5 bis ½ 7.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band I, 54. 37. Erdmann refers to Albert Gabriel, Monuments turcs d’Anatolie, 2 vols. (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1931). Gabriel did most of the research for this book in the late 1920s, a time when the profound changes exerted in Ankara and Istanbul had not yet reached provincial cities. 38. Gabriel, Monuments turcs d’Anatolie, vol. II, 132. 39. ‘Daru¨ ssifasi des Kaykavus (heute Kistenlager und von einigen Leuten bewohnt. Der ‘‘Teich’’ im Innern vo¨ llig verfallen. Vom Iwan steht nur noch der Stirnbogen, alles sehr weitra¨ umig und reich dekoriert.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band I, 55. 40. Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XII, 1156–202. 41. ‘Ich schreibe bereits wesentliche Teile der Exkursion ab.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XII, 1153. 42. ‘Amasya, man ku¨ mmert sich kaum um die Bauten, wenig fromme Muslims, sehr arme (nicht gesehene Reiche??) Bevo¨ lkerung. Bazar europa¨ isch beeinflusst. Alle großen Camis geschlossen als Speicher usw. Seit Gabriel viele Monumente abgerissen, scheint auch weiterzugehen.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band I, 71. 43. Referring to Gabriel, Monuments turcs d’Anatolie, vol. I. 44. ‘Amasya hat sich leider auch recht vera¨ ndert. Das ganze Bazarviertel ist weg, und wo der Teegarten war ist nun ein Platz. Aber die anderen Viertel sind weniger vera¨ ndert.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XXXVI, 3478. 45. ‘Yildiz Han an antiker Bru¨ cke, meistens ein Bogen nach Profilen wohl seldschukisch der Han total verschwunden, soll vor 20 Jahren abgerissen sein. Heute dort Friedhof, was fu¨ r Han sprechen ko¨ nnte und Kornfeld, das zwar nicht ganz eben ist, aber auch keine Spuren eines Baus zeigt. Bauer behauptet, die Ruine in seiner Jugend gesehen zu haben, erinnert 2 Stockwerke, scha¨ tzt Gro¨ ße auf 20 x 20 m. Ruine sei auf Abbruch verkauft worden! Wohl alles Unsinn.’ Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, Band XII, 1212. 46. Erdmann, Tagebu¨cher, XII, 1198–9. 47. Examples are too numerous to be cited in full here, but especially important are: F. CaˆnaˆBilsel and Pierre Pinon, Imparatorluk_ Baskentinden Istanbul_ Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine: Henri Prost’un Istanbul_ Planlamas{ (1936–1951) ¼ From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost’s Planning of Istanbul (1936–1951) (Istanbul: Istanbul_ Arast|rmalar| Enstitu¨ su¨ , 2010); Sibel Bozdog˘an, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001). 48. Ilhan_ Tekeli, ‘The Social Context of the Development of Architecture in Turkey’, in Modern Turkish Architecture, eds. Renata Holod, Ahmet Evin and Suha O¨ zkan, (second edition,

Downloaded by [171.67.216.23] at 15:45 24 February 2013 Ankara: Chamber of Architects of Turkey, 2005 [ first published in 1984]), 22–3. 49. Murat Gu¨ l, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2009), 72–91. 50. Jenny B. White, ‘Tin Town to Fanatics: Turkey’s Rural to Urban Migration from 1923 to the Present’, in Turkey’s Engagement with Modernit –Conflict and Change in the Twentieth Century, eds. Celia Kerslake, Kerem O¨ ktem and Philip Robins (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 425–9. 51. Gu¨ lsu¨ m Baydar Nalbantog˘lu, ‘Silent Interruptions: Urban Encounters with Rural Turkey’, in Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey, eds. Sibel Bozdog˘an and Resat Kasaba (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997), 192–210. 52. Gu¨ l, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, 92–126. 53. On this period, see: Gu¨ l, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul, 127–71. 54. Bozdog˘an, Modernism and Nation Building; Nur Alt|ny|ld|z, ‘Impertatorlukla_ Cumhuriyet Aras|ndaki Esikte Siyaset ve Mimarl|k: Eskiyi Muhafaza/Yeniyi In_ sa’, in Muhafazakaˆrl{k, Modern Tu¨rkiye’de Siyasıˆ du¨su¨nce, cilt 5 (Istanbul: Ileti_ sim Yay|nlar|, 2003), 179–86; Michael N. Danielson and Rusen Keles, The Politics of Rapid Urbanization: Government and Growth in Modern Turkey (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1985).