Modern Turkish National Identity in Museums Representation Analysis in Istanbul Museums and Heritage Sector Between 2010-2020

Lilaf Ajjo

Institution of ALM Thesis within museums- & heritage studies ISSN 1651-6079 Master thesis, 30 credits 2021, nr 150.

Författare/Author Lilaf Ajjo

Svensk titel Det Moderna Turkiska Nationella identiteten i museer. Representationsanalys I turkiska museer mellan 2010– 2020.

English Title Modern Turkish National Identity in Museums. Representation Analysis in Turkish Museums Between 2010– 2020

Handledare/Supervisor Inga-Lill Aronsson

Abstract The representation of national identity in museums of the 21st century´s diverse and multicultural societies is a challenging task. It is a task that involves questions of narrative and heritage inclusivity as well as questions of power and ideology. This thesis includes an investigation of the representation of the Turkish national identity in two state owned museums, one private museum and two contested heritage sites in Istanbul. Both contested sites were legally transformed from museums to mosques in 2020. The investigation also involves questions of power and legitimacy in the Turkish heritage sector in the past decade. Qualitative methods including observations, grounded theory initial coding, exhibition spatial syntax analysis and objects´ value analysis are used in the research. The analysis results revealed a fragmentation in the Turkish national identity representation and in the power structure of the Turkish heritage sector where different key actors are involved in national identity production and representation. The History narrative represented is linear and fragmented where each selected museum presents a different historical period with an emphasis on the multicultural nature of the region historically. Ideology and the heritage policy analysis has revealed that the Turkish heritage sector is heading towards an Ottoman based ideology instead of the secular Kemalism ideology that had built the modern Turkish national identity since the establishment of the republic in 1923. The results show that the challenge of representing inclusive and sustainable heritage and national identities in multicultural societies is complex. However, to achieve that, museums and heritage sectors would have to adopt policies of recognition and civil society involvement. The state would have to take an architect role by funding the museum and heritage sector without interfering in museum´s function. This is a two years master’s thesis in Museum and Cultural Heritage Studies.

Abstract på svenska Representationen av nationella identiteter i museerna av 2000-talets mångkulturella samhälle är en utmanande uppgift. En uppgift som involverar frågor om integration, nationellt kulturarv och narrative inkludering samt frågor om makt och ideologi. Denna uppsats omfattar en undersökning av den turkiska nationella identitetsrepresentationen i två statliga museer och ett privat museum samt två omtvistade kulturarv i Istanbul. De två omtvistade platserna omvandlandes från museer till moskéer år 2020. Undersökningen omfattar också frågor om makt och legitimitet inom den turkiska kulturarvssektorn med fokus på det senaste decenniet. Kvalitativa metoder inklusive observationer, grundad teorins kodning, rumslig syntaxanalys och objekts analys används i forskningen. Analysresultaten avslöjade fragmenteringen av den turkiska nationella identitetsrepresentationen och maktstrukturen i den turkiska kulturarvssektorn där olika nyckelaktörer är involverade i representationen och produktionen av det turkiska nationella identitet. Det historienarrative som är representerat är linjärt och fragmenterad där varje utvalt museum presenterar en specifik historisk period med fokus på regionens mångkulturella historia. Ideologi och kulturarvspolitikanalysen har avslöjat att den turkiska kulturarvssektorn är på väg mot en ottomansk baserad ideologi i stället för den sekulära Kemalism-ideologin som byggde den moderna turkiska nationella identiteten sedan republiken grundades år 1923. Resultaten visar att utmaningen att representera inkluderande och hållbara kulturarv och nationella identiteter i multikulturella samhällen är komplex. För att uppnå detta måste emellertid museer och kulturarvssektorer överväga erkännandepolitik samt civilsamhällets-engagemangspolitik och staten måste ta en arkitektroll genom att finansiera museets och kulturarvssektorn med ett armslängdavstånd. Detta är ett tvåårigt examensarbete i Museum och kulturarvsvetenskap studier.

Ämnesord Nationell identitet, Turkiet, nationella museer, folkrepresentation, makt, kollektivt minne.

Key words National identity, Turkey, National identity representation, Power, Narrative representation, Heritage use.

Table of Content 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1. Aim and Research Questions ...... 6 1.2. Scientific Relevance ...... 7 1.3. Disposition ...... 7 2. Previous Research ...... 8 3. Starting Points and Definitions ...... 12 3.1. Museums and History of National Identity in Museums ...... 12 3.2. Collective and National Identity ...... 13 4. Theoretical Framework ...... 16 4.1. Materiality and Representation Analysis ...... 16 4.2. The Politics of Museums ...... 17 4.2.1. Museum and Power ...... 17 4.2.2. Museum and Ideology ...... 18 4.2.3. Museum and Legitimacy ...... 19 4.2.4. Museum and Rationality ...... 19 5. Methodology ...... 21 5.1. Sampling the Material ...... 21 5.2. Analysis Methodology ...... 22 5.3. The Selected Museums ...... 22 5.3.1. Topkapi Palace museum ...... 23 5.3.2. Museum of Archaeology ...... 23 5.3.3. Istanbul´s Museum of Modern Art ...... 24 5.3.4. Contested Heritage Sites in Turkey 2020 ...... 24 6. Turkish National identity and National Museums: Historical Background ...... 26 7. Material and Analysis ...... 29 7.1. The Turkish Museum Laws ...... 29 5.1.2. Museum Law Analysis ...... 31 7.2. National Identity Represented in the Topkapi Palace Museum ...... 32 7.2.1. Object Selection ...... 34 7.2.2. Object Analysis ...... 36 7.2.3. Text Analysis ...... 37 7.2.4. Power Analysis ...... 38 7.3. National Identity Represented in the Museum of Archaeology...... 40 7.3.1. Object Selection ...... 41 7.3.2. Object Analysis ...... 42 7.3.3. Text Analysis ...... 44 7.3.4. Power Analysis ...... 45 7.4. National Identity Presented in Istanbul Modern Art Museum ...... 46 7.4.1. Object Selection ...... 47 7.4.2. Object Analysis ...... 48 7.4.3. Text Analysis ...... 50 7.4.4. Power Analysis ...... 51 7.5. Contested heritage sites in Turkey in 2020 ...... 53 7.5.1. Hagia Sofia Site ...... 54 7.5.2. Chora Church/ Kariye Museum Site ...... 56 7.5.3. Status Transformation Analysis ...... 56 8. Concluding Discussion ...... 58

8.1. National Identity Materialized ...... 58 8.1.1. Research Results from Each Museum Separately ...... 58 8.1.2. Turkish National Identity ...... 61 8.1.3. Turkish National Identity Representation...... 61 8.2. Turkish Heritage Sector Power Structure ...... 63 8.2.1. Authority Sources in the Turkish Heritage Sector ...... 63 8.2.2. The Turkish Heritage Sector in the Last Decade ...... 65 Sources and Literature ...... 67 Sources ...... 67 In the possession of the thesis writer ...... 67 Literature ...... 67 Webpages ...... 72 Figures: Museum Texts ...... 73 Appendix: Chronological Timeline of Turkey´s History ...... 76

1. Introduction

Museums as educational institutions reflect the societies they have been established in including the societies´ values and principles. Museum policies reflect the power structure and the authority approach followed in the heritage and culture sector in societies. Nations, being built of collective societies, and nations´ national identities, values, and principles are consequently reflected in museum institutions. In this thesis I research, how national identity is represented in museums serving in multicultural and multi-religious societies in the 21st century, using the Turkish example as my case-study. Turkey is today home to various ethnic and religious groups and the Republic of Turkey is a centralized and authoritarian state.1 This makes the quest to articulate transcultural, inclusive and hybrid national identity a challenging matter. In this thesis I research how the Turkish national identity is presented in three Turkish museums and two contested sites in Istanbul from four political perspectives: power, ideology, legitimacy, and rationality. I also research how the national identity is materialized and which narrative of the national identity and history is presented in each museum. Examining how the selected museums have dealt with this challenge is therefore of interest in this thesis. This interest is of importance regarding identity representation and power structure in the heritage sector in relation to the core four political aspects stated above. Since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the country has been swept with radical changes and challenges. The Turkish national identity has been reconstructed several times after the first world war since the regime of the president Mustafa Kemal. Kemal led the formation of the modern Republic of Turkey on the ruins of the Ottoman empire. He created the Turkish political ideology: Ke- malism, which is the Turkish form of the secularism political ideology that is still ruling until this day in Turkey´s governing policy. In 1922 Kemal created a homo- geneous nationalistic Turkish identity under a forced democratization process. The recent administration of the President Recep Tayyib Erdoğan has been accused of having a different vision for the Republic of Turkey. Major events have occurred since and under President Erdoğan´s administration, including a failed military coup, a dismiss of EU membership request, and a transformation of two museums including one UNESCO heritage site to mosques.2 All which makes the case of Turkish national identity and its representation in museums specially interesting and unique. The research in this thesis is concerned mostly with the evolution of the Turkish museum sector politics and the evolution of the Turkish national identity representation in the selected museums in the past decade.

1 Berk Esen & Gumuscu Sebnem, 'Rising Competitive Authoritarianism in Turkey', Third World Quarterly, 37: 9, (2016), pp. 1581-1606. 2 Daily Hellas, “UNESCO Halts Erdoğan’s Plans to Turn The Hagia Sophia into Mosque”, Daily Hellas (DW) 2019, https://dailyhellas.com/2019/03/27/unesco-halts-Erdoğans-plans-to-turn-the-hagia-sophia-into-mosqu (accessed 1 March 2020)

1.1. Aim and Research Questions The motivation behind this study is based on my own embodied experience in regard of national identity in multicultural societies, being born in one country and living abroad as a citizen of another. The main aim of this thesis is to research how a centralized and authoritarian national state as Turkey, present its national identity narratives in a few selected museums. In this thesis I investigate how national identities are reconstructed and represented in three museums. That to get a better understanding on how national identity in general adjust or change in a fast-changing environment where historical and major events occur both globally and locally on a rapid pace. I investigate how policies are made within the heritage sector. I also examine the main actors in the museum sector, who the policy and decision makers are, on the sectoral level as well as in the museums I have chosen to study. Issues of legitimacy, ideology and authority in a multicultural centralized nation are the bases of the analysis in this thesis. To fulfil the aim of the study I investigate the national identity of Turkey including the plural sub-identities by visiting and analysing several exhibitions in both national state museums and private museums in Istanbul. Istanbul, being the former capital city of the Ottoman empire and the current cultural and touristic capital city of the Republic of Turkey. The museums I have selected are: The Topkapi Palace museum, the Museum of Archaeology, and the Istanbul Modern museum in Istanbul. I visited these museums to observe, and analyse exhibitions and objects associated with national identity in terms of object and text analysis. I also present and analyse the Turkish museum law and examine the cases of two contested heritage sites in Istanbul which have undergone legal status transformation in 2020. The two sites are the Hagia Sophia site, and Chora Church, also known as Karyie museum. The examination and analysis are aimed to provide answers regarding the nature of the modern Turkish national identity and its underlying narrative basis on one side, and how it is portrayed in Turkish museums on the other. The examination is also aimed to provide analysis regarding the structure of power within the heritage sector in Turkey.

The following research questions are investigated:

- How is national identity represented and materialized in the selected museums? - Is there a difference between private and national-state museums in regard of choice of narratives? If so, how is it materialized? - Who are the key actors involved in national identity production? - Has there been a change in these narratives in the last decades? If so, what are these changes and what do they indicate regarding power and legitimacy structure and agency in the Turkish culture and heritage sectors?

1.2. Scientific Relevance This thesis aims to contribute to the broader discourse of the politicized museum. Museums have often been investigated in terms of their historic development and their role in national identity constructing. However, the contemporary function of museums in multicultural centralized nations has not been discussed in much detail. Neither is the economic pressure on museums by the funders (both public and private sector) is fairly discussed in Turkey from national perspectives. A starting point is to admit that museums are not and have never been entirely neutral and objective institutes. I will elaborate more on this matter in the chapter on theoretical approaches and throughout the analytical part of this thesis. To Study how national and private museums present national identity and their narrative, requires an analysis of the museum institution in terms of power, legitimacy, and politics. This is the focus of my research. The scientific relevance of this thesis then is first to test the Politicized museum theory in practice in a multicultural country that is in constant political and social motion. This thesis will also provide an insight on heritage and culture politics in one example of the 21st century countries which are and have been transforming form being a developing country to a developed country. A country that has reconstructed its national identity since its establishment several times and some might argue it still is.3

1.3. Disposition After the present introduction of the thesis, purpose, and research question. The thesis proceeds in Chapter two to discuss previous national and international research on national identity representation in museums. Chapter three addresses theoretical starting points and definitions of the core concepts discussed in this thesis such as collective and national identity. Chapter four provides the theoretical framework of the thesis, with a focus on the politicized museum theory by Gray, Exhibi- tions´ designing models presented by Monti and Keene and Hodder´s theory of culture materiality. Chapter five presents the methodology and introduces the material of the thesis: the selected museums with motivation behind each choice and the two contested sites which have undergone legal status transformation in 2020. Chapter six presents a historical background of the Turkish national identity and the Turkish museum sector. In the seventh chapter the Turkish museum law and the material as well as the analysis of the sampled data from the selected museums and the contested sites are presented and compared to the results from the previous research chapter. The eighth chapter addresses the results and answers the research questions in connection to the theoretical perspectives.

3 Ali Bayramoglu ,´Turkish National Identity According to Erdoğan and AKP´, Repair Future, 12/1 2017, https://repairfuture.net/index.php/en/identity-standpoint-of-turkey/turkish-national-identity-according-to- erdogan-and-akp-armenian (accessed 2 April 2020). 7

2. Previous Research

There is a wealth of literature on museums and national identity, the latter has been investigated, discussed, and debated by many researchers in many fields and from different perspectives; historically, politically, economically, and culturally.4 Fiona Mclean for instance has written about museums and national identity at the macro level. She provides an analysis on the important role museum institutions have in the process of forming modern national identities, heritage, and national narrative in the article “Museums and the construction of national identity: A review”. McLean article concludes that museums´ staff interpretation of the collection is subjective because people are affected by the social and cultural movements and by the present day´s values. This means that the concept of national identity presentation through objects is never objective, and it differs from one museum to the other based on the ideological preference of the museum staff.5 In her summary of Studies About National Identities and Museums, McLean points out the changes occurring in national identity representation in museums in the 21st century. She explains that museums in the 19th century had nationalistic and self-improving goals; however, now that we have entered an era of globalization and multiculturalism, identities have become fluid and contingent. Consequently, the task of narrating the nation through presenting nationalistic heritage has transformed to narrating the diversity of the nation through engaging in politics of recognition.6 Ashley´s research of museums´ role in the Canadian society backs McLean´s argument. Ashley concludes that when museums transform from acting as the voice of the state articulating nationalistic identity; to acting as public spaces for opinion and meaning making, only then museums become sites for public identity discourse and social inclusion which is a necessity in the 21st century societies.7 Mason agrees with Ashley in her article on the Museum of Welsh Life and the constant demands for giving it a different name, where she writes that it is the historic and contemporary visions of national identity which meet in museums. Mason indicates that museums should include multiple representations which provide a meeting point for competing ideas about national identities, where the past national identity meets the contemporary one.8 Santos also comes to the same conclusion in her research of black people´s representation within the Brazilian national identity in Brazil´s museums. Santos concludes that the sub-identities of the different populations in a nation need to be heard during the creation process of museums and exhibitions and

4 Sharon J. Macdonald, Fiona McLean, Gunel Bozoglu, Peter Andersson, Bugge Amondsen, I have used articles and books produced by each of the mentioned researcher in this thesis. 5 Fiona McLean, “Museums and the Construction of National Identity: A Review”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 3:4 (1998), pp. 244-252. 6 Fiona Mclean, “Museums and National Identity”, Museum & Society. 3:1 (2015), p.1. 7 Susan Ashley, “State authority and the public sphere. Ideas on the changing roles of museums as a Canadian social institution”, Museum and Society 3:1 (2005), pp. 5-17. 8 Rhiannon Mason, “Nation Building in at the Museum of Welsh Life”, Museum and Society 3:1 (2004), pp.18- 34. 8

new narratives about the nation need to be established so that museums can retain their legitimation in societies of the 21st century.9 Smith discusses that heritage is a cultural process and that community engagement has an important role in building and representing national identities. In her 2006 Uses of Heritage book, Smith argues that material culture and heritage practices are of significance in matters of national identity inclusion and representation.10 Smith explains that the usage of heritage in national identity production is question of power and agency in the social and cultural structure of societies, because heritage is vital and alive, and its symbolism and value is being reconstructed on daily bases.11 Research about national identity in museums from post-colonial countries are also plenty. Zobler´s research about Syrian national museums is one example. Zolber studies three national museums in the country and concludes that the national museum system inherited by Syria was first created by intellectual nationalists and then manipulated by the French who rule between 1920-1946. This resulted in the establishment of different national identities and narratives between nationalism and regionalism, where each of the national museums re-contextualizes the material heritage differently. Zobler stresses that it is necessary to establish a unified national museum system and narrative, to construct an inclusive national identity in nations which have myriad and diverse political, ethnic, and religious affili- ations but share the same territory.12 Other studies presenting national identities in museums include the one presented by Haan who attempts to move beyond “con- ventional bounded models of identity”. Based on three case studies, she suggests that museums are heading towards greater individualization and new approaches which reflect a fragmentation of identity. This fragmentation, in its turn, aims to re- stage history and create the possibility for individualized perceptions and to leave open alternative interpretations.13 No studies have been carried out in the last ten years on the representation of Turkish national identity in Turkish museums and on the Turkish heritage sector in general. Although there are plenty of studies on Turkey´s national identity up to 2012, most of the research done on this issue adopted a historical perspective such as the research I present here. Many of these works bring up questions of power and legitimacy but some are biased, one example being that of Posocco which I will present later.14

9 Dos Santos & Marian Sepúlveda, “Museums without a Past: The Brazilian case” International Journal of Cultural Studies. 6: 2 (2003), pp. 180-201 10 Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage, (London: Routledge, 2006), pp.48-49. 11 Smith, 2006, pp. 82-83. 12 Kari A. Zobler, ´Syrian National Museums: Regional Politics and the Imagined Community´ Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure and Exclusion in a Global World, ed. Helaine Silverman, (New York: Springer. 2011), pp171-190. 13 Rosemarie Brier-de Haan, ´Re-staging Histories and Identities´, A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon MacDonald, 12 (Malden Mass: Blackwell, 2006), pp.186-197. 14 Lorenzo Posocco, ´The Politics of Nationalism in Recently Built Turkish Museums: The Case of the Kabatepe Simulation Centre and Museum´, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 33:1 (2018) pp 67-87. 9

On the national level, studies have been done about the role of museums in the construction of the Turkish national identity. For example, the study by Wendy Shaw titled National Museums in the Republic of Turkey: Palimpsests in a Central- ized State published year 2011. This study along with Shaw´s 2003 book Posses- sors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire are the mark benches of the history of Turkish museums and nationalism in this thesis. The study provides a review of the relation between the state, the nation and museums in different historical eras following a chronological order, by focusing on five key case studies.15 Shaw argues that there are no national museums- in the international definition of it- in the Republic of Turkey where the state itself is very centralized and the national cohesion is based on an ideological narrative.16 However, the absent of national museum institution made the many contemporary Turkish museums, both private and public ones, re- place and fill the absence of national museums. Those contemporary museums present various competing narratives of identity, heritage, and state ideology. Each narrative based on the local culture and history, serving by that the production of a decentralized national Turkish identity.17 Shaw regards the now existing ´´national museums´´ of Turkey as positive patriotism celebration sites which follow a top- down method in presenting a national narrative pushed and funded by the state or by private actors associated with the state.18 The study convers many fields and is informative; however, it is very short, limited to twenty-three pages, making it very intensive and brief, besides the main focus in the study is on the chronological order of national museums in the Republic of Turkey rather than national identity presentation. The article “The Politics of Nationalism in Recently Built Turkish Museums: The Case of the Kabatepe Simulation Centre and Museum” written by Lorenzo Posocco, published in 2018, provides a different insight on today´s national identity in Turkish national museums. The discussion presented by Pocosso agrees with Shaw that Turkish national museums are only positive patriotic populistic celebration sites. Posocco´s argument adds that Turkish national museums present the national history solely from a winner perspective, silencing the other perspectives. On one hand Posocco discusses the political aspect of the issue and the agenda of the ruling party under the leadership of President Erdoğan. Pocosso claims that Erdoğan´s administration is using museums and government institutions as an in- strument to push a neo-ottoman, Islamic nationalism, and a Turkic agenda. On the other hand, he bases his arguments on the rule that “politic is in everyday life and it is in everything everywhere” without deeply taking the cultural heritage aspect and analysing it in relation to the bigger context. However, the weakness in

15 Wendy Shaw, ´National Museums in the Republic of Turkey: Palimpsests within a Centralized State´, Building National Museums in Europe. European National Museums: Identity Politics, the Uses of the Past and the European Citizen, rep.1. Eds. Peter Aronsson & Gabriella Elgenius (2011), pp. 925-927. 16 Shaw, 2011, 927-920. 17 Shaw 2011, p. 927. 18 Duncan (1995) quoted in Shaw, 2011, p. 928. 10

Posocco’s paper is the clear impartiality and bias in his discussion and the choice of his material using a critical very anti-Erdoğan tone but presenting it as an objective reflection of the reality and the matter under investigation.19 The thesis lacks a museological analysis and a discussion from the heritage and memory perspectives. Internationally, a somewhat similar article titled “Nation and National Mu- seum, a Contested Relationship: An Analysis of US National Museums in Twenty First Century” have been written by German cultural studies´ students from Leuphana University regarding the mediation of national identity in the US national museums year 2014. The authors of the study conclude that museums today have an impossible task to portray the pluralistic and conflictive construct of modern diverse nations and societies- such as the US, England and in our case Turkey- which museums will never be able to do. However, in the US, national museums are plenty, so each present a different narrative in a way that makes each social group able to choose and see itself represented in one of these museums. The financing challenges though always pushes the museum management to have a clas- sical American national identity and narrative imposed by the state presented in at least one exhibition.20

19 Posocco, 2018, pp.67-87. 20 Beatrice Drengwitz; Lisa Debora Jahn; Irmela Wrogemann & Elbers Benjamin, “Nation and National Museums, a Contested Relationship: An Analysis of U.S. National Museums in the Twenty‐first Century”. pp. 97-106. Curator: The Museum Journal, 57:1 (2014), PP. 100-106. 11

3. Starting Points and Definitions

In this chapter I present the main definitions and discussions related to key concepts and ideas involved in the research of national identity representation in museums. These definitions are of relevance for this research because they provide a context to the theoretical foundation and material analysis for this thesis. I start by defining museums, national museums, and the politicization of national museums through history, then I present definitions of collective and national identities.

3.1. Museums and History of National Identity in Museums

Authorities have long used museums to construct national identities that unites different cultures and sub-identities under one unity that requires loyalty towards one superior identity.21 National museums have also been tools for authorities to gain legitimacy.22 For the definition of national museums, I use the definition provided by Ellen Chapman. A national museum is a state or government funded institution that plays an important role in shaping and mediating public discourses of national identities.23 This definition of national museums addresses that presenting national identity is a main task of national museums. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) provides this definition of museum institutions:

A museum is a non- profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, research, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study, and enjoyment.24

This definition stresses the following main functions of museums: preservation, research, education, exhibition, communication, and a societal mission of public development. For centuries, states have tried to control the representation of national identity in museums for several reasons: to serve state´s own propaganda, unify the nation, and to create a feeling of belonging to the nation.25 National history education is an essential element in the formation of national identity and the ideal of

21 Charlotte Hylten-Cavallius & Fredreik Svanberg, ”Älskade museum-Svenska kulturhistoriska museer som kulturproducenter och samhällsbyggare” (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2016), p.29. 22 Dominique Poulot, 'Another History of Museums: From the Discourse to the Museum-Piece', Anais do Museu Paulista 21:1 (2013), pp. 27-47. 23Ellen Chapman, ´What makes a museum national? National Identities at Community Museums´, Diss, (Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press. 2007), P.238. 24 International Council of Museums, Museum Definition, ICOM, 2007, https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ (accessed 2 Maj, 2020). 25 Hylten-Cavallius & Svanberg, 2016, p. 29. 12

responsible citizenship.26 The national identity presented by states has always been focused on presenting the state´s narrative and silencing opposite narratives. Na- tional museums have had to respond to the state´s guidelines and recommendations concerning the representation of national identity, because national museums are owned or funded by the state. In other words, for economic reasons or administra- tional policy decisions, national museums have had to be politicized to keep getting funds from the state.27 McLean argues that after the second world war, national identities became more fluid and contingent on such phenomena as globalisation, decline of nation-state, migrations, multiculturalism, decolonization, women, LGBTQ, and environmental movements. Subsequently museums of the 21tcentury have had to find new ways to illustrate, construct and represent new inclusive national identities based on reconciliation, diversity, and integration.28 Moreover, museums as memory institutions have the power and responsibility of presenting the objective truth that includes diverse and even competing narratives. A task which might be very hard to achieve in multicultural countries with authoritarian states.

3.2. Collective and National Identity A nation´s identity is anchored in the collective community identity of the groups forming the nation. Identity is a symbolic system of representations (Epistemology) that forms the culture and members´ interpretation of reality (ontology). It is about group membership, and it is negotiable, recoverable, and re-constructible because it is in a constant motion along with the process of changes in societies´ structure.29 Individual (psychological) and collective (social and cultural) memories influence the shaping of humans’ identities as individuals and as societies.30 Identity can only be explained and analysed alongside the processes of its production, consumption, and regulation within its culture. McLean suggests that collective identity is the product of shared heritage, culture, memory, interpretation of the past and present self-awareness. That collective identity defines communities´ internal relations between its members and external relation to other communities. Furthermore, the production and consumption of cultural representations is linked directly to the self-awareness which community members identify themselves according to.31 Based on this definition of collective identity, the definition of national

26 Stefan Berger & Chris Lorenz, ´National Narratives and Their ‘Others’: Ethnicity, Class, Religion and the Gendering of National Histories´, Storia della Storiografia/Geschichte der Geschichtsschreibung 50:1 (2006), p.2. 27 The definition of state referred to here and the one I use in this thesis is Max Weber´s 1946 definition: The state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. 28 McLean, 2015, pp. 1-4. 29 McLean, 2015, p.3. 30 Hylten-Cavallius & Svanberg, 2016, p. 29. 31 McLean, F. 2015, p.4. 13

identity is shared history interpretations, cultural experiences, memories, and political values. The additional political layer is an inseparable part of every national political identity. Helldahl argues that the political aspect of national identity refers to the sense of collective belonging to an imagined political community, which is the difference between a community´s collective identity and a nation´s national identity.32 He refers to the American and French revolutions as the primer events leading to the establishment of the bond between nations and the political identity in the 19th century. Helldahl explains that through these revolutions, nations (people) appointed themselves as the primer political actors and legitimate source for authorities´ power.33 Theories about national identity have changed in the past 50 years. Scholars of the 20th century had different definitions of both nation and national identity. Ben- edict Andersson for example, described nation as a product of imagination that requires ideologies, to create a shared national identity for citizens.34 Ideologies, such as nationalism, and patriotism, religion and ethnicity, have all been used in the past centuries as anchors of national identity.35 Andersson explained that the sense of belonging to nations was established through the usage of mass media and museums.36 While Kaplan argues that national identity was imposed by the authority of the state and accepted by the presumed recipients of benefits of the state and subject to its authority.37 Helldahl on the other side, argues that the 21st century´s national identities have two dimensions: civic and ethical dimension. The civic identity is based on a consent of the nations´ members on having common ground to disagree within the political and legal framework. Pointing out that a civic identity is a political identity anchored in citizenship and equal rights and duties.38 Ethnic nationalism on the other hand is based on inherited or ascriptive criteria, including cultural inheritance such as religion and culture of individuals at birth.39 Both the political and ethnic dimensions of identity shape the individual identity of people as well as the collective identity of communities. However, the term nation has existed long before nationalism as an ideology. The term was used to refer to the population of a country and to the collective groups united by a common social, cultural, or religious kinship-based identity.40 Moreover, nation-states were created either in the framework of already existing territorial states, or through propaganda used by cultural-political movements to raise national awareness and identity.41

32 Per Helldahl, ´The Challenge from Nationalism: Problems of Community in Democracy, ´Diss. (Uppsala: University of Uppsala 2013), p. 31. 33 Helldahl, 2013, p. 28. 34 Benedict Andersson, ´Imagined Communities: Reflections on The Origin and Spread of Nationalism´ (London: Verso, 1991), pp.6-7. 35 Flora Edouwaye S. Kaplan, ´Making and Remaking National Identities´, in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed Sharon MacDonald (Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), pp. 153-160. 36 Andersson, 1991, pp.24-25; 178-180 37 Kaplan, 2011, p153. 38 Helldahl, 2013, p.107. 39 Helldahl, 2013, p.33. 40 Azar Gat & Alexander Yakobson, ´Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism´ (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2013). p. 214; Helldahl, 2013, p. 28. 41 Helldahl, 2013, pp. 27-30. 14

In conclusion, a nation´s collective identity is culturally constructed based on shared cultural and social, memories and traditions inheritance and sense of belonging. A nation´s national identity is the ideological collective identity of the nation as a political entity based on shared political principles and history and heritage interpretation. As for the definition of national identity -I refer to in my thesis-, it is the shared interpretation of history and culture heritage understanding and inclusion.

4. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework in this thesis consists of a material representation analysis and museum politics analysis. These two pillars are based on Ian Hodder´s theory of material culture, Francesca Monti and Suzanne Keene´s designing models and Clive Gray´s analytical theory of museum politicization and museum politics.

4.1. Materiality and Representation Analysis This thesis studies how national identity is represented in the selected museums and contested sites in Istanbul. One approach to do so is to investigate how national identity is materialized through investigating the characteristics of the displayed objects. In my research of national identity´s materialization in museums I use Hod- der´s material culture theory for the objects´ analysis. I also use Monti and Keene´s spatial syntax and designing models for the analysis of the highlighted objects. The analysis of materiality and representation will provide an answer to the first question of this thesis: how national identity is materialized and presented in the selected museums. Hodder used theories in social anthropology to understand ancient material culture. Hodder´s theory suggests that objects´ meaning is threefold; A) objects have functionalist or utilitarian value through their effect on the world. B) objects have symbolic meaning in their structural or coded meanings through which they communicate. And C) objects have historical meaning through their past associations. Hodder argues that objects are, always, functioning and conceived in all three of these meanings.42 Each object then has a story to tell, a meaning to communicate and a function to fill which are provided through and by humans´ creation, understanding and use of them. In this thesis I analyse objects associated with the Turkish national identity from these three perspectives: functionalistic value, symbolic value, and historical meaning, to identify the values and narratives the museums under study present. Monti and Keene have researched museum display models and silent objects to discover the best ways of displaying silent objects. Their research is based on the assumption that museums are mediators between objects and visitors because a museum visit is the interaction between the visitor, the object, and the exhibitions´ architect. Monti and Keene point out that some objects are silent objects while others are loud and attractive. Silent objects are the ones which do not catch the visitor´s interest immediately, they rather need effort from the exhibition designers and curators to help them obtain the visitor´s attention. Monti and Keene conclude that

42 Ian Hodder, ´Symbolic and Structural Archaeology´ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 1- 5. 16

spatial syntax is an important dimension of any exhibition. Space syntax is the relationship between the object, the architect, and visitors.43 It is about where an object is placed in the exhibition room and how it is displayed in relation to other objects. For an example the most important objects are usually centred and given more space than other objects. Objects associated with national identity are usually loud and attractive per se, however, analysing how they are exhibited, and which are the centred objects, provides an answer to the question of which aspects are chosen to be highlighted as the most representative ones of national identity.

4.2. The Politics of Museums The theory of the politicized museum is presented by Clive Gray in his The Politics of Museum book. Gray applies concepts and questions from the fields of political science, public policy, and public administration in the analysis of museum relation to power, legitimacy, ideology, and rationality. He concludes the analysis with a theory that addresses each of these concepts in the framework of museum politics.

4.2.1. Museum and Power Gray addresses two methods which power can be analysed through. The first regards how power is distributed within societies and the second regards the nature of power itself. He addresses the two main dimensions of power in museums: the structural and the behavioural. The way that power´s first dimension is illustrated is through the choices and activities of the museum staff. The choices of what to preserve, what and who´s values to display and for who. The second dimension of power lies in the mechanism through which the individuals and groups make these choices. In this respect power in museums is associated with the key actors in museum field, the organisations which affect museum´s function and the actors whose interests are being presented within it.44 Regarding the nature of power, power can be practiced through two methods: ´´ power to´´ and ´´power over´´. Power to is the use of power to prevent discussions being made regarding potential issues. Power over is the use of power to control the political agenda so that potential issues are excluded from considerations.45. Muse- ums´ main power lies in their role as objective truth preservers and tellers.46 This power is dependent on social characteristics and attributes which affect the establishment of museums ‘social significance within societies as well as the ways which physical resources are distributed.47 This power is then linked with ideology and

43 Francesca Monti & Suzanne Keene, ´Museums and Silent Objects: Designing Effective Exhibitions´, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), p. 220. 44 Clive Gray, ´The Politics of Museums´ (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p.8. 45 Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical view, (Pallgrave: Macmillan, 2005), pp. 24-28. 46 Gray, 2015, p.124. 47 Gray, 2015, pp. 8-12. 17

legitimacy, meaning that museums have power because of their status and function in societies. The forms of ideology, legitimacy and rationality practiced in and by museums are all dependent on the exercise of power a) the ways which ideological values, attitudes and beliefs become accepted or are imposed in museums and societies. B) Legitimacy forms required to allow these ideological practices to become accepted in museums and societies. And lastly c) the rationalities used to justify these choices and actions. In this context, ´´power to´´ allows for actual choices of ideology, legitimacy and rationality. While ´´power over´´ embodies the ways in which legitimacy, ideology and rationality can be seen to influence the political and policy choices which are made within societies.48

4.2.2. Museum and Ideology Ideology consists of values, beliefs and norms within the society.49 To claim that museums are not or must not be ideological then is impossible. Ideology is central to understanding how museum policy is framed, understood, and made. Ideology has four dimensions and therefore four ways to analyse and understand the political nature of museums. The first is a view of ideology as a set of ontological choices and predisposi- tions.50 A positive orientation for example indicates a direct relationship between facts and reality, where facts are objective phenomena explaining the reality. Ac- cording to this view facts in museums will be used to explain why things are a certain way in museums. This view is used in quantitative economic analysis of culture and heritage. The second view adopts a different understanding of how ideology functions and it is a view of ideology as sets of normative concerns regarding what is considered ´´ right´´, ´´correct´´ or ´´proper´´.51 This position maps the core values guiding political choices, actions, and inactions. Thirdly, a political ideology can be seen as a means to organise and justify policy choices. Political ideologies accommodate ideas about the nature of social reality and provide claims about power and its distribution as well as about the roles of states and citizens in societies.52 Political ideologies set the basis for understanding how willing or reluctant a government is to intervene in the museum field and about how policy choices in the sector are being made. Lastly the fourth view of ideology is regarding how ideology is practiced and embodied through museum exhibitions, representation, and display of tangible as well as intangible objects and values. The activities of museums reflect what is seen as worthy of preserving and exhibiting as well as what the mas- sage of an exhibition or collection is. This view of ideology is derived from the assumption that museums and objects are texts that have meanings which can be read.53

48 Gray, 2015, p.10. 49 Gray, 2015, p.15. 50 Gray, 2015, p.15. 51Gray, 2015, p.15. 52 Gray, 2015, p.16. 53 Gray, 2015, p.17. 18

These four views of ideology reinforce that museum institutions are ideological in the core of their function, use and role in societies which means that museums can never be entirely depoliticized. Thereafter there is a reciprocal relationship between ideology and policy where ideology can work as structural restrictions upon policy choices. Policy can be used to reinforce ideological preferences, or even to change ideologies and values within societies to legitimise policy choices.54

4.2.3. Museum and Legitimacy The uses of ideology to promotes policies are related to the nature of legitimacy that justifies policy choices and practices. Legitimacy needs to be recognised by the society members. That as the rules of social conduct may be derived of a specific ideology but getting these rules to operate effectively is dependent on the willing- ness of the societal members to comply with them. Failing to establish and maintain a legitimatising acceptance will be catastrophic to any political system or organisa- tional rule.55 Legitimacy derives from the nature of authority in societies. Legitimacy in the case of charismatic authority and traditional authority is derived from people’s beliefs about why they should obey the decision-makers56. In the case of legal-rational authority, the legitimacy derives from the system of formally established rules and laws which have organised societal relations and actions. Legitimacy in both cases is dependent on the maintains of the conditions under which the authority in question gained legitimacy. An example is the case of religious authority and monar- chical authority which both are dependent on principles of inheritance accepted though past traditions.57 In other cases, legitimacy derives through discussion and ideological composition as form of hegemony.58 Justifications for legitimacy in most governments today bases on varieties of-rational authority, as they all refer to rules of law when making decisions as the source of legitimacy. In the museum context, curators are the authority sources in their choices of how, what, and why to display. Legitimacy questions cannot be discussed separately from questions of power, ideology, and control.

4.2.4. Museum and Rationality Legitimacy depends on the logic of the authority system legitimacy.59 The logics or rationalities used by decision makers provide justifications for why their choices and actions should be accepted by the societal members. These rationalities have different forms: behavioural rationalities, ritual rationalities, rationalities based on

54 Gray, 2015, p.18. 55Gray, 2015, p.18. 56Max Weber, ´Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 212-220. 57 Gray, 2015, p.21. 58 Jeffery C. Goldfarb, ´Reinventing Political Culture: The Power of Culture Versus the Culture of Power.´, (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), p 44. 59 Gray, 2015, p.23. 19

fame, market, civic justifications, and instrumental rationalities. Behavioural rationality is based on the acceptance of the different rules and principles of what is accepted and unaccepted in people´s practices as society members. In the museum context the curator’s professional values set the ground rules for the accepted be- haviours, therefore their values play a central role in shaping museum´s policies60. Instrumental rationality on the other hand is a means-ends goal-oriented rationality. Instrumental rationality is about making policy choices to achieve desired outcomes, so the outcomes are the starting place for policy makings61. In the museum and culture field, policies are usually made using instrumental rationalities. Consequently evaluations of these field´s institutions and their policies have been focused on means and ends. And these evaluation in their turn are used to justify continued state funding for these institutions.62 The strength of Gray´s theory is that he goes beyond the common Musicologi- cal discourses. Instead, he stresses the political and social roles of museums, through analysis of museums´ function, purpose, and power. Gray explains that museums power lies in their social, cultural, and political meanings in societies:

(…) while museums are usually politically weak in terms of exercising effective power outside their own doors, their ideological and legitimating roles and functions provide a degree of political meaning for societies that operates at a different level, and in a different way, from the results that are generated from the direct and indirect exercise of political power, and it is in these ideological and legitimating activities that the real political significance of museums is to be found.63

I chose this theory for my research because it provides the ground to examine how policies and choices are being made in each of the selected museums, considering that two of the investigated museums are state owned, and one is a private museum. Also, to examine whether any generalizations on the sectoral level can be drawn based on the two contested sites´ analysis. And to determine the key actors involved in national identity production and representation in the Turkish heritage sector.

60 Gray, 2015, p.24. 61 Gray, 2015, p.24. 62Christopher Madden & Taryn Bloom, “Creativity, Health and Art Advocacy”, International Journal of Cultural Policy 10:2 (2004) p. 133-156. 63 Gray, 2015, p.170. 20

5. Methodology

The method I use in sampling the material is qualitative observations from my examination visits. The material analysis method concludes two aspects based on Monti and Keene´s spatial syntax analysis and Hodder´s material culture analysis model. For the documents´ analysis I use grounded theory initial coding. The research follows the guidelines for research ethics used in the humanities and social sciences in Sweden (codex.vr.se). I did not write an ethic chapter because I did not use interviews in my research.

5.1. Sampling the Material I travelled to Istanbul on the seventh of October 2020 and visited the preselected museums then narrowed my choice to three museums in Istanbul based on the social governmental guidelines on museum´s opening hours in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic and based on the museums´ official status: national and private. The selection was mainly based on and concerned with examining each museum´s representation of Turkey´s nation´s identity and heritage narrative. I visited the Topkapi Palace museum, Istanbul Modern museum, and the Museum of Archaeology, each between three to seven times, four to eight hours each visit. The duration of my observational visits varied based on the museum´s size and quantity of documents and artifacts displayed in it. I photographed the exhibition halls, the objects, the exhibitions´ and objects´ texts. I wrote down my observations, descriptions and notes and transcribed them immediately as the visit ended. Then I categorized the texts and descriptions to initial coding. Further, I reached out to the main desk at each museum, presented myself and my research and requested to interview a museum official as I referred to the requests I had sent via the email and the telephone earlier prior to my visits. My requests got denied, however, I got encouraged to contact the museum´s official connection canals online. According to my plans I had intended to interview six museums’ staff but all of the museum staff I reached to, denied my requests for unknown reasons. I contacted each of the selected museums via email and phone texts, during the period of nine months. I did not get any respond from any of the contacted museums, aside from the Republic museum in Ankara which requested me to contact the ministry of culture and obtain an approval to interview any of the staff members. I contacted the ministry of Heritage and Tourism in Turkey via email, but I did not get any respond either.

5.2. Analysis Methodology I use Monti and Keene´s designing models for the analysis of the highlighted objects. The analysis is based on objects spatial dimensions and objects´ relation to the exhibition hall and to visiotrs. Using Monti and Keene´s analysis of loud verses silent objects, I analyse the display design of the exhibitions to determine which are the highlighted objects in each exhibition.64 Then I describe the highlighted objects, analyse their symbolism, historical meaning and function using Hodder´s material culture theory. The analysis of objects symbolism investigates the ways that things and concepts interconnect. The methodology focuses on things´ social features and effective qualities in addition to their symbolism. For the text analysis I use initial coding of the grounded theory guidelines to interpret, categorize and contextualize the museum texts.65 Grounded theory coding is used to emerge a theory from the process of sampling the data, coding it to analytic and sensitizing categories, then establishing intertextuality to analyse, contextualize and summary the collected data based on the coding.66 Grounded theory coding directs the researcher toward asking analytic questions of the gathered data on two phases: initial and focused coding. Initial coding focuses on studying fragments of data closely, while in focused coding, the researcher selects the most useful initial data and tests them against extensive data by comparing data with data and data with codes.67 I chose to use initial coding solely due to limitations regarding the length of the thesis and the quantity of the material. Grounded theory coding is especially valid in the analysis of museum texts, exhibitions´ and objects´ descriptions in relation to national identity and heritage.

5.3. The Selected Museums In the museum selection, I narrowed my research to the historical and cultural capital city, Istanbul. Then I narrowed it to one private museum: Istanbul Modern museum and two national state museums: the Topkapi Palace museum and the Mu- seum of Archaeology, in order to investigates the question of legitimacy, policy rationality, power, and ideology in each sector. I also selected two contested museums which were transformed to mosques in the summer of 2020. Here I shortly present each of the selected museums and I explain the reasons I selected them.

64 Monti & Keene, 2013. 65 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. (London: SAGE Publications, 2006), pp 42-71. 66 Charmaz, 2006. P 43. 67 Charmaz, 2006. P42. 22

5.3.1. Topkapi Palace museum Topkapi Palace national museum was the first museum established in the republic as it was opened to the public year 1924. The exhibitions display the imperial collection of the Ottoman Empire and maintains a large collection of books and man- uscripts in its library and up to 300,000 archive documents.68 The museum receives more than three million visitors every year and it is one of the most visited national museums in Istanbul.69 Topkapi Palace museum illustrate the history and culture of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1985 the museum was recognised by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.70 I selected the Topkapi Palace museum because it is one of the oldest museums in the republic and it is one of the most visited museums by both locals and tourists. The museum has a historical and religious value from a heritage perspective. Be- sides, it is interesting for my research because it has been involved in controversial debates regarding its funding resource in the past twenty years. Between 2005-2008 Topakapi palace museum received 5.5 million dollars to renovate solely the Mantel of the Prophet room exhibition.71 In 2019 the administration of president Erdoğan has been accused of taking control over the museum after it was under the administration of the ministry of Heritage and Tourism according to the conservation of cultural and natural property legislation.72

5.3.2. Museum of Archaeology Museum of Archaeology is one of three museums that together make the Istanbul Archaeological museums: The Museum of Archaeology, Museum of the Ancient Orient, and the Museum of Islamic Art (the Tiled Kiosk). The Archaeological Mu- seums received The European Council Museum Award in 1991.73 The Museum of Archaeology exhibits the history of museology and archaeology in Turkey as well as the history of Anatolia and the surrounded regions represented in mostly prehistorical objects to put Turkey´s history in a holistic context that includes the surrounding cultures. I selected the Museum of Archaeology because it is a history museum that presents the national identity as well as the origins of the Turkish nation from a different perspective and narrative. This historical view dates the origins of the nation´s

68 Palaces and Mansions. National Palaces´ Administration, Topkapi Palace Museum, https://www.millisaraylar.gov.tr/saraylar/topkapi-sarayi/ (accessed 3 April 2020). 69 Topkapi Place museum, Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Topkapi-Palace- Museum/Third-courtyard#ref338346 (accessed 3 April 2020). 70 ICOMOS. 2006 Periodic Reporting´, State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II. UNESCO, (2006). 71 Shaw, 2011, 938. 72 Ahvalnews, ´ Erdoğan administration takes control of historic Topkapi Palace´, Ahvalnews https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-politics/Erdoğan-administration-takes-control-istanbuls-historic-topkapi- palace# ( accessed 19 September 2020); General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museums. Turkish Law on Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property (2863). Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu, 23 July 1983,https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-propert-.html (accessed 2 April 2020). 73 Alpay Pasinli, Istanbul Archaeological Museums, (Istanbul: Mumhane Cadesi Mangir Sokak, 2012), p.6. 23

cultures from around the 7th century BC until around the 10th century AD. It also dates and presents the foundation of Museology in Turkey from the mid-18th century. A period that is of special importance in this research because it laid the foundation for the secular narrative of Turkey´s history as founded and presented during the republic building era.

5.3.3. Istanbul´s Museum of Modern Art Istanbul Modern is a private museum that was Turkey’s first museum of modern and contemporary art. The museum emerged of the private sector with the support of the public sector and the local government as it was opened in 2004. The museum exhibits contemporary art, photography, design, architecture, new media, and cin- ema.74 Istanbul Modern has a long running architectural collaboration with MOMA, Museum of Modern Art in New York which is one of the most influential museums of modern art in the world. I selected the Istanbul Museum of Modern Art because it is a private museum that is concerned with presenting the Turkish cultural identity that reflects the modern elite and urban society, according to the museum´s website. This makes the Istanbul Modern museum an important museum to research regarding its policy making and its relations to the main key authority actors in the heritage and museum sector.

5.3.4. Contested Heritage Sites in Turkey 2020 The year of 2020 has brought global attention to the culture heritage and museum sector in Turkey as it was the year of legal status transformations of two world- famous Turkish museums: the Hagia Sophia museum and the Karyie museum in Istanbul. The museums were announced to serve as mosques instead of museums based on civil society organizations demands. I chose to present and analyse the two sites´ transformation decision from a national identity perspective on an ideological, legitimacy-wise, and rationality-wise level. The Hagia Sophia museum was originally built in the sixth century as a church and then it became a cathedral.75 Later during the Ottoman Empire ruling period, the Hagia Sophia was transformed to a mosque. And in 1935 after the establishment of the secular Republic of Turkey, Hagia Sophia was transformed to a museum.76 Lastly in July 2020 the museum was announced to serve as a mosque again, a decision which caused a national and international controversiality as will be examined in the examination and analysis chapter.

74 Istanbul Modern. About. Istanbul Modern, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/museum/about_760.html (accessed 2 April 2020). 75 Yakup E. Coruhlu & Uzun Bayram & Okan Yildiz, ´Conflict Over the Use of Hagia Sophia: The Legal Case´, Land 9:10 (2020), p.1. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100350 (accessed 3 April 2021). 76 Wendy Shaw, ´Tra(ve)ils of Secularism: Islam in Museums from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic´, The Invention of Religion: Rethinking Belief in Politics and History, eds. Derek Peterson & Darren Walhof, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002), p.9.

The Kariye museum, originally built as the Chora Church is a Byzanti church was also transformed to serve as a mosque in the Ottoman Empire period. Then in 1945 the site was transformed to a museum. However, the museum was announced to serve as a mosque in august 2020 as the control of the site was handed over from the Museums and Heritage ministry to Diyanet, Turkey´s authority for Islamic affairs.77 The legal bases of the sites´ status transformation is of a special importance in investigating the third and fourth question in this research as it holds a symbolical attribute in the analysis of museum and heritage sector in modern Turkey regarding the concept of power and ideology from a political point of view. An analysis that in its turn answers the question of which are the key actors involved in decision making processes in the Turkish museum sector. It also addresses the changes that have been made in the Turkish heritage sector in the last decades.

77 DW News. ´Like Hagia Sophia, Turkey to Reconvert Chora museum into mosque´, DW News. 2020, https://www.dw.com/en/like-hagia-sophia-turkey-to-reconvert-chora-museum-into-mosque/a-54713753 (accessed 2 March 2021). 25

6. Turkish National identity and National Museums: Historical Background

The Turkish national identity has been reconstructed several times since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The Turkish national identity has been characterized with a secular nationalistic ideology, a constant growth economically, a distinguishment from the Ottoman empire from a heritage perspective and lastly, a national faith in the military. The essential dilemma the authorities has had to face have always been the aspiration to be established as a developed country (joining the West) and an aspiration to be separated from the developing countries (the East) despite the shared geographical borders, religion, and history. This is presented in detail in the chronological timeline of the Turkish history available in the appendix I have attached at pages 76-78. Here I present the history of the Turkish national identity and the history of national museums in Turkey before presenting the material and analysis of the Turkish museum sector in modern Turkey after one century of the Republic´s establishment. One of the approaches to research the relationship between national identities and national museums is to address the changing roles of national museums today in the context of globalization and post nationalism.78 This is the approach I am following in studying the Turkish museum sector. During the first decade of the construction of the Republic and the regime of the Republican People Party CHP under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, cultural institutions including museums were deployed to construct a new social structure and a cohesive state.79 So, a network of multiple types of museums were established to preserve and exhibit the nation´s material culture and heritage.80 Mu- seums from the late Ottoman era and new Republican era were given special im- putes to participate in the modern cultural systems following European cultural practices. Under the reestablishment of modern national museums, a great effort was put to differentiate the Republic from its Ottoman past. This was done by using Anatolia and the Anatolian civilization as a historical identity of the region instead of Ottoman empire and by transforming Ottoman archaeological and military museums to historical and ethnographical museums which function as unifying map of the country. The separation between the empire and the republic started with a shift from an imperial identity to an ethnically based national identity, accompanied with a shift from a focus on Greco-Roman and Ottoman to an Anatolian antiquity in its earlier fazes.81

78 Sharon MacDonald, ´Museums, National, Post-national and Transcultural Identities´, Museum and Society 1:1 (2003) p.1. 79 Donald E. Webster, ´State Control of Social Change in Republican Turkey’, American Sociological Review 4:2 (1939), pp. 247-256 80 Shaw, 2011, 927. 81 Shaw, 2011, 928. 26

The history of museums in general in Turkey is similar to the history of Euro- pean museums starting as private collections in the 15th and 16th century with a difference in the contents of the collections.82 The construction of museums stated as private collections of artefacts of military characteristics, relics and sites open only to private guests of the Sultan. Those collections were opened for the public in 1846 and the first museum institution was established; The Ottoman Imperial museum. In 1869 the focus of the museum shifted from military conquests to the heritage shared by Turkey and Europe.83 After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, a new identity had to be constructed and this was done by creating a linear narrative of territorial expansion and economic growth which were possible thanks to a history of cultural assimilation.84 There were some attempts as early as in 1923 to build an authentic national museum in Turkey that reflects temporary life of the real Turkish society and their everyday life rather than their historical products or the European view of the Re- public.85 Ziya Gökalp, who was one of the leading nationalists, collected art and artifacts for a national ethnographic museum, a museum that would reflect the people’s life and culture rather than the wishes of the state. This museum would emerge from the people, rather than from the state. Gökalp had repeatedly stated that national museums are an essential component in the formation of a national culture.86 The museum officially opened in 1930 in Ankara under the title of the Ethnography Museum. It included ethnographical- anthropological rooted collections as well as a research department.87 A period of systemization and nationalization of the national museum program in the republic started in the later 1960s. It resulted mainly in increasing museums´ regionalization rather than centralizing national museums and it established a semi unified epistemological structure in museums throughout the republic. The structure to be followed was the one of the archaeological and ethnographic collections in Ankara museums. This period also witnessed an increase in numbers of Ataturk dedicated museums, especially in the capital.88 There is no official network of institutions (national museums) funded by the state to express national ideals, identity, and values in the Republic of Turkey.89 This led to lack of a centralized cohesion in the museums of Turkey, which opened the space to produce a decentralized national narrative and identity.90

82 Margret Hedstrom & John Leslie King, ´On The LAM, Library, Archive, and Museum Collections in the Creation and Maintenance of Knowledge Communities´, (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004), p.2. 83 Shaw, 2011, p.929 84 Wendy Shaw, Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire, (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2003), p.4. 85 Ziya Gökalp, 1923, p1. 86 Gökalp, 1923, p1. 87 Shaw, 2011, 931. 88 Shaw, 2011, 932. 89 David Kushner, “Self-Perception and Identity in Contemporary Turkey”, Journal of Contemporary History. 32: 2 (1997), pp 219-223; Sami Zubaida, “Turkish Islam and National Identity”, Middle East Report (New York, N.Y. 1988), no. 199, (1996), pp. 10-15. 90 Shaw, 2011, p. 931. 27

Since the 1980s the Turkish museum sector entered an era of museum privati- zation. An increasing in the establishment of private museums devoted mainly to art has been occurring since then. The private museums have mainly been locus of national ideological expressions but without state intervention. They have also been used as a platform to present an opposition to the populism associated with Islam- ism that have been aroused since the elections of 2002.91 In the past two decades, the government have funded mainly Islamic art exhibitions such as the Mantel of the Prophet exhibition room in Topkapi palace museum which solely received 5.5 million dollars between 2005-2008 to be renovated.92 Another example is the Is- lamic Science and Technology museum in Gülhane park. The museum was opened in 2008 by the -then prime minister- Mr Recep Tayyib Erdoğan aiming to concep- tualize a Turkish identity within a pan-Islamic, mainly Arab-Turkish cultural framework.93 This presents a view of the museum landscape in today’s Turkey: regional museums anchored in the local history, decentralized national museums in the capital funded and supervised by the state and the current policies; and private (mostly art) museums presenting alternative narratives mainly based on the early republic ideologies (Kemalism) in Istanbul.

91 Shaw, 2011, p. 935. 92 Shaw, 2011, 938. 93 Shaw, 2011, pp 937-938. 28

7. Material and Analysis

In this chapter I present the sampled data and my analysis of them. I start by presenting the Turkish museum laws to set the legal frame of which are the main actors involved in decision making in the museum sector which will be used also in the analysis. Then I present each museum separately using my observations of the spatial syntax based on Monti and Keene´s designing models to determine the highlighted objects, then I use Hodder´s theory of material culture to analyse the highlighted objects´ historical, symbolic, and functional values. I analyse the museum texts´ linguistically and contextually using grounded theory´s initial coding. Then I apply Gray´s theory of the politicized museum to analyse each museum from a power, ideology, legitimacy and rationality perspective. I also present the two contested sites in which were transformed from museums to religious temples in 2020 and analyse the legitimacy of the transformation decisions. I had planned to use the interview with museum curators/ intendents or officials to carry on the museum policies´ analysis but since I did not get any responses from none of the museums, I decided to use museum´s texts, the Turkish museum law, and Gazette official articles for the discussion, keeping in mind that the analysis does not involve inside policy documents nor any official statement from the museum management. In the analysis process I transcribed my observations, notes, and descriptions, and I coded the data into initial categories. In initial coding I coded the gathered data in main categories based on the historical narrative emphasized, object´s social function and the descriptions used in the texts. That to contextualize the data from a material representation perspective. In the discussion I use the materiality and display analysis results to analyse museum´s politics from a power and an ideological perspective. That to interpretate the data and establish an intertextuality to gen- erate an analysis of the national identity represented in the three investigated museums based on the spatial syntax, the museums´ texts and documents and the features of the highlighted objects.

7.1. The Turkish Museum Laws The Turkish museum law sets the ground on which my analysis of museums´ power to and power over stands on. Here I present a summary of the most important laws for this thesis. This summary is aimed to address the legal framework through which Turkish museums are supposed to operate as well as how the relationship between the authority and the museum sector is planned according to the law. The summary is also meant to address the main key actors involved in the museum sector policy making.

The Turkish museum law is regulated under the Turkish Law on Conservation of Cultural and Natural property (2863).94 The law contains seven main articles reg- ulating the ethics and the legal framework within which the cultural and natural heritage is managed. The articles set the legal framework within which museums are supervised and operate. The Law of Conservation of Cultural and Natural Prop- erty starts with an opening article addressing the conservation and security of cultural and natural heritage as a task of all Turkish citizens, because the Turkish heritage is national treasure that the state must protect. The second article addresses illicit trafficking of cultural and natural material heritage with a punishment of up to fifteen years in prison. The law clarifies that the main source of authority in the museum sector is the ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The ministry prepares a regulation regarding the duty, responsibility, authority, and work of state museums. An exception is military state museums which require a regulation prepared by the ministry of National defence as well the regulation of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. 95 Addition articles are added regarding museum´s management. One article points out the four main actors which have the task of policy making within state museums: museum director, operation director, museum chairperson and museum board. The museum chairperson should be appointed by the ministry and the museum board members are supposed to be academicians approved by the ministry of Heritage and Tourism.96 The law addresses private museums in one article; collectors, private or legal persons, organisations, institutions, ministries, and foundations must obtain permis- sion from the Heritage and Tourism Ministry to be able to own private collections and private museums.97 Private museums operate under the supervision of the Her- itage and Tourism ministry as of 9 February 2021.98 The Ministry of Heritage and Tourism is the highest decision making and heritage affairs strategy planning authority. However, there is a plethora of institutions on the municipal as well as the state level which in various forms of cooperation are involved in the field of public heritage. Some examples are Anadolu Kultur Foundation which is an educational and cultural non-profit organisation; Deneks,

94 General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museums. Turkish Law on Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property (2863). Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu, 23 July 1983. https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR- 43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-propert-.html (accessed 5 Maj 2020). 95 General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museum, The Turkish law on Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property (2869) Article 25 Transfer to Museums, Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu., 17 June 1987,https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-propert- .html(accessed 5 Maj 2020). 96 General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museums, The Turkish Law on Conservation of Culture and Natural Property (2869) Additional article 2 b, Chapter seven Other Provisions, Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu 14 July 2004 https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and- natural-propert-.html, (accessed 5 Maj 2020). 97 General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museums, The Turkish Law on Conservation of Culture and Natural Property (2869) Article 26 Museums, Private museums and Collections, Chapter seven Other Provisions, Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu 23 July 1983, https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR- 43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-propert-.html, (accessed 6 Maj 2020). 98 Specialty Museums, Ministry of Culture and Tourism. https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-135633/ozel- muzeler.html, (accessed 6 Maj 2020). 30

which are created by individuals who promote a common cause by means of peti- tions; Vakifs, i.e., philanthropic religious organisations.99 ICOM, the international council of museums have published a code of ethics in 1986 that was revised in 2004. The code of ethics sets a standard of shared values and professional guidelines for all museum workers to follow internationally. All museums which are ICOM members must accept and comply with the rules and guidelines of the code.100 The code addresses different museum related topics such as resources management, returns, restitutions, security and most importantly collection and artefacts managing. It advocates in the fight against illicit traffic. Turkey is a member of ICOM. Many of the guidelines suggested by ICOM regarding illicit trafficking, conservation and security are supported in the Turkish law of conservation of Cultural and Natural Property. However, the Turkish law is more concerned with museum supervision and management on the micro level.

5.1.2. Museum Law Analysis

The Ministry of Heritage and Tourism is the highest decision-making authority in the museum sector. However, municipal institutions, civil organisations, educational and cultural non-profit organisation and civil- society organisations, together form a partnership that administer in national identity production. These multi part- nerships may be paving the way for a withdrawal of the state which would lead to ´´centralized fragmentation´´ of a ´´pragmatic rationale´´ adopted by the state.101 Any organization or institution have the right to make a petition regarding any heritage site directly to the prime minister or the Council of State as happened in the case of Hagia Sophia which is addressed later in this chapter. This short summary of the articles of the Turkish Law show that state owned museums operate according to the Heritage and Tourism Ministry who also is the main authority and power source in the museum sector in Turkey. This view also shows that legitimacy for decisions made in the museum sector are dependent on legal-rational justifications as referred to by Gray´s second model of legitimacy analysis. The rationality to justify these decisions is an instrumental rationality, where the law sets the framework for museum policies. The analysis also shows that Turkish Museum Laws are set to apply a top-down approach in policy making and authority practicing when setting the legal framework of how decisions should be made in public museums funded by the state. However, private museums are not as much restricted by the legal framework set by the Heritage and Tourism Minis- try. On the other hand, a bottom-up authority approach is followed in the wider

99 Gizem Zencirci, “Civil Society’s History: New Constructions of Ottoman Heritage by the Justice and Development Party in Turkey”, European Journal of Turkish Studies 19:19 (2014) https://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5076 100 International Council of Museums. Museum Standards and Guidelines Code of Ethic, ICOM, 2019, https://icom.museum/en/standards-guidelines/code-of-ethics/ (accessed 3 Februari 2020). 101 Muriel Girad, “What Heritage Tells us About The Turkish State and The Turkish Society”. European Journal of Turkish Studies, (2015), https://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5227 (accessed 1 Maj 2021). 31

context of culture and heritage sector; an approach derived by the multi-partner- ships which in its turn leads to a centralized fragmentation of the pragmatic rationale in the authority and agency structure in social life from a power and legitimacy perspective. The lack of a centralized cohesion in the museums of Turkey, due to the absence of an official network of national museum institutions as mentioned by Shaw in 2011, can in its turn open the space to produce a decentralized national narrative and identity as will be examined in the selected museums.

7.2. National Identity Represented in the Topkapi Palace Museum Topkapi Palace museum is an Ottoman Palace built in the 15th century located in the heart of the historical old city of Istanbul in the European part. The palace was used as the home of the sultan and his family, the seat of the government, a training collage, an art centre, home of the palace´s staff and a harem. It was transformed to a museum in 1924. The palace convers on area of approximately 700,000 square meters including the Royal Gardens, the Court of Topkapi Palace with both the outer and inner palaces, the Harem, and the ceremonial spaces. The Palace building is surrounded by 1400-meter-long high encircling walls called the Royal Walls and it has three main gates The Imperial Gate, the Gate of Salutation, and the Gate of Facility. On the marine side, the Topkapi Palace complex is surrounded by the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn of Istanbul.102 As the visitor enters the museum from The Outer Courtyard of the Topkapi Palace to The Second Courtyard through the large Gate of Salutation, one meets with the calligraphy inscription of the Muslim profession of faith in Arabic on the upper part of the gate. Passing through The Second Courtyard, one crosses by the Palace´s facilities consisting of four main halls: the imperial kitchen, the Dormitory of cooks and the Court of the kitchen on the right side; and eight halls on the left side: The Harem Gate and the Gate of Stables as well as the Old Tresury, the Beshir Aga Mosque, The tower of Justice, The doomed Chamber/ the Imperial Council, and the Imperial Stables. Then the visitor enters the Third Courtyard consisting of eleven halls where the inner palace is. Through the Gate of Facility, one continues to the Audience Chamber which is closed by a glass wall where the visitors can see the Chamber through. The Chamber is decorated with ceramic tile panels and in the centre is the baldachin-style throne under the splendid dome that is supported by columns decorated with lacquered animal and floral motifs. Then through the Chamber´s back door, the visitor continues to enter the library of Sultan Ahmad III where the gates are decorated with gold Islamic calligraphy in Arabic and the sealings are

102Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik. Topkapi Palace Museum, Guidebook. (Istanbul: Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik. Topkapi, 2017), P6. 32

painted with Ottoman Mother-of-pearl inlay decorations and floral decorations. On the right side of The Third Courtyard is a long building where The Dormitory of The Campaigners and The Conqueror´s Pavilion are located. The building surrounds The Third Courtyard where on the left side it houses the Enderun Agalar Mosque, The Privy Room and the Privy Room Dignitaries, The Dormitory of the Treasury, The Treasury of the Chamberlain. The room of The Dormitory of the Treasury is recreated exactly as it was used in the time of Sultan Selim with a live reading of the Quran by an Imam throughout opening hours in the presence of the Holy relics. The Treasury of the Chamberlain is used for temporary exhibitions of holy relics. Holy relics and objects of religious and historical objects are displayed in The Privy Room or the Chamber of The Holy Relics hall that is a two-storey structure of four basic spaces. The Chamber is decorated with ceramic tile panels in a dark blue, with white sulus calligraphy in Arabic inscribed on it that were brough from Egypt in 1517 when the ottoman sultans formally took on the Islamic caliphate and became the rulers of the Islamic empire.103 At the entrance of the first part is The Fountain Hall, which is a big hall with two dooms in the sealing. The walls and wooden doors are decorated with Mother-of-Pearl inlay, verses from the Quran and floral decorations which were installed during renovations in 1916.104 To the left of the Third Courtyard the Harem section of the building is located. The Harem consists of 13 halls connected to the apartment of the sultan where the wives, the mother and the children of the Sultan lived. It also consists of eight parts: The Courtyard of the Black Harem Eunuchs, The Courtyard of Concubines, The Courtyard of the Queen Mother, The Courtyard of the Harem Hospital, The Harem Gardens, gardens, a pool, and The Chamberlain’s Courtyard. The walls in The Courtyard of Concubines are covered in 17th century Kutahya ceramic tiles. Outside the small mosque of Eunchs is located which walls are also covered with floral motifs and verses from the Quran. The Chamber of the queen mother has a strong rococo décor and is hung with numerous landscape paintings. The walls are tiled entirely, and floral decorations are used. Then, separately built are the twin Pavilions and the apartment of the crown prince. Two separate rooms, their walls decorated with Iznik tiles and the wooden dooms with golden decorations. Lastly is the Forth Courtyard consisting of ten parts: two separate gardens, The Chamber of Clothes, The Revan Kiosk, The Circumcision Chamber, The Iftar Gazebo, The Bagdad Kiosk, Sofa Kisok, The Chamber of the Chief Physician and The Mecidiye Kiosk. The terrace on the back side of the Privy Rooms is called The Royal Hall of Marble as it is a marble terrace with a pool and a view on the Tulip gardens, the gold-plated bronze brazier; the Iftar Gazebo and the Marmara Sea. The Circumcision Chamber´s inner and outer surfaces are all covered with 16th and 17th century tiles with monolithic blue-white ceramics with Chi-lin figures done in the ´´Saz´´ style. The Yerevan Pavilion displays a copper fireplace plated with gold

103 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp 6, 48. 104 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p44. 33

while the dome is decorated with hand-drawn patterns in gold leaf. The windows are decorated in patterned ceramic tiles and the cabinet doors are wooden with Mother-of-Pearl inlay.105 The Bagdad Pavilion displays a classic décor with cushioned divan seats along the walls in with thee are niches covered with green and blue 15th century Iznik tiles. The doom is covered with floral patterns done on gazelle leather, while the cabinet doors and window shutters are of ebony with Mother-of-Pearl turtle shell and ivory inlay. The Pavilion also displays the bird figures decoration on the fireplace, and two traditional symbols of sovereignty; the hanging ball inside a tombac grille and the silver brazier which was a gift of French king Louis XIV.

7.2.1. Object Selection The main object of the museum is the palace´s architect with its decorated dooms and walls. Floral, Mother-of Pearl and animal ceramic and ivory tiles and Islamic calligraphy inscriptions in Arabic shape the museum´s character. The objects exhibited in the museum can be categorised in four categories: objects of luxuries nature, objects of religious nature, objects emphasizing the Ottoman´s expansion in the world and historical objects related to the sultans and their families. Luxuries objects indicating the wealth of the nation under the Ottoman period are displayed is the Treasury rooms. An example is the golden festival throne made of 250 kg walnut wood and covered with thick golden plaques. The throne is displayed in the centre of Treasury´s first room, together with the jewelled throne pendant that bears calligraphic seal of Sultan Selim III decorated with diamonds on enamel dating to the18th century as well as and a turban ornament adorned with emeralds, diamonds, rubies, and pearls. Other examples are the Imperial treasures and Treasury weapons decorated with precious stones, such as the gilded yataghan of Sultan Suleiman. The centred object in the third Treasury room is the Spoon- maker´s diamond, an 86-carat pear shaped diamond surrounded by 49 billion-cut diamonds which was purchased in the 1680s.106 Other collection of this nature are the Ottoman and European silverware collection and the copper and brass collection from the 18th century exhibited in the Confectionery House.107 Religious objects indicating the state´s religion and status, being the Caliphates over the Islamic empire between the 16th to the 19th century. These objects are exhibited in the Privy rooms/Chamber of the Holy Relics. The collection consists of holy Islamic, Christian, and Jewish relics sent to the Ottoman sultans during various periods from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria. Among the objects are the key to Mecca, Moses´ staff, prophet Mohammad´s swords, a sword of prophet David, the robe of Joseph and relic of the skull of Saint John the Baptist.108 The centred object in the first Holy room exhibition is the holy mantle of

105 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp. 88–89. 106 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp.140–153. 107 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp106-107. 108 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp152-159. 34

prophet Mohammad and the objects related to the Kaaba in Mecca which the Ottoman sultans had the duty to maintain and repair. Among them are the Kaaba´s gutters, keys and gates which are the centralized objects in the second Privy room. Objects emphasizing the Empire´s expansion excavated in the Imperial Kitchens and the Bagdad Kiosk are of three groups: Objects from China and Japan, European gifts and Istanbul glass collection, as well as the imperial collection of the Ottoman Empire. The museum´s Chinese and Japanese porcelains collection displayed in the Imperial Kitchen´s consists of richly decorated bowls, plates, and monochromes suitable for the food cultures and eating habits found in Muslim countries. Celadon produced in China during Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties between 1271-1912. The collection includes also Blue-White porcelain pieces dating from the middle of the 14th century to the 19th century, many coming from the Yuan dynasty period when China was administrated by Mongol rulers and from the city of Arita in northern Japan where they were produced for export. The Japanese porcelain collection was transferred from Yildiz Palace and Archaeology Museum in 1927.109 European Porcelains and Glassware collection also exhibited in the Imperial Kitchens, consists of German, French, English, Austrian and Russian porcelains and faience from Warsaw, Italy and Spain produced between early 18th to 20th century. The collection is partly purchase-transformed from the Yildiz Palace. Many objects were sent to the sultan and to palace dignitaries as gifts of state. Others are made especially for the Sultan, like the Bohemian glass pitcher and glasses with the inscription of Sultan Abdelhamid II.110 Istanbul and Porcelain Ware collection is also exhibited in the Imperial Kitchens. The collection consists of early pieces of the glass production in Istanbul that started during sultan Selim III (1789-1807) and was made specifically for the Palace´s use. It also consists of pieces from the Yildiz Palace, and the high quality and prestige ceramic objects made of meerschaum for the Palace´s residents and high-level dignitaries.111 Objects of personal and historic nature dedicated to the sultans and the palaces daily life including the Sultan clothes collection and the painting collection which consists of portraits of 36 Sultans painted by both Turkish and European artists. It also includes collection of Sultans´ clothes. The centred painting in the Portraits hall is a portrait of Sultan Abdulmecid, (1839-1861) by Sir David Wilkie from 1840. Another centred painting is the portrait of Sultan Abdulhamid I by the palace´s painter Rafael or the Rafael school, 1757-1789.112 The portraits are displayed in a chronological order, so the visitor could follow the evolution of royal portrait painting techniques.

109 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.103. 110 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.108. 111Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.138. 112 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.162. 35

7.2.2. Object Analysis The highlighted objects centring each exhibition are the golden festival crown from the Audience Chamber exhibition, the Spoon-maker diamond and the Sultan Turban decorated with emeralds, diamonds, rubies, and pearls from the 18th century from the Imperial Treasury exhibitions and the sword of sultan Mehmed II decorated with gold and Islamic calligraphy from the weaponry exhibition. The decorative tiles from the Holly Relics exhibition walls, the walls of the Library of Sultan Ahmed III, the Baghdad Kiosk, and the Twin Pavilion exhibitions. Lastly Arabic and Islamic calligraphy inscriptions on the gates such as the Gate of Salutation, the Imperial Gate, the Harem Gate, and the Gate of felicities. I categorized these highlighted objects in four main categories: objects of luxurious nature, religious objects, personal objects indicating genius loci and objects indicating authority and power. Using Hodder´s theory I analyse the objects´ features from three perspectives: functionalistic, historical, and symbolic value. Historical value: the main object in the museum is the Palace´s architect, its artistic and luxuries decoration indicating wealth and power. As a historical building, it emphasises the power, wealth and authority of the Sultan and the Empire and it uses that as an indicator of the nation´s well-being throughout history. The museum portrays the national history from a winner´s perspective where the Turkish nation, meaning the majority´s culture (Turkish, Islamic nation) is only presented. None of the battles where the Turkish empire army lost in are mentioned. Symbolic and functional Value: The Religious objects and the luxurious objects brought from European or Asiatic empires have symbolic meaning that indicates again the wealth and expansion of the Ottoman Empire that has control and connections from east to west. They also have a social value. Such as the museum´s Chinese and Japanese porcelains collection displayed in the Imperial Kitchen which consists of richly decorated bowls, plates, and monochromes suitable for the food cultures and eating habits found in Muslim countries as described in museum texts.113 The personal objects such as Sultans´ clothes serve also both a symbolic and pedagogic value as those objects create a genius loci atmosphere symbolising the meet of the past with the present. This analysis show that the three characteristic values intertwine and are connected, since the symbolic value of the objects lies in their functionalistic value which also gain its importance from the historical story it tell. It also shows that the Topkapi Palace museum portrays the Ottoman Empire as a Turkish empire where the history of the empire is presented from a perspective that includes only the Turkish culture and the nation of the Turks. The spatial syntax based on Monti and Keene´s designing model shows that objects of glorifying nature indicating authority and wealth are the most representative ones of the Ottoman/ historical Turkish identity according to the museum.

113Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp.104-108. 36

7.2.3. Text Analysis The museum´s main texts describe the palace, each room´s architect, function, and history of its construction. The secondary detailed texts describe the theme of the exhibition, the historical period represented in the specific exhibition and how the collection was assembled. The objects´ texts describe the objects displayed in each exhibition, the selection process and how the objects were obtained by the place/museum. Even though the museum, being a palace, has a historical character, but each exhibition room has different theme and show a different perspective of that period. Each exhibition has its main text that presents facts about the room from a historical and an architectural perspective and about what makes this specific room unique. An example is the text describing The Circumcision Chamber. The text´s first part presents the Chamber´s history, when it was built and renovated and for what reason it was built and named the Circumcision chamber. The second part describes its architect and décor stating that the chamber exterior´s decoration done with 16th century-style monolithic blue-white ceramic tiles with chi-lin figures done in the Ottoman saz style, is what makes this room especially unique. 114 another example is the Gate of Salutation museum text that describes its history and architect in great details complimenting its architect.115 Linguistically the museum texts are written in an informative and pedagogic style when describing historical events. However, a glorifying descriptive language is used in heritage texts (cultural, architectural and artistic descriptions). Examples show in the description of the architect and decorations of the palace using adjectives such: beautiful, magnificent, and precious.116 The kitchen exhibition texts describe how objects were brought to the museum. An example is the palace´s Chinese and Japanese porcelains which has been assembled by means of war plunder, gifts, and unclaimed inheritance and several purchased works by court dignitaries and the wealthy from the second half of the 16th century onwards.117 Contextually, the texts are written with praise to glorify the Ottoman Empire´s wealth, expansion, and victories, to the Sultans´ power and authority, as well as the uniqueness of the Ottoman architect and art. The texts also praise the scientific and cultural prosperity accruing during and thanks to the Ottoman Empire´s rulership.118 Examples are plenty such as in the exhibitions of: Sultans clothes, the imperial treasury, Portraits of sultans and the Chamber of the Holy relics.119 The Holy Relics exhibition pictures the Ottoman Caliphates being the Kaaba key keepers and the preservers of religious items in a sacred way.120 The texts overall represent the Ottoman empire´s glorious time and the empire´s victories. The nation and people´s

114 Topkapi Palace museum, museum text figure 1. 115 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp.12–13. 116 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp. 52–88. 117 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.98. 118Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp 12–31, 52–82. 119 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp 133, 152, 160, 140–145. 120Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, pp 44-48. 37

history and daily life during that period is not described though. The texts linguistic and contextual analysis reminds of the description expressed by Shaw in 2011 stating that national museums in Turkey are positive patriotism celebration sites as referred to in the previous research chapter. A difference between Turkish art style in decorations and the Ottoman art style is made clear in the texts describing the architects. An example is the description of The Sofa Pavilion decoration which is called Turkish Rocco.121 The Ottoman decoration style is described in detail in the Chambers decorated in the Ottoman style such as the Circumcision Chamber.122 The perspective of the sub-cultures in the Ottoman empire is not mentioned, such as the Alawites, Armenian, and Kurdish sub-cultures. The Revan kiosk is a clear example, even though the Yerevan chamber was constructed to commemorate Sultan Murad VI´s victory at the city of Yerevan, modern-day Armenia in glorious details.123 The text focuses solely on the battle where the city of Revan was taken but does not mention the earlier battles or the battle from the Armenian perspective, even though the region is described as a part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. At the same time, the people are not referred to as Turks or Muslims either, indicating that the nation referred to is the Ottoman multicultural and multi religious societies collectively. This in its turn also refers to presenting the Ottoman Empire as a larger society than the modern Turkish boarders.

7.2.4. Power Analysis Topkapi Palace museum is a state historical museum that administrated under the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism until September 2019 when control of the palace was passed to the National Palaces Presidency department. The decision was announced in presidential decree published in the official Gazette, signed by the then newly re-elected president Erdoğan.124 This means that the main actors involved in decision making in the Topkapi Palace museum is the Precedency department responsible for national palaces financially and administratively, and it means that the statue of the museum legally was transformed in 2019 from a museum to an Ottoman heritage site. Power analysis: Gray´s analysis of power is twofold: the first is regarding power´s distribution within societies and the other is regarding power´s nature. Since the Topkapi Palace museum is a state owned and financed site that does not operate according to the museum law or the guidelines of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, then the management of the museum follows a top-down approach in policy making, that is managed and organized by the Presidency department. The fact that the change of status was made without reference to any law indicates that

121 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, P92. 122 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, p.86-87. 123 Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik, 2017, P.88. 124Recep T. Erdogan. Cumhurbasksnligi Kararnamesi, Resmî Gazete, 6 September 2019, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/09/20190906-1.pdf (accessed 2 November 2021). 38

the structural and behavioural power is held directly by the head of state and that the decision was based on a political ideology. Ideology analysis: The Presidency department decides over the ideology presented in the Topkapi Palace museum because the museum is directly funded and managed by the department This means the department decides over which heritage narrative of national identity to present, in this case Ottoman Empire wealth, glory and expansion as root for the national heritage narrative. A narrative that reflects the authority source in the museum: The Presidency department. Legitimacy and rationality: the legitimacy used in policy making in the Topkapi Palace museum is based on charismatic authority that is derived from people´s beliefs, trust, and acceptance of the authority of the decision-makers. The acceptance and obey of the decision are embodied in the decision maker authority, in this case the President Erdoğan´s personal identity associated with fame and populism as the decision was published only a short time after the president was re- elected for the second time after being re-elected twice before as the prime minister. The rationality base for the justification of decisions related to Topkapi Palace museum are based on instrumental rationality, which is about making policy choices to achieve desired outcomes. A rationality that is dependent on the maintains of the references which legitimacy acceptance settings were established through, meaning on the majority´s acceptance of the authority source.125 That is because it was not based on legal-rational authority in reference to the museum law. The reciprocal relation between authority and legitimacy as practiced in the case of Topkapi Palace museum raises a question of structure and agency in the Turkish heritage sector social life. The structure of power indicated to here is centralized top-down authority approach where the authority source (state presented in the president) uses his power to push preferred ideological choices. However, the president personally gains his authority and power from the citizens, majority which democratically re-elect him, meaning from this perspective the authority here follows a bottom-up approach, where the citizens are the main authority source and then the majority´s ideology is the one being pushed. In summary, the history, heritage and identity narrative presented in Topkapi Palace museum today is focused on glorifying Ottoman legacy while distancing it from modern era, by describing the geographical and authoritarian expansion of the empire using objects and texts on one side and distinguishing Ottoman art style from Turkish art and architecture on the other. The sultan´s califate over the Islamic world is embodied by holy relics collected from different Islamic regions such as Mecca, Baghdad, and Al Medina. And a secularization of the Sultan´s legacy as the empire leader is reinforced and symbolised in the Sultan´s Portrait’s exhibition which presents Sultans´ portraits using Western art style and artists. My analysis corresponds with Shaw´s analysis of Topkapi Palace museum representation from the first decade of this century. This indicates that the national identity and history narrative presented in the Topkapi Palace museum has not

125 Gray, C. (2015), “The Politics of Museums”, p.18 39

changed in the past one decade, however the key authority actor has changed from the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism to the National Palaces Presidency department.

7.3. National Identity Represented in the Museum of Ar- chaeology.

The Museum of Archaeology is one of four museums which since 1981 form The Istanbul Archaeological Museums. Istanbul Archaeological Museums are located in the old city of Istanbul on the European side. The building overlooks the Marmara Sea, the Topkapi Palace and the Hagia Sophia museum. The museum was built in 1887 as a magazine to preserve the archaeological material excavated by the first official Turkish archaeological excavation in the Royal necropolis of Sidon, in present day Lebanon. In 1891 the building was opened to the public as the Imperial Museum. The museum has undergone restorations as the collection have increased in size and the New Museum was founded beside the Old Museum in 1991. The Museum of Archaeology consists of five sections, spread over the two buildings and the museum´s Courtyard. The exhibitions are both chronologically and geographically thematic and the exhibitions are arranged to create a timeline for the civilizations found in modern Turkey and the surrounding regions, and to present the Turkish history in a broader historical context. The Old Museum´s building is a one floor rectangular building that has one portal located in the middle of the building facing the museum´s courtyard which in its turn houses a collection of large sculptures which belong to the exhibitions from the Old and New Museum. In the Old Museum´s first section, ten connected exhibitions displayed in a chronological order take place. Theses exhibitions display prehistorical objects from the Archaic period around the seventh century BC until the Roman period around the second century AD.126 The objects in this section are excavated by Turkish archaeological excavations from different geographical areas. The exhibitions following a spatial order are: Sculpture of the Archaic Period, Persian Rule in Anatolia, Attic Grave Stelae and Reliefs, Sculptures of the Hellenistic Period, Sculpture from Magnesia on the Meander and Tralles, Hellenistic Sculptures and Roman Portrait Art, Sculpture from Ephesus, Aphrodisias and Miletus, Sculpture in the Roman Imperial Period, Royal Necropolis of Sidon, and lastly Stelae and Sarcophagi exhibition. The New Museum is a three-floor building that houses three exhibitions where historical works of art from different civilizations are displayed. On the ground floor, three exhibitions are placed: Thrace-Bithynia exhibition, Byzance exhibition, and Istanbul Through Ages exhibition. The first exhibition displays objects excavated in Thrace region (Turkey´s lands in Europe, northern Greece, and

126 Pasinli, 2012, p. 7. 40

the southern part of Bulgaria, covering the same time span from the first section (seventh century AD- third century AD).127 The second exhibition displays objects from the Byzantine Empire dating to the Byzantine period. The third exhibition is Istanbul Through the Ages that consists of objects excavated in the region of Istanbul from the Palaeolithic period about 400 millennium BC until the Ottoman empire period around 1400 AD.128 The first and second floor of the New Museum displays four geographically thematic exhibitions spread over two sections in the museum´s three flours. The first section houses the Troia Through the Ages exhibition, where objects from the early Bronze Age, 2600-2300 BC until the end of the third millennium from Troja are displayed. The second exhibition is The Anatolia Through the Ages, and the objects displayed here are prehistorical objects of different civilizations which were rooted in the Anatolia region.129 the second section is titled Cultures Neighbour to Anatolia and divided to two exhibitions: Cyprus exhibition, and Syria and Palestine exhibitions. Each displaying both pre-historical and historical objects from the specified regions, which are presented to understand the history of the civilizations to which they belong.130

7.3.1. Object Selection The main exhibited objects are prehistorical giant sculptures excavated in modern Turkey as well as objects excavated by Turkish archaeologists and excavations from surrounding lands. The focus of the narrative presented in the museum texts describing each exhibition and object is directed on presenting history from a Turkish perspective, to set Turkey in a larger historical context that includes the history of the civilizations of west Asia and south Europe. The archaeological exhibitions are anchored in presenting the contribution of Turkish scholars in the field of history and archaeology. Before entering the first exhibition hall in the Old Museum, the visitor enters a hall that is dedicated to Osman Hamid Bey, the lead archaeologist in modern Turkey, the founder of the Archaeological Museums and the director of the Ottoman Imperial Museum at the time.131 The exhibited objects are personal objects of Osman Bey, his childhood, education and professional positions throughout his life and the archaeological exhibitions he has led. The texts exhibited also summarize the history of museology in Turkey and the foundation process of the Museum of Archaeology.132 The Old Museum portal is in the middle section of the building, so as the visitor enters through it, first is the museum reception desk and the museum shop, then the Osman Bey and museology in Tukey halls and then the visitors find themselves in

127 Pasinli, 2012, p. 113. 128 Pasinli, 2012, p. 129. 129 Pasinli, 2012, p. 159. 130 Pasinli, 2012, p. 164. 131 Pasinli, 2012, p. 6. 132 Pasinli 2012, pp.6–7. 41

the middle of the timeline of the chronologically ordered exhibitions, which starts on the left side of the building. The most highlighted excavation both in size and object quantity is the large Royal Necropolis of Sidon exhibition, in the exhibition halls number eight and nine. The large collection of necropolises of Sidon – present day Saida, Lebanon- was the reason why the museum was built, and it contains underground burial objects of Egyptian and Greek style origins. The collection was discovered by a villager from Saida, which at the time was an Ottoman ruled land. The news got to Osman Bey who travelled there and led the archaeological excavation himself and brought the finding to Istanbul Archaeological museums.133 The excavation and the objects are described in great details historically, artistically, materially, and architecturally. The centred objects spatially are large marble sarcophagus, sculptures, and tomb relics, such as the Pentelic marble Sarcophagus of Mourning Women, dating to the mid-forth century BC. This sarcophagus is a 179 x 265 x 138 cm in size, and its architect is repeated at the exterior architect of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums.134 The Alexander Sarcophagus from the same archaeological excavation is the other centred object as it is described in detail and given a large space in the centre of the exhibition hall due to its large size, 195 x318x167 cm, and to the aesthetic and profound decoration style which tells several stories and myths compositions.135 At the new museum, trade related objects and objects of cultural value are the highlighted ones. In the Anatolia and Troja through the Ages exhibition cultural objects are exhibited, such as gold jewellery from Troja 2600 BC, and bone fishhook and spoons from Istanbul from the sixth millennium BC.136 The Istanbul Through the Ages exhibition is focused on the local history of Istanbul and its cultural heritage and art production presented in decorated marble funerary stones from Istanbul dating to the second millennium BC.137 Istanbul local cultural identity is presented also in gold jewelleries found in Istanbul dating to the eighth century AD, and Mosaic reconstructions found in Istanbul from the sixth century AD.138

7.3.2. Object Analysis The exhibition halls in the Museum of Archaeology are crowded with attractive and loud objects to the contrary of silent objects which are used to complement the selected highlighted objects. All objects exhibited in the museum are attractive objects in the sense that they are large, plenty and very architecturally and artistically detailed and decorated. The word “attractive” is used here in reference to Monty and Keene in their categorization of objects. The category of attractive objects are usually beautiful, shiny, large, precious, powerful, and valuable objects which catch the visitor´s attention, interest, and sight immediately on the contrary

133 Pasinli, 2012, pp. 6, 69. 134 Pasinli, 2012, p. 80. 135 Pasinli, 2012, pp.85–102. 136 Pasinli, 2012, p. 146. 137Pasinli, 2012, p. 134. 138 Pasinli, 2012, pp. 138–139. 42

to silent objects which need the exhibition curators to use the architect of the exhibition using light, design or specific exhibition stands and spatial accounts to bring attention to them.139 The crowdedness of these attractive and loud objects in the exhibitions is overwhelming as it gets hard to see, observe and read about all exhibited objects due to narrow space between them and due to the very nature of the objects. From a spatial syntax analysis perspective, the older archaeological and prehistorical objects are the most highlighted ones in all exhibitions, indicating that the historical dimension is considered especially valuable and of interest to the museum staff. The historical meaning of the object selected in the exhibitions lies in the archaeological and prehistorical nature of the objects. The historical narrative presented is a narrative that originate the history of Turkey in the multicultural rich civilizations of Anatolia. The objects also present the history of museology and archaeology in Turkey as established scientifical and academical fields using documents, maps, archaeological tools, and archiving systems of archaeological finds. An example is the Sarcophagus of Mourning Women and the Osman Bey´s documents140. The local history of Istanbul is stressed and highlighted in a separate exhibition where the objects are of archaeological, cultural, and aesthetic significance. The history of Istanbul is presented with ancient objects such as the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Yarimburgaz Cave in Istanbul from around 400 millennium BC, Figurine of a Woman from Istanbul from the sixth millennium BC, a Mosaic from the church of the Virgin Kyriotissa in Istanbul from the sixth century AD, and the decorated Golden Reliquary from Istanbul the thirteenth century AD.141 The symbolic meaning of the selected objects lies in their attractive nature and in the story the objects tell. A story that puts Anatolia on the historical map of the ancient history of the surrounding regions such as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and the Greek and Roman empire, as the Alexander Sarcophagus from Sidon, Lebanon from the third century BC, the Colossal Statue of Zeus from Gaza, Palestine, from Roman period, second century AD, and the Statue of Artemis from Lesbos, Greece from the Roman period, second century AD.142 The functional value of the selected objects varies according to the exhibition theme, but common characteristics are symbolized with historical and precious objects presenting Anatolia being the trade centre in the ancient world which is shown in the diversity of the cultural background of the objects. Another functional value is the educational value presented in the detail descriptions of each object and the chronological order of the exhibitions. An example is the Cuneiform Tablet from Hattusha from the fourteenth century BC that informs about the history of Hittite civilization and its relationship to Anatolia´s region.143 The objects also stress the architectural, industrial, and artistic enhancement presented in the choice of

139 Monti & Keene, 2013, p. 224. 140 Pasinli, 2012, p. 80. 141 Pasinli, 2012, pp.130, 138–139. 142 Pasinli, 2012, pp.64–65, 85. 143 Pasinli, 2012, p.157. 43

delicate, detailed decorated, and artistic objects displayed in Anatolia Through the Ages and Istanbul through the Ages exhibitions. Examples are a copper knife from Canakaale from the third millennium BC and a decorated Clay Bowl from the Chalcolithic period from the Anatolia Through Ages exhibition.144

7.3.3. Text Analysis The museum´s main texts set the historical frame for the period presented in the museum exhibitions. Each exhibition has a main text which occupies an entire wall before entering the exhibition. The texts are educational, detailed, and simple where the first section is usually written in a language that visitors from different ages and historical-knowledge background would easily understand. This section mainly describes the exhibited civilization using maps and historical timelines. The second section of the texts usually are more detailed and specialized, and the language gets more academic. The last section of the texts describes how and when each exhibition collection was excavated and how it ended up in the Museum of Archaeology, weather it was gifted, taken over, or bought by the museum.145 Linguistically, the language used in the historical and archaeological exhibitions is objective, informative and educational, written from a third person perspective. Anatolia as a geographical area is described as being lucky to have housed and been surrounded by many rich civilizations. The field of museology and archaeology in Turkey is described as being inspired of west European museums and archaeology.146 Civilizations which have lived in modern Turkey are described in a third person language with no possessive personal pronouns such as ´´we, us, ours´´ are used. Contextually, the museum texts refer to Anatolian civilizations as the historical roots of the Turkish nation and society. The history of the national identity presented is an identity based on the accumulation of cultures and civilizations throughout the region´s multi-cultural history being the centre of trade between ancient civilizations in the east in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Elam, and Roman, Greek and Cyprus civilizations on the north and west. The texts are focused on the integration of different cultures in one Turkish culture and the long history of the region´s inhabitation. The modern national identity presented on the other hand is rooted in the scientific and academic accomplishment in the fields of archaeology and museology and on the European influences on the Turkish museum and heritage sectors. The identity characteristic dominating in the texts then are ancient, historical, and present-day multi-culturalism and connection to the neighbour civilizations presented in the geographical expansion of the presented archaeological excavations, the European values and influence on the museum field in Turkey, and the cultural and architectural influences of the Roman and Greek styles in Turkey. The

144 Pasinli, 2012, p.150. 145 The Museum of Archaeology, museum texts, figure 3. 146 Pasinli, 2012, pp. 4-6. 44

local identity of Istanbul is characterized with architectural, artistic, and cultural enhancements.

7.3.4. Power Analysis The Museum of Archaeology is a state museum operating today under the direction and guidelines of Heritage and Tourism Ministry. It was established as the Ottoman Imperial museum in the mid 1800 under the direction of Ottoman Ministry of Education, the Archaeological and Islamic section.147 The museum was reopened in 1924 as the Archaeology Museum, so the main actors involved in decision making is the direction board under the Heritage and Tourism Ministry that is the main authority and power source in the museum sector in Turkey. The ministry prepares a regulation regarding the duty, responsibility, and work of state museums, including the Museum of archaeology. Museum power: Since Museum of Archaeology is a state museum, the question of power distribution is dependent on the Turkish Museum Laws which follow a top-down approach in the management of state museums. The Heritage and Tour- ism Ministry appoints the museum chairperson and decides over which individuals are approved as board members. This means the ministry is the authority with power over decisions related to policy making in the museum. The museum has the power to decide how the policy is practiced on the ground. The ministry has the power over the museum being the legal and state authority on the other side. Ideology: Since the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism sets the responsibility and guidelines over the museum policy either directly or by appointing board members which regulate the museum policy, then the ideology presented in the museum regarding which perspective of the national identity to present is centralized and decided by a state authority. This in its turn means that the power the museum has is embodied in Gray´s fourth perspective of ideology regarding how ideology is practiced and embodied through museum exhibitions, representation, and display of tangible as well as intangible objects and values. Meaning how the objects are selected and texts are written, the order of exhibitions and prioritizing of which objects to highlight and in the exhibitions´ design. Legitimacy and rationality: the legitimacy of decisions made within the Mu- seum of Archaeology is dependent on legal-rational authority. A legitimacy that is derived from a system of formally established rules and laws by the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism and the Turkish museum laws. The rationality to justify these decisions is an instrumental rationality, where the museum law sets the framework for museum policies. In summary, in the past ten years, the major actor in the Museum of Archaeol- ogy has changed from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The national identity presented in The Museum of Archaeology today,

147 Shaw, 2011, p. 946. 45

emphasises a belonging of the Turkish civilization to Western civilization by intro- ducing the history of museology and archaeology in the Republic of Turkey as equal to the European history of museology and archaeology. This emphasis is symbolized in the accomplishments of these two fields in Turkey from a scientifical and academic point of view. This corresponds with Shaw´s 2011 analysis that concluded that the narrative presented in the museum in the first decade on this century emphasized an integration and inherent belonging to western civilization.148 The historical narrative presented in the museum, reinforces a belonging to Anatolian civilizations, pre the Ottoman era. At the same time, a belonging of the Anatolian civilizations to the ancient world including the oldest discovered civilizations of Mesopotamia and Palestine as well as Roman, Greek and Cyprus civilizations.

7.4. National Identity Presented in Istanbul Modern Art Mu- seum

Istanbul Modern Art museum is a private museum that was founded in 2004 as the first Turkish museum of contemporary and modern art. The museum was undergoing restoration works at the time of my visit and it was moved to a different building located in the city centre. The temporary museum building is five stores building where the first, second, third and fourth floors are exhibition halls, each floor houses one exhibition. The ground floor houses the reception desk and the museum shop while the museum staff´s offices are on the fifth floor. The exhibition hall on the first floor is used to display contemporary exhibitions. The exhibition on display at the time of my visit was ´´Guests: Artist and Craft people´´. The exhibition displayed artworks of ten international artists from different regions which were the guests of Istanbul´s International Artists residency program of that year. The exhibition also displayed objects and historical artifacts borrowed from the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB), Directorate of Li- braries and Museums collection and the Military Museum at Harbiye. These objects were intended to present examples of crafts that inspired the artists while producing their works and as a testimony to the rich craft heritage of Istanbul. Also on display are videos documenting the processes of research and production of each artist and craftspeople.149 On the second floor, a thematic collection exhibition takes place which displays contemporary artworks dealing with cultural reflections of nature, nature destruc- tion, the depletion of natural resources and the ecological issues and problems.

148 Shaw, 2011, p. 946. 149Istanbul Modern. Guests: Artists and CraftPeople, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/exhibitions/past- exhibitions/guests-artists-and-craftspeople_2399.html (accessed 20 January 2021). 46

Among the displayed artworks are paintings, sculptures, video, installations, and photography.150 The third floor houses another collection exhibition that displays abstract, figurative, expressionist, and new figurative paintings that present the development of these peining schools in Turkey in a chronological order during the post 1950 era. The theme of the exhibition is presenting the visual and intellectual influence of Anatolian and Islamic culture through displaying geometric and lyrical abstract paintings. The exhibition also presents the trajectory from social realism post 1970s in Turkey.151 The fourth floor has four sections: a discovery room, an educational centre, an exhibition hall, and the museum library. The displayed exhibition at the time of my visit was titled ´´ Lutfi Özkök: Portraits´´. the exhibition features photographs of 80 figures in art and literature from the post- World War II era from Özkök´s archive in Stockholm, Sweden where the artist was resident. Among the portraits are portraits of 24 Nobel laureates. The exhibition follows a chronological order and personal objects, texts, documents, and photographs of the artists are displayed which describe the artist´s personal life and story as a photographer, poet, and writer as well as a Turkish expatriate artist and member of the European elite intellectual society. 152

7.4.1. Object Selection

The first-floor exhibition: Guests: Artist and Craft People is an international oriented exhibition that is mainly focused on presenting Istanbul´s industrial, historical, and cultural crafts in an artistic atmosphere and style from international artists perspectives. The exhibited objects are artworks done in collaboration with local craft people in Istanbul as well as objects and historical artifacts borrowed from the Military Museum and the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) Directorate of Libraries and Museums collection.153 Among the exhibited objects are also videos displaying the documentation of the research and production process of each artist and craft person. The highlighted object in this exhibition is the diversity of the artwork styles and objects, and the diversity in the artists national and cultural backgrounds in the program. The Craft work styles of Istanbul is also highlighted. The second-floor exhibition: Collection Exhibition is focused on the ecological distraction put in a cultural context and displayed in an artistic way that highlights the aesthetics of normal objects in the surrounding natural environment. The objects displayed are contemporary artworks of international artists: European, American,

150Istanbul Modern. Collection Exhibition, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/exhibitions/current- exhibitions/collection-exhibition_2506.html (accessed 19 January 2021). 151Istanbul Modern, Collection Exhibition. 152Istanbul Modern ´´ Lutfi Özkök: Portraits, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/exhibitions/past- exhibitions/lutfi-ozkok-portraits_2377.html (accessd 22 January 2021). 153 Istanbul Modern, Guests: Artists and Craftpeople. 47

Arab, Iranian, and Turkish artists, where the main theme is the contact between humans and the nature as two separate entities where the human is an observer. Other objects show humans as part of the nature that are both being affected by and influencing the ecological system from the inside. The highlighted objects are: ´´Stone Library´´ by the Turkish artist Alper Aydin, and ´´Toprak Adami ´´painting by Nesat Gunay. ´´ Stone Library´´ is a large shelf displaying 70 different earthly natural forms: stones from a cave, an old ruin, and a coastline from the artists hometown on the black seacoast, tree fossils from a forest in Ankara and religions structures in Konya, and stones from the historical city walls of Istanbul. ´´ Torpak Adami ´´ painting is from Gurnay´s ´´ Bodies Turning into Earth´´ collection, which deals with the relationship between man and infertile land from a social perspective. The large-scale monumental painting presents the rural life of central Anatolia in post 1950.154 The third-floor collection exhibition focuses on the development of different contemporary art styles in Turkey post 1950. The displayed artworks are of different Turkish artists. The centred object in this exhibition is the´´ Death of a Poet´´ painting by the artist and architect Cihat Burak. ´´ Death of a Poet´´ is a three -panel painting that portrays the life and death of the idealistic poet Nazim Hikmet who spent 14 years in prison and 12 in axile for his communistic sympathies and who was awarded with the International Peace Prize in 1950. Burak´s painting portrays Hikmet as a young man wearing an Ottoman fez with his mother, then him in prison, and crowded demonstrations then his death with a heart attack symbolising the attack with flowers growing out of his heart as he is holding his poetry book in his hand falling on the ground.155 The ´´ Lutfi Özkök Portraits´´ exhibition on the fourth floor displays the artist´s personal life and artwork in 89 portraits and several personal objects and texts such as letters showing his long connection with his subjects, his cameras, and some articles. Among the photographs are portraits of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Elias Canetti, William Golding, Orhan Pamuk, Aziz Nesin, Pablo Neruda, Artur Lundkvist, Maria Wine, Rene Char, Jean Paul Sartre, Nazim Hikmet, Michele Fou- cault and Ivo Andric. The highlight in this exhibition is that all this is displayed in one place, all photographs are taken by the same artist and how the artist’s personal relationship to them comes through.156

7.4.2. Object Analysis The objects exhibited in Istanbul Modern museum are contemporary artworks which portray the development of different art schools and styles in the past century

154Istanbul Modern, A Selection from The Collection, Nesat Gunal, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/collection/photography-collection/5?t=3&id=1003 (accessed 27 January 2021). 155Istanbul Modern, A Selection from The Collection, Cihat Burak, https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/collection/photography-collection/5?t=3&id=1162, accessed 27 January 2021). 156 Istanbul Modern., Lutfi Özkök Portraits. 48

in Turkey. Each exhibition has a main theme, and the objects selection is aimed to present how the specific theme has been expressed in Turkish art as well as how the Turkish art and culture has influenced the international artistic society. The artworks also present the Turkish culture and the local cultural production in Istanbul and its artistic influence in the international art scene, presented in the objects exhibited in Guests: Artists and Craft people exhibition. A third aspect that the objects stresses is presenting Turkish artists which have accomplished a global fame in the international art scene, presented in the objects exhibited in the Lutfi Öskök Exhibition. The exhibited artworks are of both national and international artists which indicates and stresses a cosmopolitan orientation and an international connexion. The historical meaning of the objects exhibited in Istanbul Modern aims to present a Turkish cultural identity that is both multicultural and authentic. An identity that is produced through the connection between the ancient East presented in geometric Islamic abstract art works using Arabic calligraphy- since Arabic letters were used in the Turkish language writing system before the establishment of the Repub- lic of Turkey-, and the West presented in European art style. One example is the painting of ´´ Hallaci I- Mansour by the Turkish artist Erol Akyavas 1987, who uses religious and calligraphy symbols in his work producing original synthesis of West- ern rationalism and Eastern word symbols.157 Another example is the Death of a Poet painting by Cihat Burak 1967, that is a portray of Nazim Hikmet. This painting has a double symbolic meaning. It symbolises the Turkish nation in the period between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the rise of the worldwide communist movement which also reached Turkey (the picture of Hikmet’s childhood, how the reaction of the authorities to communism is reflected in his imprisonment and the demonstrations). The other symbolic meaning is found in the fact that the artist, has painted a triptych, a European form of painting that was not common in Turkey at the time.158 The symbolic characteristic of the selected objects lies in the meet between the history of the Turkish nation and the modern cosmopolitan identity of the cultural scene in Istanbul. The objects from in the exhibition Guests: Artist and Craft People are all selected based on their relation to the Turkish culture, heritage, art, and artists. Examples are the Hammam illustration, 2020, by the Danish contemporary and post-war artists Randy and Katrine, that presents an illustration of a Turkish bath in Istanbul. A tradition that originates in the Islamic heritage and illustrated by Euro- pean artists.159 The selected artists are Turkish artists who has achieved a global repetition like Lutfi Özkök and artists who have lived or worked in Turkey or who has used Turkish art style such as the artist benji Boyadjian, born in Jerusalem, but resident in Istanbul.

157 Istanbul Modern, A selection from the Collection, Erol Akyavas. https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/collection/photography-collection/5?t=3&id=1009 , (accessed 1 February 2021). 158 Istanbul Modern. A Selection from The Collection, Cihat Burak. 159 Istanbul Modern, Guests: Artist and Craftpeople. 49

The functional value of the selected objects is an educational value and a presentation of the local art scene in Istanbul and the Turkish artistic heritage and history. An example is the Archive piece by the Azerbaijanian artist Faig Ahmed, that is a silk and wool carpet using traditional Turkish weaving techniques with contemporary distortions. The object is titled Archive, symbolizing the cumulative history of Turkish art. 160 Objects presented in the Collection Exhibition on nature and the ecological system are one more example. The Turkish national identity presented in Istanbul Modern Art museum is the contemporary Turkish cultural identity characterized with multiculturalism, and international cosmopolitan identity. An identity that is grounded in the cumulative history of Turkey using its Islamic heritage pre- the establishment of the republic, the local political scene, and the impact of the global events on the Turkish nation, as well as the western influence on the Turkish art scene in the last century.

7.4.3. Text Analysis The exhibitions in the Istanbul Modern museum are thematic, each exhibition is introduced in an overview text that describes the theme, the artists, and the method of how the artworks were selected and weather they were brought from other collections or museums.161 Each object is described in one to two texts that introduce the artwork, the art style, the artist and the symbolic behind the artwork. The texts describe the objects from an aesthetic point of view as well as a technical, historical, and cultural perspective. The focus is mainly on the aesthetic meeting between artists and objects from a cultural and artistic perspective. Besides, the artistic expression of how the world is conceived and influenced by artists either resident in Turkey and/or artists of Turkish origins and how the artists have influenced the world around them as humans and as active culture constructors.162 Linguistically, the language used in the museum texts is of an easy, informative, subjective, and figurative nature. Turkey as a country is referred to in terms like ´óur geography and our country´´. The identity presented is referred to as ´óur country´s modern identity´´ and ´óur multicultural heritage´´.163 Since it is an art museum, the first part of the texts is plane and dry and compact with facts, while the second part is more complex where each object is described from a cultural, social, artistic, and symbolic perspective. In the second part historical and artistic references are used frequently, so the language is also partly written to be understood by people who have knowledge and are interested in the art scene. Contextually, the national identity is presented from a heritage and cultural perspective. A belonging to the surroundings cultures and a collective identity constructed of two dimensions: the historical continuity of different political and ideological powers and its influence on the nation presented in the local cultural and

160 Ibid 161 Istanbul Modern, Museum Text. Figure 4. 162 Ibid. 163 Istanbul Modern, About. https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/museum/about_760.html, (accessed 3 February 2021). 50

industrial identity of Istanbul presented in Guests: Artists and Craft People exhibition, as well as the Islamic and Arabic expressions on the Turkish culture presented in several national artworks in the Collection Exhibitions. The second dimension is of a geographical nature, where the westernization of turkey post 1950 is presented in the Collection Exhibition on the third floor and in Lutfi Özkök exhibition where a belonging to the European sphere is distinctly expressed and the Islamic expression is disappeared. The functional value of the museum as described in the text is among others: promoting art love and presenting the Turkish art scene and heritage to the nation and the tourists.164 The national identity presented in the texts of Istanbul Modern Art museum is described to be rooted in Turkey´s multicultural heritage and universal values.165 A metropolitan cultural identity that supports patriarchal values and loyalty. The local identity of Istanbul is expressed in multiculturalism, artistic and industrial enhancement. The national identity is also presented through cultural and political events during the past century where the identity is of a fluent and changing nature. The roots of the present national identity presented in Istanbul Modern Art museum lies in the post 1920s, as the secular foundation of the republic of Turkey was established with brief references to the Ottoman empire period from a heritage perspective. The modern national identity presented reflects the urban culture of an elite social class with European ideals.

7.4.4. Power Analysis The Istanbul Modern is a private museum owned and managed by the Eczacibaşı Corporation which is an industrial group founded in 1942 with 39 companies. The corporation invests in pharmaceutical, technological, cultural and lifestyle related, products.166 The museum is owned by the Eczacibaşı group, funded, and sponsored by the private sector with hundreds of stakeholders, and it is supported by the public sector and the local government.167 The then Prime Minister Mr Erdoğan held a speech at the museum opening in 2004 and the museum was granted the presidential award in 2010.168 This answers the question of which are the main actors involved in decisions´ making in the museum and it has indications regarding how power in distributed between the museum, the state and the society on one side, and regarding the nature of power that the museum has on the other. The main actors involved in decision making are the board directors and members which are members of the Eczacibaşı Corporation and academics and scholars’ consultants hired by the museum board. The director chair is held by the curator Oya Eczacibaşı, who is a legal heir of the Corporation and the daughter of the former Turkish minister of Labour and Social Security, prof Turhan Esener who in his

164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 Eszacibasi. Group Profile, https://www.eczacibasi.com.tr/en/eczacibasi-group/topluluk-profili-en , (accessed 20 February 2021). 167 Istanbul Modern. About. 168 Shaw, 2011, p.942. 51

turn was one of the prestigious law professors which studied in Switzerland and whose work was influenced by the swiss tradition.169 Esener was also one of the scholars who set the ground for the Turkish secular ideology in the transition from Islamic law to secular law in the establishment of the Turkish Civic Law which was influenced by the Swiss private law.170 The distribution of power: the museum of Istanbul Modern has a structural power which is illustrated in the choices of what to preserve and exhibit, which values to display and for which social group. The nature of power the museum has is the power to prevent certain discussion being made regarding potential ideological issues. This power is illustrated in the economic independence and official and governmental public relations that the Eczacibaşı Corporation and the director Oya Eczacibaşı has. The instrumental power then is used to display the Corporation´s and the director´s secular ideological values regarding the national identity. Ideology: the museum power is manifested in the choice of which perspective of the national identity to present. The ideology of deciding what is ´´proper´´ and ´´right´´ and therefore worthy of exhibiting.171 The ideology in Istanbul Modern museum is derived from the elite social class that the museum prioritizes serving and presenting. Legitimacy: the Istanbul Modern museum´s legitimacy is derived from the social class´s ideologies and values it presents and serves: the elite, secular social class that favours western values. This legitimacy contributes to the museum´s authority. An authority obtained from the mutual independence and the reciprocal relationship between the authorities and the museum´s legitimacy which is a question of structure and agency in society. A relationship that is manifested by the government´s support, led by the moderate Islamist party leader Mr. Erdoğan as he expressed his full support of the museum and the Turkish modern art scene in his speech at the opening of the museum. And in the museum´s mutual support to the government.172 Rationality: the rationality form that is used by the museum management to justify their choices and actions is civic justifications as referred to by Gray. A rationality that is dependent on the power distribution on the macro level of the political system which the museum operates within. The civic justifications used in Is- tanbul Modern are dependent on the bottom-up approach as a private museum operating independently regarding the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The Istanbul Modern Art museum has the power of being economically inde- pendent, at the same time supported by the government led by the moderate Islamist party. This indicates that the museum has a structural power in the choices of which values and perspective of national identity to present (ideology), the exercise of that ideology: of what to preserve and exhibit (legitimacy), and how to make these

169Hurriyet, “opportunity missed on September 12”, Hurriyet 8 November 1999, https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/12-eylul-de-firsat-kacti-39112110, (accessed 22 February 2021). 170 Erdem Büyüksagis. “The Role of Comparative Law: New International Model Rules vs. Time-Tested Local Practices”, North Carolina Journal of International Law (2017), pp. 625-663. 171 Gray, 2015, p 16. 172 At the time Mr Erdoğan was elected for the first time as the Prime Minister of Turkey 52

choices (rationality). In this case the national identity is emerging of the secular elite social class that favours western values that the museum presents and serves. The state´s support indicates that the nature of power is reciprocal between the state and the museum. Where the museum power lies in the power of the citizens which visit the museum (its public and their ¨¨power to´´ influence the political scene). The relationship is then reciprocal because the government is aware of the power to that the museum has, and as the museum needs legitimacy from the state in form of the legal and official support presented by the state to the museum. In other words, the museum´s power is the support the museum has from its public and it also lies in its ideological presentation of the national identity. In summary, Istanbul Modern museum is a private museum, managed and funded by the private sector and supported by the local government. The national identity presented in Istanbul Modern museum is the cultural identity of the Turkish nation derived from the social class that is influenced by Western values. The representation promotes Turkey´s belonging to Western culture using art, culture, and local cultural industry, openness and connection as the root for the nation´s multicultural and metropolitan identity. This indicates that Shaw´s 2011 analysis of the narrative presented in Istanbul Modern pre 2010 is relatively still valid, as she concluded that the narrative presented in the museum was concerned with promoting Turkey as participant in Western culture through cultural production and practice.173

7.5. Contested heritage sites in Turkey in 2020

Heritage sites have different value forms which makes them contested sites. These values vary between artistic, historical, civic, or social, spiritual, or religious, research, natural, and symbolic or identity values.174 Many heritage sites in Turkey are contested sites in the sense that their symbolic value, function and use in the society are renegotiated and have changed and still being changed according to the political ideology of the authority and the ideology of the governing body as well as the civil society organizations´. The year of 2020 has been of a special importance in the culture heritage sector in Turkey because two world-famous contested sites in Turkey hav had their status transformed from museums to religious temples. The sites are the Hagia Sofia museum and the Chora Church, known as Kariye museum in Istanbul. In the coming sub-paragraphs, I will present the biography of each site, the legal base of their status transformation process and I will analyse the decisions using Hodder´s material culture theory and Gray´s museum politics analysis.

173 Shaw, 2011, p.946. 174 Randall Mason & Erica Avrami, “Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning”, Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, 19-22 may 2000, Corinth, Greece', Antiquity, 77: 297, (2003), pp. 17-18. 53

7.5.1. Hagia Sofia Site

Hagia Sofia museum in Istanbul was first built as a church in the sixth century A.D. by the emperor Justinian and later became a cathedral having the largest uninter- rupted interior space in the world at that time and the largest church built in Istan- bul.175 When the Ottomans took control over Istanbul, they transformed all symbols of Christianity including churches to Islamic symbols and temples and therefore Hagia Sophia was transformed to a mosque. The Ottomans believed that they had inherited the legacy of the Roman empire and that they were by declaring Hagia Sofia a mosque fulfilling a Qur’anic prophecy. Hagia Sophia became the main ceremonial mosque of the empire under its four centuries long rulership.176 After the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the president then Mustafa Kemal secularized the building and Hagia Sophia was established as a museum in 1935. In the museum of Hagia Sophia both Byzantine and Ottoman legacies were exhibited side by side as equally important eras of the Turkish history.177 The museum is declared as an UNESCO world heritage site. In 2006 the government allowed the museum staff to allocate a small room and use it as a praying room for both Christian and Muslim praying employees. In 2007, Greek American politician Spirou launched the ´´ Free Aga Sophia council´´ organization demanding to restore the building to its original function as a church.178 However, since 2013 the Islamic call to prayer started being launched twice a day from the museum´s minarets.179 Since 2016 several religious events and celebrations have been held in the Hagia Sophia museum, where Muslim prayers in large groups were participating. The group prayer of 2016 was the first one held in Hagia Sofia in 85 years.180 Many Islamic groups and the group of Anatolian Youth Association have demanded the declaration of the museum as a mosque.181 The same year the Plaintiff- The Turkish Association for the Protection of Historical Monuments and the Environment- made a formal plea to the prime minister to reopen Hagia Sophia for worship. The petition was denied, so the Plaintiff appealed to the Council of State, Turkey´s highest administrative court.182 Then the Turkish president Erdoğan announced his opinion on

175 Yakup & Coruhlu & Bayram & Yildiz, 2020, p.1. 176 Shaw, 2003, p.10. 177 Shaw, 2002, p.9. 178 Home Boy Media News. “Group unveils initiative on Hagia Sophia”, Home Boy Media News 16 June 2016, https://grhomeboy.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/group-unveils-initiative-on-hagia-sophia/,(accessed 27 February 2020) 179Time Turk. “Prayer is being read in Hagia Sophia, have you heard?” Time Turk 15 January 2013, https://www.timeturk.com/tr/2013/01/15/ayasofya-da-ezan-okunuyor-duydunuz-mu.html, (accessed 27 February 2020). 180 Hurriyet Daily News. “First Call to Prayer Inside Istanbul´s Hagia Sophia in 85 Years” Hurriyet Daily News 2 July 2016, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/first-call-to-prayer-inside-istanbuls-hagia-sophia-in-85- years-101161 (accessed 1 March, 2020). 181 Hurriyet Dily News. “Muslim Group Prays in Front of Hagia Sophia to Demand Re-convention into Mosque” Hurriyet Dily News 13 May 2017,https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/muslim-group-prays-in-front- of-hagia-sophia-to-demand-re-conversion-into-mosque-113064 (accessed 1 March 2021). 182 Harvard Law Review “The Hagia Sophia Case” Harvard Law Review 134:3 (2021), https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/01/the-hagia-sophia-case/ (accessed 1 March 2021). 54

the matter to the public stating that the transformation of Hagia Sophia from a mosque to a museum was a mistake and was done illegally, lastly in 2019 he announced the transformation of Hagia Sophia´s status from a museum to a mosque based on legal court decision.183 However, since the museum is an UNESCO world heritage site, this transformation would require the approval of the world heritage committee according to UNESCO.184 In 2020 The Council of State decided to revert Hagia Sophia to being a mosque since the 1934 convention of Hagia Sophia to a museum was misappropriation of an Islamic charitable trust and thereafter illegal, as a law review done by Harvard university student explains. This shows that the decision was preceded by a legal procedure. Despite the prosecutor’s claims regarding Hagia Sophia´s status as an UNESCO world heritage site that validated the legality of the 1934 decision as it made its use subject to the government´s discretion.185 President Erdoğan announced the court´s decision and expressed his pleasure with the decision that after 86 years, starting on the 24th of July 2020 Hagia Sophia will serve as a mosque again. The announcement clarified that Hagia Sofia will continue being open for non-Muslims and foreigners to visit. On that day Christian mosaics of Jesus and Mary got covered with curtains and tens of thousands praying Muslims attended the first call to prayer in and outside the newly converted mosque to pray together. The secular opposition party along with many Turkish voices opposed and criticized the move and expressed their concerns regarding the symbolic of this move and weather it would be considered as an announcement that Turkey is taking a step away from its secular identity and back to its Ottoman identity.186 The decision of transforming the Hagia Sofia museum to a mosque did not vi- olate an international-laws legally or from a heritage perspective, because other UNESCO sites -such as Notre-Dame Cathedral- also serve as a worshiping place. However, due to the decision´s symbolic value, the director general of UNESCO announced that “UNESCO deeply regrets the decision made by Turkish authorities, without prior discussion, to change the status of Hagia Sophia.” 187 Pope Francis, Head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the World Council of Churches, all expressed their concern and regret regarding the transformation of the site´s status. 188

183 Hurriyet Dily News. “Hagia Sophia Status to be Changed to Mosque Erdoğan”, Hurriyet Dily News 2019 https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hagia-sophias-status-to-be-changed-to-mosque-Erdoğan-142230 (accessed 7 March 2021). 184 Daily Hellas. “UNESCO Halts Erdoğans Plans to Turn the Hagia Sophia into Mosque”, Daily Hellas 2019, https://dailyhellas.com/2019/03/27/unesco-halts-Erdoğans-plans-to-turn-the-hagia-sophia-into-mosque/ (accessed 7 March 2021). 185 Harvard Law Review. “The Hagia Sophia Case”. 186 BBC Turkish. “Hagia Sophia: Former Istanbul Museum Welcomes Worshippers” BBC Turkish 24 July 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53506445 (accessed 10 March 2021). 187 UNESCO. “UNESCO statement on Hagia Sophia, Istanbul”, UNESCO 10 July 2020 (2020) https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-statement-hagia-sophia-istanbul (accessed 10 March 2021). 188 BBC Turkish “Hagia Sophia: Former Istanbul Museum Welcomes Worshippers”, 10 July 2020; World Council of Churches. “WWC statement of Hagia Sophia” World Council of Churches, 24 July 2020, https://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/wcc-statement-on-hagia-sophia (accessed 23 March 2021). 55

7.5.2. Chora Church/ Kariye Museum Site

One month after the change of Hagia Sofia´s status, Chora church, known as Kariye museum in Istanbul was also officially transformed to a mosque. Chora church is another former Byzanti church that served as a mosque in the Ottoman Empire then was transformed to a museum in 1945. The museum was announced to serve again as a mosque in august 2020. The transformation decision of Kariye museum made by president Erdoğan was announced in the official Gazette, newspaper, as the control of the site was handed over from the Museums and Heritage ministry to Di- yanet, Turkey´s authority for Islamic affairs.189 The decision soon provoked discon- tent among the international community and the opposition party as well as the academic and Christian community in Turkey.190 The opposition party leader expressed the resentment of the party on behalf of the Turkish nation that according to the party´s twitter account, considered the decision a political statement that is meant to sacrifice the multi-cultural identity and multi-religious history of the country.191 Furthermore, Anadolu, Turkey´s state-run agency reported that many Istanbul citizens were happy about the announcement and rushed to the site on the first Fri- day after the announcement to pray there. 192 The decision to transform the Chora church/ Kayria museum followed also legal canals and was based on demands on civil society organizations, however, it caused controversy and concerns both nationally and internationally, because of the site´s symbolic and historical meaning.

7.5.3. Status Transformation Analysis The biography of Hagia Sophia as a contested site is rich and complex because it has been politicised in the collective memory of the people as mentioned on page 54. The same is true for the 1400 years old Chora church. The symbolic value of the heritage sites lies in their political and ideological shift according to the ideology of the governing authority. The historical value lies in the sites´ biography and their religious value shift from a culture and heritage perspective. This transformation is in accordance with the shift between the secular Kemalism ideology and the religious Ottoman ideology. Lastly the functional value of the sites´ lies in their religious and political use and its social and identity value. The sites have been transformed from Christian churches to mosques, then museums and now to mosques again. Both sites have historical and equally religious importance and value for the

189 DW News. “Like Hagia Sophia, Turkey to Reconvert Chora museum into mosque”, 2020. 190 Reuters Writers. “After Hagia Sophia, Turkey´s Historic Chora Church also switched to a mosque” Reuters, 21 August 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-religion-chora-idUSKBN25H1AZ (accessed 2 March 2021). 191 DW News. “Like Hagia Sophia, Turkey to Reconvert Chora Museum into mosque”, 2020. 192 The Seattle Times. “After Hagia Sophia, Turkey Turns Anther Museum into Mosque” The Seattle Times, 21 August 2020, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/world/after-hagia-sophia-turkey-turns-another- museum-into-mosque/(accessed 3 March 2021).

Turkish nation and a political value for every Turkish government. However democratic and legal the roots of the transformations are, the decision in both cases has ideological and political indications concerning the cultural and national identity of both the Turkish nation and the current Turkish political system and government. The transformations indicate a return to a national identity based on religious ideology (Islamic cultural national identity), after 85 years of a national identity based on secularizing the national history and heritage. Ideology analysis: the transformation is a political statement that has influences beyond Turkey’s nation. The decision is controversial because of its ideologies embodied in the site´s historical, religious, and political significance. According to Gray´s fourth view of ideology, museums are like texts with meanings that can be interpreted. The announcement of what is more worthy of representing (Ottoman ideology) indicates denying a part of the nation´s history and of the site´s heritage biography, at the same time prioritizing a specific historical period of the nation´s history. The prioritizing of the status used under the period of Ottoman empire here in its core means that; the Ottoman period with its symbolic characteristics is re- garded as the ´´proper´´ Turkish national identity, historically and symbolically. Legitimacy and rationality analysis: since the transformations´ decisions happened through legal canals and were based on the demands of civil society organisations, it means that the legitimacy of the decisions was based on legal-rational legitimacy form and the justification of the decisions was based on civic justification logics. Power analysis: the decisions show that civil society organization and Diyanet (Turkey´s authority for Islamic Affairs that became the administrating authority over Chora Church) are key actors in the heritage field regarding power distribution in the heritage sector. The transformation court decisions show that civil society organizations have ´´power to´´ make their preferences heard so that decisions can be taken in accordance with them. It also shows that the fragmentation of authority allows for civil society´s organization and municipality institutions to have ´´power over´´ in the mechanisms of influencing the political and policy choices made within the Turkish heritage field. This in its turn indicates that a bottom-up approach is used in policy and decisions making (authority) within the Turkish Herit- age field. In summary, the main key actors in the heritage field are civil society organizations, the prime minister, and the highest court of administration. The Ministry of Heritage and Tourism had no authority and neither did the museum management itself, as no public announcement were made by any of these two agencies.

8. Concluding Discussion

In the fast-changing nature of the political, ideological, and social life in the 21st century´s societies, the quest of constructing and representing national identities has been challenging and more complex than ever. In this research I have investigated the representation of the national identity in Turkey as a multicultural nation and centralized authoritarian state. The Turkish national identity and government ideology have been reconstructed several times in the past century between religious, nationalistic, and secular ideology. I have also aimed to analyse how policies are made in the heritage sector in Turkey, in the light of the controversial events occurring in the past decade regarding museums legally being transformed to religious temples like in the case of Hagia Sophia and Kariye museum. I analysed the representation of the national identity in three selected museums using Monti and Keene´s designing models and Hodder´s theory of material culture. The analysis has aimed to investigate the question of structure and agency in the Turkish heritage sector using the Turkish museum law as well as Gray´s four concepts of power, ideology, legitimacy, and rationality. I start the concluding discussion chapter by highlighting the research results. I summarize how the empirical examination has answered the research questions and how the research purpose has been fulfilled. Lastly, I contextualize the research questions´ results by discussing their generali- zability in relation to the theoretical discussion and to the previous research in the field. I conclude the discussion by presenting suggestions for further research in the specific subject and field and presenting recommendations to consider in national identity representation.

8.1. National Identity Materialized In this section I discus the first two questions of the research regarding how the Turkish national identity is represented and materialized in each of the selected museums. First, I report the results regarding the heritage narrative presented, and the identity of the main actors involved in policy decision-making in each museum. Then I present a thematic discussion regarding the matter of national identity and national identity representation in relation to the previous research chapter.

8.1.1. Research Results from Each Museum Separately The modern Turkish national identity is not presented at the Topkapi Palace museum because it is a historical museum. The national identity represented is rooted in the Ottoman Empire heritage. The empire is described as one of the powerful empires during the European empirical period in the second half of the past millennium. The historic narrative is presented from a winner´s perspective to glorify the

empire. The national identity is materialized through the Palace´s architecture, object selection and text descriptions. The highlighted objects indicate wealth, power, and architectural aesthetics. Objects´ power rests on religious and authoritarian grounds. The religious objects are of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish origins symbolizing the multi-religious nature of the empire The characteristics associated with the national identity are symbolized with the empire´s geographical and authoritarian expansion, multiculturalist and multireligious inclusive societies, Sultans´ religious authority as the Islamic caliphates and leaders over the Islamic world and Sultans´ financial and legitimate authority over the conquered regions including eastern Europe and western Asia, and lastly with Ottoman´s connexions with the West and the local artistic and architectural enhancement and uniqueness. Sultans´ religious authority is secularized, implemented, and transformed into governing administrative authority. The Ottoman society is described as being constructed of Turks, Arabs, Persians, and East Europeans. In summary the Turkish national identity represented in the Topkapi Palace museum is an Ottoman national identity, where the pure ´´Turks´´ identity is only referred to when describing the local identity of Istanbul related objects. The administrative and financial authority key actor in the Topkapi Palace museum is the Presidency Department for Ottoman Palaces. The modern Turkish national identity represented in the Museum of Archaeol- ogy is anchored in the scientific and academic accomplishment and enhancement in the fields of museology and archaeology using western tools and guidelines. The national identity represented is a cosmopolitan one rooted in the Anatolian heritage where the history narrative presented is based on the historical cosmopolitan nature of Anatolia before the Turkification process of the region started in the beginning of the second millennium AD. The national identity is materialized through the object selection, the chronological and geographical order of the exhibitions and the museum texts which describe Anatolia as the centre of the ancient world of the East and the modern world of the West. The characteristics associated with the Turkish national identity in the Museum of Archaeology are the secularity of the past and the multiculturalism of the present society. The past is symbolized with ancient civilizations´ accumulation in Anatolia as centre of the ancient world, and the present is symbolized with a belonging to the Western developed civilizations. The local identity of Istanbul is characterized with cultural, architectural, and artistic uniqueness and richness. In summary the Turkish national identity presented in the Museum of Archaeology is a cosmopolitan Anatolian identity with emphasis on westernization and a secular, religious free ideology. The pure ´´Turkish´´ identity, referring to the nation of Turks, is presented in the fields of archaeology and museology, which are influenced by European museums, as symbolized with Osman Bey´s character. The administrative and financial authority key actor in the Mu- seum of Archaeology is the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The modern Turkish national identity represented in the private Istanbul Mod- ern museum is a Westernized patriarchal identity anchored in cosmopolitan values and Turkish cultural and artistic industries. The national identity is based on the

local identity of Istanbul and on the secular urban elite social class. The national identity is materialized with national and international artworks using Istanbul-ian cultural crafts and heritage, and artworks presenting Turkey´s print and influence on the global art society and the usage of Western art styles in presenting Turkish heritage and identity. The characteristics associated with the Turkish national identity presented in the Istanbul Modern museum are a) modern cosmopolitan Turkish identity, using Western values to put Turkey on the global artistic map. B) the secularization of the Turkish history, referring to it as ´´heritage´´ by presenting artworks describing the use of Sufistic and Arabic symbols as exotic influences on the process of constructing the authentic Turkish national identity. The history narrative presented is rooted in the period post 1920, following the establishment of the secularized Republic of Turkey with emphasis on the social and artistic development and liberation post the 1950 period. In summary, the Turkish national identity represented in the Istanbul Modern museum is a secular, cosmopolitan cultural identity rooted in the local identity of Istanbul and in Turkish artists working and influencing the Western, mostly European artistic and intellectual society. The pure ´´ Turkish ´´ identity referred to is an urban, civil identity belonging in its values to the secular West. The financial authority in the Istanbul Modern is the Eczacibasi Corporation and private stakeholders, while the administrative management of the museum is a representor of the Eczacibasi Corporation and according to the Turkish museum law, the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The Turkish national identity represented in the two contested sites of Hagia Sophia and Chora Church or former Kayrie museum- as representors of the Herit- age sector-, is an Islamic and Ottoman national identity, that is rooted in a historical Ottoman narrative. This identity is materialized through the legal transformation of the sites´ status, being transformed from museums to mosques in 2020. Also, through the covering of Christian symbols in the sites. This identity rests on political, religious, and social ideologies. The ideological aspects of the sites; transforming them from secular heritage sites as historical museums to religious Islamic mosques, after being built as churches originally; is a political and social ideology, since the decisions were made through legal canals and based on a civil society organization’s demand. It is also a political and religious ideology, since the sites´ status were transformed back to the Ottoman period where Turkey was a Muslim empire officially, pre secularizing the Constitution and the republic. The national identity represented in both sites is characterized with homogeneity, religious (Is- lamic) and nostalgia to the Ottoman empire period. The identity represented in the transformation decision has many ideological and political indications regarding the question of structure and agency in Turkish heritage social life, which will be presented in the next section. The main actors involved in policy and decision making in the heritage sector represented in these two cases, are civil society organizations, the prime minister, the highest administrative court in Turkey and Diyanet, Turkey´s authority for Islamic Affairs.

8.1.2. Turkish National Identity The definition of national identity I summarized in starting points and definitions chapter is ´´shared interpretation of history, heritage and culture understanding and inclusion´´. This definition is based on McLean, Kaplan and Andersson´s definition of nations as imagined communities and on the definition of civic identity referred to by Helldahl that I mention on page 14. The investigation has revealed that the Turkish national identity represented in the selected museums has different interpretations of history, heritage and culture understanding. Each museum has its own understanding and interpretation of the history and heritage of the Republic because each museum presents a different historical period, narrative, and ideology. The ethnic identity of ´´Turks´´ is anchored in the local identity of Istanbul in all three museums. The Turkish national identity represented is more align with the definition presented by Helldahl of nation-states and nationalistic identities which is an identity constructed through propaganda used by cultural-political movements to raise a national awareness and identity.193 The cultural-political movement that has built the Turkish national identity and ideology is Turkey´s secularity referred to as Kemal- ism. This in its turn means that the modern Turkish national identity is based on secular nationalistic ideologies, which is the political identity of the nation as referred to by Helldahl. However, this ideology has been challenged and shifted in the heritage sector in the past decade as seen in the cases of the Hagia Sophia museum/mosque, the Kariye museum/mosque, and the shift of Topkapi Palace museum administrative authority. These transformations indicate that there is a shift from the nation´s Kemalism ideology that has been aiming to join the European Union and Westernize the Republic of Turkey; to an Ottoman-based ideology as- piring to reconstruct and represent a Turkish national identity, economic growth and power expansion aiming to equalize the Western powers, instead of thriving to belong to them. Further research is required on the matter of Turkish national identity from a historical and a political perspective to test the generalization ability of the indication this research has resulted in.

8.1.3. Turkish National Identity Representation National identity representation in museums as referred to in previous research is ´´the representation of the collective identities, cultures, narratives, history and memory interpretation and present self-awareness of all nation members´´. The production and consumption of cultural representations is linked directly to the self- awareness of community members who identify themselves based on the sense of community-belonging according to McLean´s analysis of national identity representation.194 In the case of the selected museums in Istanbul, different social groups in the community can easily identify themselves and see their ideology represented at one of the museums, because the local identity of Istanbul is presented in at least

193 Helldahl, 2013, pp. 27-30. 194 McLean, 2015, pp. 1-4. 61

one exhibition in each of the museums. The fragmentation of the administrative authority sources of each museum has also been a main factor in the fragmentation of the national identity and narrative representation. However, when not all ethnic groups are represented, then that indicates that only the represented groups are included in the national identity. The investigation has also revealed similarities between the results of this research and the study done by the Leuphana university heritage students on the representation of national identity in the US national museums that I refer to on page 11. National museums in Turkey, like in the US each present different narrative, because the US society is also a diverse, multi-ethnical and multicultural society, where there is an absent of a centralized network of national museums, just like in Turkey. However, the difference between the two study results show that different social groups were able to choose and see themselves represented in one of the US museums. In the selected museums in Turkey, the history is fragmented and presented from different time-periods´ ideologies, however, the national identity represented in the selected museums does not include identities and narratives of the Turkish sub- cultures, such as the Alawite, Armenian and Kurdish cultures. The similarities between the results of both researches reveal the ever-challenging task that faces museums in multicultural societies of the 21st century. Going back to McLean´s 2015 article, the task of the 21st century museums is narrating the diversity of the nation through engaging in the politics of recognition. The representation of the Turkish national identity in the selected museums has uncovered a lack of integration, recognition and reconciliation politics on both the nation and the state level. This assumption is based on the absent of the Alawites, Armenian and Kurdish narratives inclusion and representation in the Turkish national identity represented in the selected museums. Although, such an assumption can´t and should not be generalized as further research and analysis is needed on a wider geographical level. A research on the representation of the national identity in the cities where Alawites, Armenians and Kurds make the majority of or have inhabited in previous historical periods, such as in Central and Southern Turkey. A research that would also investigate the presented narrative on the Armenian genocide and the historical events of that period. This research would investigate whether the sub-cultures´ ideology is represented in a national or regional museum or not. In summary, national identity representation in the Turkish museum sector is fragmented and decentralized where a linear representation of the national Turkish history is represented instead. Each museum exhibits a part of the history and different ideology. This in its turn leaves a space for open interpretations of the national history and identity. Different characteristics are associated with the Turkish national identity according to different museums. On one side the national identity represented is associated with cosmopolitan secularism, and adoption of and belonging to European values as seen in Istanbul Modern and the Museum of Archae- ology. On the other side the identity represented is based on the Ottoman heritage,

referring to the Ottoman-ian multiculturalism, empirical equalization to the West- ern Empires pre-WWI and authoritarian expansion over the East and parts of the West as seen in the Topkapi Palace museum and the Turkish heritage policy regarding the Hagia Sophia and Kayrie sites. The investigation has also revealed that museums have compensated the fragmentation of the national identity through empha- sising the multicultural history of the nation by presenting diverse historical narratives and through adopting a modern cosmopolitan ideology.

8.2. Turkish Heritage Sector Power Structure

In this sector I discuss how the purpose of the research has been fulfilled by con- textualizing the results of the analysis of power structure and agency in the Turkish heritage sector and how policies are being made according to the Turkish museum law. Then I discuss my analysis results based on Gray´s theory of museum politicization to answer the third and fourth question of the research regarding power and legitimacy and how have the power structure in the Turkish heritage sector changed in the last decade.

8.2.1. Authority Sources in the Turkish Heritage Sector According to the Turkish Museum Law, the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism is the main authority for state museums. Private museums operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, but this supervision is limited because the financial authority is provided by the private sector. The main key actors involved in national identity production in the Turkish heritage sector on the macro level are the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, civil society organizations, the prime minister, the highest administrative court in Turkey, Diyanet, (Turkey´s authority for Islamic affairs), the Presidency department for Ottoman Palaces, and the president personally. This reveals a decentralization of authority and legitimacy in the Turkish heritage sector, and a fragmentation of power sources which in its turn has resulted in the establishment of authority centralization in state owned museums and heritage sites. This is seen in the case of the Topkapi Palace museum as its administration authority got transformed to the Presidency Department of Ottoman Palaces shortly after President Erdogan got re-elected. The decision was made using charismatic and traditional authority approach. An approach that is based on the state´s use of instrumental rationality which is a means-ends goal-oriented rationality. This approach of authority show that the state is the main authority actor in the national museums´ sector and that the decision-makers in the state can use the law to achieve desired outcomes. Legitimacy in the case of charismatic authority and traditional authority is derived from people’s beliefs about why they should obey the decision-makers195.

195Weber, 1978, pp. 212-220. 63

The main authority in the case of private museums is the museum management. The legitimacy source for private museums is the museum public and their support, which means that private museums´ power lies in the support of the citizens who are represented in the museum and their ´´power to´´ influence the political scene. The relationship between state and private museums is then reciprocal because the state has power over private museums based on the state´s legal authority. Mu- seum´s power on the other side is derived from the museum law, citizens’ support, and the museums´ financial independency. In the larger perspective of Turkish heritage sector, the fragmentation of legal authority sources in the heritage sector has led to a bottom-up authority approach where civil society organizations have become the main power source and key actors, as seen in the case of the Hagia Sophia status transformation. This in its turn indicates that the ideology of organized and active citizens (nation members) is being pushed through legal- rational canals, even if this ideology does not represent or reflect the majority´s. However, this legitimacy is dependent totally on the maintenance of the references and circumstances which the legitimacy acceptance settings were established through.196 In other words, so long the ideological atmosphere and the political actors are changing through democratic processes, the structure and nature of power in the heritage sector is of a fluid and changing nature. The relationship between the state and the people is reciprocal too, where the latter use civic justifications in a bottom-up authority approach to influence the production of the national identity as in the case of Hagia Sophia and Kayrie sites. And the state uses a top-down authority approach where policy decisions are being made based on popular bases rather than legal, constitutional ones like in the case of Topkapi Palace museum, which´s legal status got transformed from a museum to an Ottoman palace with no regards or reference to the museum law or the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism. The judicial system is also an authority and power source in the Turk- ish heritage sector because as the first demands to transform Hagia Sophia to a mosque in 2016 were presented to then denied by the prime minister, but then the highest administrative court in Turkey made the decision to transform the site to a mosque legally. In summary, the key actors involved in the heritage and museum sector in Tur- key are the people which are organized and active in civil society organizations, because they have legitimacy and power to change policies on one side; and the state and the judicial system because both have the power and legitimacy of legal- izing the demands of the civil society organisations. This means that the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism and museum institutions have limited power in the museum and heritage sector in Turkey. On the other side, the state guides the cultural life since the power is centralized in the choices of the head of the state´s authority using a top-down authority approach, shown in the case of the Topkapi Palace administrative authority transformation.

196 Gray, 2015, p.21.

8.2.2. The Turkish Heritage Sector in the Last Decade The heritage policy represented in the cases of Topkapi Palace, Hagia Sophia and Kariye mosques reveal that the Turkish heritage sector is heading towards an Otto- man-based ideology using authoritarian and religious grounds, rather than the secular Kemalism ideology. The transformation decisions of the contested sites show that places and material culture are of significant value in the construction and representation of the national identity. Moreover, further research is needed to analyse the future of the Turkish national identity and heritage and cultural life to determine whether it is heading towards an ideology of nostalgia to the Ottoman Empire period as my analysis has concluded. For the past century, the secular Kemalism ideology that was based on forced oblivion of and distinguishment from the Ottoman Empire ideological and religious history, had built the present national identity of Turkey as presented in the Istanbul Modern museum and The Museum of Archae- ology. But this ideology is being tested and challenged in the past decade. The dilemma between oblivion and nostalgia to the Ottoman period is a question of which ideology is considered to be the authentic representation of the modern Turkish national identity. A question that is worth investigating in the near future because of the very fast pace of the changes occurring in the Turkish heritage sector. Such a research would be of great importance for the Turkish voices which support the Kemalism ideology because the only way for these voices to activate their choices in the Turkish heritage sector is through legal-rational rationality and civic justifications, meaning through civic society organisations. The research has also revealed a lack of a centralized authority source that uses legal-rational legitimacy in the Turkish heritage sector because there is no official network of national museums in Turkey and because policy decisions are being made based on historical and ideological grounds rather than constitutional ground. This absent has resulted in the fragmentation and decentralization of national identity presentation; and into the establishment of different national identities and narratives between Kemalism nationalism, Ottoman nationalism and regionalism. The research also revealed that a reconciliation policy has not been considered in the production of the national identity, which is conditional to produce an inclusive multicultural national identity, as argued by McLean in her 2005 article on museums and national identities. Lastly the result of my analysis reminds of the results of Zobler´s study of the problematics of post-colonial national identities referred to on page 9 in previous research chapter. Zobler´s study concluded that representing national identity in museums of nations which have myriad and diverse cultural backgrounds, requires establishing a network of national museums and a unified national narrative and identity first. However, in the Turkish case, to build and represent an inclusive national identity, policy of heritage inclusiveness and civil society involvement need to be adopted. That is because the Turkish nation as most of the 21st century societies, is very diverse and multicultural, which means that establishing a unified in-

clusive national narrative without adopting a recognition and community engagement policy is not possible. An inclusive heritage representation can be established through presenting different narratives of the history from the perspectives´ of the different Turkish subcultures. This heritage narrative can be established through adopting a recognition policy that would allow for nation members to start an inter- active comprehensive dialog regarding the national identity and history. This in its turn would allow to renegotiate and represent an inclusive Turkish heritage of eve- ryone. Finally, to represent an inclusive national identity and to produce a sustainable heritage policy in the multicultural societies of the 21st century, three factors need to be taken in consideration; a) the state would have to take an architect role in the social and cultural life by financing the heritage and culture sector without interfering in its ideologies. B) museums would have to consider reconciliation and recognition policies as well as civil society involvement policy. And c) policy decisions would have to be made based on the museum law that sets the legal frame for museum and heritage related decisions.

Sources and Literature

Sources

In the possession of the thesis writer Email from the author to the Anatolian Civilization museum, 2020-04-09. Email from the author to the director of National Palaces department, 2020-04-09. Email from the author to the Istanbul Modern museum, 2021-03-02. Email from the author to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2020-04-15. Email from the author to the Museum of Archaeology, 2021-03-02. Email from the author to the Museum of Ethnography 2020-04-09. Email from the author to the Museum of the Republic 2020-04-09. Email from the author to the Topkapi Palace museum, 2021-03-02.

Literature Adalian, Rouben Paul. Historical Dictionary of Armenia, vol. 77; no. 77 ;2nd edn, (Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010). Aljazeera. “Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups”, Aljazeera, 16 July 2016, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/04/20124472814687973.html , (accessed 20 February 2020). Andersson, Benedict. 'Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism'. London: Verso, 1991. Ashley, Susan. “State Authority and the Public Sphere: Ideas on the Changing Role of the Museum as a Canadian Social Institution”. Museum and Society, vol. 3/no. 1 (2005), pp. 5-17. Ahvalnews. ´ Erdoğan administration takes control of historic Topkapi Palace´, Ahvalnews, 19 September 2020. https://ahvalnews.com/turkey- politics/Erdoğan-administration-takes-control-istanbuls-historic-topkapi- palace# ,(accessed 2 April 2020). Bayramoglu, Ali. ´Turkish National Identity According to Erdogan and AKP´, Re- pair Future. 12 January 2017. https://repairfuture.net/index.php/en/identity-standpoint-of-turkey/turkish-national-identity-according-to-erdogan-and-akp-armenian, (accessed 2 April 2020). BBC News. ´Turkey Profile- Timeline´, BBC News, 24 June 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17994865,(accessed 20 February 2020). BBC Turkish. ´Hagia Sophia: Former Istanbul Museum Welcomes Worshippers´, BBC News 24 July 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe- 53506445, (accessed 1 March 2021).

Berger, Stefan & Lorenz, Chris. F.G. “National Narratives and Their ‘Others’: Ethnicity, Class, Religion and the Gendering of National Histories”, Storia della Storiografia/Geschichte der Geschichtsschreibung. Vol. 50, (2006). Barnard, Alan & Jonathan Spencer, Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology,(London & New York: Routledg 2000) [1996]. Brier-de Haan, Rosemarie. “Re-staging Histories and Identities”, in A Companion to Museum Studies, Sharon MacDonald (ed.), 186-197. Vol, 12 (Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 2006). Büyüksagis, Erdem., “The Role of Comparative Law: New International Model Rules vs. Time-Tested Local Practices”, North Carolina Journal of Interna- tional Law (2017), pp. 625-663 Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, (London: SAGE, 2006). Cleveland, William L., and Martin P. Bunton., A History of the Modern Middle East, Fifth edn, (New York: Perseus Books Group, 2013). Chapman, Ellen., ´What makes a museum national? National Identities at Community Museums´. Diss., Linköping University Electronic Press. 2007. Coruhlu, Yakup E.; Uzun, Bayram; Yildiz, Okan.. ´Conflict over the Use of Hagia Sophia: The Legal Case´ Land 9, no. 10: 350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100350 (accessed 3 April 2021). Daily Hellas. ´UNESCO Halts Erdoğans Plans to Turn The Hagia Sophia into Mosque´ Daily Hellas, 2019 https://dailyhellas.com/2019/03/27/unesco-halts- Erdoğans-plans-to-turn-the-hagia-sophia-into-mosque/, (accessed 2 March 2020). Drengwitz, Beatrice.; Benjamin Elbers.; Lisa Debora, Jahn. & Wrogemann, Irmela., “Nation and National Museums, a Contested Relationship: An Analysis of U.S. National Museums in the Twenty‐first Century”. Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 57/no. 1 (2014), pp. 97-106. DW News. ´Like Hagia Sophia, Turkey to Reconvert Chora museum into mosque´. DW News, 2020, https://www.dw.com/en/like-hagia-sophia-turkey- to-reconvert-chora-museum-into-mosque/a-54713753 ,(accessed 23 March 2021). Esen, Berk, & Sebnem Gumuscu. 'Rising Competitive Authoritarianism in Turkey', Third World Quarterly, vol. 37/no. 9, (2016), pp. 1581-1606. Finkel, Caroline., Osman’s Dream: The Story of The Ottoman Empire 1300-1920. (New York: Basic Books, 2005). Gat, Azar. & Yakobson, Alexander., Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Goldfarb, Jeffrey C., Reinventing Political Culture: The Power of Culture Versus the Culture of Power. (Cambridge: Polity, 2012). Gray, Clive., The Politics of Museums, (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

General Directorate of Cultural Assets and Museums. Turkish Law on Conservation of Cultural and Natural Property (2863). Kultur Varliklari ve Muzeler Genel Mudurlugu, 23 July 1983, https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR- 43249/law-on-the-conservation-of-cultural-and-natural-propert-.html , (accessed 5 Maj 2021). Girad, Muriel., “What Heritage Tells Us About the Turkish State and The Turkish Society”. European Journal of Turkish Studies, (2015). https://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5227 , (accessed 1 May 2021). Gunter, Michae., “Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency by Edward J. Erickson (Review)”. The Middle East Journal. vol. 68/no. 4 (2014), pp. 655-657. Gökalp, Ziya., Essentials of Turkism. (Istanbul: 1923). Hodder, Ian., Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Harvard Law Review, “The Hagia Sophia Case”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 134/no. 3 (2021), https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/01/the-hagia-sophia- case/ (accessed 1 March 2021). Hedstrom, Margaret. & King, John Leslie., On The LAM, Library, Archive, and Museum Collections in the Creation and Maintenance of Knowledge Commu- nities. (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004). Helldahl, Per. The Challenge from Nationalism: Problems of Community in De- mocracy. Diss., (Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2013). Home Boy Media News. ´Group unveils initiative on Hagia Sophia´, Home Boy Media News (16 June 2007) https://grhomeboy.wordpress.com/2007/06/16/group- unveils-initiative-on-hagia-sophia/, (accessed 27 February 2020). Hurriyet Daily News, “First Call to Prayer Inside Istanbul´s Hagia Sophia in 85 Years”, Hurriyet Daily News, 02 July 2016, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/first-call-to-prayer-inside-istanbuls-hagia-sophia-in-85-years-101161, (accessed 1 March 2020). Hurriyet Daily News, “Muslim Group Prays in Front of Hagia Sophia to Demand Re-convention into Mosque”, Hurriyet Daily News, 13 May 2017, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/muslim-group-prays-in-front-of-hagia-sophia- to-demand-re-conversion-into-mosque-113064, (accessed 1 March 2017). Hurriyet Daily News. “Hagia Sophia Status to be Changed to Mosque Erdoğan´, Hurriyet Daily News”, 2019 https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hagia-sophias- status-to-be-changed-to-mosque-Erdoğan-142230, (accessed 1 March 2020). Hurriyet Last Minute News, “opportunity missed on September 12”, Hurriyet Last Minute News, 8 November 1999, https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/12- eylul-de-firsat-kacti-39112110, (accessed 22 February 2021). Hyltén-Cavallius, Charlotte. & Fredrik Svanberg. Älskade Museum: Svenska Kul- turhistoriska Museer Som Kulturproducenter Och Samhällsbyggare. Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2016.

International Council of Museums, Museum Definition, ICOM, 2017, https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ (accessed 2 Maj, 2020). ICOMOS ´2006 Periodic Reporting". State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe´. Section II. UNESCO, 2006. International Council of Museums. Museum Standards and Guidelines Code of Ethic. ICOM, 2019, https://icom.museum/en/standards-guidelines/code-of-ethics/, (accessed 13 February 2020). Jones, Sofia., “100 Years Ago, 1.5 Million Christian Armenians Were Systemati- cally Killed. Today, It’s Still Not A ‘Genocide’.”, Huffington Post 23 April 2015, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/armenian-genocide-contro- versy_n_7121008 (accessed 19 February 2020). Kaplan Flora Edouwaye S., ´Making and Remaking National Identities´, in A Companion to Museum Studies, Sharon MacDonald (ed), pp. 153-160. (Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik. Topkapi Palace Museum, Guidebook. Istanbul, (Istanbul: Korpus Kultur Sanat Yayincilik. Topkapi ,2017) Kushner, David., “Self-Perception and Identity in Contemporary Turkey”. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol, 32/ no. 2, (1997), pp 219-223. Lukes, Steven. Power: A Radical view. 2nd edn, (Basingstoke: Pallgrave Macillan. 2005). MacDonald, Sharon. “Museums, National, Post-national and Transcultural Identities”. Museum and Society. Vol.1/no. 1: (2003), pp. 1–16. Madden, Christopher. & Bloom, Taryn., “Creativity, Health and Art Advocacy”. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol,10/no 2 (2004), pp 133-156. Mason, Rhiannon., “Nation Building in at the Museum of Welsh Life”. Museum and Society. Vol.3/no.1(2004), pp18-34. Mason, Randall. & Avrami, Erica., “Heritage Values and Challenges of Conserva- tion Planning”, Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An Interna- tional Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, 19-22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece', Antiquity, Vol.77/no. 297, (2003). McDowall, David., A Modern History of the Kurds. (London: Tauris. 2002). McLean, Fiona., “Museums and the Construction of National Identity: A Review”. International Journal of Heritage Studies. vol. 3/no. 4 (1998), pp. 244-252. McLean, Fiona., “Museums and National Identity”. Museum & Society. Vol. 3/no. 1 (2015), p. 1-4. Monti, Francesca. & Suzanne Keene., Museums and Silent Objects: Designing Effective Exhibitions. (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013). Pamuk, Şevket., “Economic Change in Twentieth Century Turkey: Is the Glass More than Half Full?”, The Cambridge History of Turkey. Vol 4 (2008), pp. 266-300.

Pasinli, Albay. Istanbul Archaeological Museums. (Istanbul: Mumhane Caddesi Mangir Sokak, 2012). Posocco, Lorenzo., “The Politics of Nationalism in Recently Built Turkish Museums: The Case of the Kabatepe Simulation Centre and Museum”. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. Vol 33/ no1 (2018), pp 67-87. Poulot, Dominique. “Another History of Museums: From the Discourse to the Museum-Piece”, Anais do Museu Paulista, vol. 21/no. 1 (2013), p. 27-47. Reuters Writers. “After Hagia Sophia, Turkey´s Historic Chora Church also switched to a mosque”, Reuters, 21 August 2020 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-religion-chora-idUSKBN25H1AZ ,( accessed 2 March 2021). Santos, Dos. & Sepúlveda, Myrian. “Museums without a Past: The Brazilian Case.” International Journal of Cultural Studies. Vol. 6/no. 2 (2003), pp. 180- 201. Shaw, Wendy M.K., “Tra(ve)ils of Secularism: Islam in Museums from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic”. The Invention of Religion: Rethinking Belief in Politics and History, eds. Derek Peterson & Darren Walhof (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002). Shaw, Wendy M. K., Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire, (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2003). Shaw, Wendy M. K. “National Museums in the Republic of Turkey: Palimpsests within a Centralized State”. Building National Museums in Europe. European National Museums: Identity Politics, the Uses of the Past and the European Citizen, eds. Peter Aronsson & Gabriella Elgenius EuNaMus Report No 1. (Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2011) Smith, Laurajane., Uses of Heritage, (London; New York; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006;2007;2005;). Sumer, Faruk., "KUTALMIŞ" TDV. Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 26 (2002), Istanbul: Turkiye Diyanet Foundation, Centre for Islamic Studies. pp. 480– 481 Time Turk. “Prayer is being read in Hagia Sophia, have you heard?”, TimeTurk,15 January 2013, https://www.timeturk.com/tr/2013/01/15/ayasofya-da-ezan- okunuyor-duydunuz-mu.html, (accessed 27 February 2020). Tilley, Christopher. Handbook of Material Culture, (London: SAGE publications, 2006). Trigger, Bruce G. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist”. Man, vol. 19/no. 3 (1984), pp. 355-370. The Seattle Times. “After Hagia Sophia, Turkey Turns Anther Museum into Mosque´, The Seattle Times, 21 August 2020, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/world/after-hagia-sophia-turkey- turns-another-museum-into-mosque/ , (accessed 3 March 2021).

UNESCO. ´UNESCO statement on Hagia Sophia, Istanbul´, UNESCO, 10 July 2020, https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-statement-hagia-sophia-istanbul, (accessed 2 March 2021). Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978). Webster, Donald E. State Control of Social Change in Republican Turkey. American Sociological Review, vol. 4/no. 2 (1939), pp. 247-256. World Council of Churches. ´WWC statement of Hagia Sophia´, World Council of Churches, 24 July 2020, https://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/wcc-statement-on-hagia- sophia , (accessed 23-March 2021). Yack, Bernard. The Myth of the Civic Nation. In Theorizing Nationalism, eds. Beiner, Ronald. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999). Zelazko, Alicia. “Topkapi Place museum”. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 5 March 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Topkapi-Palace-Museum/Third- courtyard#ref338346 , (accessed 23 April 2021). Zencirci, Gizem. “Civil Society’s History: New Constructions of Ottoman Heritage by the Justice and Development Party in Turkey”, European Journal of Turkish Studies, vol. 19/no. 19 (2014), https://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5076 ,(accessed 20 April 2021). Zobler, Kari A., “Syrian National Museums: Regional Politics and the Imagined Community”. Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure and Exclusion in a Global World, ed. Helaine Silverman, 171-190. (New York: Springer. 2011). Zubaida, Sami. “Turkish Islam and National Identity”, Middle East Report (New York, N.Y. 1988), no. 199, (1996), pp. 10-15.

Webpages Eszacibasi. URL: https://www.eczacibasi.com.tr/en/eczacibasi-group/topluluk- profili-en. Istanbul Modern Art Museum. URL: https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en Istanbul Archaeological Museums. URL: https://muze.gen.tr/muze-detay/arkeoloji Hagia Sophia https://muze.gen.tr/muze-detay/ayasofya Topkapi Palace Museum. URL: https://www.millisaraylar.gov.tr/saraylar/topkapi- sarayi/

Figures: Museum Texts Figure 1, museum text from the Topkapi Palace museum. The museum text describes the Circumcision Chamber exhibition. Figure 2, museum text from the Museum of Archaeology. The text describes the Royal Necropolis of Sidon exhibition. Figure 3 museum text from the Istanbul Modern museum. The text describes the ´´Portraits by Lotfi Özkök´´ exhibition.

Figure

Figure 2

Figure 3

Appendix: Chronological Timeline of Turkey´s History

This appendix contains a historical background of Anatolia, the national identity of the Ottoman Empire, and a detailed chronological timeline of Tukey´s history after the establishment of the Republic of Tukey.

- Anatolia and the Seljuk Period pre The Ottoman Empire: The geographical area of modern Turkey was called Anatolia before the process of its Turkification started in the 11th under the rulership of the Seljuk Empire. Several different Anatolian cultures lived in Anatolia separately before the 11th century.197

- The Ottoman Period (1299-early 1900): The Ottoman Empire unified Anatolian civilizations and conquered the surrounding areas of the Islamic world and of eastern Europe. The Ottoman-ian identity referred to the cosmopolitan nature of the Ottoman elite including Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Bulgars, Greek, Kurds, Serbs and Turks under the rulership of the Ottomans which identified themselves as the political elite leading this predominant community. Although, the Muslim community was the dominant one in the Ottoman empire, however, all religious minorities had civil legal autonomy under Ottoman rule.198

- The late Ottoman era (1839-1922): post WWI all the continental empires fell, and the Ottoman empire was one of them. The Ottoman empire collapsed, and new boarders based on ethnicity were established by the allies. The republic of Turkey was founded with the rise of the Young Turks second constitutional revolution in 1909 that produced the end of Sultans and Kalifates rulership alongside with gender-separation laws and the establishment of multi-party democracy.199The Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the Turkish army which mass murdered and expulsed l,5 million Armenian in the end of that era between (1915-1924).200 The authorities blamed the Armenians accusing them of helping the allies against the empire in WWI, but the unofficial motivations were the

197 Faruk Sumer, "KUTALMIŞ" TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 26 (2002) Istanbul: Turkiye Diyanet Foundation, Centre for Islamic Studies. pp. 480–481 198 Shaw, 2003, pp. 9-12. 199 Michae Gunter, “Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency by Edward J. Erickson”, Erickson (Review)”. The Middle East Journal. vol. 68/no. 4 (2014). pp. 655-657. 200 Sophia Jones, “100 Years Ago, 1.5 Million Christian Armenians Were Systematically Killed. Today, It’s Still Not A ‘Genocide’.”, Huffington Post 23 April 2015, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/armenian-genocide- controversy_n_7121008 (accessed 19 February 2020). 76

authorities´ fear of Armenians separatists calls which would have caused the country to shrink in size.201

- The early Republican era (1922- 1960): that era was characterized by major transformations in the social, political, and economic spheres influenced by Western models. Religion and state were separated, the Swiss civil rights codes and the Italian panel code were adapted in the new constitution.202 National ideology was imposed on people based on Turkish nationalism.203 The new nationalistic, democracy model known as Kemalism was established by the president then Mustafa Kemal who founded the Republic of Turkey and ruled between (1923-1938).204 During the same era, massacres against Kurds occurred in both 1923 and 1930 by the Turkish army taking the lives of between 18000 to 60000 civilians for the same reason that caused the Armenian genocide.205 During WWII Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan but did not take part in combat and it joined the United Nation. In 1950 Turkey´s first free elections were voted.

- The military coups era (1960-1983): the era started by a military coup aiming to counter the populism threats raised in the 1950s and to strengthen the Kemalism policies established during the forming of the republic. This era was characterized by a top-down technocratic leadership. In 1971 the currency was devalued, and due to the economic downturn, the military intervened to ´´restore order´´ driving the country to anarchy and then a recall for Kemalism views. in the 1970s Turkey changed prime ministers 11 times and the economy did not recover fast, leading to instability and violent clashes in the streets between left and right groups. Then in 1980 another military coup started, the martial law was imposed, and the government was dissolved. Economically, Turkey transitioned to new- liberal development model in 1980 and the era of globalization started. 206

- The (1980-2002) democratic era: this era started by military government placing a new civil government, drafting a new constitution in 1982 that was approved by the public, economic liberalization and the reestablishment of the early republic. Lastly for the first time in the history

201 Rouben Paul. Adalian, Historical Dictionary of Armenia, 77:77 2nd edn, (Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010), p.337. 202 William L. Cleveland & Martin P. Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder: Westview, Fifth edn, (New York: Perseus Books Group, 2013), pp170-180. 203 Posocco, 2018, p.2. 204 Cleveland & Bunton, 2013, pp 169-190. 205 David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds, (London: Tauris. 2002), p.209. 206 Şevket Pamuk, “Economic change in twentieth-century Turkey: Is the glass more than half full?”, The Cambridge History of Turkey. Vol 4 (2008), p.286; Aljazeera. “Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups” Aljazeera, 16 July 2016,2016. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/04/20124472814687973.html (accessed 20 February 2020).

of the republic, an Islamic-moderate party governed in the parliament in the mid-1990s.207 in 1998 the parliament was governed by nationalist far-right and centre-left parties. Many efforts were paid under that term to bring Turkey closer to the European union.

- The current era (post 2002) the Islamic-moderate party Justice and Development (AKP) is the leading party in the government since 2002. The AKP was formed by former members of the Welfare party, under the leadership of Recep Tayyib Erdogan who has ruled the republic uninterruptedly ever since. The European Union declared Turkey from obtaining membership because of Turkey´s violation of the freedom of speech right as well as the Kurdish oppression and the banning of Cyprus airlines in Ankara´s airports.208 The national ideology of this era is majorly a nationalistic Turkey, more connected to the nation´s Ottoman roots. A failed coup attempt occurred in 2016 but it was stopped by the public.

207 Shaw, 2011, p. 935. 208 BBC News. “Turkey Profile- Timeline”, ´, BBC News, 24 June 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-17994865 (accessed 20 February 2020).