ANADOLU SELÇUKLU DEVLETİ: 338

THE TRANSFORMING AND THE BUILDING SITES OF MEMORY IN EARLY REPUBLICAN PERIOD: THE CASES OF DOLMABAHÇE PALACE AND ANITKABIR

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

iii

ABSTRACT

There are many attempts to solve the connection between memory, national identity and architecture. Pierre Nora’s sites of memory is one of these endeavors. The term implies that there are certain places, objects, monuments that created/recreated to animate and maintain national identity of a given society. These are called sites of memory. These sites of memory are effective in building and consolidating a national identity because they serve as effective circuits of collective memory of given society. In this thesis, I choose to focus on the ways these sites are appeared/created in the early Republican period to reveal and analyze the process makes Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir powerful sites of memory from the early republican period to these days.

Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir are analyzed as the cases of transforming/building the sites of memory in the early Republican Period. The case of Dolmabahçe Palace indicates the ways the Republic reshaped the Palace with physical and symbolic interventions and transforms it into a site of memory of the Republic. The detailed description of the Palace Complex is provided to prove the level of interventions. The physical intervention is also documented and analyzed in its historical and political context. The case of Anıtkabir shows how the Republic designs a monument from the scratch as a site of memory. Since Anıtkabir is an expression of contemporary architectural agendas in early Republican Turkey as well as political one, relative debates about the national architecture are discussed. The processes of selection of the project and the place of Anıtkabir are also discussed.

To achieve these goals, the archive documents from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivleri (Republican Archives of Prime Ministry), master plans (Henri Prost’s plan), architecture magazine (Arkitekt) are studied as well as relevant literature.

The analysis of Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir as sites of memory -- regarding the representations of and the memory usage of Turkish modernity in early republican period- has demonstrated the vision of early Republican Turkey on national identity and the ideal past of the Turkish nation. Also the analysis has indicated the ways nation-state intervene or create the sites of memory by sponsoring urbanistic and architectural projects. Thus, the thesis, I hope, makes small but meaningful contribution to memory studies on early Republican period.

Key Words: Dolmabahçe Palace, Anıtkabir, sites of memory, Early Republican Period architecture, national identity, collective memory

ÖZET

Hafıza, ulusal kimlik ve mimari arasındaki bağlantıyı ortaya koymak adına birçok çalışma yapıldı. Pierre Nora’nın Hafıza Mekanları bu girişimlerin arasında, en önemlilerinden biridir. Bu kavrama göre, verili bir toplumun ulusal kimliğini canlandırmak için ortaya çıkan/ortaya çıkartılan nesneler, mekanlar ve anıtlar vardır. Bunlara hafıza mekanları denir. Hafıza mekanlarının, verili toplumun, toplumsal hafızasının etkin birer devresi olması, onların ulusal kimlikleri pekiştirmekteki faydasını gösterir. Bu tezde, erken cumhuriyet döneminde hafıza mekanlarının oluşma biçimlerini göstermek için, erken cumhuriyet döneminden günümüze kadar güçlü birer hafıza mekânı olarak kalan Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Anıtkabir konu edilmiştir.

Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Anıtkabir erken Cumhuriyet dönemindeki hafıza mekanlarının dönüştürülmesinin/inşasının vakaları olarak incelendi. Dolmabahçe Sarayı vakası Cumhuriyet’in Dolmabahçe Saray’ını fiziki ve sembolik müdahalelerle nasıl yeniden şekillendirdiğini ve onu Cumhuriyet’in bir hafıza mekanına nasıl dönüştürdüğünü gösteriyor. Müdahalenin boyutlarını kanıtlamak için saray kompleksinin detaylı tarifi verildi. Ayrıca fiziki müdahaleler, politik ve tarihsel bağlamında belgelendi ve incelendi. Anıtkabir vakası, Cumhuriyet’in sıfırdan bir anıtı nasıl tasarladığını gösteriyor. Anıtkabir, politik ajandası kadar mimari ajandasını da yansıttığı için, ulusal mimari hakkındaki ilgili konularda tartışıldı. Buna ek olarak, Anıtkabir projesinin seçimi ve Anıtkabir’in yerinin seçimi süreci incelendi.

Bu amaçla, Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivleri, İstanbul mastır planı (Henri Prost planı), mimari yayın (Arkitekt) ve ilgili literatür çalışıldı.

Erken Cumhuriyet döneminde Türk ulusal kimliğinin hafıza kullanımını ve temsillerini göz önüne alarak, Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Anıtkabir’in hafıza mekan olarak incelenmesi, erken Cumhuriyet’in ulusal kimliğe ve ulusun ideal geçmişine dair vizyonunu gösterdi. Ayrıca, inceleme, ulus devletin mimari ve kentsel projeleri destekleyerek hafıza mekanlara nasıl müdahale ettiğini ya da hafıza mekanları nasıl yarattığını işaret etti. Böylelikle, umuyorum ki, söz konusu tez, erken Cumhuriyet dönemine dair yapılan hafıza çalışmalarına ufak ama manalı bir katkıda sundu.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dolmabahçe Sarayı, Anıtkabir, hafıza mekanları, erken Cumhuriyet dönemi mimarisi, ulusal kimlik, toplumsal hafıza

vii

Anneme…

Babama…

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Writing a master thesis is an adventure that one can be lost and tired without proper guidance. I have my advisor Ayşe Nur Erek to encourage and guide me through this process, and for that and for many other things, I am very grateful to her.

I’ve shared privilege of being student of History Department of Yeditepe University with my dearest friend Tuğçe Naz Tuğtekin and I owe her many thanks for her companionship. My historian/sociologist friends, Osman Özarslan, İsmail Semih Güratan, Dilara Öztan, İsmail Kayapınar, Duygu Cankılıç, Ezgi Memiş, Nihan Ulaş, Sarp Çölgeçecen, İrem Sezer and Mustafa Batman provide me a fruitful environment in which my intellectual capacity and accumulation has been growing. Thanks to them, I have managed to develop a critical gaze from very different perspectives.

I also want to thank my friend in Nezih Konuşma (Güneş Ertaş, Emel Türker, Bulut Ertaş, Mustafa Batman, Faik Emre Koşan, Zuhal Eroğlu, Hüseyin Kaya, Bora Yüce, Feyza Çakar, Yakup Okan Alpay, Pelin Erdoğan) for their support in the process of writing. We spent many hours with Güneş Ertaş and Emel Türker in the library, it was my joy and privilege to study with them. Last but not least, I want to thank my mother Habibe Avcı and my father Mülayim Avcı for everything. Although, they were a bit of confused about what I do, they were always supportive. Without them, I would do nothing.

First, in Boğaziçi University then in Yeditepe University, I had the chance to take courses from splendid scholars. I had courses from sociology and anthropology department in Boğaziçi University and in Yeditepe University and these courses taught me a lot and gave a sociological-anthropological perspective. Learning from Edhem Eldem, Ayşe Özil, Nükhet Sirman, Meltem Ahıska,, Sibel Özbudun, Ahmet Taşağıl, Feroz Ahmad, Ayşe Nur Erek and Neşe Yıldıran on historical sociologic and anthropologic issues was a privilege.

As a student of social sciences, TÜBİTAK provides me a chance to fulfill my dreams and gave me a great university life. Thanks to TÜBİTAK, I had much needed financial support and I did not become a financial burden on the shoulders of my family. The program of TÜBİTAK/BİDEB change the course of my life and gave me courage and chance to pursue an academic carrier and I will be grateful forever to TÜBİTAK for this support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval………………………………………………………………………………i

Plagiarism…………………………………………………………………………….ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………iii

Turkish Abstract………………………………………………………………………v

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………...vii

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………….viii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..x

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………… …xii

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 6

1.1. Memory and Identity ............................................................................................ 8

1.2 Pierre Nora and Sites of Memory ....................................................................... 10

1.3 Sites of Memory, National Identity and Architecture ........................................ 13

1.4 Architecture, National Identity and Turkey ....................................................... 14

1.5. Building Nation, Building Collective Memory .................................................. 15

1.6. Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir: Two sites of memory of Turkish Republic 17

2 Dolmabahçe Palace ................................................................................................ 19

2.1 A Brief History of Dolmabahçe and Its Environment........................................ 20

2.2 Crowning Ottoman Modernization: Dolmabahçe .............................................. 25

2.3 The Seat of the Last Caliphate: Dolmabahçe ..................................................... 34

2.4 “Nationalizing” Ottoman Palaces....................................................................... 35

2.5 An Explanation for the Selection of Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace 38

2.6 Material Heritage of Dolmabahçe: Objects and Buildings ................................ 42

2.7 1927: Mustafa Kemal Paşa in Dolmabahçe ....................................................... 47

2.8 Re-invented Space: Dolmabahçe as National Palace in Early Republican Era . 51

2.8.1 Shaping Culture-Politics of the Republic ................................................................ 55

2.8.2 Adoption of Latin Alphabet and Dolmabahçe Palace ............................................ 55

2.8.3 Second Turkish History Congress ........................................................................... 56

2.8.4 Milli Resim ve Heykel Galerisi (National Art and Sculpture Gallery) in Dolmabahçe 57

2.9 The Master Plan of Henri Prost and the Physical Intervention to Dolmabahçe Palace Complex ............................................................................................................ 59

2.9.1 Tiyatro-i Şahane ..................................................................................................... 60

2.9.2 Istabla-i Amire and İnönü Stadium ........................................................................ 63

2.9.3 Dolmabahçe Mosque ............................................................................................. 64

2.10 Dolmabahçe as Funeral Space ........................................................................ 70

3 ATATURK’S MAUSOLEUM: ANITKABIR ...................................................... 73

3.1 Turkish Nation in Mourning .............................................................................. 75

3.2 Architectural Climate in the Early Republic ...................................................... 77

3.3 Ottoman Revivalism ........................................................................................... 79

3.4 The New Architecture: Disassociating Ottoman Past ........................................ 81

3.5 Nationalized Modern: Ode to International Style .............................................. 83

3.6 Making of Resting Place of Immortal Mortal: The Selection of Place .............. 87

3.7 Competition for Atatürk’s Mausoleum: Atatürk is the Nation .......................... 90

3.1. Onat-Arda’s Anıtkabir: Reserved for Eternity .......................................... 98

4 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 111

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..122

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Kauffer, F., & Lechevalier, I. B. (1812). Plan de Constantinople. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/display/64338706 ................................................................................. 21

Figure 2 Gravure of Besiktas Palace by Ignatius Mouradget d’Ohsson from Torch of th Empire: Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohhson and the Tableu General of the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century.(Theolin et all, 2002, 193) .......................................................... 22

Figure 3 Document orders governorship of İstanbul to dredge the dock of Dolmabahçe by stating its importance as the most beautiful place of İstanbul that have been used a traditional landing point for important visitors (Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivleri (BCA) 30-10-0-0 / 157 - 101 – 17 12.10.1945) ............................................................................ 28

Figure 4 Red dots on Pervetitich Maps shows the distance between Dolmabahçe Palace and Yıldız Palace (Ersoy & Anadol, 2000, p. 31) ............................................................ 32

Figure 5 Article 7 – 13 of Abolishment of Caliphate Law Cited from Resmi Ceride No: 63 (published in 06.03.1924) see for reading full degree. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/KANUNLAR_KARARLAR/kanuntbmmc002/kanuntbmmc002/kanuntbmmc00200431.pdf ........................................................................... 36

Figure 6 Degree orders putting portraits of Ottoman Sultans under protection and not presenting those portraits in Dolmabahçe Palace (BCA 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928) _15 - 53 – 2_50-04 _26.08.1925) ....................................... 41

Figure 7 Document order the taking of some electrical stuff from store of Dolmabahçe and transferring them to the building of Grand National Assembly in Ankara (BCA, 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928_ 5 - 59 - 19_132-134_16.09.1925................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 8 Document orders delivering of some objects and books from Dolmabahçe Palace to the seat of President in Ankara (BCA 30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 34 - 14 – 19_04.03.1933) .................................................................................. 45

Figure 9 Document presents a degree about the releasing of the Veliaht Dairesi as school issued before, yet, May 30, 1926 document cancelled the latter degree and let the Veliaht Dairesi undisturbed (BCA_ 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928)_ 19 - 36 – 17_30.05.1926)...................................................................................... 46

Figure 10 The picture of Mehmet Ruhi Arel named Atatürk’e İstikbal (Welcoming Atatürk) (Arel, 1927). ...................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 11 İstanbul map dated 1840s shows newly emerging city centers. ((“1840 S.D.U.K. Map of Constantinople ( Istanbul, Turkey ),” n.d.) .......................................................... 49

Figure 12 Degree that put Topkapı Palace under the authority of Istanbul Museum of Ancinet Monumunts. (BCA 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928), 9 - 20 – 17: 03.04.1924 .......................................................................................... 50

Figure 13 Document orders the tranferring of historical pieces from Dolmabahçe to Topkapı. (BCA_ 30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 4 - 39 – 1_ 132-76_03.07.1929) .......................................................................................................... 53

xiii

Figure 14 The news of Dolmabahçe Palace’s opening to public. The Palace was open to visit only on Thursday. (“Dolmabahçe Sarayı Dün Halka Açıldı,” 1950) ....................... 54

Figure 15 Document explains the reasons and the needs of opening a National Art and Sculpture Gallery and orders the collection of every valuble art pieces in this national gallery to demonsrate real capability of Republic in the field of art and sculpture. (BCA_30-10-0-0 / MUAMELAT GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ_ 173 - 195 – 1, 27.07.1937 s.2)........................................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 16 the Map of Dolmabahçe Palace in its original borders. The green colored buildings does not exist now, orange colored buildings are in use of Mimar Sinan University, and red colored buildings are in use of Office of Prime Minister. Green colored building is Dolmabahçe Mosque and it is under the control of General Directorate for Foundations.(Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü) (Seçen, 2013, p. 205) ..................................... 62

Figure 17 The Document orders the giving of money to Şinasi Şahingiray and Fazıl Ayson for their three-month visit in Italy (BCA_30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 88 - 75 – 19_238-513_29.07.1939).................................................................. 64

Figure 18 Prost’s regulation of plan of Dolmabahçe Square (Seçen, 2013, p. 202) ........ 65

Figure 19 Document state that the the transference of some part of mosque courtyard to Istanbul Municipality to be added the Dolmabahçe Square. (BCA_ 30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 110 - 24 – 5_ 28.03.1946) ................... 67

Figure 20 Document orders the giving of Dolmabahçe Mosque and Imperial Boathouse to Ministry of Defense to turn these buildings into the museum (BCA_ 30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 113 - 21 – 4_69-8_07.03.1947) ........... 69

Figure 21 The wreaths of Prime Minister, President of the TBMM and the Commander in Chief was places on the catafalque. ((Münir, 1938, p. 3) ................................................. 71

Figure 22 The Catafalque of Dolmabahçe in Dolmabahçe Palace (Münir, 1938, p. 3) ... 72

Figure 23 Dolmabahçe Catafalque in Muayede Hall (1938) ............................................ 75

Figure 24 Atatürk Catafalque in front of GNA, Ankara by Bruno Taut (1938) .............. 76

Figure 25 Ankara Palas by Kemalettin bey and Vedat Tek (1924-1928) ........................ 80

Figure 26 Ankara Railway Station by Şekip Akalın (1935-1397) ................................... 86

Figure 27 Frontal View of Kruger’s project (No.9) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ....................................................................... 93

Figure 28 Interior design of Kruger’s project (No.9) ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ....................................................................... 94

Figure 29 The Frontal View of Arnoldo Foschini’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ..................................................... 96

Figure 30 Interior design of Arnoldo Foschini’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ..................................................... 98

Figure 31 Emin Onat and Orhan Arda’s winning project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ..................................................... 99

Figure 32 Interior design of Emin Onat-Orhan Arda’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66. ................................................... 101

Figure 33 Anıtkabir project of Onat-Arda (revisited) .................................................... 103

xiv

Figure 34 Hüseyin Özkan’s “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” group of sculptures......................................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 35 Hüseyin Özkan’s “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” group of sculptures......................................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 37 the Street of Lions (Hittite Lions).................................................................. 107

Figure 38 Anıtkabir (Frontal View of temple-shaped main structure of the Mausoleum)......................................................................................................................................... 109

1 INTRODUCTION

In his short essay, The Silence of Sirens, Franz Kafka re-interpreted Odysseus’s famous encounter with the Sirens and concluded that the Sirens were actually silent. Ulysses himself could not recognize their silence or he knew that their silence was abnormal, since he was a “fox”, a famous trickery, deceived Gods avoiding their rage (Franz Kafka, 1946). Another interesting point of Kafka about the encounter is the Siren’s lack of consciousness. He argues, “If the Sirens had possessed consciousness they would have been annihilated at that moment” (Franz Kafka, 1946, p. 129). Based on this sentence, I argue that possessing consciousness means possessing memory. As Henri Bergson states, “Memory may lack amplitude; it may embrace but a feeble part of the past; it may retain only what is just happening; but memory is there, or there is no consciousness.” (Bergson, 1920, p. 5). If the Sirens have memory, they will remember Ulysses’s insult against them and they will be politicized. Since they do not have memory, “they remained as they had been; all that had happened was that Ulysses had escaped them” (Franz Kafka, 1946, p. 129)Memory or a collective memory is a sphere of arena, where political struggle over the memory and consolidation of the power take place.

My thesis is a minor attempt to understand the transformation (or colonization in a sense) and the construction of the “sites of memory” (Nora, 1989) in the early Republic by focusing on two cases: Dolmabahçe Palace and Atatürk’s Mausoleum (a.k.a. Anıtkabir). This is a quest how the Republic founded its sites of memory to maintain the collective memory of the Turkish nation by building of a new one and reconstructing the older one. In other words, my aim is to research how sites of memory is manipulated and

struggled over by examining these structures, where the older one is (Dolmabahçe Palace) transformed and the new one (Anıtkabir) is constructed. In these two cases, I hope to demonstrate sources of collective memory of the nation carefully designed and/or re-designed by the nation-state itself for a unified national identity. The national identity is built through collective memory of nation.(Nora, 1989) The collective memory is reproduced brick by brick on “sites of memory”(Nora, 1989). Thus, “sites of memory” is fabricated or in some cases transformed/colonized by politics of nation-state.

My research project based on several classical methods of historical research. Documents used in the thesis majorly come from Republican Archives (Cumhuriyet Arşivleri). They are employed as proofs and undergone discursive analysis as a methodology for this research. One of the shortcomings of this thesis is lack of documents from Archive of Management of National Palaces1. As a master student, I did not have time and sources to spend in this mostly unorganized archive. Small numbers of documents in this archive are sorted out and organized, the Management continues to work. Thanks to their efforts, the researcher will gain the opportunity of studying many uncovered documents concerning early Republican period. Apart from document analysis, I used some journals and newspapers and lots of images from very diverse sources such as master plans, insurance maps etc. Since my research is on architectural objects, visuality is an important part of my thesis, so I gave place to pictures of sites discussed in text.

In this thesis, I will focus on two “sites of memory” of modern Turkish republic: Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir Mausoleum. Dolmabahçe will be analyzed as a

1 Mili Saraylar Arşiv Müdürlüğü

colonized/transformed “site of memory.” I will ask the question of how young republic transformed the relic of Ottoman past and how the Palace transformed into a place of the Republic. Transformation of the existed built environment and its initiation to collective memory of the Republic seem suitable to be analyzed according to the theoretical frame mentioned-above

Second main part of my thesis will focus on the created “site of memory” of the republic. Anıtkabir built on in way tabula rasa place. I argue that the example of Dolmabahçe demonstrates how the republic colonized the past of Ottoman Empire, I hope to show how Anıtkabir’s eclectic architecture endeavored to shape of the collective remembering and forgetting of a nation.

The thesis is consisted of five chapters including introduction and conclusion. As I mentioned above, this thesis is a moderate attempt in memory studies of early Republic. In this thesis, the period is determined as the early Republican because; it is the time when most of the politics about every aspect of daily and politic life were appeared to be transformed. As Şerif Mardin argues that for the revolutionaries it is the symbolic and cultural system of ancient regime that is to be challenged and targeted (Mardin, 1971)Therefore, the early republican period is important to understand how the republicans construct and reconstruct the sources of the symbols of the ancient regime after the demolition of the empire.(Batuman, 2010)

The sources used in this thesis are from archival materials, newspaper articles from that period and various academic articles. Chapter 1 deals with the theoretical background of the thesis. In this chapter I gave place to the brief theoretical arguments about memory studies. I begin with the definition of Halbwachs to mark how memory

studies define the collective memory. Definition of Pierre Nora’s “site of memory” will be also discussed in this chapter. By citing many scholars of memory studies and other related fields, I hope to found a consistent and effective theoretical base.

Chapter 2 focuses on the “transformed sites of the memory” of the Republicans. Dolmabahçe Palace as seat of the President will be the first case of the research. The annexation of symbolic power of the site by the Republic is the main implication of the word “transformed/colonized site of memory”. Dolmabahçe Palace was already ideologically charged site: It displayed the materialization of the Ottoman modernization, governance centre and lastly the seat of caliphate. The palace can be assumed as the “site of memory of Ottoman state”. Yet, new regime picked up a selective historical past of the palace to fulfil the needs of the present. In addition, the specific appropriation of the sites of the memory will be analyzed in this chapter. Atatürk’s Arrival in 1927 and his socio-politic and cultural activities will also be presented in the way in which these activities make the site important for the new regime, including Henri Prost’s Master Plan of Istanbul, which will be analyzed according to the ways it affects the Dolmabahçe Complex. Death of Atatürk will be the last issue addressed in the chapter 2 in making of the Palace “a site of collective memory” of Republic irrevocably.

Chapter 3 deals with the construction of Anıtkabir as the “newly constructed” site of memory” of the Republic. The architectural climate in the early republic and the building conditions of the Mausoleum will be analyzed in this chapter. In the classical narration of architectural history of Modern Turkish state in the early republic, there styles are juxtaposed: The First National Style, International Style and Second National

Style2 in regard to the role of the architecture in designing the national identity, of the Republic. These three styles will be addressed and discussed. The “funeral spaces” of Atatürk and his last journey from Dolmabahçe Palace to Ethnographical Museum – his temporary resting place- will be examined. The issue of the construction of Atatürk’s Mausoleum, the international competition and the conditions of the competition which regulates the property of the Mausoleum is consisting of main focus of Chapter 3. The proposed projects, the selection process and then the construction of the selected project will be discussed to demonstrate how those in power constructed Anıtkabir as a site of memory which will maintain the collective memory of the Turkish nation and which will demonstrate the “carefully edited” past of the Turkish nation

The conclusion is the assessment of what I endeavor to state through the main chapter of the thesis.

2 These periodizaiton is problematized by Aykut Köksal’s Türkiye Mimarlığında Modernleşme ve Ulusalcılık

and Uğur Tanyeli’s Türkiye’de Mimari Modernleşmenin Büyük Dönemeci

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this chapter, I will attempt to draw a theoretical framework for this research. Even a detailed analysis of the historical development of the memory studies will not be provided, few relevant theoretical positions will be examined. Since Pierre Nora’s approach and his term of “sites of memory” is at the centre of this research, a closer look on his approach will be given.

The complicated relation between memory and history is addressed intensively since 1970s. Some scholars state that, “memory boom” occurred in 1970s (Winter, 2006). After so-called objectivity of history collapsed and history from below became a major trend in the academia, the number of memory studies increased dramatically (Winter, 2006).

Maurice Halbwachs French sociologist is a leading theoretician seen as the father figure of the collective memory studies. He is one of the prominent sociologists who claims that memory is socially constructed (Halbwachs, 1992). In his argumentation, the memory of the individual is not free from social construction; rather, the collective memory plays an important role in the construction of memory of the individual. The experiences and events are experienced through the thoughts that are given by the social milieu. Halbwachs explains the mutual relation between individual and collective memory as follows:

“To be sure, everyone has a capacity for memory [memoire] that is unlike that of anyone else, given the variety of temperaments and life circumstances. But individual memory is nevertheless a part or an aspect of group memory, since each impression and each fact, even if it apparently concerns a particular person exclusively, leaves a lasting memory only to the extent that one has thought it over-to the extent that it is connected with the thoughts that come to us from the social milieu. One cannot in fact think about the events of one's past without discoursing upon them. But to discourse upon something means to connect within a single system of ideas our opinions as well as those of our circle. It

means to perceive in what happens to us a application of facts concerning which social thought reminds us at every moment of the meaning and impact these facts have for it. In this way, the framework of collective memory confines and binds our most intimate remembrances to each other. It is not necessary that the group be familiar with them. It suffices that we cannot consider them except from the outside-that is, by putting ourselves in the position of others- and that in order to retrieve these remembrances we must tread the same path that others would have followed had they been in our position”. (Halbwachs, 1992, p. 53)

As Halbwachs argued the individual memory is contextualized and manifested within the collective memory of the given social group. C.S. Wilson comments that “Halbwachs argued that individuals are only able to acquire, localize and recall memories through membership in ‘social groups,’ particularly those based on the family, religion and social class. For Halbwachs, therefore, the group is the main creator of collective memory” (Wilson, 2007, p. 35). For Williams, Halbwachs “asserts that individual memory is always an aspect of group memory because is it acquired through the medium of collective frameworks beginning with language acquisition within families.” (William, 2011, p. 190) He brings the memory under the light of sociology and paves the way to memory studies. Coser states that:

“Collective memory, Halbwachs shows, is not a given but rather a socially constructed notion. Nor is it some mystical group mind. As Halbwachs specifies in The Collective Memory: "While the collective memory endures and draws strength from its base in a coherent body of people, it is individuals as group members who remember…. It follows that there are as many collective memories as there are groups and institutions in a society. Social classes, families, associations, corporations, armies, and trade unions all have distinctive memories that their members have constructed, often over long periods of time. It is, of course individuals who remember, not groups or institutions, but these individuals, being located in a specific group context, draw on that context to remember or recreate the past.” (Coser, 1992, p. 22)

Coser emphasizes socially constructed nature of collective which is manifested through individual memories of the people. The way collective memory interacts with the memory of the individual raises the question of the function of the collective memory and

its roles for the social life. B. Schwartz defines two ways of collective memory engaging social life:

“First collective memory is a model of society – a reflection of its needs, problems, fears, mentality and aspirations. Second, collective memory is a model for society – a program that defines its experience, articulates its values and goals, provide cognitive, affective, and moral orientation for realizing them.” (Schwartz, 1996,910)

By the same token, collective memory should be seen as field of political conflicts. Yet, Halbwasch’s definition of collective memory ignores the diversified nature of collective memories within a society. Cultural historian Peter Burke (Olick, Vinitzky-Seroussi, & Levy, 2011)argues that there are different ‘memory communities’ within a given society and question of whose account recorded and preserved and whose account repressed should be answered. Burke chooses to use term social memory to define the way in which group influences the individuals’ ideas (Olick et al., 2011).

Fernando Lara states that, in some cases like Brazilian Modernity, some of the elements of the memory is used in the construction of identity (Fernando Luiz Lara, 2006, p. 93). The careful selection of relics of the past is the focal point we should not overlook. The collectively held figures of past are either compromised by them and move on or are eliminated from the historical scene. This can be interpreted as the selective part of the memory is learned collectively, negotiated and becomes a part of the identity.

1.1. Memory and Identity

Studying the way, we are, studying the way we represent ourselves has implicit implications of studying how peoples, groups, nations identify themselves. As a part of the personal identity, the national identity is intricately tied to memory and history. On the other hand, as stated by Allan Megill, the relation among identity, memory and history is highly complicated and uncertain. Since the boundaries between history and

memory are blurred and it is hard to manifest both of them separately (Megill, 1998). In the existence of mega-narratives, Allan Megill says, “the presence of history meant that history could always conquer memory: History triumphed “histories”(Megill, 1998, p. 55). It could be said that nationalism can be the mega-narrative that Megill implies in his sentences and may conquer the memories of the individuals for the sake of national identity building. Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir can be considered as concrete form of nationalist mega-narrative.

The emergence of nation-state intensified the struggle over the field of collective memory. Nations as imagined communities3 (Anderson, 2006), they need to invent traditions4 (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 2010) ceremonies, and monuments to maintain their “imagined” unity. ‘Invention of traditions’ to sustain the unity of their communities, nation-states in nineteenth and twentieth century devised national rituals, national days, constructed monumental buildings and monuments to commemorate national heroes, values or martyrs.

One can say that the identities need to be reconstructed and re-affirmed constantly not to dissolve, thus collective memory of a group should be continuously re-affirmed and re-constructed. The collective memory of groups is the glue that keeps all of them

3 It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion… With certain ferocity Gellner makes a comparable point when he rules that 'Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist.'” (Anderson, [1983]2006)

4 The term ‘invented tradition’ is used in a broad, but not an imprecise sense. It includes ‘both’ traditions actually invented, constructed and formally instituted and those emerging in a less easily traceable manner within a brief and dateable period – a matter of few years perhaps- and establishing themselves with rapidity……… ‘Invented tradition’ is taken to meet a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual and symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.” ((Hobsbawm & Ranger [1983] 2000)

together, through selective remembering and forgetting; in another word, designated memory makes the imagination of a concrete community real (Wilson, 2007). Nietzsche argued the way individuals or nations values/approaches to the things of the past alters with their contemporary perspectives (Nietzsche, 1957). This ambivalent relation between the past and the present may help to underline the contentious situation of collective memory and its relation national-identity politics.

As much as, the collective memory is molded, it plays a key role in molding the national identities. The strong connection between collective memory and nation building induced to seek how nation state achieved to produce or revitalize collective memory when it needs. As Jeffrey Olick discusses “memory and the nation have a peculiar synergy. Even when other identities compete with or supplant the national in post modernity, they draw on the expanded role for memory generated in the crucible of the nation-state.”(Olick, 1998, p. 379) Collective memory of modern societies is invaded and designed by the official history of the nation state. However, it can be argued that it is not stagnant or monolithic. Collective memory is changed and transformed together with the history and the discourse and counter-discourses of the nation state building.

1.2 Pierre Nora and Sites of Memory

After mentioning the chain among collective memory, history and national identity, this section focuses on the ideas of prominent French historian Pierre Nora, whose theoretical frame constituted the backbone of the thesis. His works on the history and memory demarcated entangled relationship between history and memory. Nora and his colleagues published volumes of books called Realms of Memory: The Construction of French Past (Nora, 1996b). Nora starts with making a distinction between real memory and history. In his account, real memory supposed to exist in a pre-modern context, and it

belongs to archaic societies. On the other hand, history (or modernity) destroyed the real memory yet produced another form of memory, which is criticized in that it becomes a tool of nation state building in modern times (Nora, 1989).

Nora briefly says that, real memory is collapsed due to the acceleration of history (Nora, 1989). Modernity compresses the relationship between time and space and gives importance to present experiences. He states that:

“The acceleration of history”, then, confront us with brutal realization of the difference between real memory – social, unviolated, exemplified in but also retained secret of so-called primitive or archaic societies- and history, which is how our hopelessly forgetful societies, propelled by change, organize the past. On the one hand, we find integrated, dictatorial memory – unself-conscious, commanding, all-powerful, and spontaneously actualizing, a memory without past that ceaselessly reinvent tradition, linking the history of its ancestors to the undifferentiated time of heroes, origins and myth on the other hand our memory, nothing more in fact than sifted and sorted historical traces. The gulf between the two has been deepened with modern times with growing belief in a right, capacity and even a duty to change. Today this distance has been stretched to its convulsive limits.” (Nora, 1989, p. 8)

As he suggested above, in modern times the disconnection of past and present devalues the sense of collective unity and past experiences. Therefore Nora emphasizes that the past can be revitalized through “sites of memory” ( lieux de memoir), rather than “real environment memory” (milieux de memoir). History conquered memory and history sponsors collective forgetting and remembering. Since the history erased other histories, the history regulates the memory. And, the invasion of history upon memory is realized through the site of memory. A long yet effective passage extracted from Nora’s work should be enough to explain differences between the two:

“Memory and history, far from being synonymous, appear now in a fundamental opposition. Memory is life, borne by living societies founded in its name. It remains in permanent evolution, open to the dialectic of remembering and forgetting, unconscious of its successive deformation, vulnerable to manipulation and appropriation, susceptible to being long dormant and periodically revived. History, on the other hand, is the reconstruction, always

problematic and incomplete, of what is no longer. Memory is perpetually actual phenomenon, a bond tying us the eternal present; history as representation of a past. Memory, insofar as it is affective and magical, only accommodates those facts that suit it; it nourishes recollections may be out of focus or telescopic, global or detached, particular or symbolic – responsive to each avenue of conveyance or phenomenal screen, to every censorship or projection. History, because it is an intellectual and secular production, calls for analysis and criticism. Memory install remembrance within sacred; history always prosaic, releases it again. Memory is blind to all but the group it binds - which is to say, as Maurice Halbwasch has said, there are as many memories as there are groups, that memory is by nature multiple yet specific; collective, plural yet individual. History, on the other hand belong to everyone and no one, whence its claim to universal authority. Memory takes roots in the concrete, in spaces, gestures, images and objects; history binds himself strictly to temporal continuities, to progressions and to relations between things. Memory is absolute, while history can only conceive the relative.”(Nora, 1989, p. 8)

This quotation summarizes the intricate relations between memory and history and explicitly points out why memory is instrumental in identity making. By very nature of memory itself, it is open to manipulation due to its dialectical characteristic and its nature: ‘plural, collective and yet individual’ at the same time. This leads to instrumentalization of enclosing the gap between the person (individual or citizen) and the history. The history is displayed as representation and manipulative against transformative nature of the memory. The former act as discourse that constructed the latter is borne to the changes. Nora also marks the concrete sources of the memory, ‘roots of memory in concrete, in space, gestures, images and objects’ that paves way to ‘sites of memory’, which will bring us to the importance of architecture in the making of national identity. Nora defines the site of memory as follows:

“If the expression of lieu de mémoire must have been an official definition, it should be this: a lieu de mémoire is any significant entity, whether material or non-material in nature, which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community. [….] The narrow concept had emphasized the site: the goal was to exhume significant sites, to identify the most obvious and crucial centres of national memory, and then to reveal the existence of invisible bonds tying them all together.” (Nora, 1996a, p. XVII)

As Nora pointed out a site of memory is tangible or non-tangible entities that has been part of memorial heritage of a given community. The concept of site of memory aim to underline the obvious sources of collective memory and reveal the way these sites are intertwined with the maintenance of collective memory of a nation. In this research, the sites of memory cases are forms of built environment: Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir.

1.3 Sites of Memory, National Identity and Architecture

As discussed above, architectural monuments -Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir- will be analyzed as sites of memory of the Republic in this research to problematize the connection between the collective memory and the architectural efforts. In his Seven Lambs of Architecture, John Ruskin described architecture one of strongest mean to defeat the forgetting habits of humans to spot the relation between architecture and memory. He continues as follows:

“… It is as the centralization and protectress of this sacred influence, that architecture is to be regarded by us with the most serious thought. We may live without her, and worship without her, but we cannot remember without her.” (Ruskin, 1912, pp. 323–324)

As Ruskin argued the architecture played very significant role in our remembering. Apart from that, the monuments, government buildings, homes of leadership seemingly sufficed to build a national identity, as well as to symbolize the nation as a whole (Vale, 1992). Nation-state’s attempt to create a nation cannot be reduced to architectural effort in public space, yet the effort plays an important role in articulation of national identity among the members of the society. The built environment that surrounds the city can be efficient in molding of the national identity via its representational grandeur and its easier annexation to the fabric of city. Vale (1992) warned about some attempts that abbreviates the place (the monument, the building etc.) to cultural symbols, came off the social and economic

conditions in which assist its production. So to speak, the place should be situated in a frame that would be sufficient enough to explain not only its cultural symbolization but also economic and social forces that leads to its existence.

Eric Hobsbawn and Terrace Ranger (2000) basically argue that nationalism invented the nation, also inventing the rituals and representation, which would shape and reshape the national identity. Related to nationalism debates, the debate over architectural style is emerged in the form of searching for perfect style to represent the nation. The strong connection between architecture and nationalism is due that fact.

“In architecture, the debate over ‘nation’ was complicated by the question of appropriate style. Heinrich Hubsch’s book In welchem style sollen wir bauen? (In which Style should we build?) raised a debate during the early 1800s in Germany, but found resonance when postmodern styles and historicism were again popular in the 1970s, and Hubsch’s question was reinterpreted in Klaus Dohmer’s 1976 book of the same name. Hubsch and his opponents’ debate mirror the larger problem during the nineteenth century – the battle over styles, in the name of nation. This search for identity, a congruency of style and nation, is where the issue of nationalism in architecture strongly emerges” (Deane & Butler, 2016, p. 9)

Deane and Butler shows the debate over architecture was a form of national identity quest. Hobsbawn and Ranger remind us how nationalism in architecture is a matter of manifesting a national identity through built environment. In other words, the architectural style is seen a tool in defining nation and instrumentalized by all nation-state, including Turkey.

1.4 Architecture, National Identity and Turkey

Nationalism seems to require architectural style to define national identity, as discussed above. Need to define nation led the emergence of the nationalist style in the architecture like First National Style in Turkey. Architecture can “capture fleeting or insistent memories into tangible, buildable or unbuildable forms.”(Bastéa, 2004, p. 1) As

expected, the architectural efforts are sponsored by the nation state, itself. That makes the relation between architectural effort and the nation building more tangible. Vale (1992) gave the example of the Lincoln Monument to demonstrate public building’s role in the articulation of identities. The state making in twentieth century entails the appropriation of fragmented yet diversified social structure in a given society and coercively to mold it into a one unified nation. In this process, architecture can be used as a conduit between carefully selected eras of the past and promising future which the regime endeavor to construct (Vale, 1992).

1.5. Building Nation, Building Collective Memory

A building, a flag or a book can be analyzed as “site of memory.” In my case, the built environment will be analyzed as “site of memory” in relation to construction of national identity. Lawrence J. Wale argued that “government buildings are attempts to build government. And support specific regimes…we can learn much about a political regime by observing closely what it builds.” (Vale, 1992, 3) The situation of architecture in a nation-building project is ambivalent. Modernist vision of architecture has universal tendencies, yet, in nation-building project, it is supposed to be national. The universal tendencies of modernism are overpowered by nationalismi

Aspects of architecture and nationalism – architectural projects illustrated cultural particularism in universal forms. Universal tendency of modernist architecture is overwhelmed by the necessity of cultural self-determination of a nationalist regime. The ambivalent situation of nationalism and modernist architecture fits into Clifford Geertz’s description on the challenge that developing countries faced:

“The people of the new states are simultaneously animated by two powerful, thoroughly independent, yet distinct and often actually opposed motives - the desire to be recognized as responsible agents whose wishes, acts, hopes and opinions “matter”, and the desire to build an efficient, dynamic modern state.

The one aim is to be noticed: it is a search for an identity, and a demand that the identity be publicly acknowledged as having import, a social assertion of the self as “being somebody in the world.” The other aim is practical: it is a demand for progress, for a rising standard of living , more effective political order, greater social justice, and beyond that of “playing a part in the larger arena of world politics,” of exercising influence among the nations.” (Vale, 1992, 53)

Seemingly opposing motives of new states put them in precarious state. Vale describes this an attempt to assert a balance between cultural self-determination and modernity (Vale, 1992). Brazilian modern architecture is suitable example of this balance. Traditional elements of Brazilian architecture and modernist avant-garde are combined in 1940s and 1950s and created Brazilian modern architecture (Bertram, 2004).

In my argumentation, national identity is constructed through collective memory of nation. The collective memory reproduced by “sites of memory”. And “sites of memory” are constructed or in some case transformed by politics of nation- state. Among scholars who study nationalism and nation-state, there is a consensus that nation-state comes to existence before nation itself, then nation state forged the nation through invented traditions and carefully edited past epochs.(Anderson, 2006; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 2010) Building the Turkish nation and state-making process are not an exception. For example, the image of “Turkish House” is considered and proposed as a constructed site of memory by Carel Bertram in her article Housing the Symbolic Universe in Early Republican Turkey. Because, Bertram says, this image appropriated from Ottoman past to symbolize Turkishness in architecture and becomes the symbol of Early Reobulican Architecture (Bertram, 2004). Renowned architect S. Hakkı Eldem5 spend considerable amount of time and energy to describe “Turkish House”.(Eldem, 1984) In his article,

5 For further reading see Aykut Köksal’s Praxis, düşünce ve bağlam: Sedat Hakkı Eldem ve Turgut Cansever Üzerine.

Yerli Mimariye Doğru (Toward to National Architecture) in Arkitekt he suggest to study examples of Turkish Houses in Anatolia and them categorize them according to climatic conditions they are built for. By doing this, he argues, Turkish urbanism can be revitalized (Eldem, 1940). Also, in his report published in Arkitekt, Eldem emphasized the importance of studying “Turkish House” and offers a building program of “Turkish Houses” in several parts of Turkey (Eldem, 1946).The image of “Turkish House” which is taken from Ottoman heritage becomes the symbol of Turkishness in architecture.

Museums, in a way, protect the memory which would be endangered by the dynamic of the city, but in another way, it concreted the authoritative and monolithic historical record. And yet, one more step should be taken toward the fact that, memory itself is framed and produced. At that point, Nora’s argumentation on “sites of memory” should be taken into consideration. The so- called destruction of memory, as Eric Sandweiss mentioned yet in a different way than Nora – completed by modernity and now sovereign like nation state holds the tools of reconstructing memory (Sandweiss, 2004, pp. 26–27). Sites of memory is one of the apparatuses, and it definitely tell monolithic and monastic record of the history and keeps encoding who we are and what we remember according to standards of sovereign power (Bastéa, 2004).

1.6. Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir: Two sites of memory of Turkish Republic

Under the light of memory, nation and architecture discussion above, Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir could be determined as two of sites of memory of Turkish republic. As described above, a tangible/non-tangible entity can be counted as site of memory if it can be related to collective memory of a nation/community or group. It could be argued that Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir have become sites of memory of Turkish Republic since these places are associated with the founder of Republic Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

and still a visited by many people (“Anıtkabir Ziyaretçi Sayıları,” n.d.) (“Milli Saraylar 1,5 Milyon Kişi Tarafından Ziyaret Edildi,” 2017) (“TSK, Anıtkabir ziyaretçi sayısını açıkladı... 11 ayda müthiş rakam,” n.d.). These two sites of memory seems to be suitable example of collective memory, nation and architecture discussion. The way these monuments of early Republic are transformed or built will be discussed in detail in the next chapters.

2 Dolmabahçe Palace

In the making of nation, it can be argued that nation-state employs the architecture as the instrument of the manifestation of the ideal national identity and manifestation of the strong national regime. The statement mentioned above is generally accepted by the scholars’ studies on nation-state, national identity and architecture.6 In this chapter, the case of Dolmabahçe will be discussed as a relic of early Republican period and late Ottoman period.The historical location of the Dolmabahçe Palace and its relation to the social memory of the past was already discussed by Öztürkmen (Öztürkmen, 2006).

Singer refers to Pamuk’s argument and states that Şevket Pamuk’s words can be a clue for whom, interested in intricate relations between Turkish Republic and legacy of Ottoman Empire. In his keynote speech of the award ceremony of “The Ottoman Legacy for Contemporary Turkish Culture, Institutions, and Values”, he stated that:

“We must remember that the founders of the Republic, Atatürk and his friends, were brought up in educational institutions that were formed as part of the education movement of 19th century; it was there that they met the ideas which would later constitute the Republic. In this and many other respects, the Republic was born of the Ottoman modernization process. In short, our past lives in our social affairs, the values that lead the society daily, in habits and customs, in written rules and unwritten codes of conduct, and in styles of culture, politics and thought” (Singer, 2011, p. 554).

Şevket Pamuk points that the founding elements of the Republic are born out of Ottoman modernization effort including the founding cadres. It could be argued that, thinking the Republic as the product of the Ottoman modernization process, will pave the

6 See Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and National Identity: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Singapore: University of Washinton Press.

Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. O. (Eds.). (2002). The Invention of tradition (Canto Edition). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bastéa, E. (2004). Memory and Architecture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

way rethinking the function of Ottoman landmarks like Dolmabahçe Palace in the early republican Turkey. The implications of “the function” goes in two directions; the palace is a functional physical object that binds the Republic and the Ottoman Era and it is a site of memory of Ottoman modernization that appropriated by the Republic. The statement above implies the assumption of that Dolmabahçe is one of the sites of Ottoman modernization. By stressing this point, transition and persistence of the Palace as a governing-place in early Republican Era, may seem the result of intentional decisions of the ruling elite of Turkish republic. As Nora pointed out, the function of sites of memory can change in time simultaneously or intentionally(Nora, 1989, pp. 18–19). The case of Dolmabahçe is evident for Nora’s argument. The palace is the confrontation and the convention place of Republic and Ottoman legacies. The convention here means appropriation or sometime elimination of Ottoman elements. Strategies dealing with the Palace as part of Ottoman past give the clues how the nation-state decided to represent cosmopolite Ottoman past. And more important than this, it is the place which the new regime articulates with the past and how it situates itself in already-existing landmark.

2.1 A Brief History of Dolmabahçe and Its Environment

Dolmabahçe Palace is one of the most significant landmarks of Istanbul. The palace is located on the European coastline of Bosphorus in Beşiktaş district of Istanbul. Before, Dolmabahçe and its environment were a bayii which was the gathering place of Ottoman armada. Cigalzade Yalısı built during the reign of Beyazıt II (1451-1481) is the earliest structure in the same region and it was reserved for Kaptan-ı Derya (Admiral in Chief) of Ottoman Armada(Akbayar, 1988; Evyapan, 1972). During the reign of Beyazıt II, the yalı was annexed to the royal estate (Yumrukçağlar, 2010)). A Bektaşi named Kara abalı Mehmet Baba filled some part of the bay and formed a garden in the sixteenth

century. Later, the garden called Karabali Bahçeleri (Mülayim, 2010; Yumrukçağlar, 2010). In the Plan de Constantinople (Fig.1) of F. Kauffer and I.B. Lechevalier (1807) Karabali Mosque and Dolmabahçe Pier are marked (Mülayim, 2010).

Figure 1 Kauffer, F., & Lechevalier, I. B. (1812). Plan de Constantinople. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/display/64338706

Thanks to effort of the grand vizier Nasuh Paşa, the region called “Dolmabahçe” occurred with embankment of the area in front of the gardens. The word “Dolmabahçe” is combination of the of technique used to acquire the land from the sea, “dolma” and garden, “bahçe”. In the 16th and 17th centuries, a few settlements were established around

the area and the complex of buildings known as Beşiktaş Waterfront Palace arose. (Fig.2) The first building of the Beşiktaş Palace was Çinili Köşk (Tiled Pavilion) constructed during the reign of Mehmet VI and then Mahmud I added Cihannüma, Sayeban-ı Hümayun, Bayıldım, İftariye and Servilik kiosks and pavilions (Pilehvarian, 2011; Yumrukçağlar, 2010)

The building activities in the Dolmabahçe area carried on throughout eigthteenth century, Beşiktaş palace grow bigger with new additions and even 80 zir’a7 of lands around the Palace annexed and one more of the seaside embanked in the reign of

7 A unit of are used by Ottomans. 1 zir’a is 0,57417 m². See Güktekin, H. (n.d.). Osmanlıca Tapu Terimleri Sözlüğü. Retrieved from https://www.tkgm.gov.tr/sites/default/files/icerik/ekleri/osmanlica_tapu_terimleri_sozlugu.pdf

Abdülhamit I. The Beşiktaş Palace started to be preferred rather than Topkapı Palace (Yumrukçağlar, 2010). The reasons made Beşiktaş Palace more popular in the eyes of Ottoman royal family carry the implications of the changing Ottoman society, politics and culture, triggered by European influence. Need to change in state-apparatus become apparent in the eighteenth century and the representation of the state should correspond with the change in state-apparatus. The Topkapı Palace was relic of different age; the contemporary sultans opted to spend most of their time in seaside palaces and began to rule from these palaces.

The breakthrough of the site happened after coronation of Selim III. At the beginning of nineteenth century, Selim III decided to take some severe steps towards reformation of the Ottoman State. The pack of reformation called Nizam-i Cedid (New Order) was issued in 1793 and began to be executed, the Sultan chose to spend most of his time in Beşiktaş Palace instead of Topkapı. The nature of the preference can be interpreted as a symbolic departure from the “old order”. Selim III and Mahmut II take severe steps to change the traditional center of the Ottoman state. Afife Batur interpreted the situation like following:

“The abandonment of Topkapı Palace is often explained on the basis of the desire and feelings of Mahmut II; however, it is actually the outcome of the will that wanted to shed its shell, and although never expressed in so many words, to leave behind the medieval model represented by Topkapı. Therefore, in this context, the transition to the Galata Peninsula carries first and foremost a historical symbolism.” (Batur, 2010, 45)

Sultan Mahmut II ascended to the throne in a very early age, yet he succeeded to become the main figure of Ottoman modernization. He has spent most of his ruling years in Beşiktaş Palace. Despite the tragic failure of his predecessors, his solid yet effective measurements towards reforming all aspects of Ottoman state prevailed. In 1838, after he

died, Sultan Abdülmecit acceded to the throne and in 1839 Tanzimat Edict is declared. “The Ottoman reform program, as developed by Mustafa Reşit Paşa out of the reforms of Mahmut II, modified and developed by his own experience and observations in consideration of the empire's current needs, was officially proclaimed on Sunday, November 3, 1839, in a decree signed by the sultan (called Hatt-ı Hümayun, or Imperial Rescript) and read by Mustafa Reşit to an assemblage of dignitaries representing the principal institutions, classes, and groups of Ottoman society as well as various foreign missions.” (Shaw & Shaw, 1977, pp. 59–60). The declaration of Tanzimat marked major turning point in nineteenth century of the Ottoman politic life. Efforts of westernization profoundly affected Ottoman state and society as well as international relations. In this political environment, Topkapı already became obsolete and was replaced by Bab-ı Ali as the center of state and replaced by Beşiktaş Palace as the seat of Ottoman dynasty. Westernization efforts of Ottoman ruling elite entailed abandonment of Topkapı Palace, since old palace did not confront the needs of “modern” state. Construction of a new palace in European style would demonstrate the will and approval of Sultan to reform Ottoman state according to European standards. Sultan announced himself creator and protector of the new order in palatial architecture as well (Gülsün, 2010). Since interactions with European states intensified and the reforms to recover Ottoman state to his glorified days began to change the state structure, in the zeitgeist of nineteenth century, new residence befits Sultan’s almighty and dignity became a necessity. Çırağan Palace, like Dolmabahçe Palace, came out of the same motives. Sultan Abdülmecit crowned the new order of the Ottoman state with a new palace. Dolmabahçe is prominent among the palaces which came out of result of the modernization process (Cezar, 1993).

2.2 Crowning Ottoman Modernization: Dolmabahçe

As mentioned above, Dolmabahçe Palace is built by Sultan Abdülmecit. The construction of the Palace commenced on June 13th, 1843 and after the completion of the surrounding walls, on June 7th, 1856, came into use. The main parts of the palace are Imperial Mabeyn, Muayede Salonu and Imperial Harem. The Imperial Mabeyn (State Apartments), apportioned for the administrative work of the state. Imperial Harem, as its name suggests, was the place of private life of royal family. The Muayede Salon separates those two sections. It lies between private life and official life of the Sultan, the Hall used for state ceremonies and for exchanging bayram (ceremonial) greetings. The main building consists of three stories which include the basement on the seaside, and it is four stories at the land side including the Harem quarters. The Western influence on style, details and ornaments is indication of changing esthetical values of Ottoman Empire in nineteenth century. Yet, the association of among rooms and salons and space organization of the Palace reminds Turkish House style characteristic of the palace, in a way, it can be considered as the application of the Turkish House style in very large scale. The façades of the buildings are made of stone, interior walls are made of brick and floors are made of wood. In 1910-1912, central heating system and electrical wiring installed to the Palace. The Palace has 285 rooms, 44 reception rooms and several hamams. Related to its grandeur and function, Mabeyn in which the Sultan handled the administrative affairs of the state shall be considered as most significant part of the Palace. Medhal Hall was used as entrance to the Palace; it is situated at end of Selamlık (Men’s section) part of the Palace. The Süfera (Ambassadors’) Hall was a huge curiciform, splendidly decorated sofa. Crimson Chamber surrounds this sofa is the most ornately decorated hall because the Sultan accepts the ambassadors in this hall. The

Zülvecheyn Hall corresponds the function of the entrance which opens to the apartment Sultan used. The elements of the apartments are rest and study rooms, a gorgeous hamam decorated with Egyptian marbles. In the same sector, the library of Sultan Abdülmecit located. Muayede (Ceromonial) Hall is most decorated hall of Dolmabahçe. It is made of cruciform space surrounded by the dome. It constructed accordance with nineteenth century neo-classicism. Apart from its area exceeding 2000 square meters, 36 meters high dome and 56 columns, the Hall has an English-made chandelier. The dome of Hall is buttressed by metal structure because of five and half tons hanging chandelier. The “linear” and “sequential” alignment of main buildings parallel to sea front is an indication of the influence Istanbul seafront palace tradition. The construction of Harem within same building complex is another significant aspect of Dolmabahçe Palaceiii (Batur, 2010; Kuban, 2010). Kuban mentions that:

“There are number of other buildings outside the palace such as the Veliaht Dairesi along the Bosphorus shore, the Hareket Köşk, the Mefruşat and Muhafızlar apartments, the stables, the theatre in the Dolmabahçe Valley, warehouses, bakeries, a flour mill, quarters for oarsmen of the Sultan’ caiques and pharmacy. And all these buildings designed on geometrical plan inspired by the French royal gardens.” (Kuban, 2010, p. 623)

As an architectural expression of Ottoman modernization Dolmabahçe took the interest of scholars. As mentioned above, the building was a response to growing need to represent the almighty of the empire and the sultan in European style. Tanzimat and pre-Tanzimat reforms paved the way to transformation of Ottoman state and society’s structure. Classical Ottoman palatial architecture does not fit understanding of nineteenth century’s palatial architecture. The general tendency to consider Topkapı Palace modest and plain as a seat of imperial administration and reasoning this with Ottoman Sultan’s so-called humility does not seem a valid point of view (Necipoğlu, 1991).The implication, here, is that the way of Topkapı Palace represents the imperial grandeur was

not sufficient in nineteenth century of Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it can be said that a palace in contemporary style was in need.

“The departure of the palace from Historical Peninsula where it had been settled for centuries, and its move to the Galata-Pera Peninsula that had been space of realitonships with the West since the Byzantine age and had witnessed revitalization in proportion to the improvement of these relationships, is an expression of the new orientation of Ottoman administration. In this respect, Dolmabahçe organization represents a choice of location that corresponds in the urban space to the tendency to open up to the West. It is an ambitious decision in harmony with tendencies of the modernization project of the Abdülmecit period and accordingly, with discourse of its architectural practices.” (Batur, 2010, p. 45)

As Afife Batur, an architectural historian, mentions above, the place chosen to build a palace was an intentional move that corresponded to the need to demonstrate the orientation of Ottoman state.8 At that point, it is possible to argue that the place was already symbolically loaded, and the choice of place has the implication of employing the symbolic capital of the space consolidate the Ottoman modernization efforts. Regarding the location of the palace, other advantages can be listed; it is close to the newly re-flourishing (economically, culturally) region of the city (Galata-Pera) and it is at entrance of Bosphorus (Batur, 2010). Sultan Abdülmecit commended the Dolmabahçe Palace to his imperial architect Garabed Amira Balian (Batur, 2010; Tuğlacı, 1990). After the visit of the regent of the king of Iraq, a document in Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi (Republican Archives of Prime Ministry) dated to 1945 orders governorship of İstanbul to dredge the dock of Dolmabahçe by stating its importance as the most beautiful place of İstanbul that have been used a traditional landing point for important visitors. This document shows how Dolmabahçe’s location at the entrance of Bosphorus is significant (BCA, 1945). (Figure 3)

8 See N.Arslan’s Palace Consruction at Beşiktaş During The Ottoman Era in National Palaces 1994/1995, 102-113.

The architect of the Palace was Garabed Amira Balian – from second generation of famous Balian Family. The Balian Familyiv, throughout the nineteenth century, acted as imperial architect of Ottoman Empire. They were one of leading family of Armenian

cemaat (community) in Istanbul. Garabet Kalfav was one of most talented member of family and he was one of the most who contributed Balian family’s fame (Batur, 2010; Tuğlacı, 1990). Garabed Amira Balyan and his son Nikogos worked together in the construction of the Palace.

Dolmabahçe palace situated over on a land over 250.000 square. In the land side, it is surrounded by high walls. The walls separated the Harem section from the city (Kuban, 2010). There are two and seven adjunct entrances on the land front and five yalı entrances on the sea side (Batur, 2010). The palace was extraneous building according to Ottoman tradition and style. “The façade stretches for an average of 300 m, without taking into consideration subsidiary buildings. At its northern end, this shore block is met by another block extending for 125 m on an east-west alignment to form the main L-shaped section of the Palace” (Kuban, 2010, p. 619)

As Tuğlacı explains:

“The site plan and composition of Dolmabahçe is guided not by the classical geometrical relationship between different buildings, but by topography. Beyond the mosque an empty space on the shoreline gave an unimpeded view up the valley, and the palace itself was laid out on the strip of the flat land between the sea and the rising hills. Clearly Garabed’s foremost consideration was the relationship between the palace and the sea. Although it has been said, he did not copy the undeviating symmetry and axial vista of these buildings. The originality of his siting can be seen in the layout of the buildings and grounds, but above all in the Audience Hall.” (Tuğlacı, 1990, p. 88)

Although Pars Tuğlacı (1990) and Afife Batur (2010) attributed to Muayede Hall to Garabed Balian, Doğan Kuban (2010) argues that Ceremonial Hall is an independent unit and product of European classicism. Therefore, son of Garabed Balyan, Nikogos Balyan whom trained in Paris that includes European classicism should be responsible from the construction of the Hall. As Kuban describes Ceremonial Hall’s function like that:

“The distinction between the official life of the Sultan and his private life in the harem is reflected in the division of palace into two by the Ceremonial Hall

(Muayede Salonu). An interesting feature is the smaller size official section, which cover no more than half the area of the private section. The official section in the southern part of palace is arranged around three large halls with rooms and saloons placed around a large hall at the southern end, rooms forming a gallery around a central hall containing a stairwell and rooms with corner apartments surrounding a central sofa at the northern end in the karnıyarık tradition.” (Kuban, 2010, p. 619))

The Ceremonial Hall divides the palaces in two and determines the borders of private and official life of the Ottomans. Kuban shows us how Dolmabahçe Palace is situated between two functions: private life and official life of the Ottoman Sultan. Apart from that, the one of the most important buildings that surrounds Dolmabahçe Palace is Bezmi Alem Valide Sultan Mosque. The building of Mosque financed by Bezm-i Alem Valide Sultan (Mother of Abdülmecit II), after her death, it was completed by Abdülmecid II. Garabet Balyan and Istefan Usta were the builders of the Mosque. (Özel, 2010)

The Palace and surroundings play important role in contemporary politics and social of the Empire. Sultan Abdülaziz dethroned by reformist Mithat Paşa with help of Ottoman armada and V. Murat crowned. After three months as Sultan of Ottoman Empire, V. Murat experienced a psychological break-down and he became incapable of ruling. Thus, Abdülhamit II ascended to throne on August 31, 1876. The coronation of Abdülhamit occurred as mandatory; Mithat Paşa and reformists did not trust him. Yet he declared the constitution on December 23th, 1876 four months later.(Davison, 2015; Shaw & Shaw, 1977)

Abdülhamit II used the Dolmabahçe only eight months and then moved to Yıldız Palace. After Abdülhamit II decided to move Yıldız Palace, he ordered famous Italian architecture to build new buildings in the palace complex. The event marked thirty-two-year abandonment of the Palace. During the Hamidian era, the Dolmabahçe Palace

allocated to foreign visitors and Sultan used two times in a year to exchange bayram greetings (Göncü, 2007; Karıncalı, 2011). (Figure 4) The dethronement of Sultan Abdülaziz with help of Ottoman armada triggered the worries of Abdülhamit about attacks may come from the sea. Due to that worries, Abdulhamid choose the Yıldız Palace. The Yıldız Palace was close enough the center of city and safely away from the sea.

A detailed description of Dolmabahçe Palace and its history is delivered to demonstrate the embeddedness of the Palace Complex in Ottoman past and to explain its physical integrity as a complex. By pointing out its embeddedness in late Ottoman period, its function as site of memory of Ottoman past/Ottoman modernization becomes clear as well as the reasons and the ways it was transformed into a Republican site of memory.

Figure 4 Red dots on Pervetitich Maps shows the distance between Dolmabahçe Palace and Yıldız Palace (Ersoy & Anadol, 2000, p. 31)

Dolmabahçe was no longer seat of royal family. Along those eight months, the promulgation of the Kanuni-i Esasi marked another turning point in the history of the

Palace. On December 23, 1877 as the first representative democracy attempt, Meclis-i Umumi (General Assembly) opened with a ceremony hosted and accompanied by Abdülhamit II in Dolmabahçe Palace. In other words, the Palace witnessed the labor pains of the process which will end up the promulgation of the Turkish Republic (Gülsün, 2004). Even, the first democracy attempt was not long-lasting; the results were decisive both for the Palace and Ottoman Empire. During Great Turko-Russian (1877-78), Abdulhamid II suspended the constitution and consolidated his power over Ottoman politics. Meclis-i Umumi closed; once again Dolmabahçe lost its attraction. In 1878, the palace of Tanzimat abandoned, Meclis-i Umumi was in abeyance indefinitely and the constitution suspended. Yet, the Sultan prefer to leave the Palace after he consolidated his power, he continued to take care of the Palace. According the documents Cengiz Öncü published in the journal of MS Belgeler, Abdülhamit was closely interested in the repair of Muayede Hall of Dolmabahçe Palace (Göncü, 2007, pp. 38–45). Following decades till 1909, Dolmabahçe employed as residence of visiting diplomats. The reign of Abdülhamid II was a very controversial period. Yet, it can be argued that; main motivation of the opposition was bringing back the constitution. 1908, the Young Turk Revolution occurred and Abdulhamid II forced to restore the constitution and re-establish the parliament. 31 March Incident led the deposition of Abdulhamid II by Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Mehmet Reşad V, brother of Abdülhamit II, ascended to the Ottoman throne with support of CUP. One of the first things done by new Sultan was to change the seat of royal family.(Freely & Baker, 2010, p. 411) Hamidian regime and Yıldız Palace identified with each other. The period is referred as istibdat (autocracy). And Yıldız Palace seemed to be source and center of the istibdat. Therefore, Mehmet

Reşat V chose Dolmabahçe Palace as his new residence. Return to Dolmabahçe may have been considered as symbolic act to demonstrate the end of Hamidian regime in every aspect.9

2.3 The Seat of the Last Caliphate: Dolmabahçe

Dolmabahçe Palace continued to be the seat of royal family. After the death of Mehmet Reşat V, Mehmet Vahidettin VI, became sultan of Ottoman Empire on July 3, 1918. The reign of Mehmet VI coincided with the period that the Empire faced serious problems such as World War I (1914-1918). Ottoman Empire and Central Powers defeated at war. The Entente Powers began to invade parts of Anatolia right after the signing Armistice of Moudros (30 October 1918). Local resistance against the Entente Powers turned into Independence War (1919-1923) under effective leadership of Mustafa Kemal Paşa. Turkish National Movement (Kuva-yı Milliye) culminated Grand National Assembly (GNA) (Büyük Millet Meclisi) in Ankara. The nationalist prevailed to repel the Entente Powers and improve their position in the eyes of the people and international public. After Mehmet VI signed the death penalty of Mustafa Kemal and his colleague, the relation between Ankara and Istanbul deeply impaired. On November 1 of 1922, GNA abolished Ottoman sultanate and condemned Mehmet VI being traitor. Sixteen days later, Sultan and his family departed from Istanbul and Mehmet VI, last Ottoman Sultan, died in exile. During his reign, Mehmet VI preferred to use Yıldız Palace as his residence like his elder brother Abdülhamit II.

The abolition of Ottoman Sultanate and departure of Mehmet VI entails the selection of new caliphate. Although, the Sultanate abolished, the caliphate still belonged

9 See Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kurak Shaw’s History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975

to Ottoman dynasty. An election took place in GNA, Ankara; Abdülmecit Efendi elected as new caliph. New caliph, the seat of new Caliph Abdülmecit Efendi was Dolmabahçe Palace. The caliph and his family stayed at the Palace until the abolishment of the caliphate by Turkish Grand National Assembly on March 3, 1924. The caliph and royal family forced to depart from Istanbul immediately. That marked the end of era of Dolmabahçe Palace as a seat of Ottoman dynasty.

2.4 “Nationalizing” Ottoman Palaces

Deputy of Urfa, Şeyh Saffet Efendi initiated a law proposal in which the abolishment and of Caliphate and exile of members of Ottoman dynasty was proposed. (Figure 5) Relation between Caliph Abdülmecit and GNA were tensed since the Caliph began to act out of role given him by the government. Yet, the abolishment of the caliphate entailed to face a great opposition. At the end of discussions, GNA abolished the caliphate and exiled members of Ottoman dynasty.

Article 8,9 and 10 dealt with the properties of Ottoman Dynasty. According these articles, all estates, lands, palaces, kiosks, gems, jewelry, precious stones, stocks in Hazine-i Hümayun, all master pieces and other valuable objects in imperial residences became the property of nation. (Figure 5) Article 11 stated need to publish a pack of regulations to determine and arrange “inherited” good and real estates from Ottoman dynasty to the Turkish nation. In other words, the goods and properties of the Empire were transferred to national treasure. After the Code issued, the Palaces stayed closed for three months. Then a commission as offered in Article 11 established to a very detailed report about “inherited” palaces and the properties. Tahrir ve Tespit Komisyonu (Committee of Registration and Determination) was led by Sezai Selek whom would

become the first administrator of Department of National Palaces (Milli Saraylar Müdürlüğü) (Karıncalı, 2011).

On January 18, 1925, the Cabinet of the Turkish government decided to found a department called “Milli Saraylar Müdiriyeti(Department of National Palaces)” to protect Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Sarayı.(Alpaslan, 2016, p. 12) The Department founded by Decree no:1371 to function under the authority of Ministry of Finance and a regulation composed of 9 articles was issued with the same decree (Payzın, 1977b, p. 9). In 1934, the Department of National Palaces were taken under the jurisdiction of GNA (Payzın, 1977b, p. 10). Although, the original document of the Regulation of National Palaces could not be detected in the Republican Archives or any contemporary sources like articles and books within the reach of the writer of this thesis, the original text of Regulations is founded in Zaya Payzın’s TBMM: Milli Saraylarımızın temel Sorunları (1977). vi 6., 7. and 8. Articles of this regulations are very important for this research and to understand how Dolmabahçe Palace was situated by the Republican cadre. These articles are listed like that:

“Article 6- If Dolmabahçe Palaces is wholly or partially open to the public, the revenues gain from the admission charge and the sale of worn-out and small objects will be collected and recorded as income by the accountancy of Department of Palaces .

Article 7- Lending a piece of Palaces to a government office or selling unnecessary and scrapped pieces of Palaces is only possible by the decree of the Heyeti Vekile (the council of ministers) and by the order of Ministry of Finance. …

Article 8 – the list of useless and valueless goods of Palaces that will be commended or sold to state offices in need will be prepared by Ministry of Finance and by the order of the Council of Minister, the goods will be disposed.”(Payzın, 1977b, p. 9) (My Translation)

Article 6 marks the Republican cadre’s interest in making the Dolmabahçe Palace a public space. Since the palaces are considered the property of the nation, making the Palace available to public seems consistent. However, nine years later, a second

regulationvii of National Palaces was issued. This regulation gives the National Palaces under the jurisdiction of TBMM. With same regulation, Article 6 of First Regulation of National Palaces is cancelled.

“Article 6- Since the date of prosecution (12 May 1341 (1924)), sixth article of the regulation is cancelled because it was not needed by now and it will not be needed hereafter.” (Payzın, 1977b, p. 10)

Since Article 6 had dealt with the sale of some old and useless goods of and the admission charge of the Dolmabahçe Palaces, it could be argued that the opening of Dolmabahçe and the sale of some of the goods of the Palaces did not happen. However, as it will be discussed below, there are documents dated before 1934 that orders the giving of some stuff of the Dolmabahçe Palace for the state offices. So, even the Palace did not open to the public as a visiting area, its goods and parts were used in public institutions to serve the nation. It could be argued that Dolmabahçe Palace and its belongings were also nationalized to support the effort of creating / furnishing/ equipping the institutions of new state.

2.5 An Explanation for the Selection of Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace

The selection of those palaces and naming them as “national” is one of the main interests of this chapter. The nature of the selection can be discussed from a critical point of view. After the abolishment of Ottoman Sultanate, Dolmabahçe Palace allocated as the seat of caliphate. The caliphate was supra-national institution that was highly politicized in late Ottoman period with efforts of Abdülhamit II (Deringil, 1999). Whereas, the Republic was based on national values with special emphases on Turkishness. The Caliph was the leader of ümmet (ummah). The supra-national connotations of the caliphate eventually would trigger the disclosure of the tension between the government of Ankara and the Caliph. The national identity of young

republic could be fragile in early republic period, the Ottoman dynasty and the Caliphate appeared to be two significant menaces because both were relics of cosmopolitan empire. The abolishment of the Sultanate and the Caliphate might have been enough to suppress the moral legacy of the Empire, yet the material legacy of the empire should have been dealt as well. As stated in chapter 1, the building environment is one of the most important sites that assist the shape the collective memory of the society. Therefore, it can be argued that Ottoman physical heritage such as palaces should be integrated to the Republican discourse. In this direction, it can be argued that the foundation of the department of National Palaces was the first step for this appropriation process.

Adjective of “Milli” includes twofold meaning; firstly, it reassures the palaces transferred from Ottoman dynasty to the nation and secondly, “milli” baptized the Palaces and decontaminated them from their imperial and Islamic past.10 Some scholars argues that to deal with Ottoman legacy, the Republic “demonized” Ottoman past and try to legitimize the Republic (Balcı, 2014, p. 65).Yet, the situation of Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Palace can be present as an counter-argument for demonization of Ottoman Past, since these cases show the appropriation of some elements of Ottoman past.

With abolishment of the Caliphate and the exile of Ottoman dynasty, the situation of Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace becomes clear. They were put under the authority of “Milli Saraylar.” If the abolishment of the caliphate and the foundation of “Milli Saraylar” are conceived as laws to consummate each other, it can be said that the scope of “nationalizing” Dolmabahçe Palace would be lucid. The selection of location of Dolmabahçe must be related to its unique position as seat of last caliphate, yet it is hard

10 See F. Adanır& S.Faroqhi’s the Ottomans and the Balkans: a Discussion of Historiography for a related discussion.

to explain the selection of Beylerbeyi Palace. The cause of the decision might have been that the Beylerbeyi Palace employed as summer-palace by Ottoman Sultans and in relation to this fact, it might have allocated as summer-palace of Abdülmecit Efendi, last caliphate, as well. Thus, it can be argued that, both Palaces might have been chosen to become “national”.

After the foundation of Department of National Palaces, Dolmabahçe Palace and complex have undergone a pack of intervention throughout the early republic era. Sezai Selek was the administrator of the department until 1945. A document dated on August 26, 1925 states the degree that ordered the removal of portraits of Ottoman Sultans in Dolmabahçe (BCA, 1925b). (Figure 6 )

The degree can be seen as the first step towards to eluding Ottoman past from Dolmabahçe Palace. In another cabinet degree dated December 16, 1925, the removal of the tuğras (Sultans’ signature), inscription and any kind of symbol of Ottoman dynasty on national palaces or on any property in national palaces left under the authority of Department of National Palaces. (Karıncalı, 2011) Yet the administrator, Sezai Selek objected to the degree to remove the inscriptions since the removal works could impair or worse could destroy the valuable objects. By regarding this opposition, the cabinet changed its decision and gave right to Department of National Palaces to determine

whether or not to remove symbols of Ottoman dynasty from the palaces and properties in the palaces (Karıncalı, 2011).

2.6 Material Heritage of Dolmabahçe: Objects and Buildings

Apart from those interventions of physical integrity of the palace, the documents from Archives of the Republic proves that valuable and useful things like silver dinner set acquired from the belonging of the Palace to use during the visit of the king of Afghanistan in 1928 (BCA, 1928). Another document dated 16 August 1925 affirmed the taking of some electrical stuff from store of Dolmabahçe and transferring them to the building of Grand National Assembly in Ankara (BCA, 1925c). (Figure 7) Another document dated 04/03/1933 state that some 34 pieces of objects and 709 books from Dolmabahçe Palace should be provided for the seat of President in Ankara in accordance with National Palaces Regulations11 (BCA, 1933). Although the National Palaces Regulations could not be found by the writer of this thesis, this document may prove the existence a series of regulations that organized the use of materials of national palaces. Based on that, it can be argued that material heritage of Dolmabahçe Palace was used by administration of the Republic to complete the short-comings of the newly founded Republic. In addition to those, another two documents from the archives evidenced that new ruling class of the Republic yearned to use main and surrounding buildings of the Palace. First of the document dated on February 12, 1925 stated the releasing of the storehouse of the Palace to the military service (BCA, 1925a). The second document dated May 30, 1926 contains more interesting and important information about Veliaht

11 There are similar documents in the archives. Some of them are listed like this: BCA_ 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928)_ 30 - 63 – 20_132-34_01.11.1928 BCA_ 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928)_ 26 - 63 – 15_132-34_20.11.1927 BCA_ 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928)_25-52-20_132-34_20.09.1927

Dairesi of the Palace. As far as the document presented, a degree about the releasing of the Veliaht Dairesi as school issued before, yet, May 30, 1926 document cancelled the latter degree and let the Veliaht Dairesi undisturbed (BCA, 1926) .(Figure 9)

These documents can be presented as proofs that the valuable pieces and buildings of Dolmabahçe Palace are effectively used by the administration of Republic. So, the way the Republican cadre approaches to Ottoman legacy should be more complicated. Some parts of Ottoman legacy were appropriated by the Republic. The institution of National Palaces, it can be argued, facilitated this appropriation process. Although cultural legacy of Ottoman past is rendered to be pejoratively12, it may be argued, the material heritage of Ottoman Empires is embraced by the Republic to ameliorate the new state.

12 Vedat Nedim and Burhan Asaf’s Osmanlı İmparatorluğundan Türkiye Cumhuriyetine: Nasıldı? Nasıl oldu?,

Devlet Matbaası, Istanbul 1933 is interresting example as a primary source to see how Republican elites deals with Ottoman Legacy.

2.7 1927: Mustafa Kemal Paşa in Dolmabahçe

The status of the Dolmabahçe Palace as national palace was described above before Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had decided to visit İstanbul. On 1st of July, 1927, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk entered İstanbul by Dolmabahçe Palace seaside. He gave a speechviii in Muayede Hall of the Palace and he emphasized that he is a guest in palaces of the nation. It can be said that Mustafa Kemal was the most significant guests of the Palace. Whereas his insistence about being a guest in palace, after his arrival, the Palace shifted from seat of caliphate to seat of president of the Republic. Till his death, Atatürk employed the palace as his bureau and residence when he visited Istanbul. ix

Figure 10 The picture of Mehmet Ruhi Arel named Atatürk’e İstikbal (Welcoming Atatürk) (Arel, 1927).

Entrance of Mustafa Kemal Paşa to Istanbul from Dolmabahçe sealed fate of the Palace in upcoming years. The transition from Saray-ı Hümayün (Palace of Sultan) to Riyaset-i Cumhur Makamı (Office of President of the Republic) commenced (Karıncalı, 2011, p. 24). A reception held in Muayede Hall of the Palace in name of Mustafa Kemal and he took greetings of the people and officials of Istanbul (Karıncalı, 2011).

Before he arrived at Istanbul, Mustafa Kemal demanded a map of Dolmabahçe and studied the Palace (Karıncalı, 2011). So, the one can argue that the selection of the palace was intentional. In his work Cumhurbaşkanlığı Makamı Olarak: Dolmabahçe

Sarayı ve Atatürk, Ümit Karıncalı (2011) argues that Dolmabahçe was selected as residence of President of the Republic because the palace already became the symbol of power in the eyes of people of Istanbul. Yet the explanation is convincing but amiss. The analysis of the current options may assist to analyze better the selection of Dolmabahçe Palace. The seat of the ruler and center of the state amalgamated as one in three residences in Istanbul. Those are Topkapı Palace, Dolmabahçe Palace and Yıldız Palace. Another palaces and buildings like Beylerbeyi and Çırağan Palaces are not included since they mainly functioned as summer-palaces. As mentioned above, the center of Istanbul was no longer the historical peninsula and the contemporary political conditions proved the necessity of a governing center; therefore, Topkapı Palace was already obsolete. (Figure 11)

Figure 11 İstanbul map dated 1840s shows newly emerging city centers. ((“1840 S.D.U.K. Map of Constantinople ( Istanbul, Turkey ),” n.d.)

A document dated to 03.04.1924 shows that before the Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Palace is put under the authority of Department of National Palaces, Topkapı Palace was put under the authority of İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzesi13 (Museum of Ancient Monuments). It can be argued that Topkapı Palace was considered the part of an Ottoman heritage and situated under the authority of museum administration (BCA, 1924). (Figure 12)

13 For a detailed reaiding about Asar-ı Atika see;

Zeynep Rona’s Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul (1993)

Figure 12 Degree that put Topkapı Palace under the authority of Istanbul Museum of Ancient Monuments. (BCA 30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928), 9 - 20 – 17: 03.04.1924

In my argumentation, options of selecting a seat of presidency are narrowed in two; Yıldız Palace and Dolmabahçe Palace. The former one located near enough newly emerged center of city. Yet, Yıldız Palace identified with so called istibdat (autocracy) regime of Abdülhamit II. And also, last sultan Mehmet Vahidettin VI accused with treason ruled over from Yıldız Palace till the abolishment of the Ottoman sultanate. So, it would be unconvincing to expect that the Republic would choose the Yıldız Palace as the seat of the president. If the new regime wanted to take advantage of the selecting a place that already remembered as the ruling center to consolidate its power over Istanbul, it seems that the latter one, Dolmabahçe Palace, appeared as a good option. The Palace, as

mentioned in detail above, is the face of the modernization. The representational power of the palace set a base in which the new Regime could flourish, and the modernization project led by Ankara could set foot in Istanbul.

2.8 Re-invented Space: Dolmabahçe as National Palace in Early Republican Era

As discussed above, the arrival of Mustafa Kemal sealed the fate of Dolmabahçe Palace as seat of President in İstanbul. In a way, Dolmabahçe Palace is reinvented as national palace and becomes the one of the important scenery of politics and cultural life in contemporary Turkey. Since the abolishment of the Caliphate, the Palace become the property of the nation and begin to serve to the nation by holding important meetings and ceremonies. Before starting to discuss these important events of early Republican era, to understand better the way the Republican administrator see the Dolmabahçe Palace and its status in this era, one must scrutinize the status of Topkapı Palace. As discussed above, the Topkapı Palace were put under the authority of İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzesi (İstanbul Museum of Ancient Monuments).(Figure 12) Another document dated to 1929 states the transferring of historical pieces from Dolmabahçe Palace to Topkapı Museum for exhibition in accordance with seventh article of National Palace Regulations.(Figure 13) (BCA, 1929) It can be argued that Dolmabahçe Palace is reinvented as a national palace that hosts the president of Turkey and other important meetings. As presented above, in the first regulation of the Department of National Palaces, there is an article that deals with possibility of opening of Dolmabahçe to the public. So, at least in discursive level, it can be argued, the Republican administration was considered the making it a public space partially or wholly. The arrival of Mustafa Kemal seems to determine the role of Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul. It was used a seat of the president, as guest house

of important visitors and as a conference center. Albeit the Dolmabahçe Palace is nationalized, it was not open to the nation itself.

The government under the leadership of İsmet İnönü, issued a bill on 19th of March,1937 (BCA, 1937a). The bill was about the determination of entrance fee for museum and national palaces. The details of the bill are founded in the archives of GNA. The bill was prepared in 1937 but it was discussed almost a year late May 9, 1938 and it was passed with a little change to be effective beginning from 1st of June, 1938x (Müze ve millî saraylardan alınacak duhuliye ücreti hakkında kanun lâyihası ve Bütçe encümeni mazbatası, 1938, p. 3). Further document could not be located yet this bill seems to be ineffective, since Dolmabahçe had opened to public in 1950 according to newspaper archives of Cumhuriyet (“Dolmabahçe Sarayı Dün Halka Açıldı,” 1950). (Figure 14)

Figure 13 Document orders the tranferring of historical pieces from Dolmabahçe to Topkapı. (BCA_ 30-18-1-2 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1928- )_ 4 - 39 – 1_ 132-76_03.07.1929)

Figure 14 The news of Dolmabahçe Palace’s opening to public. The Palace was open to visit only on Thursday. (“Dolmabahçe Sarayı Dün Halka Açıldı,” 1950)

2.8.1 Shaping Culture-Politics of the Republic

Apart from its importance as a seat of the president, Dolmabahçe Palace was in the crossroads of important cultural reforms. The adaptation of Latin Alphabet and language conferences and Turkish History Conferences are the most important examples.

2.8.2 Adoption of Latin Alphabet and Dolmabahçe Palace

The language and history play key role in the process of nation-building. In Turkish case, the institutionalization of Turkish Language studies and Turkish History studies were led by Mustafa Kemal. The language reform is the first step of Mustafa Kemal in sake of revitalizing Turkish identity, and it was a quite radical one; the adoption of Latin alphabet. The milestones of adoption of Latin alphabet were taken in Dolmabahçe Palace. Three Alphabet conferences held in the palace and Atatürk himself joined to conferences. First of conferences held on August 25, 1928 in Süfera Hall of the palace, two more conferences followed first one; second Alphabet conference on August 27, 1928 and third and last one on August 29, 1928 (Kayıran & Metinta, 2009). So Dolmabahçe become the birthplace of decision that changes entire social, cultural and educational life in Turkey irrevocably (Karıncalı, 2011).

The adoption of the Latin alphabet was followed by the foundation of Turkish Language Society on July 12, 1932. The Society aims the development of Turkish language and Turkish language studies. The Turkish Language Society held three conferences among 1932-1936. 26 September 1932, the first Turkish Language Congress held in Muayede Hall of Dolmabahçe Palace (Payzın, 1977a, 8). The second and third Turkish Language Congress held in Dolmabahçe Palace as well (BCA, 1935). Thus, the

Palace becomes the center that one of the most important reforms are discussed and executed.14

2.8.3 Second Turkish History Congress

It could be argued that, even before the death of Atatürk, Dolmabahçe Palace became one of the key instruments in building official history discourse of modern Turkey. In 1932, Kemalist regime inaugurated the effort of making national history. For this reason, in Ankara, I. Turkish History Congress organized and decided to develop a Turkish History Thesis. After five years, a second congress to present the national thesis gathered in Dolmabahçe. Main purpose of history congress was similar with language congress. Turkish nationalism, like other nationalism, endeavored to situate itself at the center of human civilization and to prove that the antiquity of Turkish nation extended the dawn of history. The congress longed fifteen days and also a History exhibition prepared and exhibited in Medhal Hall of the Palace. The exhibition stayed open to visit in Muayed Hall till the death of Atatürk (Göncü, 2006). Howard Eissenstat (2003) marks one of the scopes and aims of these efforts.

“As Yıldız has shown, after the first few years of Turkish independence, the Kemalist elite found it necessary to develop a fully elaborated historical narrative of self in order to meet the varied ideological needs of this nation-building process. This first attempt took the form of the ‘Turkish history thesis’, which attempted to solve the problem of Anatolian diversity by arguing that the territory had actually been settled by Turkish nomads millennia ago and that non-Turkish speaking populations in Anatolia largely consisted of ‘Turks who had forgotten their language” Turkish History Thesis are produced and presented in the halls of Dolmabahçe Palace. It could be argued that holding Turkish History Congress in the Palace consolidated its importance in the process of shaping culture-politics of the Republic (Eissenstat, 2003, p. 103).”

14 For further discussion about Turkish Language Reform see:

Lewis, G. L. (1999). The Turkish language reform: a catastrophic success. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

2.8.4 Milli Resim ve Heykel Galerisi (National Art and Sculpture Gallery) in Dolmabahçe

Another significant event that took place in Dolmabahçe Palaces is the opening of National Art and Sculpture Gallery. The document dated in 1937 states that a proper gallery should be opened and all arts and sculptures belong Turkish nation that scattered around Turkey should be collected to demonstrate full capacity and capability of Turkish nation in the field of art and sculpture (BCA, 1937b). (Figure 15)Dolmabahçe Palace as multifunctional space had also contained the role of presenter of Turkish Fine Arts. This situation, it can be claimed, adds another layer to Dolmabahçe Palace’s situation as a site of memory of Early Republican Era. It connects the Palace to the history of fine art in modern Turkey.

2.9 The Master Plan of Henri Prost and the Physical Intervention to Dolmabahçe Palace Complex

Some historians claimed that Istanbul was, after the declaration of republic, intentionally neglected and indeed the ruling class of the new regime has tendency to consider Istanbul a decadent place in which national consciousness poorly developed. In sense of distribution of state resources, Ankara, emerging capital city of the Republic, acquired the lion’s share, yet it seems reasonable, Ankara was being reconstructed in a way concord the values and forms of modernism and urbanism (Bilsel & Pinon, 2010). About attitude of Turkish authorities toward Istanbul, Pierre Pinon states that;

“(they) do not really desire the development of the city, which should not be concurrent to Ankara. The problems were rather concentrated on the traffic congestion particularly around Galata Bridge and the Grand Bazaar, the inadequacy of public means and facilities of transportation, as well as green areas.” (Bilsel & Pinon, 2010, pp. 74–75)

In 1933, Henri Prostxi, internationally renowned French urbanist-architect was, invited to Istanbul for a project of at a restricted region and then in 1935 he was invited to direct the Istanbul’s planning work. In 1936, Prost and Istanbul municipality signed a contract and Prost began to prepare his plans for Istanbul’s urbanization. He worked as “urbanist” of Istanbul Municipality till 1950. Through those years, Prost played a very important role in urbanization and “special transformation” of Istanbul. In addition to The Master Plan of Anatolian Side (1937), the Master Plan of the European Side (1937) and the planning of Bosphorus shores (1939-1948),

“Prost also developed the implementation plans for these sectors as well as parks, promenades, public squares and quays, a number of which he was able to implement.” (Bilsel & Pinon, 2010, p. 102)

Prost’s emphasis on free spaces (les espaces libres) in his plans of Istanbul led to the occurrence of large parks. He mentioned them as “Park No.1” and “Park No.2”. According to Prost, the parks are recreational centers.(Altınışık, 2015, p. 472)

Dolmabahçe and its environs deeply affected by projects of Prost. Arrangements for Park No.2 and road widening works around the palace complex changed the look and structure of the Dolmabahçe palace and rest of the complex. In the Master Plan of European Side, “Park No.1” lies in the Yenibahçe Valley in historical peninsula and “Park No. 2” located on the valley starts from Taksim and reach out the square between Saltanat Gate of Dolmabahçe and Bezmi Alem Sultan Mosque through skirts of Gümüşsuyu. The area called Park No.2 consist of Taksim Esplanade, Municipality Garden, Taksim Entertainment Club, open-air theatre, sport palace, exhibition halls and a square between Saltanat Gate of Dolmabahçe and Bezmi Alem Valide Sultan Mosque (Dolmabahçe Mosque) İnönü Stadium (Seçen, 2013). And also the roads connect Dolmabahçe- Maçka, Dolmabahçe- Ayaspaşa repaired and improved. The road widening works entailed the demolition of some parts of Dolmabahçe Palace Complex (Özler, 2007). This intervention disturbed the structural integrity of the Dolmabahçe Palace Complex and shrank its magnitude and transform it to a single national palace rather than a complex that made of mosques, piers, theatres, lodgments etc. The process of shrinking of Dolmabahçe Palace Complex into a national palace will be discussed here to demonstrate the physical transformation of the Palace.

2.9.1 Tiyatro-i Şahane

Dolmabahçe Palace consists of two separate building complexes. First group of buildings are within walls of the Palace; second group of buildings are outside the walls. (Fig 5) The arrangements related to Park No. 2 and road widening works mostly impinged on the buildings outside wall. The scope of the physical intervention gives us a clue about how the authorities of the Republic approached the Palace. Since the destruction related to plans approved by the municipality and the government, the one

can interpret those intervention as intentional step taken down towards to create a Republican space which is set free as possible as from its Ottoman past.

Dolmabahçe or Palace Theater (Tiyatro-i Şahane)15 was built by order of Sultan Aldülmecit. It situated near Dolmabahçe Mosque and on the road, lead up to Gümüşsuyu. The project of the building was prepared by Dieterle ve Hammont. Interior decoration of the theatre was designed by famous French decorator Charles Polycarpe Cechan (Vignes-Dumas, 2012). Sultan as carrier of reforms also very involved with European music and drama. The consumption of European music and drama among Ottomans increased dramatically in the reign of Sultan Abdülmecit (1823-1861) The Theater completed in 1859 and soon after first Turkish play Şair Evlenmesi by Şinasi performed here.

15 For further reading, see Süha Umur’s Abdülmecit, Opera ve Dolmabahçe Saray Tiyatrosu in Milli Saraylar 1(1987), 43-59; Vasfi Rıza Zobu’s Türk Tiyatrosu (1971) http://earsiv.sehir.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11498/9552/001580634010.pdf?sequence=1

Murat Polat’s Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın 19.Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kültür Yapısına Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Dolmabahçe Saray Tiyatrosu Deneyimi in 150. Yılında Dolmabahçe Sarayı Uluslararası Sempozyomu/23-26 Kasım 2006, Dolmabahçe Sarayı/Bildiriler, 277- 294.

Nevertheless, the fate of theater change with death of Sultan Abdülmecit in 1861. Through those two years it served as stage for many foreign and local plays, bale and opera performance. After the coronation of Sultan Abdülaziz, the building lost its charm, yet it was still industrious till devastated by fire. Need to enhance and widen the road connect Dolmabahçe-Ayaspaşa end up with demolition of the theatre (Seçen, 2013). In his report dated 15 October 1937, Henri Prost explained the situation like following:

“The steep road linking Taksim to Dolmabahçe has been broadened and greatly improved so as to preserve those places with a fine view of the Bosphorus and facilitate traffic along the road. The building at the west corner of the square west of Dolmabahçe Palace has been demolished so as to enlarge it” (Öner, 1996, p. 22)

The theatre had demolished, and the complex had lost another important part of it. The Palace Complex had started to shrink down.

2.9.2 Istabla-i Amire and İnönü Stadium

Has Ahır or Istable-i Amire (Imperial Stables) demolished in 1939. In its place, a stadium construction was commenced, and it was finished in 1947. The stadium named after İsmet İnönü, second president of the Republic. Document dated September 28, 1939 states the removal of animal hospital in the same place to construct the stadium (BCA, 1939). Another document orders the giving of money to Şinasi Şahingiray and Fazıl Ayson to study with Italian architecture Viyetti Viyoli in Italia for planning and building of stadium in Dolmabahçe (BCA, 1939). (Figure 17) According to Bahar Kaya, Dolmabahçe Stadium can be considered first “modern” stadium in Early Republican Era (Kaya, 2016, p. 251). In addition to that, Kaya argues that Dolmabahçe Stadium was the product of ideological campaign of the Republic that aims to produce “Yeni Adam” (New Man) through the disciplining the Turkish nation in every aspect of life including physical training (Kaya, 2016, pp. 252–253). Indeed, the document presented above states that general directorate of physical training (beden terbiyesi genel müdürlüğü) proposed to sending of these two architects to Italia for studying and Şinasi Şahingiray is referred as architect of General Directorate of Physical Training.(Figure 17) It can be argued that Dolmabahçe has a significant place in the history of sports and physical training of modern Turkey. With this intervention, the west corner of Dolmabahçe square were reshaped again and it has become a public place for sport.

2.9.3 Dolmabahçe Mosque

Last physical intervention to the fabric of the Palace complex that will be addressed in this chapter invades a very important place in my argumentation of

colonization of former Ottoman memory site. According to Seçen (2013), Park No. 2 includes a square between Dolmabahçe Mosque and Saat Kulesi (Watch Tower) which is located in front of Saltanat gate during the reign of Abdülhamit II. The square serves as a place where official welcoming ceremonies can be performed. In fact, there were not enough space to build a square between the Mosque and the Watch Tower, yet the road widening works of 1948 provided the space needed. The Mosque surrounded with walls had four gates with scripts on each one of them. Also a police station between the Mosque and the Palace that was perpendicular to the sea demolished during ceremonial square arrangements (Çiftçi, 2007; Seçen, 2013). As explained before, the Dolmabahçe Palace Complex consisted of main building and surrounding buildings.

Figure 18 Prost’s regulation of plan of Dolmabahçe Square (Seçen, 2013, p. 202)

The scope of the physical and its result described like that:

“..in view of relations between Dolmabahçe Palace, Bezmi Alem Valide Sultan Mosque, the Palace Theatre and the Istabla-i Amire , the loss of the theatre and stables, and the walls around the mosque destroyed the original square and integral whole to which they belonged.” (Öner, 1996, p. 129)

The main buildings and surrounding buildings were in harmony. The “integral whole” that all buildings consisted and became part of represented all characteristic of Ottoman society. As mentioned above, the architectural projects employed as ideological means by state for a very long time. Ottoman modernization produced the Dolmabahçe Palace complex to manifest its new ideological position and its determination to be part of Western world. And in this new world, I argue, Islam was represented with Bezmi Alem Valide Sultan Mosque which built in neo-classical style. The mosque was organically part of the complex; even it has special section called “Hünkar Mahfili” for the Sultan.

Apparent reason of the Dolmabahçe square arrangements was to create a ceremonial ground for the official quest of the New Regime. A document dated March 28, 1946 states the transference of some part of mosque courtyard to Istanbul Municipality to be added the Dolmabahçe Square (BCA, 1946). (Figure 19) I argue, the square regulation represents the secularization of the Ottoman Palace. It can be interpreted as the “integral whole” was disturbed and organic ties between the Mosque and the Palace were shredded. Also, the square separated the realm of the religion from the realm of the state. It can be argued that this may have been result of the desire of the new ruling class who wanted to create a secular nation-state. The seat of President was eluded from its Islamic component as well. From another perspective, it can be claimed,

Dolmabahçe Cami’s courtyard and its surrounding were reinvented as square that separates the seat of President from the Dolmabahçe Mosque.

In addition to that, another document dated 1947 marks an important event and it orders the giving of Dolmabahçe Mosque and Imperial Boathouse to Ministry of Defense to turn these buildings into the museum (BCA, 1947). (Figure 20) It can be argued as another step to secularize Dolmabahçe Complex and reinvent it as secular public space.

2.10 Dolmabahçe as Funeral Space16

The death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the decisive event that totally transformed the Dolmabahçe Palace to a site of memory of the Republic. It is last issue will be addressed in this chapter, because, the death of the founder of the Republic in Dolmabahçe turned the palace in “funeral space” of Atatürk. On November 10, 1938 Atatürk died in Room 71. The Turkish Nation mourned his leader for days and more 500.000 people visited the catafalque to see Atatürk. ( Figure 21;Figure 22)

A former Ottoman space transformed a site of memory of the Republic step by step. Dolmabahçe became the place in which Turkish nation lost his leader and that sealed the fate of the Palace. It possible to say that memorialization of the death of Atatürk began there and ended up in Anıtkabir.

16 For further discussion about funeral and Dolmabahçe see:

Wilson, C. S. (2007). REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING IN THE FUNERARY ARCHITECTURE OF MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATÜRK:THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL MEMORY (PhD). Middle East Technical Univercity, Ankara.

Figure 21 The wreaths of Prime Minister, President of the TBMM and the Commander in Chief was places on the catafalque. ((Münir, 1938, p. 3)

Figure 22 The Catafalque of Dolmabahçe in Dolmabahçe Palace (Münir, 1938, p. 3)

3 ATATURK’S MAUSOLEUM: ANITKABIR

“This status [most conspicuous symbolic focus of the city] is reserved for the Atatürk Mausoleum, a thoroughly Speerian acropolitan memorial that is visible from all over the city, both during the day and, grandly floodlit, at night. Like Capitoline Hill in Rome, this hill-top with neo-classical temple is place that combines associations with both shrine and political rule. Like ancient Egypt’s Luxor temple, which must be approached along the Avenue of the Sphinxes, the Atatürk Mausoleum is reached by traversing a long, axial way lined by pseudo-Hittite lions. This symbol of struggle for modern Turkey is, architecturally and urbanistically, treated as the culmination of the past imperial glories. As such, it is the crown of a city that has undergone a 150-fold increase in population since the founding of the republic.” (Vale, 1992, pp. 102–103)

The previous chapter is dedicated to the analysis of Dolmabahçe Palace in the early republic so as to reveal the process of transforming the Palace to a Republican site of memory. The challenge posed in the previous chapter was the deciphering of how already ideologically charged monumental building eluded from its dynastic past and recharged with new ideology. Although the scene of the act was Istanbul, the city was not vehemently included in the narration. Yet in this chapter, the unique position of Ankara in the early republic entails inclusion of the capital city to clearly state the process of building Anıtkabir as the site of memory of the Turkish nation. So to speak, Ankara as capital city of the republic was displayed as a tabula rasa place in which the Republic might implement its reforms and might demonstrate the power of its civilization mission by taming nature of Middle Anatolia. Bozdoğan argues that representing Ankara as a tabula rasa place served in the name of production of a “space” in which ideal, new, hygienic and homogenestic city of the Republic can be built (Bozdoğan, 2001; Bozdoğan & Akcan, 2012; Tanyeli, 2009). It is argued the history of Ankara has a legacy that reaches to Roman period in the literature on Ankara, yet the elites of the Republic distinguished the city like it was founded recently by the new regime. When the historicity of the city is surfaced in some cases, the official discourse immediately shifts and begins emphasizing the backwardness of pre-Republic Ankara (Tanyeli, 2009).

The capital city of the Republic, Ankara, is appeared to be the scene of Republican modernization. Thorough architectural efforts and urban designing projects, New Regime was determined to construct the ideal city of the Republic. The design and the reconstruction of Ankara as the capital city of the Republic began with Herman Jansen planxii and developed around the plan. Atatürk’s Mausoleum may have been considered as the peak of the great urban transformation of Ankara in early republican period. In this chapter, Atatürk’s Mausoleum (Anıtkabir) will be analysed to uncover the politics of the Republic to memorialize the death of Atatürk. In other words, the process that ended up with the construction of Anıtkabir will be examined as the production of a “site of memory”. The way the New Regime memorialized the death of Atatürk would reveal the form of ideal national identity the Republic aspires.

“The construction of funerary architecture is an attempt by those left living after someone’s death to “concretize,” or make concrete (to represent), such memories existing in their minds. To match the grandness of the memories of some deceased, the funerary architecture produced is frequently monumental in size and stature. …. That is, just whose memories and which memories are concretized (politicized) is always a matter of contention. Those in power will usually succeed in representing and politicizing their memories over the memories of minorities and those on the margins of society. By doing so, those who succeed in representing and politicizing their memories firstly construct memory through the medium of the built environment.” (Wilson, 2007, pp. 192–193)

Atatürk’s Mausoleum is the product of “concretizing” efforts of those succeeded to power in the aftermath of Atatürk’s death. Before beginning to study the case of Anıtkabir, next part will focus on the interim period among the death of Atatürk (10 November 1938) and the construction of the Mausoleum (1941-1953).

3.1 Turkish Nation in Mourning

10 November 1938, the founder of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk died in Dolmabahçe Palace, in Istanbul. The corpse of Atatürk situated to Anıtkabir fifteen years later.

The first “funeral space” of Atatürk was Muayede Hall of Dolmabahçe. According to Christopher Samuel Wilson (2007), the interim period played very important role in determination of the representation of the death of Atatürk. From Dolmabahçe to Anıtkabir, the representation of Atatürk’s death is set and is determined. Dolmabahçe Palace contains the two spaces of Atatürk’s death: the bedroom he died and Muayede Hall where the public viewing happened. In the Muayede Hall of the Dolmabahçe Palace, a splendid catafalque was arranged for Atatürk’s coffin. The coffin was draped with Turkish flag. The catafalque was kept to open visit of the people among 16-19 November 1938 (Wilson, 2009) A plethora of the people visited the coffin.

Figure 23 Dolmabahçe Catafalque in Muayede Hall (1938)

Atatürk’s body was transported to Ankara for the state funeral ceremony, eleven days after his death. The procession through the streets of Istanbul started from Dolmabahçe

Palace, and ended in Seraglio Point (Saray Burnu). The Turkish flag draped coffin accompanied by the people and the state officials left the Dolmabahçe Palace, passed Tophane and then arrived Seraglio Point. Atatürk’s body, then, put in Torpedo Boat Zafer and transferred to Battleship Yavuz and saluted by 101-gun fire. The Battleship Yavuz that accompanied by the ships of Soviet Union, Britain, Greece, France and Germany headed towards İzmit. In İzmit, a specially prepared train awaited the arrival of the funerary. The train carrying the Atatürk’s body finally arrived to “the heart of the nation”, Ankara on November 20, 1938 (Wilson, 2007).

Bruno Taut, prominent figure in architecture of young Republic, is entrusted with the task of construction of a catafalque which would be situated in front of the Grand National Assembly. Taut drew the design immediately and built it with the help of architect Mahmut Bilen (Batur, 1998).The catafalque was mainly consisted of four great columns which endorsed by structure developed from a broken surface.

Figure 24 Atatürk Catafalque in front of GNA, Ankara by Bruno Taut (1938)

The six pillars of the catafalque represented the six pillars of Kemalism. The freshness of the planted trees around the structure symbolized the youngness of the Republic (Wilson, 2009) According to Christopher Wilson (2009), Ankara catafalque is the point where the memorialization of Atatürk’s funeral ends and the monumentalization of him and the Turkish nation in his image began. The Atatürk’s coffin stayed till 21st of November laying on the catafalque and then transported his temporary tomb in the Ethnographic Museum designed by architect Arif Hikmet renowned with his affiliation to the first national style.

“The route taken through Ankara by the procession led back down Station Avenue, turned left at the train station, passed the Ankara Exhibition Building, then turned right behind the People’s House, and ended up in front of the Ethnographic Museum at 1:10 p.m” (Wilson, 2009, p. 228)

The modest tomb in Ethnographic Museum had stayed as the resting place of Atatürk until Anıtkabir was completed.

The monumentalization of Atatürk and the concretization of ideals of Turkish nation are the phenomena manifested themselves within the architectural climate of the early Republican Turkey. Thus, a thorough discussion about the contemporary Turkish architecture is required to make a thorough analysis of Atatürk’s Mausoleum as a site of memory. Therefore, the details of the competition held for Atatürk’s Mausoleum and the construction of the Anıtkabir and its analysis as Republican site of memory will be discussed after the architectural climate of and its politics of the early republic is discussed.

3.2 Architectural Climate in the Early Republic

When modern architecture arrived to Turkey, it was at edge of losing its critical power. The modern architecture strived against classicism, academism and beaux art ecoles in the field

of architecture. The rationalism and the functionalism were the flags of that ecole. Heroic attributes of the modern architecture were being progressive, scientific, revolutionary. The attributes embraced by the modern architecture were also embraced by the young Republic of Turkey. It is possible to say that this situation encouraged the embracement of modern architecture as a way of “manifesting” ideals of Turkish Nation. In 1930s, in Europe and United States, the name of “international style” for modern architecture already coined, yet this situation did not prevent Republican regime to employ “international style” to consolidate a national identity. Bozdoğan argues that since any other groups like bourgeoisie to sponsor the architecture were absent in early republic, the coherence and collaboration seemed less possible between modern architecture and the state. Although, the unlikely alliance brought abrupt significance to the profession of architecture in Turkey, the instrumentalization of the architecture as “form of visual politics” was at stake (Bozdoğan, 2002, pp. 15–28).

As Sibel Bozdoğan (2002) argued, the architecture was limited to a higher class and although it was disconnected from the imperial court, now it was solely affiliated to the state patronage. So to speak, the state was the determinant force of the architectural climate in the early republic and Modern Turkish Architecture spawned under this force. The classical narration of architectural historiography in Turkey divides the architectural culture of Early Republic in three main categories: The first national style, international style and second national style.

3.3 Ottoman Revivalism

The first national style, also called Ottoman Revivalism, is considered the emerging phase of modern architecture in Turkey. As Alev Erkmen (2010) says the term of “first national style” coined by the Republican historiography, the style referred as şark üslub-u mimarisi (oriental style architecture) in Ottoman literature. In the late Ottoman period, two foreign architects, Alexandre Vallaury and Jachmund, affected the emerging architecture profession. The eclectic style used by those architects was appropriated by succeeding Turkish architects whose training began under their authority and completed in Europe. Like eclecticism in Europe, the eclecticism in Ottoman Empire based on the employment of classic forms and elements, i.e. Ottoman-Islamic elements (Tekeli, 2005, pp. 9–34)

The period has been considered as the continuation of eclecticism of nineteenth century and the buildings constructed in this period were adorned with regional and national forms (Sözen & Tapan, 1973). Wide wooden eaves, well-proportioned arched windows and symmetrical planning are trademark of the First National Style (Yavuz & Özkan, 2005). The Society of Ottoman Architects and Engineers was founded after the restoration of Constitutional Assembly under the initiative of Committee of Union and Progress in 1908. After First Balkan War (1912), strong Turkish nationalist feelings emerged in Ottoman Empire (Tekeli, 2005).

“…when the political developments of the Ottoman Empire produced a nationalist movement, they at the same time coopted an already existing architecture and dubbed it the First National Architectural Movement.” (Tekeli, 2005, p. 19)

The period also marked the first neo-classic phase of architecture in Turkey (Sözen & Tapan, 1973) Vedat (Tek) and Kemalettin Bey were the prominent architects of the era. After the proclamation of the Republic on October 29, 1923, Kemalettin Bey and Vedat Tek recruited from Istanbul to build the new capital. Apart from them, Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu,

Ahmet Kemal, Tahsin Sermet, Ali Talat, Fatih Ülkü, Mehmet Nihat and Giulio Mongeri joined the construction campaign of new capital city, Ankara. (Tekeli, 2005; Yavuz & Özkan, 2005). Ankara Palas Hotel (Figure 25) and Second National Assembly epitomized the first national style very well. Gazi Teachers’ Training College completed in 1930 was last representative of the first national style (Yavuz & Özkan, 2005). The use of Ottoman revivalist style by secular and Western-oriented state remained one of the litigious topics of historiography of Turkish modern architecture. Most of the historians of modern Turkish architecture are inclined to see the use of the first national style in built programme of Kemalist Turkey as a contradiction, whereas Sibel Bozdoğan and Esra Akcan (2012) argues that the use of “First National Style” was the

Figure 25 Ankara Palas by Kemalettin bey and Vedat Tek (1924-1928)

pragmatic choice that emphasized the glories of Ottoman past to come across with traditional society and unsettled political climate of 1920s the ways in which “Turkishness” of Ottoman forms embraced and promoted. What eluded in these ways were Islamic connotations of the Ottoman revivalism. Secondly, the First National Style served as the signifier of the new programmatic and technological needs of a society in transformation. (Bozdoğan & Akcan, 2012; Kırış, 2013)

İnci Arslanoğlu (2010) and İlhan Tekeli (2005) claimed that the death of Kemalattin Bey in 1927, the departure of Vedat Tek from Ankara and Industrial Incentive Act of 1927(Teşvik-i Sanayi Kanubu)17 were the major reasons triggered the abandonment of the first national style. Yet, Sibel Bozdoğan (2001) argues that the abandonment of the first national style and the adoption of New Architecture (international style) substantially pertained to elimination of Ottoman dynastic past. The cubic and the abstract forms of international style proclaimed the departure from the imperial past of the Republic. It can be argued the break was effective to show the orientation of the Republic symbolically and representatively.

3.4 The New Architecture: Disassociating Ottoman Past

Yeni Mimari (New Architecture), it is argued, was the branch of modern architecture in Western World. And it is stated in the previous part, since the movement lost its critical edge against academicism and classicism, the term “international style” was coined to refer modernism. Congrés International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) defined modern architecture as “rational, scientific doctrine expressing the inevitable zeitgeist of the twentieth century.” (Bozdoğan & Akcan, 2012, p. 19). New regimes throughout the worlds were receptive to modern architecture that identified with being progressive and scientific.

17 The decree were issued to increase the development of industry in early republican period.

The constitution of universal trajectory of progress and the constitution of a “universal” architectural style are mutually inclusive ideas that are widely accepted by the modernizers of nations. Therefore, modernist new regimes celebrated modern architecture to prove their commitment to the universal path of modernization. Also, the scientific and progressive attributes of modern architecture legitimized the new regime in a way.

“CIAM’s official account of modern architecture as rational, scientific doctrine expressing the inevitable zeitgeist of the twentieth century conveniently became the basis of a symbiotic relationship between architect and the state. Embracing the rationalist/functionalist progressivism of modern architecture and urbanism legitimized revolutionary regimes as active agents of modernity, while identifying with these new nationalist regimes benefited the architectural profession in this great era of state patronage. While the specific form of alignment between modern architecture and nationalist politics varied from country to country in interwar Europe, new nation state and/or revolutionary regimes like Kemalist Turkey and Fascist Italy were particularly receptive to modernism.” (Bozdoğan & Akcan, 2012, p. 19)

Republican People’s Party (RPP) consolidated its power over the nation in 1931 (Batur, 2005a; Bozdoğan, 2001). The built environment of the Republic was under the patronage of the state and the state contemplated to abandon all forms of Ottoman revivalism in the way of promoting the new architecture, İnkılap Mimarisi (architecture of revolution). The state was already single client of the architecture in the early republic due to the absence of any other autonomous social group; Great Depression of 1929 clinched the position of the state as sole sponsor of built environment.

“Whereas the Atatürk reforms introduced into the life of the nation such concepts and values as innovation, nationalism, functionalism, utilitarianism, objectivism and a belief in science, technology and progress, it was the etatist economy which more directly influenced the architecture of the period since the public sector was responsible for almost all building activity other than residential construction.” (Batur, 2005a, p. 72)

New architecture of the Republic was enthusiastic to present the radical break from the Ottoman revivalist style (Bozdoğan, 2007). Emerging New Architecture was construed as the sole and the true statement of the modernist Republican ideals.xiii The Ottoman forms such as domes undermined as technical necessity of the period rather than aesthetic choice

by the prominent figures of the Turkish modern architecture. Thus, the arrival of the new techniques and the building materials eliminated so-called necessity and it also eluded the architecture from old forms. Supporters of New Architecture insisted on the rejection of “international” connotations of modern architecture. The tension between the international attributes of modern architecture and homogenistic national agenda of the New Architecture surfaced. The figures of New Architecture whom was very aware of the tension displayed their discontentment against the term of international style (Bozdoğan, 2001). Rationalism and functionalism of the modern architecture or “a version of modern functionalism” was adopted, Ottoman revivalism was casted as anachronistic. Bozdoğan argues that “Domes, arches and tile decoration were banished from republican practice as reactionary nostalgia.” (Bozdogan & Akcan, 2012, p. 25). The transformation of the building procedures also described official magazine of the new regime Hakimiyet-i Milliye epitomizing building activitiesxiv in Ankara:

“Two kilometers beyond the old city… rental properties are being constructed. In the formation of the first nucleus of Ankara, fantasy avoided. Buildings are lined up along straight streets…Mayor Haydar Bey has already said that the plan of the new city is that of Postdam. The architecture of these one or two-storey building was no different from that of similar housing projects in the West. It may be regretted that neither Turkish nor Byzantine style was adopted, but in such matters the opinion of architects was not solicited. The founders of new want simple and comfortable houses… aesthetics are not given priority. This attitude represents a great deal of progress from the past… the grills adored by Loti no longer decorate the windows of the new city. Modern hygiene demanding ample light air…has vanquished one of the oldest traditions.” (Batur, 2005a, p. 79)

Functionalism was praised over the aesthetics in the early republican period, as modernist style emphasized.

3.5 Nationalized Modern: Ode to International Style

A new challenge occurred, soon after cubic and geometric forms of the New Architecture completed the mission of disassociating nation from its Ottoman past:

nationalizing the modern. Second National Style was a quest of merging the attributes of modernism and Turkish nationalism in one style. Modern architecture’s implications of being open-ended and its position against all kind of formalism were considered as threats by the new ruling elite of the Republic. The answer those in power were looking for was the creation of national modern architecture that would articulate western and national sources and compromise likely tension between them (Bozdogan & Akcan, 2012). The question of national architecture and “its centrality in architectural discourse of the late 1930s represent the end of what we call ‘the heroic period of early republican modernism’- a closure symbolically marked by the death of Atatürk in 1938” (Bozdogan & Akcan, 2012, p. 241). Üstün Alsaç (2005) highlighted two reasons to explain the emergence of Second National Style: the economic crisis brought by WWII and the arising nationalist affiliation as a reaction to hostilities the nation surrounded by. The former one led to the shortage of building material like steel, glass and cement which were considered as the material of the New Architecture. The shortage invoked the use of regional sources and it triggered the emergence of a new style. The latter one suggested the rise of reactionary nationalism. Since the belligerent states surrounded Turkey, Turkish nationalism is called to arm in every aspect of life including building activities (visual politics) to create “national cohesion” for standing against the pressure of war (Alsaç, 2005). Also the new generation of architecture trained by Egli and Taut was appeared at the stage of architecture. Even they had deep respect for their foreign master, they were decisive about that the building environment of the Republic should be shaped by Turkish architects, since as locals they claimed to know the needs of the country better than the foreign ones (Alsaç, 2005; Bozdoğan, 2001).Returning to regional forms reminds the first national style, yet the second national

style distinguishes itself by avoiding eclecticism and embracing the national forms, as well as rational and modern. At that point, the tension between “regionalism” and ideals of nationalism should be addressed. By definition, “regionalism” had the implications of diversity in a range from the climatic differences to ethnical and religious ones. Uniformity was promoted against diversity by new regime, therefore regionalism contradicted to ideals of nation-building as well as international style (Bozdoğan, 2001). Sedad Hakkı Eldem distinguished as one of the prominent figures of the style. His ideas and “Seminar on National Architecture” had stupendous effect on the new trend. He condemned the local architecture as not necessarily national architecture and advocated the creation of “state-sponsored ‘national-expression’”. Although, his Turkish House ideas were not adopted by the state, his “national expression” project mentioned above were adopted (Bozdoğan, 2001). As Bozdoğan says, the words of Sedat Hakkı Eldem cited below shows the ideological charging of the style and it states the use of architecture as ideological instrument in consolidation of state power:

“For an architectural style to be “national” [milli] it must represents the ideals of lifestyles of that nation. If the nation does not have such an ideal, it can be given [to the nation]. Today, people have acquired many new ideals that they did not know before. They can do the same in matters of art and architecture. Until the [desired] ideal becomes the ideal of the nation, it can be the ideal of the leaders of the nation who show the way. The result is the same.” (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 272)

The monumentality became the key element in expressing the state power; “Monumental public buildings of overpowering scale, stone façades, and an official, stripped-down classicism dominated the building scene” (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 271). Ankara Railroad Station by Şekip Akalın is one of the first example of the new style. (Figure 26) The answer proposed to the great quest of the era was the “national classic art” which combination of mastering modern techniques and forms with traditional techniques and

forms of the nation (Bozdoğan, 2001). It’s highly important to note that new Turkish history theories and language theories promoted by the new regime extended the Turkish roots wider in history of civilizations and included classical Anatolian civilizations as well as Sumerian and Hittites to the common ancestry of the Turkish nation. It was crucial to note because this understanding of civilization will assist to analyse

Figure 26 Ankara Railway Station by Şekip Akalın (1935-1397)

Atatürk’s Mausoleum. The monumentality of the Second National Style is one of the important issues that to a certain extent explained the form selection of Anıtkabir. The issue of monumentality in state buildings became completely apparent with international competition for Grand National Assembly. Also objection to foreign architects rose the fore with the exclusion of the Turkish architects, then gained acquisition with participation of Turkish architects after a two month delay (Batur, 2005b). The period defined by Afife Batur (2005b) by three tendencies: nostalgic and renovating, monumental and academic, populist and local. If the entries of Grand National Assembly and winning project of

Clemens Holzmeister taken under the close consideration, it is evident that being over-scaling became a key criterion in official buildings.

3.6 Making of Resting Place of Immortal Mortal: The Selection of Place

The idea of mausoleum for Atatürk matured immediately after his death and the succeeding government took the first step one month later and a commission consisted of five people founded. The members of the commission were General Sabit and Hakkı from Ministry of National Defense, Kazım Bey from Ministry of Public Works, Vehbi Demirel from the Ministry of Interior and from Ministry of National Education, Cevat Dursunoğlu and undersecretary of Prime Minister (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994). The undersecretary chaired the commission and the first meeting held on December 6, 1938. The commission decided to take opinions and suggestions from local and foreign experts. Herman Jansen, Bruno Taut and Rudoph Belling invited to the commission. The second meeting held ten days later. Determination of the location of Atatürk’s Mausoleum was uneasy task, yet the commission short-listed nine sites through the capital. Çankaya Hill, The Ethnography Museum, Kabatepe Hill (hill beyond the Grand National Assembly), Ankara Citadel, Quarter of Ministry, Former Agriculture School, Youth Park, Altındağ (Hıdırlık Hill) and Atatürk Model Farm (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2009).

Altındağ is the highest hill of Ankara so if the Mausoleum built here, it would be visible from every corner of the capital. Yet the hill was so steep, therefore this option stayed unfavorable. Very reason of the elimination of Atatürk Model Farm and Youth Park was that the park and the farm planned as recreational centers for the people of Ankara, and the construction of Mausoleum would detract these recreational centers. The Quarter of Ministry was one of the busiest centers of the capital, and the School of Agriculture

considered not close enough to the city center. Kabatepe Hill proposed by Clemens Holzmeister did not accepted by the commission. The objection to Ankara Citadel deserves the close intention of any researcher of the topic. The citadel proposed as the location of Ankara and the supporters claimed the historicity of the site made it proper place to bury Atatürk. Yet, the association of the Citadel with undesired past make it problematic. Association with the past was delicate issue in the early republic. As mentioned above, the architectural climate of the Republic was in favor of national modern and monumentality in representative state building. So the Mausoleum as the ultimate symbolic structure of the nation should be free from the forms and references of undesired past. In the report prepared by the big commission, the official attitude is clear and cut.

“The Ankara Castle represents the past and all its peculiarities. This castle was constructed by the Byzantines and enlarged by the Seljuks. Atatürk, who is the savior of the Turkish nation and founder of the Republic of Turkey, started a new era. He represents the future of the Turkish nation rather than its past. Thus, it is not appropriate to bury Atatürk in a historical and old memorial, which has completed its mission. He himself is a value. He does not need any other historical support” (Wilson, 2009, p. 229)

The citation above also evidenced the very of idea of this thesis, the Anıtkabir should be considered as metaphorical anchor that bring the future to the present. Atatürk himself is the future of the nation, therefore the Mausoleum dedicated to him should be timeless or beyond the time, so to speak it should appropriate the future. As Nora argues the memory, itself, is the realm that had not clear-cut boundaries with the past and the future; it is something constantly changes and appropriates itself according to the present. So this nature of the collective memory made it open the designation, or at least, effort of the designation. The sites of memory of a nation can be seen as the part of that kind of intentional designation. The priorities of the commission states and evidenced the timelessness of structure and forms used in the Mausoleum speaks for the future yet responds the present.

Therefore, in my argumentation, the Anıt-kabir is an attempt to anchor the identity of the nation to the future, in other words it appropriated the future of nation in name of the nation.

The Çankaya Hill rise the fore as the most proper place to build the Atatürk’s Mausoleum in the report of the commission. Atatürk words for the Çankaya and its role in the planning and realization of many reforms and important decisions distinguished the place (BCA, 1942). This commission accomplished its mission, an upper commission, -called Büyük Komisyon (Great Commission) -consisted of fifteen deputies established. The members of the commission were Falih Rıfkı Atay, Rasih Kaplan, Mazhar Germen Süreyya Örgeevren, Refet Canıtez, İsmet Eker, Münir Çağıl, Mazhar Müfit Kansu, Necip Ali Küçükağa, Nafi Atıf Kansu, Saim Ali Dilemre, Salah Çimcoz, Ferit Celal Güven, Tevfik Tarhan and Mithat Aydın. The Great Commission examined the report presented by the special commission. The commission was at the edge of to give the final decision about the location of Anıtkabir. Çankaya Hill and the Ethnographical Museum were seemed to be most proper places. Yet Mithat Aydın, deputy of Trabzon, proposed another location to be considered as the location of the Mausoleum. The members of the commission accepted to visit the Rasattepe Hill proposed by Mithat Aydın. The Rasattepe Hill was in the middle of Ankara and it was empty except a few buildings at that times. The Rasattepe Hill gained the acceptance of almost entire members of the commission. The speech of Süreyya Örgeevren and Emin İnankur became effective to resolve the problem. Emin İnankur told his memoir with Atatürk. He said that once he and Atatürk visited the Rasattepe Hill and Atatürk himself told the hill was perfect a place for monument. And Süreyya Örgeevren gave speech about the symbolic resemblance between the position of the hill as the star of the metaphorical crescent laid

from Dikmen to Etlik and star and crescent of Turkish Flag (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994). English translation of the speech cited from Christopher Wilson’s article as such:

“Rasattepe has another characteristic that will deeply impress everyone. The shape of the present and future Ankara ranging from Dikmen to Etlik reminds [one] of the shape of a crescent while Rasattepe is like a star in the center. Ankara is the body of the crescent. If Atatürk’s Mausoleum [were] placed on this hill, we would embed Atatürk in the center of the crescent of our flag. Thus the capital of Turkey would embrace Atatürk. Atatürk [would] be symbolically unified with our flag” (Wilson, 2009, p. 230)

After the Rasattepe was chosen to serve as the location of Atatürk’s Mausoleum, geographical and archeological reports were prepared and presented to the government. The Hill is appeared to archeological site of Phrygians. In the archeological excavations led by the Tahsin Özgüç, ancient tombs of the Phrygians were detected and transported to the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations that was founded in 1921 (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2009).

3.7 Competition for Atatürk’s Mausoleum: Atatürk is the Nation

The international completion for Atatürk’s Mausoleum announced on March 1st, 1942, the commission published ten general qualifications expected in Atatürk’s Mausoleum. First of all, the Mausoleum should be suitable to be visited by thousands of people and the monument should represent every aspect of sophisticated character of Atatürk. The Mausoleum should be seen from far away. Under the name of Atatürk, the Turkish nation is symbolized. So the one wants to pay respect to the nation will bow before Atatürk’s catafalque. A Hall of Honor, there must be, in which the tomb of Atatürk will sited. Also a museum of Atatürk in which his personal belonging will be displayed must be added to the Mausoleum (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Sayar, 1943). The most striking of those mentioned above is the convergence of the nation and Atatürk in one. So to speak, the

Mausoleum would monumentalize the nation. The monumentalization of Atatürk is equal to monumentalization of the nation.

Zeki Sayar (1943), in his article of journal Arkitekt, states the characteristic of the Mausoleum in detail. The guideline 17, as stated by Sayar, asked to contestant to place the six pillar of RRP determined by Atatürk in Hall of Honor or around the tomb of Atatürk. As Wilson (2007) says, the six pillar of Kemalism was part of the funerary architecture from Dolmabahçe Catafalque to Ankara Catafalque. And when the Atatürk and the nation converged and monumentalized, the six pillars of the regime should take its place in the monument. As it is mentioned in chapter 2, architecture, sites of memory and the identity-making has intrinsic and complicated relations. It is hard to say which is which to affect each other in the first place, yet in our case; depending on Nora’s theoretical contribution, we can assume the architecture project aimed to create a site of memory, that site of memory is there to build national identity. Hence the six pillars of Kemalism should have been added to the Mausoleum since the Republic’s desired identity evolved around these pillars.

Arkitekt (1931-1980) was the first journal of the architecture in the early republic. Zeki Sayar, a student of Vedat Tek and Mogleri, was one of the founding members of the journal. The journal acted as the chair of Turkish architects and many articles published in the journal advocated that the architectural works should be entrusted to Turkish Architects (Wilson, 2009). For example, writing by V.N dated 1933 dedicated to appreciating an article of Kadro that supports their claim in the Arkitekt marked the situation and stated that if we wanted to educate our architects, we should entrust them with new building project rather than foreign architects (N., 1933). Unique position of Arkitekt and Zeki Sayar’s position in

the governance of the journal make Sayar’s article more important to understand the point of view of the Turkish architects.

The competition would end on October 31, 1941, yet it prolonged because of WWII. The new deadline was on March 2, 1942. An international jury consisted of Paul Bonantz, Ivar Tengbom, Karoly Wichinger, Arif Hikmet Oltay, Muammer Çavuşoğlu and Muhlis Sertel founded and they examined the forty-nine entries. A document dated 25 July 1941 stated the necessity of forming a jury to examine the entries to Commission of Anıtkabir (BCA, 1941a). Another document dated 1941; Sweden government suggested the state architect Ivar Tengbom to join the jury (BCA, 1941b). Eight of forty-nine entries were short-listed by the jury. “Collectively, the entries demonstrated a fascinating mix of historical precedents and national references” (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 286).Two of the forty-nine entries eliminated immediately by the jury because one of them contain the name of the architect which was against the rules of the competition and the other one arrived after the dead line. Then, the jury eliminated seven-teen more of the entries because they were not qualified enough to resound the sublime purpose of the competition (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994). Christopher Wilson (2007) summarized the characteristic of 14 known entries like that:

“1- those that evoked an “Eastern/Turkic/Islamic” funereal architectural imagery of cylindrical and/or pyramidal forms (five entries); and

2- those that evoked “Western” funereal architectural imagery (nine entries) of cubic/rectilinear forms.

Those entries that evoked an “Eastern/Turkic/Islamic” imagery were primarily submissions from Turkey, a reflection of the “Second National [Turkish] Style” that was the fashion at the time, as lead by Sedat Hakkı Eldem (1908 - 1988), which attempted to represent Turkish-ness through abstracted forms borrowed from Ottoman and Islamic architecture” (Wilson, 2007, p. 86)

The three of the entries (No. 9 Johannes Kruger, No. 25 Emin Onat-Orhan Arda and No.44 Arnoldo Foschini) shared the first place and five more entries awarded with “honorable mention.” The jury published a report that states pros and cons of three projects, but they did not favored one of them. The final decision belonged to the Turkish Government. Zeki Sayar (1943) stated his and his colleagues’ displeasure about winning projects added that the jury should choose none of them. Best of the winning three projects, according to Sayar, was Kruger’s project since it reflects the effect and idea of monument better than rest of them. Yet, Sayar (1943) says, it does not appeal to us (Turkish nation). (Figure 27;Figure 28) Sayar explained his argument as such:

Figure 27 Frontal View of Kruger’s project (No.9) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

“Among three prize-winning projects, Johannes Krüger’s project is best one that reflects the idea and the effect of monumentality. Although, he achieved to create a real and fancy effect in interior design, the exterior design is crude and it does appeal to

us…. Architect J. Krüger’s project is a strong work. Although the exterior architecture possesses a slightly crude effect, the interior design is rich.” (Sayar, 1943, p. 1,7)

Sayar’s comments shows how contemporary architects are concerned with the selection of the project in terms of monumentality and style.

Figure 28 Interior design of Kruger’s project (No.9) ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

As a whole, the competition jury and Zeki Sayar (1943) appreciated the Kruger’s project (Wilson, 2007). Other winning project was belonged to Italian architect Arnoldo Foschini. Bozdoğan describe his project as “‘Roman pantheons’ with frescoes and golden mosaics.” (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 286). Zeki Sayar (1943) praised the rectangular planned the Mausoluem, yet he found the interior design against Turkish –Islam tradition. It is hard to

say; the Islamic references is one of the priorities of the jury. The subject of monumentality was main priority of the jury and they expected simple massing rather than heavily ornate building (Wilson, 2007).The jury criticized the location of the catafalque and stated that interior design should be simpler (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994).The majesty of the Foschini’s design aroused ancient Roman architecture. The effects of Italian architecture of early twentieth century can be observed in placements, decoration and massing of the project (Wilson, 2007). (Figure 29; Figure 30)

Figure 29 The Frontal View of Arnoldo Foschini’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

At that point, the attitude of Arkitekt should be mentioned. After Zeki Sayar’s article, “Anıtkabir Müsabası Münasebetiile” published in Arkitekt, anonymous article named Anıtkabir Müsabakası Projeleri (“Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri,” 1943) in which non-rewarded project examined published. This article celebrated the works of Turkish Architect affiliated with Second National Style and the project of Necmi Ateş praised especially to be Turkish. In Zeki Sayar’s article about winning projects, he favored the work

of Akçay- Söylemezoğlu- Aru which won honorable mention. Sayar criticized the interior design of winning project of Onat-Arda and condemned its irrelevant with frontal view. As Wilson (2009) says, Arkitekt gave the winning project only two pages, that gave the clue of attitude of editorial stuff against the winning project.

Figure 30 Interior design of Arnoldo Foschini’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

3.1. Onat-Arda’s Anıtkabir: Reserved for Eternity

The final decision about the Atatürk’s Mausoleum was taken by government. After one and half months later, the Jury declared their report on March 20th; the government announced the Project of Onat-Arda had been accepted (Batur, 1998). (Figure 31)

Figure 31 Emin Onat and Orhan Arda’s winning project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

The jury of the competition detected weaknesses and charms of the project in their report. On the continuous levels that structured the terraces, “peri-style” columned main building arises, with the help of these terraces, wide steps occurs and that increases “the effect of the hill” and the top of hill crowned. Yet the interior design condemned by the jury as insufficient, especially in entrances, and also the main building has been crowded with excessive details. Here is again, the motto of the jury became apparent and the jury says if the wall surrounding the wall would be better if it is plainer. The jury seems to be affected by the crowning of the hill splendidly by the project. The horizontal appearance of the project took advantage over two winning projects. Another aspect of the project that praised by the jury was its surrounding columns. They offered to remove side detail in the main part of the monument for the sake of creating more open and clear architecture. And also the interior and exterior design advised to be more suitable style (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2009). (Figure 31)

100

Out of three finalists, only Turkish ones was Emin Onat- Orhan Arda, as Wilson says (2009), it is almost impossible to recover a undisputable proof that evidenced the fact that the Turkish government tended to select the project of Turkish architects, yet rising nationalism and argument against employing foreign architects in “national matters” could be affected their decision. The construction of ultimate “nationalist” monument supposed to rise in the hands of Turkish people to show their gratitude to their savior. At the end, Emin Onat-Orhan Arda announced as the winner of the competition by the government, nevertheless the government

101

Figure 32 Interior design of Emin Onat-Orhan Arda’s project ) “Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri”. Arkitekt, sy 135-136 (Nisan 1943): 59-66.

also demanded changes on the project as the jury reported. (Anıtkabir Tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson 2009) After the declaration, another commission founded to handle the necessary changes in the project of Onat-Arda. The commission consisted of Sedad Hakkı Eldem, Paul Bonantz and Sırrı Sayarı. Emin Onat and Orhan Arda were also present at the commission (BCA, 1943). Paul Bonatz and Sedad Hakkı Eldem were interesting selection indeed. The

102

prominent figure of “Second National Style” was Sedat Hakkı and Paul Bonatz- German architect who admired the classism and monumentality- deeply affected supporters of Second National Style. Paul Bonatz was head of jury that rejected the kümbet style project of Sedat Hakkı Eldem because “dome shape with the base corners cut out is not an appropriate form.” (Wilson, 2007, p. 233) Inclusion of Sedat Hakkı Eldem to the new commission may have been interpreted as the lobby of “Second National Style” supporter served its purpose in a sense. The presence of Sedat Hakkı Eldem also may have assisted to confront the critics about the temple shape of the Mausoleum, since it is supposed Eldem’s additions would make the project more “national” in form and style.

The jury demanded redesign rooms surrounding Hall of Honor and other changes to strength the monumental and plain silüet of the project. Although the report of jury did not mention, recent development led the elimination of attic storey. The architects revised their design according to demanded changes by the jury and the government, so the elimination of attic happened after the redesign. (Figure 33) After geological examination led by Salih Sayar, vast galleries within the Rasattepe Hill explored. In that report, the structure was advised to be as possible as not heavy. That situation may cause the elimination of attic storey. Emin Onat –Orhan Arda planned to garnish “coffin- like” attic storey with relief depicting Independence War and Turkish Revolution (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994). Also Zeki Sayar (1943), too, criticized the attic as unnecessary.

103

Figure 33 Anıtkabir project of Onat-Arda (revisited)

The construction of Anıtkabir began on October 9, 1944 and finished on September 1, 1953. The construction of Atatürk’s Mausoleum was divided four stages. In the first stage of the construction, grading and building of sustaining walls of Street of Lions practiced. Then, in the second stage of the construction, the mausoleum (tomb) and supporting building constructed and it takes one year to finish. Road leading to Anıtkabir, paving of Ceremonial Plaza and The Streets of Lions, making of stair and placement of tomb stone and installation were practised in the third stage. In the last stage of the construction, furnishing of Hall of Honor and other places happened (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994).

After the Mausoleum began to appear, another commission called Anıtkabir Sculpture, Relief and Engraving Commission was founded. The commission consisted of author and deputy Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, German sculptor Rudolf Belling, historian and sociologist Afet İnan, historian and politician Enver Ziya Karal, architect and diplomat Kemali Söylemezoğlu, calligraphist Emin Barın, bureaucrat and historian Kamil Su,

104

bureaucrat and historian Faik Reşit Unat, author and historian Enver Behnan Şapolyo, politician Muammer Çavuşoğlu ve architect Emin Onat. The commission decided that the subject of the sculptures, reliefs and engravings should be taken from Atatürk’s life during Independence War and Turkish Revolutions. Also they decided that at the entrance of Street of Lions, two groups of structure will be placed and the stylized 24 “Hitite” lions will be placed along the way lead up to the Ceromonial Plaza. The placement of reliefs depicting “Battle of Sakarya” and “Battle of Commander-in Chief” on both side of stair leading up to Hall of Honor was decided by the commission. The commission also named the ten towers of Anıtkabir and resolved to ornemantion of the towers according to their themes. The name of ten towers is like that; Independence (İstiklal) Tower, Freedom/Liberty (Hürriyet) Tower, Anonymous Soldier (Mehmetçik) Tower, Victory (Zafer) Tower, Peace (Barış) Tower, 23rd April (23 Nisan) Tower, National Pact (Misak-i Milli) Tower, Revolution (İnkılap) Tower, Republic (Cumhuriyet) Tower and Defense of Rights (Müdafa-i Hukuk) (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2007). Although the commission decided to the placement of the reliefs over side walls of Hall of Honor, it did not happen. The sculptures and reliefs first decided to entrust with European architects, Rudolf Belling argued against that and proposed to entrust only Turkish architects with reliefs and sculptures (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994). Under the chairmanship of Rudolph Belling, a new jury founded for the competition of sculpture and reliefs. Hüseyin Özkan was ranked first on the cateogory of groups of sculpture called “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” and the lions of “Street of Lions”. İlhan Koman won the right to make the relief depicting “Battle of Sakarya” on the right side of Hall of Honor. The relief depicting “Battle of Commander-in Chief”, relief themed “İstiklal” on the inner walls of Independence Tower, relief themed “Hürriyet” on the inner

105

walls of Freedom Tower and relief themed “Mehmetçik” on the inner walls of Anonymous Soldier are the works of Zühtü Mürdioğlu who ranked first in these categories. Nusret Saman gained the right to make the relief themed “Barış” in the Peace Tower, relief themed “Müdafa-i Hukuk” in the Defense of Rights Tower and relief themed “Misak-i Milli” in the National Pact Tower. The relief at the pedestal of flagpole and the ornament on the rostrum were designed by Kenan Yontuç. The relief themed 23rd April is belonged to Hakkı Atamulu. Also rose badge, hobnail and bird palace motives were used in the ornamentation of (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994).

The engraving decided to place to Atatürk’s Mausoleum were chosen from the words of Atatürk related to the themes. The commission resolved about that only Atatürk will be quoted. Also Atarük’s “Address to Turkish Youth” and “Tenth Anniversary Speech” were inscribed on the walls of Hall of Honor. (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2007)

Hüseyin Özkan’s group of sculpture called “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” are ideologically charged figure. (Figure 34;Figure 35) “Turkish Men” sculpture group is consist of a soldier, a villager and a student, in order they represents military power, productivity and education or probably well-educated new generation of the Republic. Two women in front who are holding “a wreath of wheat” symbolizes the fruitful lands of Turkey. The woman figure on the left grasp a cup up to the sky asking for God’s mercy and grace for Atatürk and crying women figure in the back represents nation’s grief over (Anıtkabir tarihçesi, 1994; Wilson, 2007). Lions on the “Street of Lions” are in Hittite-style. Their connotations related to Turkish History Thesis which connects ancient civilization of Anatolia to common ancestry of Modern Turkish Nation. The “Street of Lions” leading up to the Ceremonial Plaza may have created the impression of walking through historical ages

106

and legacies and arriving Mustafa Kemal Atatürk over the visitors. The Seljuk details such as muqarnas, relief arches, water spouts, rosettes and bird house are there to demonstrate the roots of Turkish architecture. Also the “bronze arrowhead” at the top of ten towers symbolize the Turkic nomadic tent (Wilson, 2007). The forms, style and elements from wide range of civilaztions are the evidence of the “carefully-editing” of the past. Additionally, Anıtkabir as mixture of form and styles completed its timeless and beyond the style characteristic.

Figure 34 Hüseyin Özkan’s “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” group of sculptures

107

Figure 35 Hüseyin Özkan’s “Turkish Men” and “Turkish Women” group of sculptures

Figure 36 the Street of Lions (Hittite Lions)

The motifs of Turkish carpets can be observed through the Mausoleum. Yet, the number and complexity of the motif increased inside the Hall of Honour. “The roof beams of the ceiling are not even exempt from such treatment, with intricate patterns composed of

108

gold mosaic tiles” (Wilson, 2007, p. 113). Although the real corpse of Atatürk lays in a “Seljuk-decorated” and “octagon-shaped” chamber, a sarcophagus where visitor pay their respect is at the end of Hall and in front of “framed over-sized window”.

“Although this point of the experience is the most personal part of Anıtkabir, the sarcophagus, the end goal of a visit to Anıtkabir, completes the national narration: from the male and female sculptures to the pavilions/towers to the Street of Lions to the battle reliefs to the inscriptions of famous Atatürk sayings the entire experience is meant to symbolize the history (and future?) of the Turkish nation.” (Wilson, 2007, p. 115)

As Wilson argued the experience intended to represent the history and the future of the nation. At the end, the corpse of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk picked up from the Ethnographical Museum and placed to Anıtkabir in 10 November 1953. The great ceremony held in Anıtkabir and following days seventy-thousands people visited his eternal resting place to pay their respect.

In the journal of Arkitekt, Emin Onat-Orhan Arda’s article about Anıtkabir as built published in 1955. Emin Onat and Orhan Arda explained connection of their design to prevalent national history thesis (Bozdoğan, 2001):

“Our past, like that of all Mediterranean civilizations, goes back thousands of years. It starts with Sumerians and Hittites and merges with the life of many civilizations from Central Asia to the depths of Europe, thus forming one of the main roots of the classical heritage. Atatürk, rescuing us from middle ages, widened our horizons and showed us that our real history resides not in the Middle Ages but in the common sources of the classical world. In monument for the leader of our revolution and our savior from the Middle Ages, we wanted to reflect this new consciousness. Hence we decided to construct our design philosophy along the rational lines of seven-thousand-year-old classical civilization rather than associating it with the tomb of sultan or a saint.” (Bozdoğan, 2001, p. 289)xv

Onat- Arda emphasized that not unless the shared and ancient roots of civilization examine deeper, the real nationalism will strength. Obviously, the form they practiced in Anıtkabir was directly reference to these shared roots. Their implication is the form of

109

Anıtkabir is universal rather than form of a Saint’s tomb. Becoming civilized and becoming westernized is the same with becoming nationalized, they argued (Onat & Arda, 1955).

Figure 37 Anıtkabir (Frontal View of temple-shaped main structure of the Mausoleum)

After Atatürk arrived Ankara, as mentioned above, the monumentalization of his death began. Atatürk, himself is identified with the nation. Therefore, building Atatürk’s Mausoleum was much more ideologically and representatively than building a tomb. Those succeeded power after the death of Atatürk politicized the memory of Atatürk for the sake of construction of the national identity. Wilson’s argument about the symbolization of “edited” Turkish history in Anıtkabir seems correct, yet his hesitation about the Mausoleum symbolizes the future of the Turkish nation is inept. In my argumentation, the Mausoleum is monument that articulates with the future of the nation and situate itself in-between the present and the future. That unique position provides to the Mausoleum act as remembering place of being Turkish nation within designated limitations in time of crises. As Afife Batur (1998) says Anıtkabir has design transcending style that goes beyond time. That point may have been conflicted in an architectural wise, yet it is quite well-directed when ideologically and symbolically charged nature of the Mausoleum is considered. The appropriation of wide range of styles and forms of many civilizations means the appropriation of the future of the

110

nation to the present. Anıtkabir anchored the future to the present, in a way; the landmark colonized the future of nation for the sake of present. The present meant here is not the contemporary of 1940-50s; the present mentioned here is the flowing time and continuous contemporary.

Timeless style of the monument makes it perfect site of Republican collective memory. Memory is open-ended; especially sites of memory are open to negotiation and ideologically recharging. As site of memory of the Republic, the Mausoleum works like a school to learn, teach and remember the identity of the Turkish nation.“Such phenomena serve in return the continuing nation-building and rebuilding process in Turkey” (Akçalı, 2010, p. 19). The Mausoleum is evidenced its efficiency in time of crises. Recent demonstration against ruling party that ends up in Anıtkabir and increasing number of visitors of Anıtkabir who are not content with political situation may have been considered as the proofs of function of the Mausoleum as Republican site of memory.xvi

Materialized “circuits of memory”xvii (wide range of mixed style, visual themed with Turkish revolution and Atatürk’s heroism) throughout Atatürk’s Mausoleum produces and reproduces the features of imagined Turkish community and appropriates the collective remembering of the Turkish Nation. Anıtkabir is much like a knot tied onto time and space of the Republic that keeps together a bundle of appropriate characteristic of modern Turkish national-identity.

111

4 CONCLUSION

“If the expression of lieu de mémoire must have been an official definition, it should be this: a lieu de mémoire is any significant entity, whether material or non-material in nature, which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community. [….] The narrow concept had emphasized the site: the goal was to exhume significant sites, to identify the most obvious and crucial centers of national memory, and then to reveal the existence of invisible bonds tying them all together. (Nora, 1996b, p. XVII)

In this thesis, the construction and transformation of site of memory in the early republic is analysed through two cases: Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir (Atatürk’s Mausoleum). The building of a national identity is a complicated endeavour that entails continuous “reproduction” efforts. As discussed above, to build a nation is entailed to share a collective remembrance (Renan, 1996). To organize and re-organize the collective remembrance is required a repertoire of means which can be utilized by the nation-state. The sites of memory are appeared to be one of these means. Nora formulated the term of “site of memory” to address and to decipher how these circuits of national memory is emerged and connected to each other. (Nora, 1996b) Dolmabahçe Palace and Anıtkabir is two important examples of sites of memory of Early Republican Turkey. Each of them demonstrates different angles of building a national identity through the

112

concrete environment. Each of them forms significant part of collective memory of Turkish nation. And lastly, each of them is unique example of creating/building sites of the collective memory. Regarding the representations of and memory usage of Turkish modernity in early republican period, Dolmabahçe and Anıtkabir demonstrates the vision of early Turkish republic on national identity. As Lara pointed out in his article, (a specific) memory can be “was manufactured and used to anchor the modernist project both in the useful past and the prospective future.”(Lara, 2002, p. 2018). In the Turkish modernist project, Dolmabahçe as a relic Ottoman past colonized and transformed in a useful past as site of memory of the Republic, and Anıtkabir as timeless space is there to colonize the prospective future of – in another way design and redesign future memory – the Republic.

In this research, I have provided a detailed discussion of the processes of transforming/building/creating. In these two cases, I hope to demonstrate sources of collective memory of the nation carefully designed and/or re-designed by the nation-state itself for a unified national identity. The national identity is built through collective memory of nation.(Renan, 1996) The collective memory is reproduced brick by brick on “sites of memory”(Nora, 1989). Thus, “sites of memory” is fabricated or in some cases transformed/colonized by politics of nation-state.

The heritage politics in a sense dealing with Ottoman past and visual politics in an architectural wise has the capacity to decipher the memory-politics of Turkish Republic. As discussed in the Chapter 2, in the agenda of a nation state, the campaign for building a nation generally involves with an architectural campaign. The visibility of a monument and its easy inclusion to the daily life make it perfect place to encode “appropriate”

113

characteristic of the nation. Architectural objects are, rather than being neutral massing, precisely imitated with discursive power. The narrative of the architectural object is moulded by narrative of the sovereign power. So to speak, monuments, building, houses represents and materialize the discourse of new regime in power. A site of monuments and monumental buildings becomes the sites of collective memory of the nation in which building and re-building of national identity is maintained.

The case of Dolmabahçe, in this sense, is epitomizing how the landmarks of another regime can turn into site of memory of the new regime and become the source of collective memory of the nation. Dolmabahçe Palace is appeared to be the materialized will of Ottoman Modernization which conceived the Republican Modernism. Yet in the early republic, the attitude towards to Ottoman legacy was not positive.

The case of Dolmabahçe Palace seems to be an exception which was appropriated to official discourse of the Republic. After the abolition of Ottoman dynasty, the Republic nationalized the properties of Ottoman dynasty including palaces. The sore point the one should focus is the foundation of department of National Palaces to protect two Western style palaces of Ottoman Dynasty: Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace. After the abolishment of the caliphate by Turkish Grand National Assembly on March 3, 1924, Article 8, 9 and 10 of the code dealt with the properties of Ottoman Dynasty. According these articles, all estates, lands, palaces, kiosks, gems, jewellery, precious stones, stocks in Hazine-i Hümayun, all master pieces and other valuable objects in imperial residences became the property of nation. Article 11 stated the need to publish a pack of regulations to determine and arrange inherited goods and real estates from Ottoman dynasty to the Turkish nation. In other words, the goods and the properties of

114

the Empire were transferred to national treasure. After the Code issued, the Palaces stayed closed for three months. Then a commission as offered in Article 11 were established to prepare a very detailed report about nationalized palaces and the properties (Karıncalı, 2011). In the early republican period, the first step taken towards to transform an Ottoman sites (Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace) into a Republican site is the foundation of the Department of National Palaces under the secretary of Grand National Assembly (1 May 1925). Dolmabahçe Palace and Beylerbeyi Palace were put under the authority of newly founded Department of National Palaces. The reasons may had risen the fore in the selection of those two palaces discussed in Chapter 2. Yet, “modernization” and “westernization” connation embedded in the Dolmabahçe Palace should be addressed one more time. The new regime took the advantage of an Ottoman space which already affiliated with ideas of “modernization” and “westernization” to reinforce its discourse about modernizing the nation. And, the regime annexed the symbolic and representative capacity of the palace as governing centre to consolidate its power on Istanbul So, Dolmabahçe Palace became a “milli” (national) palace. The word “milli” excludes the imperial and dynastic past of the site and includes the site to nationalization effort. Soon after, the interventions that aimed to erase symbols of Ottoman dynasty and imperial past is observable. The removal portraits of Ottoman Sultans in Dolmabahçe Palace and then an attempt to erase the Ottoman tuğras on the walls and gates of the Palace are evidences of these interventions of the new regime. To separate an important landmark from its past can be seen part of the nation-state’s campaign to carefully edit the past for the sake of nation-building.

115

Atatürk’s arrival and his politic and cultural efforts in the Palace are another important aspect of the thesis to demonstrate how the Palace witnessed and hosted some of the most significant cultural and political events in the early republican period. Studies on Turkish language, Turkish history and fine art exhibitions are corner stones in cultural life of Young Republic. The physical intervention resulted from Henri Prost’s Master Plan for Istanbul is examined to see change in the Dolmabahçe Palace Complex which supposed to be an integral whole with its surrounding buildings. The demolishment of those buildings destroyed the integral wholeness of the Palace as an Ottoman Palace and turn into residency of president. The construction of the Dolmabahçe Square can be interpreted as the secularization of the Palace since it separated the Bezmi Alem Mosque from the Palace. Thus, Dolmabahçe Palace as the seat of the President of Turkey which accepts the secularism as one of the key properties of modernization becomes a secular place. In other words, organic ties between the Mosque and the Palace disturbed and symbolically, I can say, the Islam and Islamic elements excluded from modernization of the Republic, although they have place in Ottoman Modernization. Lastly, the death of Atatürk and memorialisation of his death, in a way, completed the transformation of the Dolmabahçe Palace into “site of memory” of the Republic.

The construction of Anıtkabir epitomizes the newly construction of “site of memory” of the Turkish Republic. After the death of Atatürk, his funeral carried to Ankara- heart of the nation- and immediately the idea of building a worthy resting place for Atatürk flourished. The selection of the place for Atatürk’s Mausoleum examined to understand the priorities of the new regime and its way of monumentalization of Atatürk. The selection was ideological and aims to be the perfect place where Atatürk and nation

116

became unified and stays like that for eternity. So, the Mausoleum also represents the the values, ideals, past and future of Turkish nation. Therefore, the properties of the Mausoleum were strictly regulated by the government through commissions. The examination of the participants’ projects and the winning project had the clues of how the Mausoleum should be. The monumental and mass scaling of the projects and commission’s tendency to favour the Hellenistic style monuments are the clues of the orientation of the new regime. New regime wanted a create a monument that represents the might and the characteristics of the nation of Turkey.

Sculpture, engravings, reliefs and pre-Ottoman architectural details of Atatürk’s Mausoleum tells the designed story of the Turkish nation and help the nation remember the desired past and forget the unwanted past. As a perfect site of memory, the Mausoleum with its timeless style and forms articulates itself with the future, it works like an anchor which attaches itself to the future of the nation for the sake of nation.

The building and re-building of the nation occurs through these “sites of memory” of the Republic. The collective memory as a dialectical and constantly negotiated realm plays very important role in the making of national identity. If collective remembering and collective forgetting makes the nation, the sites of memory are the agents that produce and re-produce the appropriate characteristics of the nation. In process of nation-building, the monuments and the building have special place because their dynamic interaction with the collective memory of the nation. Therefore, the Republic pays attention the details of the monuments they had built or they had transformed.

117

i See Sibel Bozdoğan’s Modernism and Nation Building and see Peter Jones’s Architecturing Modern Nation

ii According to İlksen Yumruk Çağlar, in the Byzatine Period, name of the bay was “Pantekontarikon”.

iii See Arzu Karamani’s Classical Architectural Elements in Façade Decoration of Dolmabahçe Palace and Mustafa Cezar’s The Architectural Decoration of Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Palaces articles in National Palaces 1992 for more detailed analysis of the architectural style and decorations of Dolmabahçe Palace

iv See Pars Tuğlacı’s The Role of Balyan Family in Ottoman Architecture for more detailed information about the family and their influence on Ottoman architecture

v “During his (Garabet’s) thirty years as an imperial architect he built seven palaces and kasırs, four factories, a barrack a mosque, seven churches, two hospitals, three schools, two reservoir, a sebil (kiosk for dispensing free water) and a tomb” (Tuğlacı, 1990, 88)

vi Cited from Z. Payzın’s TBMM: Milli Saraylarımızın Temel Sorunları p.9-10

(12 Mayıs 1341) 1925 - 1371 Sayılı Kararname

MADDE I. — Sakıt hanedan tarafından işgal edilmekte iken 3 Mart 1340 (1924) tarihli (431 S. K.) Kanunun

mevkii tatbi'ka vazı uzerine ≪Sarayları tespit ve muhafaza komisyonları≫ namiyle teşkil olunan komisyonlar

marifetiyle mevcudu tahrir edilmekle beraber tahtı muhafazaya aldırılmış olan mebaniden Topkapı

Sarayı nvuze ittihaz olunmak uzere muzeler idaresine ve Doimabahce Beylerbeyi sarayları ≪Milli Saraylar≫

namı altında muhafaza edilmek ve Aynabkavak ve Tophane kasırları da kongre ve konferanslara ve ictimaata

tahsis olunmak uzere idaresi bu sarayların mevaddı atiye mucibince teşekkul edecek ≪Milli Saraylar

Mudurluğune≫ tevdi ve aksam ve muştemilatı muhtel!fesinden her birinin vaziyeti başkaca tayin olunmak

uzere Yıldız Sarayı muteferriatı da muvakkaten bu mudiriyete ilhak ve bunların haricinde kalacak mebanide

icar ve furuht gibi takdir olunacak suveri muhtelife ile muci'bi istifade bir hale konulması zımmında

İstanbul Vilayeti emlaki milliye mudiriyetine terk olunmuştur.

MADDE 2. — ≪Milli Saraylar Mudiriyeti≫ doğru !an, doŞruya Maliye Vekaletine merbut olup tahtı idaresindeki

saray ve kasırları bina ve mefruşatı itibariyle idamei mamuriyet ve muhafazai mazbutiyetlerini temin

ve bunun istilzam ettiği muamelat ve muhaberatı ifa ile mukelleftir.

MADDE 3. — Memurin ve mustahdemin maa.şatiyle terkos suyu ile ve elektrik ve telefon ucuratı gibi

masarifi mukannene ile masarifi muteferrikadan bir kalemden bin kuruşa kadar olan sarfiyat Saraylar Mudiriydtimn

işaretiyle muhasibi mesul tarafından tesviye olunur. Bin kuruştan yukarı masarif icin vekaletten

istizan edilecektir.

MADDE 4. — Saraylar tamiratı mutemadiye ve cuz'iyesirıin husnu ifası icin Dolmabahcedeki ebniye

ambarı Milli Saraylar Mudiriyetine raptedum iştir. Gerek aynen gerek nakten-on bin kuruşa kadar sarfiyatı

istilzam eden tamiratı mustacele tahsisatı mevcut oldukca doğrudan doğruya Saraylar Mudiriyetince yaptırılabilir,

on bin kuruştan yuikarı olan tamirat icin Vekaletten istizan olunur.

MADDE 5. — Saraylar Mudiriyetinin riyaseti tahtında muavin ile muhasibi mes'ulden ve kontrol memurundan

murekkep bir encumen teşekkul edecek ve bin kuruştan yukarı sarfiyat ile mustahdemin tayin ve ter

fi ve mukafat ve mtieazatına muteallik hususatı karar altına alacaktır.

MADDE 6. — Dolmabahce Sarayının kısmen veya kamilen umuma kuşadı takarrur ettiği takdirde ziyaret

edeceklerden alınacak duhuliye ile fersude ve ferde cşva satışı gibi husustan hasıl olacak varidat Saraylar

118

Mudiriyeti muhasibi mes'ulliğince cibayet olunarak emaneten irat kaydolunur.

MADDE 7. — Saraylardan herhangi bir dairei resmiyeye eşya itası veyahut hurda ve luzumsuz eşyanın

satılması ancak Maliye Vekaletinden tebliğ edilecek (emre) ve Heyeti Vekile kararma musteniden icra edilebilir,

bu suretle cıkacak eşyanın tashihi kaydı icra ve evrakı esasiyesi Saraylar Mudiriyetince hıfzolunur.

MADDE 8. — Saraylar eşyası meyanında bulunup esasen kıymeti maddiye ve kabiliyeti istim al i yeleri olmayan

akşamı muhtac olan devaire tevdi veya furııht olunmak uzere Maliye Vekaletince bir listesi tanzim

ettirilerek Heyeti Vekile karariyle elden cıkarılacaktır.

MADDE 9. — Sarayların haricen emniyetlerinin tahtı mazbutiyette bulundurulması ve Dolmabahce Sarayı

ile Yıldız'da bulunan jandarma ve p o l i s i n ipkasiyle beraber daima vazifelerine takayyut etmelerinin temini

kemakan fstanbul vilayetine ait olacaktır. (9-10)

vii Cited from Ziya Payzın’s TBMM: Milli Saraylarımızın Temel Sorunları p.10-11

12. 3. 1934 Tarihli T. B. M. Meclisi Başkanlık Divanı K;;rarı. (Buradaki Maddeler 12.1 . 1341 Tarihli

Vekiler Heyeti Talimatına Paralel Tertiplenmiştir.)

1. Milli Saraylar İdaresine Talimatname ile tevdi edilen binalar, Dolmabahce, Beylerbeyi sarayları ile

Tophane ve Aynalıkavak koşkleri idi. Sonradan 10 Haziran 1341 ve 18 Teşrinisani 1341 ve 24 Temmuz 1930

tarihli Heyeti Vekile kararı ile Ihlamur, Kucuksu, Ya'ova koşkleri ilave edilmiş olduğu gibi, bu defa da kendi

bahcesiyle beraber Yıldız Sarayının yalnız merasim dairesi Beynelmilel kongre ve konferanslara tahsis

edilmek uzere Milli Saraylar idaresine raptedilmiştir.

2. Milli Saraylar Mudurluğu Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi Riyasetine merbut olup idaresi altındaki saray

ve koşklerin bina ve mefruşat itibariyle idamei mamuriyet ve muhafaz'aiarmı temin ve bunun istilzam ettiği

muamelat ve muhaberatı ifa ile mukelleftir.

3< Milli Saraylara ait masrafların tahakkuk muamelesi Saraylar Mudurluğunce yapılarak tahakkuk evrakı

amiri ita olan Buyuk Millet Meclisi İdare Amirleri Heyetine gonderilecek ve tediye muamelesi Meclis

muhasebesince yapılacaktır. Mustacel ve kucuk sarfiyat icin saraylar mutemetliğine alelusul bin lira avam

verilir. Yuz liraya kadar muteferrika vesair masraflar mudurun işaretiyle bu avanstan tediye edilir.

4. Saraylar bina ve mefruşatının mutemadi tamiratı icin Milli Saraylar Mudurluğune verilmiş olan salahiyet

28 Haziran 1927 tarihli İcra Vekilleri Heyeti Kararıyle tamirat icin l 000 ve mefruşat icin beşyuz lira

olmak uzere tespit edilmiş olmakla bu miktarlar aynen ipka edilmiştir. Bu miktarlardan fazlası icin Meclis

Riyasetinden istizan edilecektir.

5. Saraylar Mudurunun riyaseti altında ayniyat muhasibi ve kontrol memuru ile mutemet ve hesap memurundan

murekkep bir encumen vardır. Munakaşalar ve pazarlık suretiyle yapılacak işler ve dorduncu maddede

yazılı hatlar dahilindeki tamirat mefruşat masraflarıyle Reisicumhur Hazretlerinin ikametleri esnasında

ve fevkalade vaziyetler zuhurunda, ilavesine luzum gorulecek, muvakkat mustahdemin ucretlerinin tesviyesi

ve mustahdeminin tayini terfiine ve mucazaat ve terkini kaydına muteallik hu susat bu encumen kararıyle yapılır.

memur ve katiplerin tayini makamı Riyasetin tensibiyle olur.

6. Takibat noktasından, (12 Mayıs 1341) Talimatnamenin altıncı maddesine, şimdiye kadar luzum gorulmediğinden

ve bundan sonra da tatbikine luzum olmayacağından tayyeditmiştir.

7. Saraylardan herhangi bir dairei resmiyeye eşya verilmesi yahut luzumsuz hurda eşyanın satılması

Meclis Riyasetinden Saraylar Mudurluğune tebliğ olunacak Divanı Riyaset kararFile icra olunur.

— 11 —

Hu suretle cıkacak eşyanın kayıtları tashih ve evrakı esasiyesi Saraylar Mudurluğunce hıfzolunur. Ve usulen

tanzim olunacak mufredat listelerinin bir sureti Maliye Vekaletine gonderilir.

Satılan eşyaların bedelleri mal sandığına teslim olunur. Saraylar Mudurluğu işbu muaddel talimatnameyi

ılmasım muteakip saraylar ve merbutatından halen mevcut bulunan bilumum eşyanın bir defterim' en kısa zamanda

Meclis Riyasetine ve bir suretini de Maliye Vekaletine gonderecektir.

8. Bu madde yedinci maddeye kıyasen tatbik edilecektir.

viii Cited from Ümit Karıncalı’s Cumhurbaşkalığı Makamı Olarak Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Atatürk p.30

“İstanbul halkını, İstanbul’daki cemiyetleri ve muhtelif teşekkülleri heyeti aliyenizde selamlamakla bahtiyarım.

Aziz vatandaşlarımın bana karşı olan teveccüh ve muhabbetlerinin bugünkü parlak tezahüratından çok mütehassis oldum. Samimi kalbimden teşekkür ederim. İstanbul’dan çıktığım günden bugüne kadar sekiz sene geçti, hicran ve tahassürle geçen dakikaların bile ne kadar uzun geldiğini düşünülürse sekiz senelik hasretin, İstanbul’un muhterem ahalisi için ruhumda ateşlediği iştiyakın büyüklüğü kolaylıkla takdir olunur. İki cihanın mültekasında Türk vatanının ziyneti, Türk tarihinin serveti, Türk milletinin göz bebeği İstanbul, bütün vatandaşların kalbinde yeri olan bir şehirdir. Bu şehir meş’um hadiselerle mustarib bulunduğu zamanlar bütün vatandaşların kalplerinde kanayan yaralar açılmıştı. Kalbi yaralı olanlardan biri de bendim.

Bugün görüyoruz ki geçirdiğimiz karanlık gecelerin meşiminden kalblerimizi mesa rile dolduran nurlu seherler doğdu. Sekiz sene evvel mustarib ağlayan İstanbul’dan kalbim sızlayarak çıktım. Teşyi edenim yoktu. Sekiz sene sonra kalbim müsterih olarak gülen ve daha güzelleşen İstanbul’a geldim. Bütün İstanbulluların ruhuma heyecan veren sıcak ve muhabbetkar aguşuyla karşılandım.

119

Sekiz sene heyet-I içtimaiyemizin dahil olduğu devrin tarihi, ihtiva ettiği ihtilallerle inkılaplarla ve neticeleriyle az meşbu değildir. Sekiz sene de milletimizin siyasi, içtimai, medeni inkişaf yolunda gösterdiği kabiliyet ve liyakat derecesi yüksektir. Bu dereceyi hergün daha yükseltmek için çok dikkatle ve azimle çalışacağız. Vatanın imarı, milletin refahı daha çok gayret ve mesai talep etmektir. Hissiyatı ve vicdani telakkiyatı ilim ve fen ie tenmiye ve terbiye ederek heyet-i içtimaiyemizin hakiki huzur ve saadetine çalışmak ulvi bir nokta-i nazardır. Bu nokta-i nazarı, size aziz İstanbul halkına sekiz sene evveline kadar içinde yedi evliya kuvvetinde bir heyula tasavvur ettirilmek istenen bu Saray’ın içinden söylüyorum. Yalnız artık bu saray zılluhlahların değil zıl olmıyan hakikat olan milletin sarayıdır ve ben burada milletin bir ferdi bir misafiri olarak bulunmakla bahtiyarım.

İstanbul’un bedii güzellikleri, İstanbul halkının samimi nüvazişleri içinde geçireceğim günlerin bende yeniden unutulmaz hatıralar bırakacağını feyzler ilhamlar yaratacağına şüphem yoktur.

Bunun içim çok seviniyorum. Bu sevinci bütün halka iblağ buyurmanızı rica eder ve heyet-i aliyenizi tekrar selamlarım.”

ix See Bülent Bakar’s Cumhuriyet Döneminde Atatürk’ün İstanbul Ziyareti (1 Temmuz- 30 Eylül 1927) for more details

x Check for full text: https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/td_v2.goruntule?sayfa_no_ilk=59&sayfa_no_son=60&sayfa_no=57&v_meclis=1&v_donem=5&v_yasama_yili=&v_cilt=23&v_birlesim=035

xi Cited From Pierre Pinon’s Henri Prost: From Paris and Rome to Morocco and Istanbul in From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost Planning of Istanbul.

“Henri Prost was born on 25 February 1874 in Paris. He sutdies at Ecole Speciale d’Architecture and, asof 1893, at Ecole des Beaux Art, at the studio of Marcel Lambert, the 1873 recipient of Grand Prix d’Arcihtecture, who, in 1878 had sent from Rome the “Restoration” of the Acropolis of Athens as a resident stutent artist…… in 1905, Prost empark upın a great Eastern adventure. During his stay in Istanbul from Semptember1905 to January 1906, Prost noticed the absence of detailed building surveys and the poor condiyon of Haghia Sophia…. Prost would have to wait until 1911 to go back to Istanbul. Dated 29 May 1911, a letter from the Foreign Minister to the Frenc Ambasodar in Istanbul Maurice Bompart informs us that the Minister of Public Education authorized Prost, who was working as an architect at the Palaces fo Versailles and Trianon to go to Istanbul for three weeks in order to be “consulted on the work carried out to ensure the conservation of the Mosque of Haghia Sofia.” …. Meanwhile Prost submitted his “restoration” in 1910; he was praised by Acedemie des Beaux Arts and awarded a medal of honour by the jury of Salon des Artistes Français of 1911.”

xi It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion… With certain ferocity Gellner makes a comparable point when he rules that 'Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist.'” (Anderson, [1983]2006)

xi The term ‘invented tradition’ is used in a broad, but not an imprecise sense. It includes ‘both’ traditions actually invented, constructed and formally instituted and those emerging in a less easily traceable manner within a brief and dateable period – a matter of few years perhaps- and establishing themselves with rapidity……… ‘Invented tradition’ is taken to meet a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual and symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.” ((Hobsbawm & Ranger [1983] 2000)

xi “.. the most persuasive critique advanced by historians has been directed against the equation of nationalism with a process of administrative penetration and cultural diffusion, an assertion that is at the heart of leading modernist theories of nationalism. Thus, according to Ernst Gellner and Karl W. Deutsch, people become national not out of voluntary adherence to a set of shared values and symbols but due to the structural requirements of modern, industrialized societies. From this perspective, acquiring a national identity is tantamount to becoming a skilled practitioner of the cultural codes of modern society. those who

120

oppose to nationalization on ideological grounds are bound to pay the price of economic hardship and social exclusion.” (Zimmer, 2003, 2)

xi See Sibel Bozdoğan’s Modernism and Nation Building and see Peter Jones’s Architecturing Modern Nation

xi Qouted from Lawrance J. Vale’s Architecture, Power and National Identity Geertz says “The people pf the new states are simultaneously animated by two powerful, thoroughly independent, yet distinct and often actually opposed motives - the desire to be recognized as responsible agents whose wishes, acts, hopes and opinions “matter”, and the desire to build an efficient, dynamic modern state. The one aim is to be noticed: it is a search for an identity, and a demand that the idendity be publicly acknowledged as having import, a social assertion of the self as “being somebody in the world.” The other aim is practical: it is a demand for progress, for a rising standard of living , more effective political order, greater social justice, and beyond that of “playing a part in the larger arena of world politics,” of exercising influence among the nations.” (Vale, 1992, 53)

xi According to İlksen Yumruk Çağlar, in the Byzatine Period, name of the bay was “Pantekontarikon”.

xi See Arzu Karamani’s Classical Architectural Elements in Façade Decoration of Dolmabahçe Palace and Mustafa Cezar’s The Architectural Decoration of Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Palaces articles in National Palaces 1992 for more detailed analysis of the architectural style and decorations of Dolmabahçe Palace

xi See Pars Tuğlacı’s The Role of Balyan Family in Ottoman Architecture for more detailed information about the family and their influence on Ottoman architecture

xi “During his (Garabet’s) thirty years as an imperial architect he built seven palaces and kasırs, four factories, a barrack a mosque, seven churches, two hospitals, three schools, two reservoir, a sebil (kiosk for dispensing free water) and a tomb” (Tuğlacı, 1990, 88)

xi Cited from Ümit Karıncalı’s Cumhurbaşkalığı Makamı Olarak Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Atatürk p.30

“İstanbul halkını, İstanbul’daki cemiyetleri ve muhtelif teşekkülleri heyeti aliyenizde selamlamakla bahtiyarım.

Bunun içim çok seviniyorum. Bu sevinci bütün halka iblağ buyurmanızı rica eder ve heyet-i aliyenizi tekrar selamlarım.”

xi See Bülent Bakar’s Cumhuriyet Döneminde Atatürk’ün İstanbul Ziyareti (1 Temmuz- 30 Eylül 1927) for more details

xi Cited From Pierre Pinon’s Henri Prost: From Paris and Rome to Morocco and Istanbul in From the Imperial Capital to the Republican Modern City: Henri Prost Planning of Istanbul.

121

d’Arcihtecture, who, in 1878 had sent from Rome the “Restoration” of the Acropolis of Athens as a resident stutent artist…… in 1905, Prost empark upın a great Eastern adventure. During his stay in Istanbul from Semptember1905 to January 1906, Prost noticed the absence of detailed building surveys and the poor condiyon of Haghia Sophia…. Prost would have to wait until 1911 to go back to Istanbul. Dated 29 May 1911, a letter from the Foreign Minister to the Frenc Ambasodar in Istanbul Maurice Bompart informs us that the Minister of Public Education authorized Prost, who was working as an architect at the Palaces fo Versailles and Trianon to go to Istanbul for three weeks in order to be “consulted on the work carried out to ensure the conservation of the Mosque of Haghia Sofia.” …. Meanwhile Prost submitted his “restoration” in 1910; he was praised by Acedemie des Beaux Arts and awarded a medal of honour by the jury of Salon des Artistes Français of 1911.”

xi “For larger questions of urban design, Atatürk and his followers also looked toward Europe for guidance. In a completion held in 1927, three designers were invited to submit plans for the development of Ankara on large tract of underdeveloped land to the south of the old town. The master plan by Herman Jansen of Berlin was selected […] Less rigidly geometrical and monumental than its alternatives, Jansen’s plan emphasized the creation of Garden city kinds of neighborhoods and was not premised simply on the exalted depiction of government. Yet a capitol complex was given a high priority placement in a triangulated sector of baroque symmetry pointing toward the heights of ancient citadel.” (Vale, 1992, 99)

xi It is interesting enough to note the reaction of Ahmet Haşim in Gurabhane-I Laklakan, famous poet, to First National Style. Cited from Sibel Bozdağan’s Modernism And Nationa Building:

“Since young poets started to compose in the modern meter and since some novelty fans started to conduct Turkish saz music with a baton, a notorious medrese architecture, which we do not know what to call, has proliferated among our architects. Domes reminiscent of the turban taken off the religious fanatic have started to mushroom under the Turkish sky. Hotel, bank, school, ferry landing, all are now caricature of mosque, missing a minaret on the outside or minber inside… This kind of return to the past is degeneration, a reactionary architecture [mürteci mimari]” (Bozdoğan, 2001, 16)

xi Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, famous novelist and diplomat, reacted positively to New Arcgitecture and criticized the old style building in his well-known work, Ankara. Cited from Afife Batur’s To be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture:

“Among the villas extending from Yenişehir to Kavaklıdere it was impossible not to come across towerless, eaveless buildings. Thank God, this trend which spread during the incompetence and poor taste of early years, was suddenly replaced by Modern architectue… they too used to live in a house with tower and overhangiing eaves. Later, like all the families, they also were affected by a consuming urge for the Modern. Hakkı Bey outdid everyone else in the matter of house and displayed the first example of the cubist to everbody. Hakkı Bey’s house became the first of the buildings with glazed corners, lacquered doors and celings hollowed out for concealed electrical installations.” (Batur,2005, 80)

xi The translation of Turkish text of Arda & Onat cited from Sibel Bozdoğan major work Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Original text is cited from Arkitekt No.280 (1955-02) below (sentences in parentheses are part of the original text, excerpted from English translation):

“Akdeniz milletlerinden bir çoğu gibi tarihimiz binlerce sene evveline gidiyor,Sümmerlerden ve Hititlerden başlıyor ve Orta Asya’dan Avrupa içerlerine kadar bir çok kavimlerin hayatına karışıyor, Akdeniz medeniyetinin klasik ananesinin en büyük köklerinden birini teşkil ediyordu. Atatürk, bize bu zengin ve verimli tarih zevkini aşılarken, ufkumuzu genişletti. Hakiki mazimizin ortacağda değil, dünya klasiklerinin müşterek kaynaklarında olduğunu gösterdi.[…] Bunun içindir ki biz, (Türk milletinin skolastikten uyanma,) ortacağdan kurtulma yolunda yaptığı inkılabın büyük önderi için kurmak istediğimiz anıtın, onun getirdiği yeni ruhu ifade etmesini isedik.[…] İşte bunun içindir ki, (garblılaşma yolundaki en büyük byük hamlelerimizi yapan Atanın Anıt-Kabrini) bir sultan ve ya Veli Türbesi ruhundan tamamen ayrı yedi bin senelik bir medeniyetin rasyonel çizgilerine dayanan klasik bir ruh içinde kurmak istedik.

xi Check Emel Akçalı’s The Ambivalent Role of National Landmarks in the Age of Globalization: The case of Atatürk’s mausoleum in Turkey

xi Cited from Emel Akçalı’s The Ambivalent Role of National Landmarks in the Age of Globalization: The case of Atatürk’s mausoleum in Turkey

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1840 S.D.U.K. Map of Constantinople ( Istanbul, Turkey ). (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2018, from Geographicus Rare Antique Maps website: https://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/Istanbul-sduk-1841

Akbayar, N. (1988). Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş. İstanbul: Beşiktaş Belediyesi Yayınları.

Akçalı, E. (2010). The ambivalent role of national monuments in the age of globalisation: The case of Atatürk's mausoleum in Turkey. Borderlands, 9(2).

Alpaslan, H. (2016). Beylerbeyi sarayında risk analizleri ve koruyucu tedbir önerileri. Hiperlink eğit.ilet.yay.san.tic.ve ltd.sti.

Alsaç, Ü. (2005). The Second Period of Turkish National Architecture. In R. Holod, A. Evin, & S. Özkan (Eds.), Modern Turkish architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.

Altınışık, B. (2015). Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı Proje Genel Yayın Yönetmeni. In Ş. Torun (Series Ed.), Türk Mimarisinde İz Bırakanlar I (Vol. 1, pp. 469–480). Ankara: TC. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı.

Anderson, B. R. O. (2006). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed). London ; New York: Verso.

Anıtkabir Müsabakaları Projeleri. (1943). Arkitekt, (135–136), 59–66.

Anıtkabir tarihçesi. (1994). Genelkurmay Basımevi.

Anıtkabir Ziyaretçi Sayıları. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2018, from http://www.anitkabir.tsk.tr/05_etkinlikler_duyurular/Anitkabir_ziyaretci_sayilari.html

Arel, M. R. (1927). Atatürk’e İstikbal.

Balcı, T. (2014). OTTOMAN BALKAN HERITAGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TURKISH NATIONAL IDENTITY∗. 1(1), 60–70.

Bastéa, E. (2004). Memory and Architecture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Batuman, B. (2010). The shape of the nation: Visual production of nationalism through maps in Turkey. Political Geography, 29(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.05.002

Batur, A. (2005b). A Concise History: Architecture in Turkey During the 20th Century. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.

Batur, A. (2005a). To Be Modern: Search for a Republican Architecture. In R. Holod, A. Evin, & S. Özkan (Eds.), Modern Turkish architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.

Batur, A. (Ed.). (1998). Atatürk için düşünmek: iki eser: Katafalk ve Anıtkabir: iki mimar: Bruno Taut ve Emin Onat: Katafalk und Anıtkabir: Zwei Architekten: Bruno Taut

123

und Emin Onat: Two architects: Bruno Taut and Emin Onat = Für Atatürk gedacht. Zwei Werke = Thinking for Atatürk. Two works: the Catafalque and Anıtkabir (2. Baskı). İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü.

Batur, A. (2010). An Influential Name in 19th Century Ottoman Arhcitecture: The Balians. In H. Kuruyazıcı (Ed.), Batılılaşan İstanbul’un Ermeni mimarları =: Armenian architects of Istanbul in the era of westernization (1. baskı, pp. 34–57). Istanbul: Uluslararası Hrant Dink Vakfı.

BCA. (1924, April 3). Topkapı Sarayının İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzesine devredilmesi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-1 /9 - 20 – 17)

BCA. (1925a, February 12). Dolmabahçe Sarayı Ahırının bitişiğinde bulunan hububat ambarının Kolordu İstihdam ve Muhabere bölükleri hayvanatı için 3. Kolordu Komutanlığı’na tahsisi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-1 / KARARLAR DAİRE BAŞKANLIĞI (1920-1928))

BCA. (1925b, August 26). Dolmabahçe Saray Salonundaki padişah resimlerinin muhafaza altına alınması ve teşhir edilmemesi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-1/15 - 53 - 2_50-04)

BCA. (1925c, September 16). BMM için tedarikine gerek görülen elektrik malzemesinin Dolmabahçe Sarayı elektrik deposundan alınarak Meclis Daire Müdürlüğü’ne teslimi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-1 / 5 - 59 - 19_132-134)

BCA. (1926, May 30). Daha önce okul olarak kullanılmak üzere Milli Eğitim emrine verilmiş bulunan Dolmabahçe surları içindeki Veliahd ve Fındıklı saraylarının işgal edilmeyerek olduğu gibi korunması. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-1 /19 - 36 - 17)

BCA. (1928, May 2). Afgan Kralı onuruna verilecek ziyafette kullanılmak ve iade edilmek üzere Dolmabahçe Sarayı’ndaki yaldızlı gümüşlü ziyafet takımlarının Ankara’ya getirtilmesi. (30-18-1-1/28-26-10).

BCA. (1929, July 3). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nda, tarihi itibarıyla önemli olan eşyaların, Topkapı Müzesinde teşhiri için Maarif Vekaletine devri. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 /4 - 39 - 1_132-76)

BCA. (1933, March 4). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’ndan Riyaseticumhur Sarayı’na getirilecek eşya ve kitaplar hakkında. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 /34 - 14 - 19)

BCA. (1935, May 20). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nda toplanan 2. Türk Dil Kurultayı çalışmaları. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (180-9-0-0 /4 - 24 - 7)

BCA. (1937a, March 19). Müze ve Milli Saraylardan alınacak giriş ücreti hakkında kanun tasarısı. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 / 72 - 20 - 12)

124

BCA. (1937b, July 24). Dolmabahçe Sarayında açılacak Milli Resim ve Heykel Galerisi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-10-0-0 / 173 - 195 - 1_186)

BCA. (1939, July 29). İstanbul Dolmabahçe’de yaptırılacak stadyumun planları için 3 ay müddetle İtalya’ya gönderilecek olan Mimar Şinasi Şahingiray ile Mimar Fazıl Ayson’a döviz verilmesi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 / 88 - 75 - 19_238-513)

BCA. (1941a, July 25). Anıtkabir projesi için açılan proje yarışmasında eserleri değerlendirecek olan jürinin teşkili için gerekli tedbirlerin alınmasının Atatürk Anıt Kabir Komisyonu Reisliği’ne bildirildiği. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-10-0-0 /1 - 5 - 8)

BCA. (1941b, October 6). Atatürk Anıtkabir projesi yarışması için kurulacak jüriye İsveç Hükümeti tarafından M. Tengbom (İvar)’un aday gösterildiği. (30-10-0-0 / 1 - 5 - 11).

BCA. (1942). Anıtkabirin Çankayada yapılması gerektiğine dair rapor. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-10-0-0 /1 - 8 - 14)

BCA. (1943). Prof. Emin Onat tarafından hazırlanan Anıtkabir projesini değerlendirecek komisyonda Sedat Hakkı Eldem ile Prof. Paul Bonatz’ın bulunmasınınuygun görüldüğü. (30-10-0-0 / 1 - 5 - 16).

BCA. (1945, October 12). Dolmabahçe Rıhtımının tarattırılması ve etrafındaki toprak kısmın da asfaltlanması (. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-10-0-0 /157 - 101 - 17)

BCA. (1946, March 28). Dolmabahçe Camii avlusunun bir kısmının meydana katılmak üzere parasız olarak Belediye’ye bırakılması. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 /110 - 24 - 5)

BCA. (1947, March 7). Dolmabahçe Camisi le civarındaki Saray Kayıkhanesi’nin Müze olarak Milli Savunma Bakanlığı’na tahsisi. Retrieved from Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi. (30-18-1-2 /113 - 21 - 4_69-8)

Bergson, H. (1920). Mind-Energy: Lectures and Essays. London: Macmillan and Co.

Bertram, C. (2004). Housing the Symbolic Universe in the Early Republican Turkey:Architecture, Memory and “Felt Real.” In E. Bastéa (Ed.), Memory and architecture (pp. 165–190). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Bilsel, F. C., & Pinon, P. (Eds.). (2010). İmparatorluk başkentinden cumhuriyet’in modern kentine: Henri Prost’un İstanbul planlaması, (1936- 1951) = From the imperial capital to the republican modern city: HenriPost’s planning of Istanbul, (1936- 1951). İstanbul: İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.

Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and nation building: Turkish architectural culture in the early republic. In Studies in Modernity and National Identity. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

125

Bozdoğan, S. (2002). Modernizm ve ulusun inşası: erken Cumhuriyet Türkiyesi’nde mimari kültür (1. Basım; T. Birkan, Trans.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

Bozdoğan, S. (2007). Reading Ottoman Architecture through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography and the"New Architecture" in the Early Republic. In G. Necipoglu & S. Bozdoğan (Eds.), Muqarnas, Volume 24: History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the “Lands of Rum” (pp. 199–221). BRILL.

Bozdoğan, S., & Akcan, E. (2012). Turkey. In Modern Architectures in History. London: Reaktion Books.

Bozdogan, S., & Akcan, E. (2012). Turkey: Modern Architectures in History. Reaktion Books.

Cezar, M. (1993). XIX. Yüzyılda Neden Batı Tarzı Saray? In Milli Saraylar 1993 (pp. 8–19). Retrieved from https://acikerisim.tbmm.gov.tr/xmlui/handle/11543/1920

Çiftçi, A. (2007). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın Yıkılan Karakol Yapısı. In K. Kahraman (Ed.), 150. Yılında Dolmabahçe Sarayı Uluslararası Sempozyumu 23-26 Kasım 2006, Dolmabahçe Sarayı: Bildiriler (pp. 144–154). İstanbul: TBMM Milli Saraylar.

Coser, L. A. (1992). Introduction: Maurice Halbwachs 1877-1945. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), On collective memory (pp. 1–34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davison, R. H. (2015). Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. Princeton University Press.

Deane, D., & Butler, S. (2016). Nationalism and Architecture. Routledge.

Deringil, S. (1999). The well-protected domains: ideology and the legitimation of power in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909 (Paperback ed). London: Tauris.

Dolmabahçe Sarayı Dün Halka Açıldı. (1950, October 13). Cumhuriyet.

Eissenstat, H. (2003). History and Historiography: Politics and Memory in the Turkish Republic. Contemporary European History, 12(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096077730300105X

Eldem, S. H. (1940). Yerli Mimariye Doğru. Arkitekt, 1940((111-112)), 69–74.

Eldem, S. H. (1946). I. Türk Yapı Kongresi Mimarlık Kolu V. Kol Raporu. Arkitekt, 1946(175–176), 194–197.

Eldem, S. H. (1984). Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi (Vols. 1–1–3). İstanbul: Türkiye Anıt Çevre Turizm Değerlerini Koruma Vakfı.

Ersoy, S., & Anadol, Ç. (Eds.). (2000). Jacques Pervititch sigorta haritalarında İstanbul: Istanbul in the insurance maps of Jacques Pervititch. Retrieved from https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/catalog/bib_2503487

126

Evyapan, G. A. (1972). Eski Türk Bahçeleri ve Özellikle Eski İstanbul Bahçeleri. Ankara: ODTü Yayınları.

Fernando Luiz Lara. (2006). BRAZILIAN POPULAR MODERNISM: ANALYZING THE DISSEMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL VOCABULARY. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23(2), 91–112. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030763

Franz Kafka. (1946). The Silence of Sirens. In The Great Wall Of China (Reused and Reset Edition, pp. 128–129). Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.184806

Freely, J., & Baker, A. E. (2010). A history of Ottoman architecture. Southampton ; Boston: WIT Press.

Göncü, C. (2006). Modernleşme Sürecinde Muayede Torenleri ve Dolmabahçe Sarayında Uygulanışı. Milli Saraylar, (3), 37–55.

Göncü, C. (2007). Dolmabahçe Sarayı Muayede Salonu Onarımına İlişkin Belgeler (1890-1907). MS Belgeler, (1), 38–45.

Gülsün, H. B. (2004). Parlamento Tarihimiz Açısından İlginç Bir Dönem ya da Beşiktaş Sarayı’ndan Bab-ı Ali’ye. Milli Saraylar, (2), 41–47.

Gülsün, H. B. (2010). Boğaziçinde Bir Osmanlı Sarayı, Dolmabahçe. Milli Saraylar, (5–6), 105–111.

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. O. (Eds.). (2010). The invention of tradition (19th pr). In (19th pr). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr.

Karıncalı, Ü. (2011). Cumhurbaşkanlığı makamı olarak Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Atatürk.

Kaya, B. (2016). Istabl-ı Amire’den Beden Terbiyesi Madenine: Dolmabahçe Stadyumu. In B. Kaya (Ed.), Dolmabahçe: Mekanın Hafızası (1st ed., pp. 251–311). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Kayıran, M., & Metinta, M. Y. (2009). LATİN KÖKENLİ YENĐ TÜRK ALFABESİNE GEÇİŞ SÜRECİ VE MİLLET MEKTEPLERİ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (24), 13.

Kırış, I. M. (2013). RE-EXPLORING LATE OTTOMAN BUILDINGS IN TODAY’S ISTANBUL. International Journal of Architectural Research, 7(2), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v7i2.174

Kuban, D. (2010). Ottoman architecture (A. Mill, Trans.). Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club.

127

Lara, F. L. (2002). One Step Back, Two Steps Forward: The Maneuvering of Brazilian Avant-Garde. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 55(4), 211–219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425722

Mardin, Ş. A. (1971). Ideology and Religion in the Turkish Revolution. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800001094

Megill, A. (1998). History, memory, identity. History of the Human Sciences, 11(3), 37–62.

Milli Saraylar 1,5 Milyon Kişi Tarafından Ziyaret Edildi. (2017, October 23). Retrieved May 12, 2018, from Haberler.com website: https://www.haberler.com/milli-saraylar-1-5-milyon-kisi-tarafindan-ziyaret-10161520-haberi/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=tavsiye_et&utm_medium=detay

Mülayim, S. (2010). Dolmabahçe Topografyasında Mimari Oluşum. Milli Saraylar, (5), 9–16.

Münir, H. (1938, October 22). Büyük Ata’nın Önünden Son Geçiş. Yedigün, p. 3.

Müze ve millî saraylardan alınacak duhuliye ücreti hakkında kanun lâyihası ve Bütçe encümeni mazbatası. , 6/940 § 23 (1938).

N., V. (1933). Mimar Yetiştirmek Mimara iş Vermekle Olur. Arkitekt, (32), 260–260.

Necipoğlu, G. (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power: the Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York, N.Y. : Cambridge, Mass: Architectural History Foundation ; MIT Press.

Nietzsche, F. W. (1957). The Use and Abuse of History. New York: Macmillan.

Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire. Representations, Special Issue: Memory and Counter-Memory(26), 7–24. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0734-6018%28198921%290%3A26%C27%3ABMAHLL%302.0.CO%3B2-N

Nora, P. (1996a). Preface: From Lieux de mémoire to Realms of Memory. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), & A. Goldhammer (Trans.), Realms of Memory: Conflicts and divisions (Vol. 1, pp. XV–XXIV). Columbia University Press.

Nora, P. (1996b). Realms of Memory: Conflicts and divisions (Vol. 1; L. D. Kritzman, Ed.; A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

Olick, J. K. (1998). Introduction: Memory and the Nation: Continuities, Conflicts, and Transformations. Social Science History, 22(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/1171569

Olick, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Levy, D. (Eds.). (2011). The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford University Press.

128

Onat, E., & Arda, orhan. (1955). Anıtkabir. Arkitekt, (280), 51-61,92-93.

Öner, S. (1996). New Findings Regarding The Dolmabahçe Palace Complex. In P. M. Işın (Ed.), National Palaces 1994-1995 (pp. 114–135). Ankara: TBMM Milli Saraylar Daire Başkanlığı.

Özler, Ş. (Ed.). (2007). Cumhuriyet dönemi İstanbul planlama raporları 1934-1995 (1 baskı). İstanbul: TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent Şubesi.

Payzın, Z. (1977a). Dolmabahçe Sarayları için Fonksiyon Çözüm Önerileri. Ankara.

Payzın, Z. (1977b). Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi: Milli Saraylarımızın Temel Sorunları. Retrieved from https://acikerisim.tbmm.gov.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11543/1753/197401676.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Pilehvarian, N. (2011). Milli Saraylar Kültür-Sanat-Tarih Dergisi. Milli Saraylar, (7), 9–17.

Renan, E. (1996). What is a Nation? In G. Eley & R. G. Suny, (Eds.), Becoming National: A Reader. (pp. 41–55). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ruskin, J. (1912). The seven lamps of architecture. London: George Allen & Sons.

Sandweiss, E. (2004). Framing Urban Memory: The Changing Role of History Museums in the American City. In E. Bastéa (Ed.), Memory and Architecture (pp. 25–47). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Sayar, Z. (1943). Anıtkabir Müsabakası Münasebetiyle. Arkitekt, (133–134), 1–21.

Seçen, E. A. (2013). Henri Prost’un İmar Planı Kararlarının Dolmabahçe Sarayı ve Çevresi Üzerine Etkileri. Milli Saraylar, (11), 202–205.

Shaw, S. J., & Shaw, E. K. (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975 (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.

Singer, A. (2011). Introduction: The Ottoman Legacy for Contemporary Turkish Culture, Institutions, and Values. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 31(3), 553–556. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/464457

Sözen, M., & Tapan, M. (1973). 50 yılın Türk mimarisi. In Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları: Vol. no. 122. İstanbul: İş Bankası.

Tanyeli, U. (2009). Türkiye’nin görsellik tarihine giriş. In Akın Nalça Kitapları: Vol. 6. İstanbul: Akın Nalça Kitapları.

Tekeli, İ. (2005). The social context of the development of architecture in Turkey. In A. Evin & R. Holod (Eds.), Modern Turkish Architecture (pp. 9–34). Chamber of Architects of Turkey.

129

TSK, Anıtkabir ziyaretçi sayısını açıkladı... 11 ayda müthiş rakam [News]. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2019, from www.hurriyet.com.tr website: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/tsk-anitkabir-ziyaretci-sayisini-acikladi-11-ayda-muthis-rakam-40664566

Tuğlacı, P. (1990). The role of the Balian family in Ottoman architecture. In Art Publications Series: Vol. no 1. İstanbul: Yeni Çığır Bookstore.

Vale, L. J. (1992). Architecture, power, and national identity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Vignes-Dumas, C. (2012). Charles Séchan İstanbul’da (O. N. Bişgin, Trans.). Milli Saraylar, (9), 235–251.

William, R. (2011). Social Memory. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 41(4), 189–200.

Wilson, C. S. (2009). Representing National Identity and Memory in the Mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 68(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2009.68.2.224

Winter, J. (2006). Remembering War: The Great War between Memory and History in the 20th Century. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npj6t

Yavuz, Y., & Özkan, S. (2005). Finding a national idiom: The first national style. In Modern Turkish architecture. Chamber of Architects of Turkey.

Yumrukçağlar, İ. (2010). Beşiktaş Sahil Sarayı ve Yakın Çevresinin Tarihsel Gelişimi. Milli Saraylar, (6), 9–22.

130

xii “For larger questions of urban design, Atatürk and his followers also looked toward Europe for guidance. In a completion held in 1927, three designers were invited to submit plans for the development of Ankara on large tract of underdeveloped land to the south of the old town. The master plan by Herman Jansen of Berlin was selected […] Less rigidly geometrical and monumental than its alternatives, Jansen’s plan emphasized the creation of Garden city kinds of neighborhoods and was not premised simply on the exalted depiction of government. Yet a capitol complex was given a high priority placement in a triangulated sector of baroque symmetry pointing toward the heights of ancient citadel.” (Vale, 1992, 99)

xiii It is interesting enough to note the reaction of Ahmet Haşim in Gurabhane-I Laklakan, famous poet, to First National Style. Cited from Sibel Bozdağan’s Modernism And Nationa Building:

xiv Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, famous novelist and diplomat, reacted positively to New Arcgitecture and criticized the old style building in his well-known work, Ankara. Cited from Afife Batur’s To be Modern: Search for A Republican Architecture:

xv The translation of Turkish text of Arda & Onat cited from Sibel Bozdoğan major work Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic. Original text is cited from Arkitekt No.280 (1955-02) below (sentences in parentheses are part of the original text, excerpted from English translation):

xvi Check Emel Akçalı’s The Ambivalent Role of National Landmarks in the Age of Globalization: The case of Atatürk’s mausoleum in Turkey

xvii Cited from Emel Akçalı’s The Ambivalent Role of National Landmarks in the Age of Globalization: The case of Atatürk’s mausoleum in Turkey

Sayfalar

3 Ağustos 2024 Cumartesi

338

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder