FROM IMPERIAL PALACE TO MUSEUM:
THE TOPKAPI PALACE DURING THE LONG NINETEENTH CENTURY
FROM IMPERIAL PALACE TO MUSEUM:
THE TOPKAPI PALACE DURING THE LONG NINETEENTH CENTURY
Thesis submitted to the
ABSTRACT
From Imperial Palace to Museum:
The Topkapı Palace during the Long Nineteenth Century
This dissertation focuses on the last century of the Topkapı Palace, which is mostly
overlooked. Focusing on the period beginning with the accession of Mahmud II until
the foundation of the Republic and official declaration of the Topkapı Palace as a
museum (1808-1924), this research chronologically investigates the physical,
architectural, institutional, symbolic, and ideological transformations of the palace
and documents the new functions it adopted. The Topkapı Palace was transformed
with respect to Ottoman modernization that was shaped by the military, institutional,
economical, and social reforms of the long nineteenth century, gradually losing its
role as an imperial residence. However, the palace also sustained its ceremonial,
architectural, and symbolic configuration and significance. This tension between
continuity and change underpins the theoretical framework of this dissertation.
The Topkapı Palace holds a significant place in the formation of museums in
the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey. The dissertation offers a new, yet critical
perspective on the established narratives of Ottoman museology, highlighting the
role of the Topkapı Palace and scrutinizing its museumification during the course of
the long nineteenth century. The royal collections, treasuries, and sultanic pavilions
located in the inner courts of the imperial palace were opened for touristic visits and
were performatively displayed to the foreign gaze. During the same era, a modern
archeological museum and a school of fine arts emulating the Western model were
also established in the outer gardens of the palace. In this respect, the Topkapı Palace
became a venue and a medium for Ottoman self-representation.
v
ÖZET
İmparatorluk Sarayından Müzeye:
Uzun On Dokuzuncu Yüzyılda Topkapı Sarayı
Bu tez, Topkapı Sarayı tarihinde çok az çalışılmış bir döneme, sarayın son yüzyılına
ışık tutma iddiasındadır. II. Mahmud'un tahta çıkışından, Cumhuriyet'in ilanına ve
Topkapı Sarayı'nın resmen müze ilan edilmesine kadar geçen bir yüzyılı aşkın süre
zarfında (1808-1924), Topkapı Sarayı'nın geçirmiş olduğu fiziksel, mimari,
kurumsal, sembolik ve ideolojik dönüşümleri ve üstendiği yeni fonksiyonları
kronolojik olarak ortaya koymakta ve kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemektedir. Osmanlı
hanedanı için mesken olma vasfını on dokuzuncu yüzyıl zarfında yitiren Topkapı
Sarayı'nın Osmanlı modernleşmesi bağlamında uğradığı değişim ve dönüşümlerin
yanı sıra sembolik, törensel ve mimari süreklilikler bu tezin kavramsal çerçevesini
oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma uzun on dokuzuncu yüzyılda gerçekleşen askeri, idari,
ekonomik ve sosyal reformların yansımalarını saray üzerinden okurken, aynı
zamanda saray kompleksine eklenen, yenilenen, kaldırılan ve dönüştürülen yapıların
da izini sürer ve sarayın edindiği yeni rolleri ve anlamları irdeler.
Topkapı Sarayı, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda müzeciliğin doğuşu ve gelişimi
bağlamında da kritik bir yere ve önemde sahiptir. Bu tez, Topkapı Sarayı'nın on
dokuzuncu yüzyıl süresince gerçekleşen müzeleşmesine ışık tutarken, aynı zamanda
Osmanlı müzeciliği alanında yerleşmiş olan söylemleri de eleştirel bir şekilde
sorgular ve yeni bir perspektif önerir. Bu dönemde sarayın iç avluları, saltanat
koleksiyonları, hazineleri, ve sultan kasırları de yabancı misafirlerin ziyaretine
açılmış ve saray koleksiyonları ilhamını eski saray geleneklerinden alan belirli bir
törensellik gözetilerek, performatif bir şekilde sergilenmiştir. Aynı dönemde,
vi
Avrupa'daki muadillerinden ilhamla, imparatorluğun ilk modern arkeoloji müzesi ve
güzel sanatlar okulu da sarayın dış bahçelerinde kurulmuştur. Bu bağlamda Topkapı
Sarayı, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun kendini farklı şekillerde temsilinin de mecrası ve
mekanı olmuştur.
vii
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME: Nilay Özlü
DEGREES AWARDED
PhD in Historu, 2018, Boğaziçi University
MArch, 2009, Yıldız Technical University
MBA, 2000, University of San Francisco
BArch, 1998, Middle East Technical University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Ottoman history, architectural and urban history, cultural history, visual culture,
museum studies, court studies, restoration
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Adjunct faculty, Istanbul Altınbaş (Kemerburgaz) University, Faculty of
Architecture, 2015-2017
Historical Consultant, Ekol Construction Co., Topkapı Palace Restoration Projects,
2014-2016
Adjunct faculty, Bilgi University, Faculty of Architecture, 2013-2017
Architect, Project Manager, Denge Construction, Ankara, 2002-2005
Marketing Coordinator, VBN Architects, San Francisco, 2002
AWARDS & GRANTS
Samuel H. Kress Foundation Fellowship, Society of Architectural Historians, 2008
The Barakat Trust, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, 2010
Getty Connecting Art Histories Scholarship, 2010-2012
Intensive Ottoman and Turkish Summer School, Harvard University - Koç
University, Grant, 2011
The Barakat Trust, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, 2015
viii
PUBLICATIONS
Journal Articles
Özlü N. (2017). Between Oject(ive) and Subject(ive): Museum Narratives with
Donald Preziosi. Art in Translation Special Issue: Connecting Art Histories, eds.
Iain Boyd Whyte and Claudia Hopkins, V.9 issue S1, Routledge, 59-68.
Tanatar Baruh, L, Kula Say, S., Coşkun, S.B, Özlü, N. (2016). Emek Sineması,
Cercle d'Orient ve Bir Beyoğlu Hikayesi. ed. Nilay Özlü, Mimar.ist, 57, 23-62.
Özlü N. (2016). Dönüşen Beyoğlu Üzerine Notlar: Cercle d’Orient ve Emek
Sineması Örneği. Mimar.ist, 57, 24-29.
Özlü N. (2016). Book Review, Cem Behar, Bir Mahallenin Doğumu ve Ölümü
(1494-2008) Osmanlı İstanbul’unda Kasap İlyas Mahallesi. The Journal of Ottoman
Studies, 47, İSAM, 437-442.
Özlü N. (2014). Ütopyadan Distopyaya İstanbul: Heryerleşen İstanbul’da Yokolan
Üzerine Düşünceler, Yokyer Üzerine Düşler. Toplumsal Tarih, 244.
Özlü N. (2011). Hagia Sophia and the Demise of the Sacred. Desing Philosophy
Papers - Collection Six, edited by Anne-Marie Willis, Ravensbourne, Australia:
Team D/E/S Publications, 14-27.
Özlü N. (2011). Merkezin Merkezi: Sultan II. Abdülhamid Döneminde Yıldız Sarayı.
Toplumsal Tarih, 206/Şubat, 2-13.
Özlü N., Tongo, G. (2011). Interview with Prof. Donald Preziosi. Tarih, Gradute
History Journal, 2, 34-47.
Özlü N. (2011). Two Sides of the Medallion, Mehmed the Conqueror: Fighter of
Islam or Lover of Western Art? Political Reflection, 1/4, 53-58.
Özlü N. (2009). Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? Mimarlık
Dekorasyon Review of Architecture, Interior Design and Fine Art, 2009/03, 104-106.
Özlü N. (2008). Fashion in Venice: An Expression of Modernity. Megaron YTU
Arch. Faculty E-Journal, 3/2, 124-136.
Özlü N. (2007). Neo-Kent Budapeşte. Bülten, TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara
Şubesi, 54, 20-23.
Özlü N. (2007). Rüya Kent, Kent Rüyası. Bülten, TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara
Şubesi, 54, 24-26.
Özlü N. (Forthcoming). Republican Response to Ottoman Cosmopolitanism:
Evaluation of Levantine Architecture by Nationalist Architects -The Case of
Alexandre Vallaury. Turkish Studies Association Journal.
ix
Books and Book Chapters
Gharipour, M. and Özlü N. eds. (2015). The City in the Islamic world: Depictions by
Western Travelers, London: Routledge.
Özlü N. (2017). Architecture: Turkish. in Encyclopedia of Romantic Nationalism in
Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Özlü N. (2017). Houses of Osman: Mobility and Visibility in the Ottoman Court
from 15th to 19th centuries. in AURUM Design Notes, eds. Ayşegül Akçay
Kavakoğlu, Derya Güleç Özer, Derya Yorgancıoğlu. Istanbul: Istanbul Kemerburgaz
University, 286-294.
Özlü N. (2016). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’ndan Evvel Dolmabağçe... in Mekanın Hafızası:
Dolmabahçe: Dolmabahçe’den Modernleşmeyi Okumak, ed. Bahar Kaya, İstanbul:
Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 39-62.
Özlü N. (2015). Alexandre Vallaury, İstanbul’a Damgasını Vuran Levanten Mimar.
in Türk Mimarisinde İz Bırakanlar- Eksik Tuğlanın Peşinde I, eds. Mehmet Latif
Çiçek and Şahin Torun. Ankara: Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, 295-310.
Özlü N. (2015). Tanzimat’ın Mimarları: Fossati Biraderler. in Türk Mimarisinde İz
Bırakanlar- Eksik Tuğlanın Peşinde III, eds. Mehmet Latif Çiçek and Şahin Torun,
Ankara: Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, 61-76.
Özlü N. (2015). Single P(a)lace, Multiple Narratives: The Topkapı Palace in Western
travel accounts from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. in The City in the
Islamic world: Depictions by Western Travelers, eds. Mohammad Gharipour and
Nilay Özlü, London: Routledge, 168-188.
Conference and Proceedings
Özlü N. (2017). Showcases of Modernity in the Age of Reforms – 19th Century
Ottoman Palaces of Istanbul. Palais Royaux dans l’Europe des Révolutions, Centre
André Chastel, Paris.
Özlü N. (2017). II. Abdülhamid Döneminde Topkapı Sarayı Karakolhaneleri:
Bilineneler ve Bilinmeyenler. Osmanlı İstanbulu - Uluslararası Sempozyum V, 29
Mayıs Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Özlü N. (2017). 19. Yüzyılda Topkapı Sarayı: II. Mahmud'dan Cumhuriyet'e
Değişim, Dönüşüm ve Süreklilik. Kubbealtı Akademi Tez Sunumları. İstanbul.
Özlü N. (2017). A Historiographical Survey of Early Republican Architectural
Discourse: The Case of Alexandre Vallaury. Architectural History Conference /
Turkey I, Proceedings. eds. Elvan Altan, Sevil Enginsoy Ekinci, Ali Uzay Peker,
Ankara: ODTÜ MF, 465-482.
Özlü N. (2017) Multiple Identities, Conflicting Ideologies in Ottoman Istanbul and
Republican Turkey: The Case of Alexandre Vallaury. Papers From the International
x
Scientific Thematic Conference EAHN 2015 Entangled Histories, Multiple
Geographies. European Architectural History Network and University of Belgrade,
213-220.
Özlü N. (2016) From Palace to a Museum: Visions of Modernity of the Late-
Ottoman and Early Republican Eras. 50th Middle East Studies Conference
Association Conference (MESA), Boston.
Özlü N. (2016). Republican Response to Levantine Architectural Heritage: The Case
of Alexandre Vallaury. 1st Beyoğlu Levantine Conference, Istanbul.
[Özlü] Kayaalp N. (2010). Architectural Transformation of The Topkapı Palace in
the 19th Century: Tower of Justice, Bab-ı Hümayun, and the Mecidiye Kiosk, 22nd
International Building and Life Congress: Architecture and Transformation. ed.
Murat Taş. Bursa: Chamber of Architects, 177-182.
[Özlü] Kayaalp N. (2009). Comparative Analysis of Urban Transformation Projects:
Süleymaniye and Tarlabaşı Districts. IAPS-CSBE 4th International Symposium:
Revitalising Built Environments: Requalifying Old Places For New Uses. eds. Hülya
Turgut Yıldız, Yasemin İnce Güney, Istanbul.
[Özlü] Kayaalp N. (2008). M. Vedad Tek: Mimarlık ve Siyasal Erk Değerlendirmesi.
XX.th International Building and Life Congress: Power and Architecture, ed. Murat
Taş. Bursa: Chamber of Architects, 122-127.
[Özlü] Kayaalp N. (2008). Gentrification and/or Identity Construction: The
Historic/Touristic Suleymaniye Neighborhood, Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital
of Europe? UC Berkeley, CA.
[Özlü] Kayaalp N. and Eyüce, Ö. (2007) Contextualism and Adaptive Reuse:
Evaluation of a Case, La Rue Française. Livenarch III, Contextualism in
Architecture, 3rd. International Conference Proceedings vol. II, Istanbul, 413-426.
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research and writing of this dissertation took eight years of my adult life and
came together with the support of many. I owe a great deal to my family, friends,
colleagues, and to my professors who supported me during different phases of this
rough journey.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Edhem Eldem, who
motivated and challenged me to exceed my limits as an architect and helped me to
become a historian. I am grateful not only for his outstanding guidance but also for
always sharing significant primary sources, archival documents, visual materials, and
journal articles with me. I am grateful to my committee members, Ahmet Ersoy,
Paolo Girardelli, and Murat Güvenç, not only for their most valuable contributions,
feedback, and encouragement but also for showing me what scholarship actually
means. I couldn't have done this without their help and guidance. I am especially
thankful to my role model, Sibel Bozdoğan, for her academic and moral support
throughout this challenging period.
I cannot find sufficient words to describe my gratitude for Gülru Necipoğlu,
whose close reading of the chapters and invaluable feedback improved the quality of
this research. Having taken her scholarly work and methodologies as a model for my
own research, Necipoğlu's attention to this dissertation is an immense pleasure. I am
also grateful to Ali Akyıldız for his contribution to my research and also to Jeroen
Duindam and Darin Stephanov for their attentive reading of the early versions of the
chapters and for their valuable feedback. I would like to thank Peter Campbell,
Kutluğhan Soyubol, and Meltem Toksöz for their kind help, guidance, and to-thepoint
suggestions at various stages of this research. Irvin Cemil Schick has a special
xii
place in my heart, not only as an excellent scholar but also as a mentor, as a friend,
and as a confidant. I would like to express my especial appreciation for his generous
help and support critical times.
I couldn't have done this without the support of my dear friends, who have
become family to me. I am so lucky to be surrounded with such amazing people,
generous, smart, and sincere. First and foremost, I would like to thank dearest Gizem
Tongo Overfield Shaw for her enormous emotional and academic motivation and
support. Her generous sharing of sources was a priceless contribution to this
research. Yasemin Baran, Firuzan Melike Sümertaş, and Süheyla Nil Mustafa, who
all became my life-long friends, are the true gifts of the History Department. I value
and appreciate the contributions, feedback, and moral support of my dear friends and
colleagues: Ceren Abi, Ümit Fırat Açıkgöz, Tania Bahar, Oya Bakacak, Aysan
Beydaghdar, İpek Bozkurt, Suna Çağaptay, Ekin Işıl Çalak, Dilek Çat, Özde
Çeliktemel-Thomen, Güven Erten, Chris Gratien, Ahsen Karagöl, Bahar Kaya,
İsmail Keskin, Hakan Kırkoğlu, Başak Kilerci, Enno Maassen, Emily Neumeier,
Yavuz Sezer, İlke Tandoğdu, Nazlı Temir Beyleryan, Ayşe Tümerkan, Gülgün Özek,
Saadet Özen, Gözde Yıldız, Ece Zerman, and many other dear friends that I failed to
mention here. I am also grateful to my dear friends Günseli Gürel, Bahar Kaya,
Hakan Kırkoğlu, Çağda Özbaki, Işık Özge Özbek, Zehra Tonbul, Baran Ungan, who
did not leave me alone during my dissertation defense. Thank you all for being there
when I needed you and for believing in me more than I did.
I am indebted to Aysenur Yıldıztaş, Umut Soysal, and Üzeyir Karataş for
their invaluable support in Ottoman transliterations and to Kaitlin Staudt for
proofreading the manuscript. I would like to thank Cengiz Kahraman, who shared his
photographic collection with me. Special thanks to our department secretaries, Oya
xiii
Arıkan and Buket Köse, for their genuine interest and support during my long
studentship at Boğaziçi University. I am also grateful for the financial support
provided by BÜVAK, TÜBİTAK, the Barakat Trust, and the Getty Foundation.
My heartfelt appreciation goes to my dear family, especially to my parents,
Nilgün and Mehmet Özlü, for their never-ending love, encouragement, and
appreciation. I am proud to be their daughter and I can confidently say that, without
their generous support, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my daughter Damla, to whom I
dedicate this work. Damla, I love you so much and I so much appreciate your
patience, understanding, and respect for my never-ending passion for academia...
xiv
For Damla,
my dearest and most precious...
xv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 The modernization paradigm and the decline theory ........................................ 5
1.2 Literature survey ............................................................................................... 9
1.3 Methodology and sources ............................................................................... 14
1.4 Chapter outline ................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 2: THE AGE OF REFORMS: MAHMUD II - ABDÜLMECİD ........... 24
2.1 The era of Mahmud II: Continuity and change ............................................... 24
2.2 The era of Abdülmecid: The ruler who "abandoned" the Topkapı Palace ...... 59
2.3 The gradual abandonment of the palace and the emergence of "tourism" .... 107
CHAPTER 3: THE REIGN OF ABDÜLAZİZ ....................................................... 136
3.1 Reckoning with the past ................................................................................ 139
3.2 The Topkapı Palace as a repertoire for imperial imagery ............................. 166
CHAPTER 4: REGIME OF SIGNS, SYMBOLS, AND RITUALS: THE
HAMIDIAN ERA .................................................................................................... 202
4.1 Legitimization practices: Rituals and ceremonials ....................................... 202
4.2 Symbols of authority, modernity, and security ............................................. 244
4.3 Presenting the Occidental self: The Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun) .. 278
4.4 Performing the Oriental-self: The Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun) . 318
CHAPTER 5: THE SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD ............................... 407
5.1. From dynasty to nation: De-imperializing the palace; de-functioning the
sultan .................................................................................................................... 407
5.2 Museumification of the Topkapı Palace ....................................................... 424
5.3 Young Turk ideology: Nationalization and militarization of the landscape . 452
5.4 From imperial gardens to the public park: The making of the Gülhane Park
.............................................................................................................................. 480
5.5 The Invention of the historic monument and the national heritage .............. 519
CHAPTER 6: THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE AND THE RISE OF THE NATION
STATE ..................................................................................................................... 547
6.1 The end of the War; the end of the CUP ....................................................... 547
6.2 The occupation of Istanbul ............................................................................ 552
6.3 The War of Independence: The power struggle between Istanbul and Ankara
.............................................................................................................................. 567
6.4 Topkapı Palace as a "national" museum ....................................................... 575
6.5 Multiple narratives ........................................................................................ 580
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 584
CHAPTER 8: EPILOGUE ....................................................................................... 597
APPENDIX A: TRANSLITERATIONS ................................................................. 605
APPENDIX B: MAP OF INSCRIPTIONS, MONOGRAMS, AND
MODIFICATIONS .................................................................................................. 635
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 642
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bocage map of the Topkapı Palace (c.1800, Gallica) ...................................... 27
Figure 2. The monograms, inscriptions of Mahmud II and buildings dedicated to
him marked on the map of the Topkapı Palace ............................................................ 27
Figure 3. Monograms of Mahmud II on Bab-ı Hümayun and Bab-ı Selam (2017) .. 28
Figure 4. The Gate of Felicity and the tromp l'oeil murals on two sides (Ali Saim
Ülgen Archives, SALT Research) .................................................................................... 30
Figure 5. The portrait of Selim III by Konstantin Kapıdağlı (TSM Paintings
Collection 17/31); Tromp l'oeil murals on the walls of Osman III Kiosk (2016);
Detail from the side wall of Bab-üs Saade (TSMA) ................................................... 30
Figure 6. The Janissaries pay day at the second court (Victoria and Albert Museum
Collection, 1809, D.143-1895) .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 7. Besmele inscribed by Mahmud II and his monogram on the Gate of
Felicity (2017) ......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 8. The Fountain of Mahmud II at the marble terrace of the Harem (2015) ... 32
Figure 9. The marble hearth at the Chamber of Sacred Relics / The inscription at
Destimal Room in the Privy Chamber (Mustafa Cambaz) ....................................... 33
Figure 10. Inscription about the construction of the Tower of Justice and the Council
Hall (2017) ................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 11. The Tower of Justice during the 17th century (Hans de Jode, View of the
Tip of the Seraglio with Topkapı Palace, 1659) / The Tower of Justice during
the eighteenth century (Vue de la Seconde Cour Interieur du Serail, Melling,
1819) ........................................................................................................................................... 35
xvii
Figure 12. The Tower of Justice elaborated by Mahmud II (Getty Archive, Kiosque
dans l'interieur du Vieux Serail, 1865-70) ..................................................................... 36
Figure 13. Engraving of the Alay Kiosk and the Sublime Porte (Thomas Allom,
1838); Alay Kiosk with its onion dome (TBMM Albums, Abdülmecid Efendi
Vieux Serai) .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 14. Seraglio shown on the Stolpe Map from the reign of Abdülaziz (Gallica)
...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 15. The towers of the Cannon Gate (Topkapusu) before they were
demolished by Mahmud II (Melling, 1800s) ................................................................. 41
Figure 16. Seraglio and Mahmud II's new Seaside Palace of Topkapusu (Lewis,
1838) ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 17. The Seaside Palace of Topkapusu after Mahmud II's renovations
(Montagu Dunn, Panorama of Istanbul, 1855) ............................................................. 42
Figure 18. Photograph of the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu (Lorando Albums, James
Robertson, 1850s, Eldem and Akozan, 1982, 36) ....................................................... 43
Figure 19. The Seaside Palace of Topkapusu seen at the 1862 Panorama of
Constantinople (Pascal Sebah, Öztuncay, 2006) .......................................................... 43
Figure 20. The records of Yalı Kasr-ı Hümayunu and Bostancitan Ocağı, Beşiktaş
Sahil Saray-ı Hümayunu, Çırağan Sahil Saray-ı Hümayunu, and Mabeyn-i
Hümayun shown in Gardeners' registers during the era of Mahmud II (Kayra
and Üyepazarcı, 1992, 94) ................................................................................................... 45
Figure 21. Timber Beşiktaş Palace (Former Dolmabahçe Palace and Mosque,
Victoria and Albert Museum, SD.1263, 1820) ............................................................. 47
Figure 22. Beşiktaş Palace of Mahmud II seen from above (Pardoe, 48) ..................... 47
Figure 23. Imperial Mint Pavilion (Tuğlacı, 1990, 40) ...................................................... 51
xviii
Figure 24. Gate of the Imperial Mint and the inscription of Mahmud II (2017) ....... 52
Figure 25. The First Court of the Topkapı Palace and the apartment of the Ministry
of Finance seen at the right side of the Imperial Gate. (Fossati, 1852) ................ 52
Figure 26. The portrait of Mahmud II (Topkapı Sarayı Padişah Portreleri, Hippolite
Berteaux) ................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 27. The Salamlık, or Sultan’s reception, at the Seraglio, Constantinople
(Illustrated London News, 1865) ....................................................................................... 61
Figure 28. Declaration of the Tanzimat rescript at the Gülhane Gardens with a
caption ''Saray-ı Amire'de vaki Gülhane Kasr-ı Hümayunu pişgahında ellibeş
tarihinde kıraat olunan Tanzimat-ı Hayriye hatt-ı hümayunu için tertib olunmuş
olan alay-ı vala'' (Sakaoğlu, 2002, 33) ............................................................................ 63
Figure 29. The Demirkapı Barracks on the shores of the Golden Horn (late
nineteenth century, Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ..................................................... 64
Figure 30. Portrait of Abdülmecid (Rupen Manas, TSM Paintings Gallery 17/118,
c.1850) ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 31. French Archives, Direction Politique, No.82, 15.10.1839 (Courtesy of
Edhem Eldem) ......................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 32. The Telegraph building next to the Alay Kiosk (Eyice, Tarih Dergisi,
XXXIV, 1984, 72) .................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 33. The panoramic depiction of the Darülfünun, Hagia Sophia and the first
court of the Topkapı Palace (Gaspare Fossati, 1852) ................................................. 70
Figure 34. Former Church of St. Irene in the first court of the Topkapı Palace (Sebah
& Joallier) ................................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 35. The plan and section of St. Irene showing the areas of display after its
reconfiguration as the Military Museum (Alus, 1920) ............................................... 74
xix
Figure 36. The atrium of St. Irene converted into a display area for antique
collections. The door to the collections and sultan’s chamber could be seen on
the right with an oval window (Abdulhamid II Albums, Library of Congress,
c.1890) ........................................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 37. The inscriptions at the entrance of galleries: Mecma-i Asar-i Atika and
Mecma-i Esliha-i Atika (Ar, 200) ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 38. The pictures of the Throne Room from outside and inside (Ar, 375, 377)
...................................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 39. The inscription on a column in the second court stating the place of the
Byzantine sarcophagi, which was later moved to the Imperial Museum (2017)
...................................................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 40. Newspaper article concerning the new lighthouse at the Seraglio Point
(Journal de Constantinople, 18.2.1856) / Announcement of the inauguration of
the Dolmabahçe Palace (Journal de Constantinople, 17.7.1856) ........................... 82
Figure 41. The Ceremonial Gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace during and after the
construction (Getty Archive, 1852; Getty Archive, 1865-70) ................................. 83
Figure 42. Sea façade of the Dolmabahçe Palace (Selman Sarıhan Collection) ........ 83
Figure 43. Announcement of Abdülmecid's move to the Dolmabahçe Palace
(Ceride-i Havadis, no. 791, 7 L 1272 / 11.6.1856) ...................................................... 84
Figure 44. Two inscriptions praising Abdülmecid, located on both sides of the
entrance gate to the Audience Hall (2017) ..................................................................... 86
Figure 45. The passages that were opened during the mid-19th century connecting
the third court and the fourth court (2016) ..................................................................... 87
xx
Figure 46. The Third court before the fire of 1855 (Topkapı Palace Museum
Paintings Gallery, No. 17/709, Şehabeddin Efendi, c.1850, from Eldem and
Akozan, 1982) ......................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 47. The galleries of the Imperial Treasury and the Seferli Rooms following
the renovations (Kargopoulos, TSMA) ........................................................................... 89
Figure 48. The third court today, looking from the Imperial Treasury towards the
Audience Hall (2016) ............................................................................................................ 89
Figure 49. The plan of the third court, dated mid-nineteenth century (Eldem and
Akozan, 1982, L: 66) ............................................................................................................. 90
Figure 50. Apartments of the Kilerli corps converted into the apartments of the
Chief Imperial Treasurer, the view from the third court (2016) ............................. 92
Figure 51. The newly built apartments of the Chief Treasurer and the Treasury
Corps as seen from the fourth court (2016) ................................................................... 93
Figure 52. The Mecidiye Kiosk and the Kule Kiosks within the context of
Abdülmecid's renovation project of the fourth court (Gertrude Bell Archive,
1911) ........................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 53. The Mecidiye Kiosk, Northern and Southern Façades (2016) ................... 94
Figure 54. The outer gardens of the palace and the Goth Column before the
remodeling of Abdülmecid (Preaulx, The Gardens of the Seraglio with
European visitors inspecting the Column of the Goths, Constantinople, Victoria
and Albert Museum Collection, 1800-1820) ................................................................. 95
Figure 55. Photograph of the Üçüncüyeri Kiosk and the Goth Column before the
construction of the Mecidiye Kiosk (Eldem and Akozan, 1982, L:189) ............. 96
Figure 56. Interior of the Mecidiye Kiosk (TSMA, c.1890) ............................................. 97
xxi
Figure 57. The interior and exterior views of the Mecidiye Kiosk (Elia Archives,
c.1920) ........................................................................................................................................ 98
Figure 58. The Kule Kiosks and the Üçüncüyeri gate between the Gülhane gardens
and the fourth court (2016) .................................................................................................. 99
Figure 59. Shared architectural language of the time: The guard tower by the
Imperial gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace / The Kule Kiosk guard tower by the
Üçüncüyeri gate of the Topkapı Palace / The Tophane clock-tower built during
the reign of Abdülmecid (2017) ........................................................................................ 99
Figure 60. The Chamber of Imperial Robes (Esvap Odası), the Sofa Mosque, and
the Mecidiye Kiosk (2016) ............................................................................................... 101
Figure 61. The new Tower of Justice with its neo-classical tower (TSMA, Abdullah
Fréres) ...................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 62. Panorama of Constantinople (İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, J.
Robertson, 1855) .................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 63. 1862 Panorama of Constantinople by Pascal Sebah (Bahattin Öztuncay,
2003) ........................................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 64. Seraglio and the newly built Tower of Justice before the fire of 1863 (J.
Robertson, from Eldem, 1979, 4) ................................................................................... 103
Figure 65. Mahmud II's Tower of Justice (Claude-Marie Ferrier, 1857) / La Grande
Tour du Palais Imperial du Top-Kapou (Abdullah Freres, Library of Congress,
1890) ........................................................................................................................................ 105
Figure 66. Detail from the Tophane clock tower (2017) and the Tower of Justice
(2016) ...................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 67. Depiction of an audience ceremony from the sixteenth century (Deutsche
Fotothek, Zacharias Wehme, 1581-82) ........................................................................ 109
xxii
Figure 68. Depiction of an audience ceremony in the Council Hall and the Audience
Hall (J.B. van Mour, eighteenth century) .................................................................... 110
Figure 69. The Seraglio seen from the Dutch Consulate (J.B. van Mour, 1726-1744)
................................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 70. Engraving depicting the Sofa Kiosk and the Baghdad Kiosk at the
hanging gardens of the palace (W.H. Bartlett from Pardoe, 1838) ..................... 117
Figure 71. View of the Seraglio from the French Consulate (Laborde, Vue de la
Pointe du Sérail Prise du Consulat de France, 1838) ............................................... 118
Figure 72. Travel Account from 1845 (Charles White, Three years in Constantinople
and Domestic Manners of Turks in 1844) ................................................................... 123
Figure 73. A petition written by a French officer to visit the Topkapı Palace and the
Imperial Treasury (22.7.1856, OBA.HR.MKT.153.13) ......................................... 129
Figure 74. Petition dated 1857 to visit several venues in Istanbul (BOA
HR.MKT.198.64) ................................................................................................................ 132
Figure 75. The Hippodrome before its reorganization (James Robertson, Getty
Archives, 1853-57) / The Serpentine Column after the leveling and encircling of
Byzantine monuments (Sebah et Joaillier) .................................................................. 133
Figure 76. The last Bairam greeting of Abdülmecid in front of the Gate of Felicity
(Le Monde Illustré, 06.07.1861, Le sultan Abdul-Mejid recevant les ulemas
avant de se rendre aux fetes du Kourban-Bairam, celebres les 18, 19, 20, 21
juin, a Constantinople, Derniere cérémonie a laquelle a assisté le sultan) .... 137
Figure 77. Funeral of Abdülmecid (L’Illustration 962, August 3, 1861 from Eldem,
2005, 97) ................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 78. Two documents from the era of Abdülaziz granting permission to visit
the imperial palace (BOA A.MKT.NZD.367.5; A.MKT.NZD.391.6) .............. 140
xxiii
Figure 79. Burning of the Old Seraglio at Constantinople (The Illustrated London
News, Sept 5, 1863) ............................................................................................................ 141
Figure 80. The fire of the Seraglio (Illustrated London News, Sept 5, 1863, No.
1220) ........................................................................................................................................ 143
Figure 81. The Seraglio during the 1863 fire of and after (Cengiz Kahraman
Collection) ............................................................................................................................. 144
Figure 82. Portrait of Sultan Abdülaziz (P. Guillemet, 1873, TSM Paintings
Collection) ............................................................................................................................. 146
Figure 83. The Gate of the Ministry of War at Beyazit, designed during the reign of
Abdülaziz ............................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 84. The Imperial Gate during the late-eighteenth century (Melling, 1809) 149
Figure 85. The Imperial Gate with the timber kiosk before the fire of 1866 (Bab-ı
Hümayun to Topkapi Sarayı, with the Fountain of Sultan Ahmet III, Victoria &
Albert, 1810) ......................................................................................................................... 149
Figure 86. The Imperial Gate after the fire of 1866 (Albert-Kahn, Archives de la
planète, 27.11.1922, A 36661) ........................................................................................ 150
Figure 87. The 1858 Proposition for Rumeli Railroad (Sur un chemin de fer a
construire à Constantinople, 1848-1863, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de
Nantes) .................................................................................................................................... 153
Figure 88. Orient Express in the Ottoman lands (Chemis de fers de la Turquie
d'Europe, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes) ..................................... 154
Figure 89. The first phase of the railroad up to Yedikule (BOA HRT.h.1711) ...... 155
Figure 90. The route of the Rumeli Railroad in Istanbul (Ottoman Archives of Prime
Ministry) ................................................................................................................................. 157
xxiv
Figure 91. Map showing the fires at the Topkapı Palace and the route of the railroad
................................................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 92. 1875 Map of the Topkapı Palace after the construction of the Rumeli
Railroad (Atatürk Kitaplığı, 1875, Hrt_003143) ....................................................... 160
Figure 93. Rumeli Railroad crossing the palace grounds (Atatürk Kitaplığı,
Bel_Mtf_000761) ................................................................................................................ 162
Figure 94. Depots built during the construction of the Rumeli Railway (Abdulhamid
II Albums, Library of Congress) .................................................................................... 163
Figure 95. Detail from the Seraglio Point, (London Illustrated, 17.06.1876) .......... 164
Figure 96. Advertisements for the Orient Express (Gallica, Bibliotheque national de
France) ..................................................................................................................................... 166
Figure 97. Photo of the Exhibition Hall for Sergi-i Umumi-i Osmani (Abdullah
Freres, Empire Ottoman, Coup d'oeil Général sur l'Exposition Nationale à
Constantinople, 1863) ........................................................................................................ 169
Figure 98. The Tiled Pavilion (2016) .................................................................................... 169
Figure 99. Exposition Nationale à Constantinople (Le Monde Illustré, 4.4.1863);
The Tiled Pavilion (Getty Archive, Sebah, Le Serail de faienece, 1870) ......... 170
Figure 100. List of objects from the Imperial Treasury displayed in the Ottoman
General Exposition (S.P.B. [Baragnon], 1863, 28-29) ........................................... 172
Figure 101. The triumphal gate erected in honor of the Sultan at the entrance of the
Ottoman section (Arc de triomphe éelevé en l'honneur du Sultan, a l'entrée de la
section ottomane, Le Monde Illustré, 11, no. 535, 13.7.1867) ............................. 174
Figure 102. Engraving of the Bosphorus House (Exposition Universelle de 1867, La
Maison du Bosphore, Dessin de Lancelot, Magasin Pittoresque, 1867) ........... 175
xxv
Figure 103. The replica of the Fountain of Ahmed III in the Ottoman Pavilion at the
Vienna World Fair of 1873 (Ergüney and Kara Pilehvarian, 233) ..................... 178
Figure 104. Drawing of the Imperial Treasury pavilion constructed for the Vienna
Exposition 1873 (BOA PLK.p.01022) ......................................................................... 179
Figure 105. Listings of the treasury items sent to 1873 Vienna World Exhibition
(BOA TS.MA.D.993.01) ................................................................................................... 180
Figure 106. Telegram from Osman Hamdi, informing the Istanbul government about
the progress of the Imperial Treasury pavilion (BOA HR.İD.1218.44_02) .... 181
Figure 107. Letter from Osman Hamdi informing the Ottoman Ambassador Cabouli
Pasha about the opening of the Imperial Treasury (BOA HR.İD.1218.47_03) /
The letter of Cabouli Pasha to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Rachis Pasha
(BOA HR.İD.1218.47_02) ............................................................................................... 182
Figure 108. Visits to the Ottoman Treasury Pavilion in Vienna Exhibition of 1873
(Çelik, 1992, 72) .................................................................................................................. 182
Figure 109. The Atrium of St. Irene holding the antiquities collection and the
Armory where the old arms and armor were displayed. (Plan from Peschlow,
1977) ........................................................................................................................................ 190
Figure 110. St. Irene as the Imperial Museum and the antiquities displayed outside
the building (Berggren Guillaume, Getty Archive, 1880) ..................................... 192
Figure 111. The article regarding the enlargement of the museum and its opening to
public (Hakayıku'l-Vakai, No.129, 23 Ce 1290 / 18.7.1873) ............................... 194
Figure 112. The deposed Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz being conveyed to Top-Capu, Seraglio
Point, (London Illustrated, 17.06.1876) ....................................................................... 196
Figure 113. The funeral of Abdülaziz (Le Monde Illustré 1002, 24.06.1876, p.412)
................................................................................................................................................... 199
xxvi
Figure 114. The accession ceremony of Selim III in 1789 (Konstantin Kapıdağlı,
Topkapı Palace Museum Collection) ............................................................................ 205
Figure 115. An imperial ceremony taking place in the Divan court of the Topkapı
Palace (D’Ohsson, Tableau général de l’Empire ottoman, Paris 1787-1820) . 207
Figure 116. Sword Girding Ceremony of Abdülmecid (Amel-i Bende-i Pavlo
Verona, Topkapı Palace Museum Paintings Gallery) ............................................. 208
Figure 117. Imperial ceremony held in front of the Gate of Felicity during the reign
of Abdülaziz (The Salamlik, or Sultan’s Reception, at the Seraglio, Illustrated
London News, 25.3.1865) ................................................................................................ 209
Figure 118. Abdülhamid II ....................................................................................................... 214
Figure 119. Ceremonial throne placed in front of Bab-üs Saade (Albert Kahn
Archives de la planète, A 36605, 1922) ....................................................................... 216
Figure 120. The arrival of Abdülhamid II to Eyüp with imperial caiques for the
sword girding ceremony (Le Monde Illustré, 23.09.1876) .................................... 219
Figure 121. The ceremony that took place in the courtyard of the Eyüp Mosque (Le
Monde Illustré, 23.09.1876) ............................................................................................. 219
Figure 122. The map showing the route to and from Eyüp during the sword girding
ceremony (OBA.HRT.h.0668) ........................................................................................ 220
Figure 123. The public procession of Abdülhamid II from Eyüp to the Topkapı
Palace (Le Sultan, apres l'investiture, se rend au palais de Top-Capou, Le
Monde Illustré, 23.09.1876, 196) ................................................................................... 221
Figure 124. The entrance to the Chamber of Sacred Relics (Musée Albert-Kahn,
Archives de la Planète, A 36615, 1922) ....................................................................... 224
xxvii
Figure 125. The plan of the Enderun court and a close view of the Chamber of
Sacred Relics at the northern corner. (TSMA, Abdurrahman Şeref Bey Plan,
1910) ........................................................................................................................................ 226
Figure 126. Yıldız Palace during a public procession (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards
Collection) ............................................................................................................................. 229
Figure 127. The dome of the Hass Oda (Privy Chmaber) (2014) ................................ 231
Figure 128. Announcements of visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the front
cover of Takvim-i Vakayi (17 Ramazan 1308 / 26.4.1891 ; 15 Ramazan 1309 /
13.4.1892) .............................................................................................................................. 233
Figure 129. Newspaper announcements about sultan's visit to the Chamber of Sacred
Relics during the Second Constitutional Era (Takvim-i Vakayi, 12.10.1908 /
Tasvir-i Efkar, 13.10.1914) .............................................................................................. 233
Figure 130. The protocol for the visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics (BOA
İ.DUİT. 15.58) ...................................................................................................................... 235
Figure 131. Information regarding the ceremony that will take place at the Topkapı
Palace on the sixteenth day of Ramadan. (17.09.1910, Archives Nationaux de
France, Nantes) / Information on the religious ceremony that will take place in
the Topkapı Palace on the 25th day of Ramadan. (22.06.1919, Archives
Nationaux de France, Nantes) ......................................................................................... 237
Figure 132. The royal purse ceremony (Surre Alayı) in front of the Dolmabahçe
Palace (Selman Sarıhan Collection) .............................................................................. 241
Figure 133. The circles of legitimation during the accession ceremonies and funerals
in the Topkapı Palace ......................................................................................................... 242
Figure 134. The circles of legitimization within the city during the sword girding
ceremony and Sacred Relic visits .................................................................................. 243
xxviii
Figure 135. The memorial of Sohum Castle placed in between Council Hall and the
Gate of Felicity in the second court of the palace (2016) ...................................... 246
Figure 136. The military depots located at the Marmara side of the Gülhane gardens
(2016) ...................................................................................................................................... 249
Figure 137. The Ottoman coat of arms on the façades of the ammunition magazines
(4 Adet Tescilli Depo, Sanat Tarihi Raporu, 4. Kurul Arşivi) ............................. 249
Figure 138. A general view of the ammunition magazines in Gülhane (Abdülhamid
II Albums, Library of Congress) .................................................................................... 249
Figure 139. Air view of the Seraglio and the ammunition magazines (Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-8098, 1918) .................................................. 250
Figure 140. Gülhane Hospital (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Bel_Mtf_760) ............................... 250
Figure 141. The plan of the Military School of Medicine and Two students from the
Medical School (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) ......................... 251
Figure 142. The police stations during the reign of Abdülhamid II. Blue shows
currently extant police stations; Red shows non-existing police stations. ........ 253
Figure 143. Hamidiye police station at the Seraglio point (Abdülhamid II Albums,
Library of Congress) ........................................................................................................... 255
Figure 144. South façade of the Hamidiye Police Station (İstanbul Üniversitesi
Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) ..................................................................... 255
Figure 145. Side view of Hamidiye Police Station (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir
Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) .................................................................................. 255
Figure 146. Hamidiye police station seen from the Sea of Marmara (Cengiz
Kahraman Collection) ........................................................................................................ 257
Figure 147. The Seraglio Point as of 1914 (Cengiz Karaman Collection) ............... 257
Figure 148. The site of the Hamidiye police station today (2017) .............................. 257
xxix
Figure 149. The police station in the front of the Baghdad Kiosk in the Topkapı
Palace (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) ........................................... 260
Figure 150. Hamidiye police station on the left and the tower of the Baghdad Kiosk
police station on the right (Sebah & Joaillier, Cengiz Kahraman Collection) 261
Figure 151. Police Stations from the era of Abdülhamid II with similar
morphologies (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) ............................. 261
Figure 152. The plan and elevation of the Baghdad Kiosk police station (BOA
PLK.p.481, 15 Eylül 1321 / 28.9.1905) ....................................................................... 262
Figure 153. The plan of the Baghdad Kiosk police station (BOA PLK.p.481, 15
Eylül.1321 / 28.9.1905) ..................................................................................................... 262
Figure 154. Gurlitt map of 1912, the Baghdad Kiosk Police Station shown at the
northern corner right next to the Baghdad Kiosk ...................................................... 262
Figure 155. Foundations of the police station found during the 1965-1966
restoration of the Topkapı Palace (TS.MA.55/46) ................................................... 263
Figure 156. Coat of arms from the demolished police stations displayed in the
second court of the Topkapı Museum (2016) ............................................................ 263
Figure 157. The location of the Baghdad Kiosk police station today (2016) .......... 264
Figure 158. Detail from the Seraglio panorama showing three police stations
overlooking the Golden Horn (Sebah & Joaillier, Getty Archive, c.1880) ...... 265
Figure 159. Detail from the Seraglio Point in 1862 (Bahattin Öztuncay, 2005) .... 267
Figure 160. The Seraglio point and previous façade of the Seraglio police station
after the fire of 1863 (Getty Archive) ........................................................................... 267
Figure 161. The Seraglio police station enlarged during the reign of Abdülhamid II
(Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ....................................................................................... 267
Figure 162. The Seraglio point today (2017) ...................................................................... 268
xxx
Figure 163. Cebehane police station at Gülhane gardens (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir
Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) .................................................................................. 271
Figure 164. Cebehane police station and the cistern below (Courtesy of Ahsen
Karagöl, 2017) ...................................................................................................................... 271
Figure 165. Topkapı Palace police station in the first court and its coat of arms
before restoration (c.2000, Courtesy of Ahsen Karagöl) ....................................... 272
Figure 166. The crowd in front of the police station (Ressimli Kitab, cild 3, no.18,
Mart 1326 / April 1910) .................................................................................................... 273
Figure 167. The recruitment office and the new recruits in the first court of the
Topkapı Palace (Servet-i Fünun, c.38, s.980, 4 Mart 1326 / 17.3.1910) .......... 273
Figure 168. Police station below the Imperial Treasury (2016) ................................... 274
Figure 169. Imperial Museum police station by the Darphane Gate of the palace
(İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) .......................... 275
Figure 170. Imperial Museum police station, sunrays at its pediment, and the
inscription at the door (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümü) .................................................................................................................................. 276
Figure 171. "Asar-ı Atika Müzesi" inscription at the entrance of the museum (2015)
/ The letterhead "Müze-i Hümayun" on an official document ............................. 276
Figure 172. The map of police stations in Istanbul by the end of Abdülhamid II's
reign (BOA Y.EE.64.6, 6.R 1327 / 27.4.1909) ......................................................... 277
Figure 173. The antiquities displayed in the atrium of St. Irene (Abdülhamid II
Albums, Library of Congress, c.1890) ......................................................................... 279
Figure 174. The Museum of Armory (Esliha Müzesi) at St. Irene during the
Hamidian era (Library of Congress, Abdülhamid II Albums, c.1890) .............. 281
xxxi
Figure 175. The Weapons Museum of Abdülhamid II at Yıldız Palace (İstanbul
Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) ............................................. 282
Figure 176. Architectural drawings by Perpignani for the unrealized Military
Museum (BOA PLK.P.1298, 1904) .............................................................................. 283
Figure 177. The Tiled Pavilion before its conversion into the Imperial Museum
(Kiosque des Yanissaires, Getty Archive, 1865-75) / Tiled Pavilion as Imperial
Museum (Sébah et Joaillier) ............................................................................................ 286
Figure 178. The new staircase added to the front of the Tiled Pavilion (D-DAI-IST-
9344) / Iron railings at the entrance of the Tiled Pavilion (İstanbul Üniversitesi
Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) ..................................................................... 286
Figure 179. Display of antique pieces in the entrance gallery of the Tiled Pavilion
(Sébah et Joaillier; İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümü) .................................................................................................................................. 288
Figure 180. The Antiquities collection in the halls of the Tiled Pavilion (İstanbul
Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) ............................................. 289
Figure 181. The spatial relation between the Tiled Pavilion, School of Fine Arts, and
the new buildings of the Imperial Museum (Istanbul Archaeology Museum
Archive, from Öngören, 355) .......................................................................................... 290
Figure 182. The first wing of the Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi designed by Alexandre
Vallaury (Mimarlık Müzesi, MSGSÜ Archive) ........................................................ 291
Figure 183. Registration records of Alexandre Vallaury at the school of architecture
at Ecole de Beaux Arts (Archives de Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris) ................... 292
Figure 184. Second wing of the School of Fine Arts (Ecole des Beaux-Arts de
Constantinople, Servet-i Fünun, 9 Teşrinievvel 1322, 1906) ................................ 292
xxxii
Figure 185. A newspaper article promoting the School of Fine Arts (A Turkish
School of paintings, Old Seraglio, Stamboul, Constantinople Illustrated, Part I,
1886) ........................................................................................................................................ 293
Figure 186. Letters signed by Osman Hamdi as the museum director (Centre des
Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, 17.11.1869, no.240) ....................................... 295
Figure 187. Construction of the First Museum Building (Öngören, 2012, 354) .... 297
Figure 188. The transfer of the sarcophagi to the new museum building before the
finalization of the construction (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı,
Yıldız Albümü) .................................................................................................................... 298
Figure 189. The interior hall of the new museum (Sébah et Joaillier) ....................... 298
Figure 190. The first building of the Imperial museum seen from the Tiled Pavilion
(2009) ...................................................................................................................................... 300
Figure 191. The new building of Imperial Museum designed by Alexandre Vallaury
with the monogram of Abdülhamid II on the pediment (D-DAI-IST-9512,
c.1890) ..................................................................................................................................... 300
Figure 192. The library of the Imperial Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler
Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) ................................................................................................. 301
Figure 193. The Imperial Museum praised in the Ottoman press (Servet-i Fünun,
c.32, s.813, 9 Teşrinievvel 1322 / 1906) ...................................................................... 303
Figure 194. The plan of the Imperial Museum encircling the Tiled Pavilion (Servet-i
Fünun 26, No.676, 25 Mart 1320 / 7.4.1904, from Çelik, 2016, 33) ................. 304
Figure 195. The spatial relationship of the Imperial Museum with the Topkapı
Palace (Harita Genel Komutanlığı Fotoğraf Arşivi, 1937) .................................... 305
xxxiii
Figure 196. Display of the Islamic Arts collection on the second floor of the
Imperial Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümü) .................................................................................................................................. 308
Figure 197. Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Islamic Department 1909/1910 (Jens
Kröger, 175) .......................................................................................................................... 308
Figure 198. The antiquities collection in the Tiled Pavilion before it was dedicated
to the Islamic Arts collection (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı,
Yıldız Albümü) .................................................................................................................... 310
Figure 199. The Islamic Arts collection in the Tiled Pavilion (Halil Edhem, Das
Osmanische Antikenmuseum in Kostantinopel, 1909) ........................................... 310
Figure 200. The New Museum across the Tiled Pavillion (Halil Edhem, Das
Osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel, 1909) ........................................ 313
Figure 201. Interior of the Imperial Museum and the state-of-the-art display units
(İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü) .......................... 314
Figure 202. The cover of Servet-i Fünun after the death of Osman Hamdi (Servet-i
Fünun, 984, 4 Rebiülevvel 1328 / 14 Nisan 1910) ................................................... 318
Figure 203. St. Irene, Imperial Museum and the Topkapı Palace (Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, 1918, D-DAI-IST-3929) .................................................. 319
Figure 204. The Tower of Justice and the Outer Treasury after the renovations of
1967-68 (TSMA) ................................................................................................................. 322
Figure 205. Defterhane Treasury and the state archives next to the Council Hall
(2016) ...................................................................................................................................... 323
Figure 206. Display of harnesses and stables in the Treasury of Harnesses
(Republican era, TSMA) ................................................................................................... 324
xxxiv
Figure 207. Treasury of the Harnesses and the Imperial Stables (Öz, Güzel Sanatlar
6, 1949, 17) ............................................................................................................................ 325
Figure 208. Baghdad Kiosk's library section (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of
Congress) ................................................................................................................................ 326
Figure 209. The Library of Ahmed III (1920’s, TSMA) ................................................ 327
Figure 210. Interior of the Library of Ahmed III (Öz, "La Bibliothéque Du Palais De
Topkapı", La Turquie Kemaliste 45, 1941) ................................................................ 328
Figure 211. Galleries of the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the third court (TSMA)
................................................................................................................................................... 330
Figure 212. The printed text from 1911 rejecting the demands for sacred hair
(DH.HMŞ.28.14 (26 R 1329 /13.04.1327) ................................................................. 331
Figure 213. Aerial view of the Topkapı Palace in 1918 and the location of the
Imperial Treasury (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-3929) ... 334
Figure 214. Entrance portals of the Treasury chambers and of Fatih's Bath (2016)334
Figure 215. The Şahnişin or the extended balcony of the Inner Treasury (Ali Saim
Ülgen Arşivi, SALT Research) / Loggia of the Imperial Treasury (Turkish
Cultural Foundation, Nurhan Atasoy Archive) ......................................................... 336
Figure 216. The gallery of the Inner Treasury with rounded arches and ionic volute
column capitals (TSMA) ................................................................................................... 336
Figure 217. Plan of the Imperial Treasury [1-Disrobing chamber of the Grand Bath]
2- Domed treasury room 3- Divanhane with the extended balcony (şahnişin) -
Loggia 4- Last room .......................................................................................................... 338
Figure 218. Section of the Imperial Treasury and the first chamber of the Bath ... 338
Figure 219. The Baptistery and the marble pool (2015) / Basement plan of the
Imperial Treasury ................................................................................................................ 340
xxxv
Figure 220. The Imperial Treasury Collection (INHA Archives, Courtesy of Edhem
Eldem) ..................................................................................................................................... 340
Figure 221. The view of the Imperial Treasury from the sea and the walled arches of
the loggia (Late-nineteenth century, Cengiz Kahraman Collection) .................. 342
Figure 222. Enderun Court and the location of the Imperial Treasury (Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey Map, 1911, TSMA) ........................................................................................ 342
Figure 223. Demolition of the Ambassador’s Treasury during Ayverdi Restorations
(1941-44, TSMA) ................................................................................................................ 343
Figure 224. The ceremonial throne in front of Bab-üs Saade (Albert Kahn, Archives
de la Planete, A 36604, 1922) ......................................................................................... 347
Figure 225. A standardized document dated 1878 granting a permit to visit the
Imperial Treasury and the Topkapı Palace (TS.MA.E.239.3) .............................. 350
Figure 226. Number of permits to visit the Topkapı Palace during the reign of
Abdülhamid II (1876 – 1909) (Data from TSMA) ................................................... 352
Figure 227. Total number of permits given to visitors from various countries
between 1878 and 1891 (Data from TSMA) .............................................................. 354
Figure 228. The permit decree for Prince Louis Napoleon to visit the Imperial
Treasury (TS.MA.E 239.41, 18.04.1885) .................................................................... 354
Figure 229. Newspaper cover announcing Wilhelm II's second visit to Istanbul
(Servet-i Fünun, 20.10.1898) ........................................................................................... 357
Figure 230. Postcard showing the greeting ceremony in front of the Middle Gate
(Author's collection) ........................................................................................................... 363
Figure 231. The Council Hall during the late nineteenth century (TSMA) .............. 365
Figure 232. The Gate of Felicity (Albert Kahn Archives de la Planete, A 36612,
1922) ........................................................................................................................................ 365
xxxvi
Figure 233. The Audience Hall and the Library of Ahmed III (TSMA) ................... 367
Figure 234. Marble pool at the Imperial Sofa (TSMA) .................................................. 368
Figure 235. Painting titled "The Harem On The Terrace" (Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1886)
................................................................................................................................................... 370
Figure 236. The marble pool at Sofa-i Hümayun (2016) ............................................... 370
Figure 237. Interior and exterior pictures of the Baghdad Kiosk (2016) .................. 371
Figure 238. Exterior and interior of the Mecidiye Kiosk (TSMA) ............................. 372
Figure 239. The Sultan’s Hospitality – European Visitors at the Old Serai
(Constantinople Illustrated, 1886) ................................................................................. 374
Figure 240. Coffee servers and visitors at the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk
(Istanbul 1919: Images d'Occupation) .......................................................................... 376
Figure 241. Hypothetical route of the palatial visits with various stops at some
significant landmarks during the reign of Abdülhamid II ...................................... 378
Figure 242. Railings surrounding the Council Hall (TSMA) ........................................ 378
Figure 243. Windows enclosing the entrance of Library of Ahmed III and the gallery
around the Marble Pool at the Imperial Sofa (TSMA) ........................................... 378
Figure 244. Windows enclosing the galleries surrounding the Baghdad and the Revan
Kiosks (TSMA) .................................................................................................................... 379
Figure 245. Ceremony for the opening of the Imperial Treasury (TSMA) .............. 382
Figure 246. Persian Throne in the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury (Author's
collection) ............................................................................................................................... 383
Figure 247. Throne of Ahmed I displayed in the Imperial Treasury (Bayram
günlerine mahsus taht-ı ali, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) .... 384
Figure 248. Circulation diagram for visiting the Imperial Treasury (detail from
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey map of 1911) ........................................................................ 386
xxxvii
Figure 249. The distinction between the three chambers of the Imperial Treasury
that were open for visits and the fourth chamber used as a treasury depot
(Gurlitt, 1912) ....................................................................................................................... 386
Figure 250. The statue of Abdülaziz placed at the house of the Crown Prince
Abdülmecid at Bağlarbaşı (TBMM Arşivi, Abdülmecid Efendi Bağlarbaşı
Köşkü Albümü, K-166) / Abdülaziz on horseback displayed at the painting
gallery of the Topkapı Palace Museum (from Öz, Güzel Sanatlar, 42) ............ 388
Figure 251. The gallery floor of the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i
Hümayunda mahfuz esliha ve çini küpler, Library of Congress) ........................ 390
Figure 252. The Imperial Treasury collection displayed in cabinets of different size
in the gallery of the first chamber (INHA Archives, Abdullah Freres, c.1890,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem) .............................................................................................. 390
Figure 253. Chronological display of the costumes of the sultans in the second
chamber of the Imperial Treasury (INHA Archives, Abdullah Freres, c.1890,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem) .............................................................................................. 391
Figure 254. The costumes of the sultans on display in the second chamber of the
Imperial Treasury (Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda mahfuz Selatin-i
Osmaniyenin hilat-ı şahaneleri, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
................................................................................................................................................... 392
Figure 255. Arms and armor of Murad IV (Sultan Murad Han rabi hazretlerinin zırh
ve eslihası, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) / Swords belonging to
warrior sultans (Vezne-i Hümayunda mahfuz Sultan Mehmed Han ve Sultan
Selim Han ve Bayezid Han hazretlerinin Konstantiniyye kılıçları, Abdülhamid
II Albums, Library of Congress) .................................................................................... 393
xxxviii
Figure 256. Collections displayed in the Imperial Treasury (INHA Archives,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem) .............................................................................................. 397
Figure 257. Display cabinets on either side of the entrance portal of the Imperial
Treasury (Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Vezne-i Hümayununun görünüşü,
Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) ........................................................... 398
Figure 258. Pictures from the Harem of the Topkapı Palace (Albums of Abdülhamid
II, Library of Congress) ..................................................................................................... 405
Figure 259. Pictures from the Revan Kiosk and the Audience Hall (Albums of
Abdülhamid II, Library of Congress) ........................................................................... 405
Figure 260. Declaration of the sultanate of Mehmed V in front of Bab-ı Selam of the
Topkapı Palace April 28, 1909 (Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection) ........ 409
Figure 261. Mehmed Reşad’s visit to the Sacred Relics on the day of the Sword
Girding May 10, 1909 (Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection) ........................ 410
Figure 262. Mehmed Reşad in the first court of the Topkapı Palace in the imperial
carriage during the Sword Girding ceremony / Military processions during the
Sword Girding ceremony (Album de la Cérémonie de l’investiture du Sabre et
de l’Avenement au Throne de S.M.I. Le Sultan Mehmed V, 1909) ................... 411
Figure 263. The cover of Şehbal magazine showing the ceremonial gate erected for
the celebrations of the first year anniversary of the declaration of the Second
Constitution (Şehbal no.9, 1 Ağustos 1325 / 14.8.1909) ....................................... 413
Figure 264. Invasion of the Yıldız Palace (Gertrude Bell Archive, Newcastle
University, 1909) ................................................................................................................. 417
Figure 265. The Yıldız Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümleri) .............................................................................................................................. 418
xxxix
Figure 266. Harem women and black eunuchs exposing themselves in Europe after
the dissemination of the harem of Abdülhamid II (Roget-Viollet collection,
Getty Images from Irvin Cemil Schick, Çerkes Güzeli, 130) ............................... 420
Figure 267. The ancient documents at the Council Hall to be cataloged (Şehbal v.27,
p.49, 15 Eylül 1326 / 28.9.1910) .................................................................................... 423
Figure 268. Seferli Apartments and the display of the porcelain collection (TSMA)
................................................................................................................................................... 431
Figure 269. Members of the Red Cross in the Sofalı Kiosk during their visit to the
Topkapı Palace (Getty Archive, 1910) ......................................................................... 432
Figure 270. Petitions to visit the Imperial Treasury by foreign visitors (BOA
A.d.378) .................................................................................................................................. 435
Figure 271. The Austrian Emperor and his wife Zita in the 4th Court of the Topkapı
Palace (TSMA, 1918) ........................................................................................................ 436
Figure 272. Number of petitions for visiting the Imperial Treasury according to their
country of origin (A.d.378 February 4 - May 27, 1911) ........................................ 437
Figure 273. Petitions for visiting the Imperial Treasury by domestic visitors (BOA
A.D.379) ................................................................................................................................. 439
Figure 274. Number of petitions to visit the Imperial Treasury per year (1878-1911)
TSMA ...................................................................................................................................... 442
Figure 275. Tourists in front of the Imperial Gate (Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, D-DAI-IST-4628) ............................................................................................... 443
Figure 276. Kaiser Wilhelm II visiting the old Seraglio in Constantinople, 15
October 1917 (Imperial War Museums Archive) ..................................................... 444
Figure 277. The visit of the Austrian Emperor and Empress to the Topkapı Palace
(1918) ...................................................................................................................................... 445
xl
Figure 278. The first article by Abdurrahman Şeref: "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu"
published at Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, v. 5 (1 Kanunievvel 1326 /
14.4.1910) .............................................................................................................................. 450
Figure 279. Site plan of the Sur-i Sultani by Abdurrahman Şeref Bey (TOEM, v.6, 1
Şubat 1326 / 14.2.1911) .................................................................................................... 451
Figure 280. A page from Şehbal magazine featuring the Topkapı Palace (Şehbal
v.27, 49, 15 Eylül 1326 / 28.9.1910) ............................................................................. 452
Figure 281. St. Irene as the Military Museum (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
D-DAI-IST-10086) ............................................................................................................. 456
Figure 282. The Military Museum and the first court of the Topkapı Palace
(Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-9853, c.1910's) .................... 456
Figure 283. The military police station (Askeri Karakol) next to St. Irene shown as
"Fatih Redif Tabour" (Alman Mavileri, 1913-14) .................................................... 458
Figure 284. The first court of the Topkapı Palace published at Resimli Kitab No:18
Cilt:3 (Mart 1326 / April 1910, 483-484) .................................................................. 458
Figure 285. The Cover of Servet-i Fünun showing the military tents at the Topkapı
Palace (4 Mart 1326 / 17.3.1910) ................................................................................... 460
Figure 286. The tents placed at the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace during the
Balkan Wars (Selman Sarıhan Collection) ................................................................. 461
Figure 287. The imperial boats in the boathouse of the Topkapı Palace (Şehbal - 47)
................................................................................................................................................... 462
Figure 288. Turkish soldiers in front of the School of Finer Arts being used as a
hospital during the Balkan Wars (Gallica, 1912) ...................................................... 464
Figure 289. Soldiers in the Sofalı Kiosk during World War I (April 1917, Pera
Mezat Collection) ................................................................................................................ 465
xli
Figure 290. The Janissary mannequins displayed in the Military Museum (TBMM
Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260) .................................................................................. 468
Figure 291. Janissary mannequins in the Military Museum (Atatürk Kitaplığı,
Postcards Collection) .......................................................................................................... 468
Figure 292. Display of modern military costumes in the Military Museum (TBMM
Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260) .................................................................................. 468
Figure 293. Ottoman military band performing in front of the Military Museum
(From Ar, 2013, 266) ......................................................................................................... 470
Figure 294. Models with Janissary costumes in front of the Middle Gate of the
Topkapı Palace (TBMM Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260) ................................. 470
Figure 295. The nave of St. Irene towards the apsis (Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, D-DAI-IST-10087) ............................................................................................. 472
Figure 296. Compositions created by ancient arms (TBMM Archives, Askeri Müze,
11-1260) .................................................................................................................................. 473
Figure 297. Advertisements of film screenings at the Military Museum (Tasvir-i
Efkar 22.4.1917 / 14.6.1917) ........................................................................................... 474
Figure 298. Educational Magazine featuring the Arms Museum (Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye
Mecmuası, 1:4, 15 Mayıs 1326 / 28.5.1910) ............................................................. 475
Figure 299. Advertisement of the Military Museum (Harb Mecmuası, Şaban 1335 –
Mayıs 1917) ........................................................................................................................... 477
Figure 300. The first court of the Topkapı Palace (Milli Saraylar, Abdülmecid Efendi
Archive) .................................................................................................................................. 479
Figure 301. The map of the Gülhane gardens after its conversion into a public park
(Alman Mavileri, 1913-14) .............................................................................................. 482
Figure 302. The Taksim Gardens ........................................................................................... 484
xlii
Figure 303. The Tepebaşı Garden in Pera (Musée Albert-Kahn, Archives de la
Planète, A2287) .................................................................................................................... 484
Figure 304. 1914 Ayverdi Map of the Seraglio showing the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı Haritalar Koleksiyonu) .................................................................................... 486
Figure 305. The Seraglio Point and the military zone next to the park area (Ayverdi
Maps, 1914, Atatürk Kitaplığı / Alman Mavileri 1913-14) .................................. 489
Figure 306. Military barracks at the Seraglio point (Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
................................................................................................................................................... 490
Figure 307. Hamidiye police station (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı,
Yıldız Albümü) .................................................................................................................... 491
Figure 308. Antique remains found during the construction of the Gülhane Park
(Revue d'Orient 1913, cited in Tezcan, 1989, no. 183) .......................................... 491
Figure 309. The first phase of the Gülhane Park and the remaining telegram factory
within the park (Alman Mavileri Maps, 1913-1914) ............................................... 493
Figure 310. The measured drawings of the Telegram factory (from Özge Gürkan,
2005, 46) ................................................................................................................................. 494
Figure 311. The telegram building reclining on the outer walls of the palace,
between the Alay Kiosk and Soğukçekme Gate ....................................................... 495
Figure 312. Landscape design of the Gülhane Park with imported tress from Europe
(Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection) ..................................................................... 497
Figure 313. Enlargement of the Soğukçeşme gate and demolition of the Sur-i Sultani
walls of the Topkapı Palace (Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ................................ 499
Figure 314. Entrance to the Gülhane Park during 1920's seen from the Alemdar
Street ........................................................................................................................................ 499
xliii
Figure 315. Soğukçeşme Gate and iron railings seen from the park side (Atatürk
Kitaplığı) ................................................................................................................................ 500
Figure 316. The second phase of the Gülhane Park showing the Byzantine remains as
"Sahrindj" (Alman Mavileri, 1914) ............................................................................... 501
Figure 317. The Byzantine remains found during the excavation of the Gülhane Park
(Şehbal, No.87, 282, 1 Kanunievvel 1329 / 14.12.1913) ....................................... 504
Figure 318. Postcard no.2 showing the discovery of the Byzantine cistern (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection) ...................................................................................... 505
Figure 319. A postcard no.3 showing the Byzantine cistern after the restoration work
(Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection) .................................................................... 505
Figure 320. Gülhane Park in 1917 and the use of antique pieces as decorative
elements (Selman Sarıhan Collection, 1917) ............................................................. 507
Figure 321. Ottoman men and women promenading in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection) ...................................................................................... 509
Figure 322. The Gülhane Park and the Imperial Museum (Nilay Özlü Collection)
................................................................................................................................................... 511
Figure 323. The area surrounding Goth Column before the erection of the Hamidiye
police station (Abdullah Frères, c.1890) ...................................................................... 512
Figure 324. The Goth Column and the Hamidiye police station before the
establishment of the Gülhane Park (source: Anonymous) ..................................... 512
Figure 325. The Goth Column and the landscape design of the Gülhane Park (2017)
................................................................................................................................................... 512
Figure 326. Pavilion in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
................................................................................................................................................... 514
xliv
Figure 327. The proposed project for the Gallipoli Panorama (1915, from Ürekli,
2012, 4) ................................................................................................................................... 514
Figure 328. The petition of the Red Crescent to establish the Turkish City
exposition within the park (ŞD.56.4_19 , 16 Z 1339 / 8.11.1911) ...................... 516
Figure 329. The postcard showing the Ottomans in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection) ...................................................................................... 517
Figure 330. Project proposal by Henri Prost for the last phase of Gülhane Park
(Atatürk Kitaplığı, Maps Collection, 1950) ................................................................ 519
Figure 331. The first and last pages of Vedad Bey's response letter (MB.1062.97.3)
................................................................................................................................................... 523
Figure 332. The first page of the list of works done by Vedad Bey in r.1328 /1912-
13 (BOA HH.d.29698_05) ............................................................................................... 523
Figure 333. The stalactite cornice applied to the gallery of the Imperial Treasury
(TSMA) ................................................................................................................................... 525
Figure 334. Iron railings on the arches of the loggia after the renovation (Tahsin Öz,
Saray Onarımları, 54) / Stalactite cornices of the loggia (Encümen Arsivi,
c.1944) ..................................................................................................................................... 525
Figure 335. The loggia with railings used for the display of treasury collection
(TSMA, Republican era) ................................................................................................... 526
Figure 336. The loggia of the Imperial Treasury before and after the 1915
renovations (Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ............................................................... 527
Figure 337. The report submitted to the Council for the Preservation of Old
Monuments regarding the latest renovations held at the Topkapı Palace
(Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin
xlv
Hükümet-i Senniyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir,
10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917) ......................................................................... 530
Figure 338. The lanterns assembled at the entrance of the Chamber of Sacred Relics
(Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ....................................................................................... 535
Figure 339. Kubbealtı before the renovations / The railings placed at the arches of
the loggia of the Imperial Treasury after the renovations (TSMA) .................... 536
Figure 340. The Outer Treasury with windows opened at the ground level after the
1910-15 renovations (TSMA) ......................................................................................... 537
Figure 341. Watercolor painting of Bab-üs Saade and the Old Divanhane at the
corner (Necipoğlu, 2007, 112) / The place of the Old Divanhane after its
demolishment (Milli Saraylar Arşivi, K 267-2) ........................................................ 537
Figure 342. Kuşhane Gate of the Harem before the renovations ................................. 538
Figure 343. The new Kuşhane building after the renovations (2106) ........................ 538
Figure 344. The regulation for the protection and control of the Topkapı Palace
(Topkapı Sarayının Suret-i Muhafazası Hakkında Nizamname, Takvim-i Vekai
No. 2655, 10 Eylul 1332 / 23.9.1916) .......................................................................... 543
Figure 345. Responsibilities of the General Directorate of National Monuments
(BOA MF.MKT.1230.46, 17 Z 1335 / 4.10.1917) ................................................... 546
Figure 346. The funeral of Sultan Abdülhamid II in the first court of the Topkapı
Palace (Courtesy of Edhem Eldem) .............................................................................. 548
Figure 347. The funeral of Sultan Abdülhamid II in the first court of the Topkapı
Palace (from Cangül) ......................................................................................................... 549
Figure 348. Accession of Sultan Vahideddin, 1918 (Cengiz Kahraman Archive) 552
xlvi
Figure 349. Italian Mariners training in the garden of the Sultan's palace in
30.5.1909 / Occupation forces in front of the burned Çırağan Palace (Istanbul
1919: Images d'Occupation) ............................................................................................ 553
Figure 350. The movie Binnaz, 1919 .................................................................................... 556
Figure 351. Scenes from the movie Binnaz showing the military band and belly
dancing, 1919 ........................................................................................................................ 556
Figure 352. Guidebooks for the Military Museum published in French and in
Ottoman .................................................................................................................................. 557
Figure 353. The guidebook for the Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun: Rehnümâ,
1338) ........................................................................................................................................ 559
Figure 354. Detectives of Istanbul in front of the Imperial Museum (1338/1920,
Cengiz Kahraman Collection) ......................................................................................... 559
Figure 355. Constantinople, M. Defrance, Haut Commissaire de France et le Général
Barthélémy sur le terasse de Vieux Sérail, Juin 1919 (Istanbul 1919: Images
d'Occupation) ........................................................................................................................ 560
Figure 356. Letters regarding the transformation of the Gülhane Park into a manège
(DH.UMVM.97.42_01 (4.4.1921) / DH.UMVM.97.42_15 (19.5.1921)) ........ 562
Figure 357. The plan for the transformation of Gülhane Park into a manège
(DH.UMVM.97.42_03) ..................................................................................................... 563
Figure 358. The map of the Byzantine remains discovered by the French forces in
the East gardens of the Topkapı Palace (Demangel and Mamboury, Pl.I) ....... 564
Figure 359. The small museum established in the Gülhane gardens by the French
forces (Demangel and Mamboury, 147) ...................................................................... 567
Figure 360. The allegiance ceremony of Caliph Abdulmecid, 1922 (Cengiz
Kahraman Archive) ............................................................................................................. 571
xlvii
Figure 361. Ceremonial throne in front of Bab-üs Saade on the day of Caliph
Abdülmecid's biat ceremony (Frédéric Gadmer, Albert Kahn Archives de la
Planète, A36610, 24.11.1922) ......................................................................................... 572
Figure 362. Caliph Abdülmecid's Friday Procession to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque on
a white horse (İstanbul Research Institute Photography Collection, 1922-24) 574
Figure 363. The 1925 guidebook of the Topkapı Palace (Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri,
Topkapı Sarayı, Muhtasar Rehber, 1341) ................................................................... 577
Figure 364. The map of the Topkapı Palace from the guidebook of 1925 (Asar-ı
Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber, 1341) ..................................................................... 579
Figure 365. The statue of Mustafa Kemal at the Seraglio point (Servet-i Fünun, 7
Teşrinievvel 1926, cilt 62, no. 1573-99 "Gazi Paşa hazretlerinin bu hafta
Sarayburnu'nda rekz olunan heykelleri") ..................................................................... 582
Figure 366. Remodeling the Enderun mosque as the palace library (TSMA) ......... 600
Figure 367. The statue of Mustafa Kemal at Seraglio in 1926 (Cengiz Kahraman
collection) ............................................................................................................................... 604
Figure 368. A critical artwork showing the statue of Atatürk (Ali Taptık, Galata
Greek School, Istanbul Biennial 2017) ........................................................................ 604
xlviii
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure A1. Documents ordering the reorganization of St. Irene as a museum (BOA
İ.MSM.17.387_01 (14 S 1262 / 11.2.1846) / BOA İ.MSM.17.387_02 (15 S
1262 / 12.2.1846) .............................................................................................605
Figure A2. Renovation registers for the works at the third and fourth courts of the
Topkapı Palace (BOA TS.MA.d.4613, 21 Ca 1272 / 12.8.1856) ....................608
Figure A3. A permit given to the Russian ambassador to visit the palace grounds
(BOA HAT.167.7039, 29 Z 1219 / 31.03.1805) ............................................. 611
Figure A5. A document explaining the visiting procedure of the Imperial Treasury
(BOA Y.PRK.HH.30.37, 2 Z 1315 / 4.5.1898) .............................................. 614
Figure A6. A document regarding the reorganization and cataloging the Imperial
Treasury collection (BOA İ.HUS.178.33, 22 B 1327 / 09.08.1909)............... 616
Figure A7. The decree ordering the organization of the Imperial Treasury as a
museum (BOA MV.132.50, 1 Ş 1327 / 18.8.1909) ........................................ 618
Figure A8. A document explaining the procedure for visiting the Imperial Treasury
(BOA DH.MKT.2901.3_01, 26 B 1327 / 13.8.1909) ..................................... 620
Figure A9. A document regarding the construction work during the making of the
Gülhane Park (BOA DH.İD.153.10_67, 9 Kanunievvel 1329 / 22.12.1913)...622
Figure A10. Pages from an educational journal (İhsan, "Silah Müzesi", Tedrisat-ı
İbtidaiye Mecmuası, 1:4 (15.5.1326 / 28.5.1910, 143-152) .......................... 625
Figure A11. Advertisement for the Military Museum (Harb Mecmuası 1:4, 15 Mayıs
1326 / 28.5.1910) ............................................................................................ 627
Figure A12. Pages from the report of the Council submitted to the government
(Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin
xlix
Hükümet-i Senniyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir,
10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917) ............................................................629
Figure A13. Declaration of the Topkapı Palace as a museum (BCA.30-18-1-1_9-20-
17, 3.4.1924) ................................................................................................... 631
Figure A14. A page from the guidebook (Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber,
1341) ............................................................................................................... 633
Figure B1. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Selim III ....... 635
Figure B2. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Mamud II ..... 636
Figure B3. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülmecid
......................................................................................................................... 637
Figure B4. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülaziz .... 638
Figure B5. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülhamid II
......................................................................................................................... 639
Figure B6. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Mehmed V ... 640
Figure B7. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of the nineteenth
century rulers .................................................................................................. 641
l
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
h. Hicri
M Muharrem
S Safer
Ra Rebiülevvel
R Rebiülahir
Ca Cemâziyelevvel
C Cemâziyelâhir
B Receb
Ş Şaban
N Ramazan
L Şevval
Za Zilkade
Z Zilhicce
TSMA Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi
BOA Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi
A.AMD Sadaret Amedi Kalemi Evrakı
A.d Sadaret Defterleri
A.MKT Sadaret Mektubî Kalemi Belgeleri
A.MKT.MHM Sadaret Mektubi Mühimme Kalemi Evrakı
A.MKT.NZD Sadaret Mektubi Kalemi Nezaret ve Deva'ir Evrakı
A.TŞF Sadaret Teşrifat Kalemi Belgeleri
BEO Bab-ı Ali Evrak Odası Evrakı
C.AS Cevdet Askeriye
C.HR Cevdet Hariciye
C.SM Cevdet Saray
D.BŞM.d Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Defterleri
D.DRB Darphane-i Amire Evrakı
D.TŞF.d Teşrifât Kalemi Defterleri
DH.İD Dahiliye Nezareti İdare Evrakı
DH.İ.UM Dahiliye Nezareti İdare-i Umumiye Evrakı
DH.HMŞ Dahiliye Nezareti Hukuk Müşavirliği Evrakı
DH.EUM Emniyet-i Umumiye Müdüriyeti Belgeleri
DH.EUM.THR Dahiliye Emniyet-i Umumiye Tahrirat Kalemi Evrakı
DH.MKT Dahiliye Nezâreti Mektubi Kalemi
DH.MUİ Dahiliye Muhaberat-ı Umumiye İdaresi Evrakı
DH.MTV Dahiliye Nezareti Mütenevvia Evrakı
DH.UMVM Dahiliye Nezareti Umur-ı Mahalliye ve Vilayat Müdürlüğü
Evrakı
HAT Hatt-ı Hümayun
HH.d Hazine-i Hassa Defterleri
HR.İD Hariciye Nezareti İdare
HR.İM Hariciye Nezareti İstanbul Murahhaslığı
HR.MKT Hariciye Nezareti Mektubi Kalemi Evrakı
HR.MTV Hariciye Nezareti Mütenevvia Kısmı Evrakı
HR.SAİD Sicill-i Ahval İdare-i Umumiyesi Belgeleri
li
HR.SYS Hariciye Nezareti Siyasi
HR.TO Hariciye Nezareti Tercüme Odası Evrakı
HRT.h Haritalar
İ.DH İrade Dahiliye
İ.DUİT İrade Dosya Usulü
İ.HUS İrade Hususi
İ.HR İrade Hariciye
İ.MBH İrade Mabeyn-i Hümayun
İ.MSM İrade Mesail-i Mühimme
İ.MMS İrade Meclis-i Mahsus
İ.ŞD İrade Şura-yı Devlet
MB Mabeyn Evrakı
MF.d Maarif Nezareti Defterleri
MF.MKT Merkez Teşkilatı Mektubi Kalemi
MV Meclis-i Vükela Mazbataları
TS.MA.d Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Defterleri
TS.MA.E Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Evrakı
TŞR.BNM Taşra Evrakı Bosna Müfettişliği
PLK.p Plan, Proje ve Krokiler
ŞD Şura-yı Devlet Evrakı
Y.EE Yıldız Esas Evrakı
Y.PRK.A Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Sadaret Maruzatı
Y.PRK.ASK Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Askeri Maruzat
Y.PRK.EŞA Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Elçilik Şehbenderlik ve
Ateşemiliterlik
Y.PRK.HH Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Hazine-i Hassa
Y.PRK.TKM Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Tahrirat-ı Ecnebiye ve Mabeyn
Mütercimliği
Y.PRK.MK Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Müfettişlikler ve Komiserlikler
Tahriratı
Y.PRK.MYD Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Evrakı Yaveran ve Maiyyet-i
Seniyye Erkan-ı Harbiye Dairesi
Y.PRK.PT Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Posta Telgraf Nezareti Maruzatı
Y.PRK.SGE Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Mabeyn Erkanı ve Saray Görevlileri
Maruzatı
Y.PRK.SRN Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Serkurenalık Evrakı
Y.PRK.TŞF Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Teşrifat-ı Umumiye Dairesi
Y.MTV Yıldız Mütenevvi Maruzat Evrakı
ZB Zabtiye Nezâreti Evrakı
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
There is not indeed in all Europe another corner of the earth whose name
alone awakens in the mind so strange a confusion of beautiful and terrible
images; about which so much has been thought, and written, and divined;
which has given rise to so many vague and contradictory notices; which is
still the object of so much insatiable curiosity, of so many insensate
prejudices, and so many marvelous histories. Now-a-days every body can go
in, and many come out with their expectations somewhat chilled. But we may
be sure that for centuries yet to come, when perhaps the Ottoman domination
shall be but a reminiscence in Europe, and upon that loveliest of the hills, the
populous streets of a new city shall cross one another, no traveller will pass
that way without seeing in his fancy the image of the Imperial palaces that
once stood there, or without envying us of the nineteenth century, who still
cold find in those places the vivid and speaking memories of the Ottoman
reign. (Edmondo de Amicis, 1878, 12)
The famous Italian traveller, author, and journalist Edmondo De Amicis wrote these
prophetic lines about the destiny of the Ottoman empire and the Topkapı Palace
during his visit to Constantinople in 1874. De Amicis was correct in his prediction
that the Ottoman domination would shortly come to an end and the Topkapı Palace
would turn into a touristic spectacle, rather than reflecting its former imperial glory
and magnificence. He also envisaged that modern man would envy the nineteenth
century visitors to the royal palace, who could see and encounter the living
experience of palace life. In fact, it is not a question of envy but rather curiosity and
wonder that defines our approach towards the Topkapı Palace today. As the last
century of the palace is still an unknown period for us today, so is its state of being
and visitors. How did the contemporaries of De Amicis perceive the royal complex;
which vivid memories of the Ottoman reign were still in existence; how were these
memories presented and perceived; how could visitors secure access to the palace;
2
which sections were accessible to them; which collections were displayed; what were
the different strategies and discourses of display; and how was the imperial palace
transformed into a museum. These are the questions to which I provide answers
within the scope of this dissertation. In other words, through this research I give a
comprehensive and scholarly answer to the question "What happened to the Topkapı
Palace after it was abandoned?"
As foreseen by De Amicis, today the Topkapı Palace Museum is one of the
most visited museums in Turkey1 and a major landmark of Istanbul. It contributes to
the renowned silhouette of the city with its spectacular location at the tip of the
Seraglio. As suggested by De Amicis "no traveller will pass that way without seeing
in his fancy the image of the Imperial palaces". The ancient Ottoman palace, built
during the reign of Mehmed II (1451-1481), is one of the largest, oldest, and bestpreserved
Ottoman heritage sites and the ultimate representation of Ottoman civil
architecture. The royal complex, built on an area of 700,000 square meters
surrounded by land and sea walls, currently houses several institutions, including the
Istanbul Archeological Museums, the Gülhane Park, the Imperial Mints (Darphane-i
Amire), and military zones in addition to the Topkapı Palace Museum, which is
located at the heart of this vast area.
According to official historiography, the Topkapı Palace, which was the seat
of the Ottoman dynasty for almost 400 years, was abandoned by Sultan Abdülmecid
(1839-1861) during the mid-nineteenth century, was converted into a museum in
1924 upon the order of Mustafa Kemal, and became the state museum of the young
Turkish Republic. The museum holds a wide variety of royal collections ranging
1 According to the statistics of Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Topkapı Palace Museum
attracted 3,252,000 visitors in 2015. Hagia Sophia was the most visited museum with 3,466,000
http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,43336/muze-istatistikleri.html
3
from imperial treasuries to sacred relics, from paintings to weapons, and from
textiles to China porcelains. The Topkapı Palace Library houses more than 20,000
books and manuscripts, and the palace archive holds approximately 300,000
documents: the palace-museum is a major source for academic research as well.
As the main seat of the Ottoman rulers for many centuries, the 550-year-old
palace has always been an inspiration for Orientalist literature as a major venue to be
depicted in travel accounts and as a topic of great interest to scholarly researchers.
There are numerous academic and non-academic publications on the palace that
scrutinize its institutional character, spatial composition, and architectural features
and depict significant events and its royal collections. Almost all of the modern
literature on the Topkapı Palace follows the same spatio-temporal outline, starting
with the description of the semi-public areas such as the gates, walls and the first
court of the palace (Birun), then focusing on the more private and ceremonial areas
around the second court (Divan Meydanı), followed by the secluded areas of the third
court (Enderun) and the private house of the sultan (Harem-i Hümayun), and finally
describing its outer gardens and kiosks. The majority of the literature covers a
timeframe from the foundation of the palace by Mehmed II until its abandonment by
Abdülmecid, particularly focusing on the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of the
royal complex. The architectural, spatial, and institutional character of the Topkapı
Palace was established during this period of the so-called "golden age",2 which is
believed to represent the ultimate glory and power of the Ottoman Empire. However,
within the current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the last century
of the palace, a period that is–consciously or unconsciously–ignored in scholarly and
popular literature.
2 Kafadar, “The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the Post-Süleymanic
Era”.
4
Returning to my initial question, "What happened to the Topkapı Palace after
it was abandoned?" we can see that it has largely been left unanswered.3 In fact,
current literature generally portrays the Topkapı Palace as deserted, derelict, and
neglected, and thus not worthy of systematic analysis or any scholarly work after the
relocation of Abdülmecid in 1856. The lack of information and ignorance of the
nineteenth century palace within the existing literature triggered my curiosity and
brought forth other questions which lay the foundations of this dissertation:
"How did the meaning of the royal complex changed in the eyes of Ottomans
after its abandonment?"
"What did 'abandonment' mean in the late-Ottoman context; is the
abandonment thesis anachronistic?"
"Were there any architectural, physical, or institutional modifications during
this period?"
"How did the palace respond to the changing visual ideologies and the
legitimization strategies of the late Ottoman era?"
"How and by whom was the Topkapı Palace being visited?"
"How was the Imperial Museum founded and what was its relation with the
palace?"
"What were the mechanisms of continuity and change that shaped the royal
complex during the long-nineteenth century?"
3 It began with this simple question during the graduate seminar of Dr. Paolo Girardelli in 2009, while
we were discussing Abdülmecid's relocation from the Topkapı Palace to the Dolmabahçe Palace and
the role of his new palace in the urban context of late-Ottoman Istanbul. Curious about the destiny of
the traditional palace, I asked the question "What happened to the Topkapı Palace after it was
abandoned?" and ended up being assigned with a research paper investigating this question. Having
the illusion that everything about the Topkapı Palace should have been studied and documented in
detail until then, I started my research and found out that there is a scarcity of information regarding
the last century of the palace. Thus, I decided to continue my research and proposed the title as my
dissertation project.
5
"What was the role and meaning of the Topkapı Palace in Ottoman
modernization?"
In other words, all of these questions attempt to understand how studying the
"abandoned" Topkapı Palace reveals information about the transformation of the
empire, in particular investigating how the royal palaces relate to the changing sociopolitical
structures and ideologies of the late Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey and
even our present day?
1.1 The modernization paradigm and the decline theory
As the seat of the Ottoman household and the core of the state for many centuries the
Topkapı Palace is more than a royal residence in the Ottoman context. As stated by
Gülru Necipoğlu in her seminal book Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, the
palace is an embodiment of Ottoman codes of rulership, symbol of dynastic
continuity, and a representation of imperial power and grandeur:4
The palace once served as a vast stage for the enactment of a ceremonial,
codified down to the smallest detail, whose symbolic language emphasized
the elevated status of the sultan vis-à-vis his subjects, his dignitaries, and the
representatives of foreign powers who came to his court! This rigid
ceremonial, formulated by Mehmed II and elaborated by Süleyman I,
emphasized the aloof nature of the sultan's relationship with the outside world
and clearly distinguished the accessible from the inaccessible zones of the
palace.
This formulation, however, gradually transformed, and the palace adopted new sets
of meanings and novel functions during the nineteenth century at the height of
Ottoman modernization. According to many scholars, the relocation of Abdülmecid
to the Dolmabahçe Palace is a concrete manifestation of Ottoman modernization. In
accordance with the top-down Westernization efforts to shape the military, legal,
fiscal, educational, and socio-political framework of the empire, the royal family
4 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, xvi.
6
appropriated new codes of power and visual strategies to reinforce and to sustain
their sovereignty. These strategies ranged from intensified diplomatic relations with
the West to the restructuring of the courtly ceremonials, from increased visibility of
the ruler to the emergence of novel architectural forms. In this context, the move of
the royal family from the traditional Topkapı Palace to the new and modern
Dolmabahçe Palace is accepted as a significant break from Ottoman customs.
In the existing literature, the Topkapı Palace, more often than not, is
associated with the traditional, archaic, old, and outdated, whereas the Dolmabahçe
Palace, with its architectural and decorative features, visibility, and monumental
scale, is positioned to signify the new and modern face of the empire.5 Within this
context, in the urban scale, the Historic Peninsula represents the Muslim-dominated,
traditional core of Istanbul, and the relocation of the royal family to the newly
developing and vibrant northern parts of the city, close to Galata and Pera, which
housed the majority of the non-Muslim and European population, illustrates the topdown
Westernization and modernization of the empire.
This sharp duality between old and new, traditional and modern, East and
West based on the Modernization paradigm, was dominant in the literature until
recently. Recent studies are challenging this strict divergence and present a synthetic
and interactive relation between these pairs. I too tend to challenge this constructed
duality in this dissertation and portray the Topkapı Palace as a social construct that
was both an object and subject of modernization. As suggested by Henry Lefebvre,
space is a social product that affects spatial practices and perceptions.6 Thus, while
the Topkapı Palace as a traditional institution was transformed and socially
reconstructed during the age of modernization, the produced meaning of this
5 Küçükerman and Konyalı, Sanayi ve tasarım yarışmasında; Kahraman, 150. Yılında Dolmabahçe
Sarayı Uluslararası Sempozyumu.
6 Lefebvre, The production of space.
7
particular space also changed, together with practices and perceptions of the local
and foreign contemporaries. So the ancient palace, associated with tradition and the
pre-modern world, functioned as an agent disseminating modernity and responding
to the internal and external dynamics of the empire and also took part in the
transformation of the late Ottoman realm.
According to official Turkish historiography, after its abandonment, the
Topkapı Palace was neglected and left to decay until its museumification in 1924.
This date symbolizes the rebirth of the deserted palace, its salvation from the hands
of the despotic late-Ottoman rulers, and its return to the Turkish nation, the rightful
owners of all the properties of the Ottoman dynasty. In fact, this rhetoric goes handin-
hand with the "decline theory", which divides Ottoman history into periods of rise,
height, stagnation, and the decline. In this context, the fifteenth and the sixteenth
centuries represent the golden age of the Ottoman empire that reached the apex of its
power and glory, during which the canons of classical Ottoman art and architecture
were defined. On the other hand, the nineteenth century is associated with military,
financial, political, and cultural decadence, a period of complete deterioration under
the rule of oppressive yet extravagant sultans, which led to the dissolution of the
empire.
Even though the decline paradigm has been seriously challenged by the
revisionist theories of recent scholars, the aforementioned periodization is still
prevalent, especially in the field of art and architectural history. According to the
decline theory, there is nothing authentic or genuine in the art and architecture of the
nineteenth century, which are depicted as mere imitations of the West. In this
respect, the last century of the Topkapı Palace, associated with the period of decline
and degeneration, is completely ignored and portrayed as frozen in time without any
8
significant development. Almost all the academic, popular, and intellectual interest
was directed towards the formative and classical periods of the palace, which were
believed to represent the authentic and genuine soul of Turkish art and architecture.
I aim to challenge the decline theory in this dissertation. Hence, contrary to
the common belief, according to this research, the Topkapı Palace was an active
agent in Ottoman modernization, a stage for self-representative performances, and a
venue for meeting the expectations and imageries of the Western gaze. It is a fact
that the royal use and the imperial significance of the Topkapı Palace was radically
transformed during the nineteenth century, and the palatial complex adopted
different roles and functions, gaining new sets of meanings during this turbulent era.
On the other hand, a strong sense of continuity on ceremonial, spatial, and symbolic
levels was prevalent throughout this period.
By focusing on these continuities and transformations, I aim to understand
the internal dynamics and dilemmas of the modernizing empire, which was
struggling to position itself as a part of Western civilization while also trying to
define a sense of cultural authenticity and historical supremacy. In this context, I
believe that the Topkapı Palace is a fruitful ground for investigating the changing
political and visual ideologies of the long nineteenth century. I take the Topkapı
Palace as a microcosm that epitomized Ottoman modernization, believing that a
close investigation of this microcosm provides a solid understanding of the sociopolitical
context of the era, not limited to the perspectives of Ottoman elites or
foreign tourists, but in a broader framework which sheds light on the cultural,
representational, architectural, technological, and museal developments of the era.
9
1.2 Literature survey
Literature on the Topkapı Palace is comprehensive and is written by various authors
with different agendas. The Ottoman palace was depicted as a locale for Orientalist
tales; as the house of the Ottoman dynasty; as the main venue for many real or
fictional events and intrigues; as one of the touristic hotspots of the city; as an exotic
and mysterious medieval castle to be discovered; and also as a topic for scholarly
research.
The earliest historical account depicting the architectural, decorative,
ceremonial, and epigraphic aspects of the Topkapı Palace was written by the
Ottoman chronicler Abdurrahman Şeref Bey and was published as eight successive
articles in Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası between 1910 and 1912.7 After the
foundation of the republic, the director of the Archeological Museum Halil Edhem
published a guidebook giving brief historical and architectural information on the
palace.8 Later, the director of the Topkapı Palace Museum, Tahsin Öz, also published
several accounts regarding the restoration works, archives, and collections of the
palace.9
One of the earliest scholarly works on the architectural composition of the
Topkapı Palace was written by architect Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, who was responsible
for the comprehensive restorations that took place in the palace between 1940 and
1944. His significant work Fâtih Devri Mimarisi published in 1953, includes a
chapter focusing on the foundational period of the Topkapı Palace and proposes a
hypothetical reconstruction of the complex from the period of Mehmed II.10 Another
7 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, “Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu.”
8 Halil Edhem, Topkapı Sarayı.
9 Öz, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi arşivi kilavuzu; Öz, Hirka-i Saadet Dairesi ve Emanat-i Mukaddese; Öz,
“Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Onarımları”; Öz, Topkapı Sarayında Fatih Sultan Mehmet II. ye Ait Eserler.
10 Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Fatih devri 3 1451-1481.
10
detailed account, documenting the restorations held at the Harem during 1960's was
published by architect Mualla Anhegger-Eyüboğlu.11
Reşad Ekrem Koçu's epic Topkapı Sarayı (1960) portrays the palace life,
adorned with historical narratives and famous personas of the palace.12 Topkapı
Sarayı: Bir mimari araştırma published in 1982 by the eminent architect Sedad
Hakkı Eldem and Feridun Akozan could be accepted as the first comprehensive
architectural analysis of the Topkapı Palace.13 This major publication not only
provides measured drawings and hypothetical reconstructions of the apartments,
kiosks, courts, and wards of the palace, but it also brings together excerpts from
Ottoman chronicles, presenting its transformation over centuries. This work is also
one of the rare sources that does not exclude the architectural modifications of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however it fails to create a meaningful and
consistent relation between the architectural drawings and the text.
Gülru Necipoğlu’s remarkable book Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power:
the Topkapı palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries published in 1991 could
be accepted as the most comprehensive scholarly work on the history and spatial
composition of the Topkapı Palace, and is based on Ottoman and foreign archival
documents, eyewitness accounts, and primary visual and textual sources.14 Necipoğlu
limits her research to the foundational period of the palace and the classical era,
during which the Ottoman ceremonial and spatial canons were established and
formulized. Godfrey Goodwin's 1999 publication of the Topkapı Palace: An
illustrated guide to its life & personalities provides brief historical account of the
successive courts, Harem and outer gardens of the palace, along with maps and
11 Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, Topkapı Sarayıʼnda padişah evi, 1986.
12 Koçu, Topkapu Sarayı, 1960.
13 Eldem and Akozan, Topkapı Sarayı: Bir Mimari Araştırma.
14 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power.
11
illustrations, however the book lacks academic references.15 Necdet Sakaoğlu's
volume The Imperial Palace with its history, locations, inscriptions and memoirs:
The Topkapı Palace provides original images and historical information about the
architectural departments of the palace, starting from its outer walls and gates
moving towards the inner courts and ending with the Harem.16
This spatial taxonomy for depicting the Topkapı Palace is relevant to almost
all modern literature, which analyzes the royal complex in resonance with its
hierarchical spatial configuration. In this respect, the historical analysis goes hand-inhand
with the architectural layout of the palace. The volume by İlber Ortaylı, the
previous director of the Topkapı Palace, is no exception. In Mekanlar ve olaylarıyla
Topkapı Sarayı (2007), apart from repeating the abovementioned outline, Ortaylı
briefly highlights noteworthy events and rituals that took place within the palace.17
Ahmet Şimşirgil, in Taşa yazılan tarih: Topkapı Sarayı (2005), while following the
same spatial outline, focuses on the inscriptions located at different parts of the
palace, which provide valuable information regarding the history of the palace and
its renovations.18 In short, it could be stated that almost all historical surveys and
even touristic guidebooks written on the palace tend to follow the same spatial
outline and focus on the same time period, repeating more or less the same
information and deliberately ignoring its last century under Ottoman rule.
Another significant theme that is relevant in this dissertation is the
museumification of the Topkapı Palace, which was gradual and took place
throughout the nineteenth century. There was a constant and increasing demand from
European tourists to visit the military collections, Janissary costumes, and the royal
15 Goodwin, Topkapı Palace: An Illustrated Guide to Its Life & Personalities.
16 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace.
17 Ortaylı, Mekânlar ve Olaylariyla Topkapı Sarayı.
18 Şimşirgil, Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı.
12
treasuries of the palace. The opening of the palace grounds and the Imperial
Treasury, first to distinguished diplomatic guests, later to prominent visitors, then to
foreign tourists, and eventually to Ottoman subjects was not previously studied.
However, there are some recent works on the emergence of museums in the Ottoman
empire, focusing on the Imperial Museum, the first archeological museum of the
empire, which was also established within the Topkapı Palace. However, the
Imperial Museum and the Imperial Treasury adopted different strategies of selfdisplay
and were operated by diverse institutions with distinct agendas until the
Second Constitutional era. Thus, in my research I included a detailed survey of both
the palace museum (Imperial Treasury) and the archeology museums (Imperial
Museum) and highlight their disparities and correspondences. Even though the
palace museum has never been studied in depth, an increasing number of scholarly
works focuses on the foundation of the Imperial Museum and its progress after
Osman Hamdi.
Mustafa Cezar's Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi (1971) is a major
work that skillfully uses archival sources and Ottoman periodicals to historicize the
foundation of the School of Fine Arts and the Imperial Museum under the direction
of Osman Hamdi.19 Edhem Eldem's Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü (2010) is a
comprehensive study, bringing together a wide range of textual and visual sources
from Ottoman and foreign archives and shedding light on internal dynamics of the
Imperial Museum.20
Ferruh Gerçek, in Türk Müzeciliği (1999), provides detailed information on
the foundation of various museums during the Ottoman era, however he did not
mention the Topkapı Palace—even as a proto-museum—until 1924. The book fails
19 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi.
20 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü.
13
to provide archival sources, documents, and references as well.21 In a similar manner,
Wendy Shaw's Possessors and possessed: Museums, archeology, and the
visualization of history in the late Ottoman empire (2003) provides a detailed and
comprehensive history of the foundation of the museums in the Ottoman Empire and
offers an anti-orientalist narrative conceptualizing, and even praising, these efforts
with proto-nationalist lenses. However, Shaw completely ignores the relation of St.
Irene, the School of Fine Arts, and the Imperial Museum with the Topkapı Palace,
whose grounds housed these institutions, and does not include the inner courts of the
palace in her research.22 Zeynep Çelik's latest book, About antiquities: politics of
archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, evaluates the Imperial Museum in comparative
perspective with Western museums of the time and scrutinizes the visitors of the
museum and its scientific achievements based on travel accounts, foreign and local
newspapers of the era.23
Pelin Öngören's unpublished doctoral dissertation Displaying Cultural
Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to
The Early Turkish Republic (2012), also focuses on the formation of the Imperial
Museum, including architectural details about the new museum building based on
primary visual and archival sources.24 The unpublished doctoral dissertation of Bilge
Ar, Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi (2013) portrays a comprehensive
picture of St. Irene and highlights its role as a museum, but did not offer any
meaningful relation between the Topkapı Palace and St. Irene.
As explained above, the majority of the literature on museum studies, let
alone analyzing the museumification of the Topkapı Palace, tends to ignore the fact
21 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi.
22 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed.
23 Çelik, About Antiquities.
24 Gürol Öngören, “Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The Early Turkish Republic.”
14
that the Archeological Museum was founded within the precincts of the royal
complex. The Topkapı Palace is mentioned as a museum only after the foundation of
the Republic. Hence, within the scope of this dissertation, I aim to portray the
Topkapı Palace as a venue where the first museal institutions of the empire were
established: The double collection of arms and antiquities (St. Irene), The Imperial
Museum (Tiled Pavilion and the Archeological Museum), The Military Museum (St.
Irene), and the Topkapı Palace Museum. I also argue that the royal and military
collections of the Topkapı Palace established the foundation of museums in the
Ottoman empire, rather than the archeological collections.
1.3 Methodology and sources
As I studied the Topkapı Palace after its abandonment, one of the major challenges
was to define the temporal boundaries of this project. It was difficult to limit my
research within a certain time frame, given the strong sense of continuity that
characterizes the palace. The declaration of the Topkapı Palace as a state museum in
April 1924, just six months after the foundation of the Turkish Republic, marked a
major break in its history, and thus, defines the later limit of my period of study.
However, to designate a specific time for its initial "abandonment" is more of a
challenge within the context of the gradual desertion and continuous transformation
of the royal complex.25 Based on the common chronology, the relocation of
Abdülmecid to the Dolmabahçe Palace in 1856, was a natural choice to define the
starting point of this dissertation in the beginning phases of my research. However,
as I progressed in my studies, under the light of the primary and secondary sources, it
25 In fact, the earliest abandonment of the Topkapı Palace could be dated to the second half of the 17th
century, with the relocation of the Ottoman sultans to Edirne for almost 50 years. Similarly, the 18th
century could be accepted as the beginning of a break from tradition, as the shore palaces by the
Bosphorus and the Golden Horn became residences for the Ottoman rulers for longer periods of time,
in parallel with the changing visual regime that led to the increasing visibility of the ruler.
15
became increasingly evident that it was the reforming sultan Mahmud II (1808-
1839), who actually stopped residing at the Topkapı Palace and who reshaped the
institutional character and administrative mechanisms of the palace especially after
the abolishment of the Janissaries. The eventful enthronement of Mahmud II marks
the beginning of a new era both for the empire and for the palace. Hence, the
temporal frame of this dissertation covers a long and complicated era lasting from
1808 to 1924.
Within this time frame, I intend to depict the chief socio-political
developments of the period that shaped and influenced the architectural, institutional,
ceremonial attributes of the Topkapı Palace. Thus, not only focusing on architectural
modifications, administrative reforms, or its museumification during this turbulent
era, I also aim to portray a holistic picture of the palace and investigate its role in
Ottoman modernization.
In this research, some major themes and concepts establish the theoretical
structure of this research: continuity and change, rituals and ceremonials, monument
and heritage, memory and identity, tourism and museology. To elaborate these
themes, I used a chronological methodology, beginning with the reign of Mahmud II
until the collapse of the empire. Within this chronological framework, the
aforementioned concepts are scrutinized under specific periods and in particular
chapters where they are the most evident. However, this does not mean that a
specific concept that is elaborated under a particular era is not valid during other
periods. On the contrary, these concepts carried a certain continuity throughout the
century and shaped the character, meaning, and function of the Topkapı Palace in
various degrees at different time periods.
16
As for the sources, I used a wide variety of textual and visual sources from a
large variety of archives, libraries, and private collections. The Ottoman Archives of
the Prime Ministry and the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives are the two major
institutions that I benefited from throughout my research. Thousands of documents
from these two archives, which were transcribed, classified, and indexed, established
the backbone of my dissertation. Apart from the archival documents, the renovation
registers (tamirat defterleri) from Ottoman archives also provided first hand
information on the never-ending repairs and architectural modifications of the
palace. Thousands of petitions demanding entrance permits to the Topkapı Palace
and decrees granting access for foreign and domestic visitors are systematically
analyzed and converted into statistical data showing the numbers and nationalities of
the visitors from 1804 to 1920 were also from the archives of the Topkapı Palace
Museum and from the Ottoman Archives.
Apart from the aforementioned archives, the Turkish Republic Archives
(Cumhuriyet Arşivi), Archives of the Turkish Parliament (TBMM Tutanakları
Arşivi), Archives of the Istanbul Fourth Committee of Preservation (İstanbul 4.
Numaralı Kültür Valıklarını Koruma Kurulu Arşivi), French Diplomatic Archives at
Nantes (Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes), British Archives, Archives of
the Paris School of Fine Arts (Ecole des Beaux Arts), Thomas Cook Archives, and
Albert Kahn les Archives de la Planète were also consulted during my research.
Ottoman and foreign language newspapers and journals of the era were also
significant sources reflecting contemporary perceptions of the palace. The digital
collections of the SALT Archives, the National Library (Milli Kütüphane), Atatürk
Library, Hakkı Tarık Us Collection, Gallica, Rice University Library, Bonn
17
University Library, and the Oxford University Library are the main portals for
accessing numerous foreign and domestic periodicals.
Travel accounts and guidebooks from the nineteenth and early twentieth
century are also among the prominent sources that reveal contemporary perceptions.
I refer to these sources throughout this dissertation, as they give crucial information
on the spatial composition, administrative functioning, and architectural layout of the
royal complex. A careful scan of around 150 travelogues and guidebooks gave me
insight into the questions: which parts of the palace were accessible, when, and to
whom.
Apart from textual documents, I benefited from a wide variety of visual
sources, ranging from engravings to postcards, from photographs to paintings, from
maps to illustrations. Apart from numerous digital and non-digital archives,
illustrated books and journals, private photographic collections and auctions were
among the major sources for accessing these images, which give me insight into the
spatial and architectural configuration of the Topkapı Palace and document its
transformations throughout the century. As understood from this brief summary, the
challenge of this study is not finding necessary material on the subject matter, but on
the contrary, selecting the relevant ones from among abundance of sources and to
build meaningful data out of the thousands of textual and visual documents. Hence, I
selectively used and attempt to create statistical data out of this accumulation of
repetitive sources in this research.
Last but not the least, the palace itself—a spatial entity composed of
interconnected courts, gardens, kiosks, wards, apartments, and treasuries was a major
source for this research. The physicality of the palace reflected the architectural and
decorative transformations, the administrative character, and ceremonial codes
18
embedded within the complex. By tracking the spatial program of the palace and its
palimpsest architecture, I could observe and portray a robust theme of continuity and
change. My position as the art and architectural history consultant at the Topkapı
Palace restoration projects gave me the chance to access almost all parts of the
palace, including those that are closed to public. In this respect, professionally
working for the restoration projects for a year and a half gave me the privilege of
accessing, studying, and documenting the most secluded parts of the palace. I also
had the chance to witness the on-site evaluations of distinguished restoration experts,
including Dr. Gülsün Tanyeli, Dr. Can Binan, and Dr. Kutgün Eyüpgiller within the
scope this project.
However I have to admit that there is still a large amount of sources waiting
to be analyzed and studied. I also believe that new materials will be revealed as new
archives are digitalized and opened for access. Thus, this research in no ways claims
to put an end to the discussion, but on the contrary, aims to open it for further
contributions.
1.4 Chapter outline
This dissertation is composed of four chapters: The Age of Reforms, the Reign of
Abdülaziz, The Hamidian Era, and the Second Constitutional Period. This
chronological outline also relates to the conceptual framework of the research. Thus,
within the scope of each section, certain chapters elaborate specific concepts or
depict major developments that shaped the institutional, architectural, or symbolic
formation of the palace.
Within this context, "Chapter 2. The age of reforms: Mahmud II -
Abdülmecid" focuses on the reigns of two reforming rulers, who put an end to the
19
residential function of the Topkapı Palace. The first part of the chapter focuses on the
architectural modifications that were commissioned by Mahmud II and portrays the
impacts of his reforms on the administrative, institutional, and physical structure of
the Topkapı Palace. Within this context, I propose that both the reforms of Mahmud
II and the Tanzimat reforms held during the reign of Abdülmecid found their
reflections in the grounds of the Topkapı Palace, and marked the virtual existence of
the rulers, who stopped residing in the royal complex. The second section of the
chapter scrutinizes the architectural additions and reconfigurations undertaken during
the reign of Abdülmecid, under the light of the archival and visual documents. This
part sheds light on the novel additions at the most visible parts of the Topkapı Palace,
which were erected after Abdülmecid's move to the Dolmabahçe Palace; elaborates
the emergence of a new imperial language; and challenges the abandonment thesis as
well.
The last section of the chapter, "The Gradual Abandonment of the Palace and
the Emergence of Tourism" argues that the desertion of the Topkapı Palace was
gradual and went in hand-in-hand with its opening to tourism. Always a point of
curiosity for the foreign gaze, the doors of the palace opened to selected diplomats in
the beginning of the century. As the Ottoman sultans stopped using the palace as
their main residence, it became more accessible for foreign visitors. A systematic and
detailed survey of Ottoman archival documents and travel accounts from the era
illustrates this transformation and portrays the systemization of touristic visits.
Chapter 3 focuses on the reign of Abdülaziz, and aims to depict the tension
between the past and the present as the aftermath of the staggering reforms of the
previous eras. In this context, the imperial meaning and imagery of the Topkapı
Palace, after witnessing several catastrophic fires and a ruinous railway construction,
20
went through another period of transformation. During this era, the imperial
significance of the Topkapı Palace as the seat of the empire was undermined and its
representative, historic, and touristic value began to be emphasized. As a response to
the intensifying interaction with Europe and taking part in the Universal Exhibitions
of the era, Ottomans began exploring new methods for representing themselves, their
culture and their past. While the Topkapı Palace started being associated with the
early Ottoman past, its imperial pavilions and the royal collections were utilized as a
rich repertoire for self-representation.
This chapter also challenges the foundation narratives of museums in the
Ottoman empire. It argues that the actual museums that attracted the attention of
foreign visitors were the royal and military collections, imperial pavilions, and the
royal treasuries that were opened for visits in the palace grounds, rather than the
Imperial Museum, which held the newly emerging archeological collection.
The following chapter focuses on the long reign of Abdülhamid II. Chapter 4,
titled "A Regime of Signs, Symbols, and Rituals" elaborates the ceremonial and
symbolic use of the Topkapı Palace during the late nineteenth and the early twentieth
centuries and develops a theoretical framework centered around the concept of
continuity. Even though the palace has always been a major venue for royal
ceremonials, some of those rituals attained special significance during the critical
times of power exchange and continued to be held in the Topkapı Palace. The
military buildings and police stations erected during the reign of Abdülhamid II also
communicated the ideologies of the regime and strategies of legitimacy, visibility,
and control in response to the changing meaning of the palace.
The second part of the chapter focuses on the strategies of self-display, a
concept that shaped the royal complex during the late Ottoman era. The foundation
21
of the Imperial Museum and the School of Fine Arts within the precincts of the
palace and their development under the direction of Osman Hamdi are analyzed
within the framework of Ottoman modernization and Westernization. Thus, this
autonomous entity composed of an archeological museum, a modern library, and a
fine arts school following the Ecole des Beaux Arts model, represented the Western
face of the empire and is discussed under the title "Presenting the Occidental-self".
During the same period, visits to the inner courts of the palace and to the
Imperial Treasury became standardized following a pre-set route. The greeting and
hosting ceremonies that took their inspiration from ancient palatial rituals were also
performed as a touristic spectacle. This section entitled "Performing the Oriental-
Self" includes a detailed analysis of the palatial tours, investigates the nature of the
collections, and offers a hypothetical reconstruction of the displays at the Imperial
Treasury. This section emphasized different epistemes and techniques of display
between the Imperial Museum and the Imperial Treasury. In this respect, apart from
depicting the self-representative performances that characterized the palatial tour, a
hypothetical reconstruction of the treasury collection under the light of photographs,
travel accounts, and treasury registers of the era is also offered. Within the scope of
this chapter, the concept of museum and narratives of display in the Ottoman context
is analyzed with respect to the contemporary museum theory.26
Chapter 5 focuses on the "Second Constitutional Period" and revolves around
the themes of nationalization and militarization of the palace. In other words, the
Topkapı Palace was detached from its imperial and dynastic connotations during this
26 Alexander and Alexander, Museums in Motion : An Introduction to the History and Functions of
Museums; Gürol Öngören, “Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The Early Turkish Republic”;
Bennett, The Birth of the Museum : History, Theory, Politics; Duncan, Civilizing Rituals : Inside
Public Art Museums; Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge; Macdonald and
Fyfe, Theorizing Museums : Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World; Preziosi and
Farago, Grasping the World : The Idea of the Museum.
22
era, and the royal collections and the grounds of the palace were opened to public
and utilized for military purposes. The new constitutional regime and ongoing wars
shaped the ideological context of the era, where different forms of propaganda were
utilized for the legitimization of the new regime. The reorganization of St. Irene as
the Military Museum and the conversion of the Gülhane Gardens into a public park
are studied in detail within this framework. The last section of the chapter sheds light
on the restorations held during the early twentieth century and discusses the
emergence of a modern consciousness for conservation in the late-Ottoman context.
The Topkapı Palace, no longer the imperial residence of the Ottoman household, is
positioned as a historic monument, as a national heritage site, and as a representation
of Ottoman art and architecture that had to be studied and preserved.
The last chapter, focusing on the post-war era, covers the traumatic period
during the collapse of the empire, the occupation of Istanbul, and the foundation of
the new republic and discusses the symbolic and ideological role of the Topkapı
Palace and the royal collections during this period of struggle. Eventually, the
Topkapı Palace was declared as a national museum by Mustafa Kemal in 1924. The
concepts of continuity and change are reconsidered in relation to this significant
turning point, which completely transformed the ideological and symbolic role of the
Ottoman palace after the abandonment of sultanate. In this context, I argue that the
ambiguous and multi-layered structure of the Topkapı Palace today was laid during
the course of the late-Ottoman era. There are multiple institutions within the walls of
the palace—the Istanbul Archeological Museums, the Imperial Mints, the Gülhane
Park, the military areas, and the Topkapı Palace Museum—that have different
narratives and diverse audiences. The museal narrative of the Topkapı Palace
Museum itself is ambiguous as well, communicating multiple, and often conflicting,
23
discourses regarding national pride, historical detachment, architectural patrimony,
secularism, and religiosity. I argue that the developments of the turbulent nineteenth
century shaped the paradoxical and multi-layered museum narratives of the Topkapı
Palace today. Thus, this dissertation sheds light to the ongoing ideological and spatial
transformations and uses of the palace-museum.
24
CHAPTER 2
THE AGE OF REFORMS: MAHMUD II - ABDÜLMECİD
2.1 The era of Mahmud II: Continuity and change
Thursday, July 28, 1808 was a tragic and bloody day in the Ottoman capital. That
day, the supporters of the deposed Sultan Selim III marched to the Topkapı Palace
under the leadership of Bayraktar (Alemdar) Mustafa Pasha with the aim of
dethroning Mustafa IV (1807-1808) and rescuing the imprisoned, reform-minded
ruler. But, before Bayraktar and his army could break into the Topkapı Palace, Selim
III was assassinated in his chamber within the Harem.27 The Janissary corps also
targeted the cousin of Selim III, heir apparent Mahmud. However, Mahmud managed
to save his life, escaping through the Harem’s domed roof with the help of a harem
woman named Cevri Kalfa and thanks to a few supporters. Bayraktar and his army,
after breaking the imperial gates of Topkapı Palace penetrated into the inner courts28
and saved Mahmud from assassination; Mustafa IV was killed and heir apparent
Mahmud was enthroned the same day.
The enthronement of Mahmud II after the massacre of Selim III was a
manifestation of the struggle between the modernizers and conservatives, between
the supporters of military reforms and the traditional Janissary corps. After Alemdar
Mustafa broke into the Topkapı Palace and saved the heir apparent, Mahmud was
immediately taken to the Chamber of Sacred Relics (Hırka-i Saadet Dairesi) and
Bayraktar paid his allegiance to the new ruler. It is interesting to note that, even
during times of emergency and crisis, ceremonial rituals were being strictly
27 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 93.; Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman
Empire and Modern Turkey. Reform, Revolution, and Republic, 1.
28 The Gate of Felicity in the Topkapı Palace (Bab-üs Saade), seperating the second court from the
third court, was only broken into twice in its history; once during the dethronement of Osman II in
1622 and second time in 1808 by the attack of Bayraktar Mustafa to save Selim III.
25
followed.29 The ceremony continued in the second court of the Topkapı Palace,
where Bayraktar Mustafa Pasha and his army paid their allegiance to Mahmud II.
According to the chronicler Rikabdar Kurşuncubaşızade Arif Ağa, Mahmud II was
enthroned “wounded on the arm and the forehead, having escaped from the coup
from the palace roof,” and he was the first sultan who had to ascend the throne
without a designated fortunate hour (vakt-ı muhtar) recommended by the palace
astronomer. Following the reign of Mahmud II, the tradition of distributing money to
the Janissaries (cülus bahşişi) was terminated. The funeral of Selim III took place in
the Topkapı Palace the very next day.30 On August 8, 1808 Nakşıdil Sultan, the
mother of Mahmud II, was transferred from the Old Palace in Beyazıd to the
Topkapı Palace with an ostentatious procession (valide alayı), which was to be the
last of such processions held on this route.31 However, the reforming sultan did not
actually reside long in the Topkapı Palace and spent most of his time at other
imperial palaces soon after his enthronement.32
2.1.1 Imperial imprint of a ruler: The architectural program of Mahmud II
The reign of Mahmud II, who instituted reform like his predecessor Selim III, is
accepted as a turning point in the history of the Ottoman empire. This modernizing,
yet cruel ruler initiated many radical reforms, transforming the military, institutional,
economic, and social structures of the Ottoman state during his reign. His relation
with the Topkapı Palace, where he was held prisoner and witnessed the assassination
of his cousin, was also quite ambiguous. Following the enthronement of Mahmud II,
a series of comprehensive repairs and renovations were initiated, changing the
29 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, 1:136–37.
30 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 93–94. The same day the pact (Sened-i İttifak)
between Sultan Mahmud II and the Ottoman notables (ayans) was also issued.
31 Yılmaz, II. Mahmud, 27.
32 Karateke, Padisahim Cok Yasa!, 62.
26
architectural and institutional character of the palace (Figure 1). According to the
renovation registers (tamirat defterleri) found in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Ministry33, almost every corner of the Topkapı Palace underwent structural and
decorative renovations beginning in 1809. In the Ottoman archives, approximately
70 renovation registers were found from the reign of Mahmud II, which explained
the nature and scope of the modifications, their locations within the palace, the
amount of the materials used, required workmanship, and the cost of each article.34
Apart from the registers, Mahmud II physically marked the significant renovations
undertaken during his reign with his monograms (tuğra) and inscriptions (kitabe),
placed on various parts of the palace35 (Figure 2). In fact, Topkapı Palace, like other
imperial kiosks and palaces, went through constant renovations and repairs
throughout its history. Thus it is not Mahmud II's renovations, but their number and
intensity, that makes his reign interesting. Based on the renovation registers and on
the number of monograms and inscriptions, it can be understood that the scope of
Mahmud II's renovations within the palace surpassed his predecessor Selim III and
his successors as well.36 (Appendix B)
33 Ottoman Archives of the Prime Ministry will be referred as the Ottoman Archives or BOA
hereafter.
34 50 renovation registers (tamirat defteri), listed under BOA TS.MA.d.9916.05-54 (Topkapı Sarayı
Müzesi Arşivi Defterleri) and 14 renovation registers listed under BOA HH.d (Hazine-i Hassa
Defterleri) are studied. I am grateful to Ayşenur Yıldıztaş from Marmara Üniversitesi, Türkiyat
Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, Yeniçağ Tarihi Anabilim Dalı for the transcription of these registers.
35 The monograms and inscriptions are recorded and mapped based on personal observations and
secondary sources: Sakaoǧlu, Tarihi, mekanları, kitabeleri ve anıları ile Saray-ı Hümayun; Şimşirgil,
Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı; Abdurrahman Şeref and Balcı, Sarayın sırları (Abdurrahman
Şeref); Ayık, “Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve Binalarında Bulunan Kitabelerin Bir Coğrafi Bilgi
Sistemine İşlenmesi, Harita Üzerinde Gösterimi ve İnternet Ortamında Paylaşımı.”; Database for
Ottoman inscriptions, www.ottomaninscriptions.com.
36 Around 24 renovation registers (Tamirat Defteri) exist in the Ottoman Archives from the reign of
Selim III, in contrast to 66 registers from the reign of Mahmud II. In a similar manner, six monograms
and inscriptions are documented from the era of Selim III, whereas 24 monograms and inscriptions
are found at the various parts of the Topkapı Palace from the reign of Mahmud II.
27
Figure 1. Bocage map of the Topkapı Palace (c.1800, Gallica)
Figure 2. The monograms, inscriptions of Mahmud II and buildings dedicated to
him marked on the map of the Topkapı Palace
The three monumental portals providing entrance to the courts of the palace, all of
which defined the particular function and ceremonial role of each court, are marked
with the imperial monogram of Sultan Mahmud II. These imperial gates also refer to
28
the Ottoman notion of Porte (kapu) as a state apparatus and an administrative unit.37
These monograms are placed over the keystones of the outward facing sides of the
Imperial Gate (Bab-ı Hümayun), the Middle Gate (Bab-ı Selam), and the Gate of
Felicity (Bab-üs Saade) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Monograms of Mahmud II on Bab-ı Hümayun and Bab-ı Selam (2017)
The Gate of Felicity (Figure 4), connecting the second court (Divan Meydanı) of the
palace to the third court (Enderun Avlusu), was of particular significance, because it
designated the entrance to the private living quarters of the sultan with his pages and
his harem. In Necipoğlu's words, it is "a monumental gate that expressed the supreme
authority of the sultan, whose centralized state government operated from the
nucleus of the second court."38 The monogram of Mahmud II located on this gate is
the work of the famous inscriber Rakım Efendi. An inscription of Besmele written by
Mahmud II himself can be seen at the top of the entrance portal overlooking the
37 Necipoğlu, “Framing the Gaze in Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Palaces,” 305.
38 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 58.
29
second court and another inscription by Mahmud II marks the other side of the gate,
facing the third court,39 emphasizing the power and symbolic presence of the ruler at
this significant location.
The trompe l'oeil images (which were removed during the 1940-44
restorations) on the two sides of the gate could be stylistically dated to the early
nineteenth century and emphasized the significance of this gate by creating a visual
illusion with references to Western art and architecture.40 Even though the portrait of
Selim III painted by Konstantin Kapıdağlı reflected the same genre,41 according to
Günsel Renda, these perspectival images on two sides of the Gate of Felicity could
be dated to the era of Mahmud II42 (Figure 5). Ceremonies of utmost importance–
such as enthronement (cülus), bairam greetings (muayede), council meetings (ayak
divanı), flag exchange ceremonies (sancak-ı şerif merasimi), janissary payments
(ulufe dağıtımı), and royal funerals–took place in front of the Gate of Felicity and the
imperial throne was placed underneath the large eaves of this gate when the sultan
attended these ceremonies (Figure 6 - Figure 7).
39 Şimşirgil, Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı, 89. The inscription indicating that Mahmud II
overcame the evil with his new rules, can be read as:
“Şer'a tatbik ile etdi vaz'-ı kanûn-ı cedid
Hazret-i Sultan Mahmud ibn Han Abdülhamid
Mü1k-i mevrûsun helal etmez mi eslâfı anâ
Eşkıya merdûd bâbından harami nâ-bedid"
40 These abstract images representing a non-existing architectural landscape can be seen in various
parts of the palace. Similar patterns exist in the Kiosk of Osman III, which are also dated to the last
years of Mahmud II (1834-1838) by Günsel Renda. Thus, while an exact dating of the frescoes on two
sides of Bab-üs Saade is not possible, it can be inferred that they belonged to the early nineteenth
century. Renda, Batılılaşma Döneminde Türk Resim Sanatı 1700-1850, 98–108.
41 Konstantin Kapıdağlı died after 1839 and could have worked under the patronage of Mahmud II as
well. See, Saris, İstanbullu Rum ressamlar = Greek painters of Istanbul, 161.
42 Renda, Batılılaşma Döneminde Türk Resim Sanatı 1700-1850, 104–5.
30
Figure 4. The Gate of Felicity and the tromp l'oeil murals on two sides (Ali Saim
Ülgen Archives, SALT Research)
Figure 5. The portrait of Selim III by Konstantin Kapıdağlı (TSM Paintings
Collection 17/31); Tromp l'oeil murals on the walls of Osman III Kiosk (2016);
Detail from the side wall of Bab-üs Saade (TSMA)
Figure 6. The Janissaries pay day at the second court (Victoria and Albert Museum
Collection, 1809, D.143-1895)
31
Figure 7. Besmele inscribed by Mahmud II and his monogram on the Gate of
Felicity (2017)
Immediately next to the gate in the third court, another inscription dated 1817
(h.1232) is placed in front of the apartments of the white eunuchs (Akağalar
Koğuşu), praising the generosity of the sultan and the benevolences he offered to the
white eunuchs, who were in charge of protecting the private quarters of the sultan
and educating the pages.43 Another inscription from the reign of Mahmud II (1824 /
h.1224) marked the apartment of the Chief Treasurer (Hazine Kathüdası odası) but it
was removed from its original location at an unknown date and now kept at the
second court of the palace.44
Another addition to a significant location within the Topkapı Palace was a
marble fountain placed outside the Chamber of Sacred Relics, overlooking the
marble pool located at the marble terrace (Sofa-i Hümayun) (Figure 8). This
43 Ayık, “Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve Binalarında Bulunan Kitabelerin Bir Coğrafi Bilgi
Sistemine İşlenmesi, Harita Üzerinde Gösterimi ve İnternet Ortamında Paylaşımı,” 58.
44 2. Avluda sergilenen kitabeler, <ID K4999> No. 213 manzume kısmı (hazine odası);
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=1265&hid=4999
"Ḳıla Ḥaḳ ṭūl-ı ʿömr ile muʿammer Ḫān Maḥmūd’ı
Ki ʿāmir bu mekānı ol şeh-i mülk-i ʿaṭā oldu
Olup Seyyid Muḥammed Aġa’nıŋ vaḳtinde ābādān
Ḫazīne Ketḫüdāsı oṭası cāy-ı ṣafā oldu
Sezā Vāṣıf yazılsa ṭāḳına zībende bir tārīḫ
Ne zībā cilvegāh-ı ḫāzin-i şāhī binā oldu
1224
Ḥarrehū Muṣṭafā Rāḳım"
32
relatively small fountain (1823 / h.1239) reflects the decorative style of the era, and
was monumentalized with a baroque frame, an 18-line inscription, and a monogram
of Mahmud II at the top. The position of the fountain was carefully selected to mark
a premium location at the Harem, responding to both the hanging gardens of the
palace and to the Baghdad, Revan, and the Sünnet Kiosks, paying homage to the
great ancestors of Mahmud II. The fountain also communicated the powerful
presence of the Sultan as the keeper and protector of the sacred relics.
Figure 8. The Fountain of Mahmud II at the marble terrace of the Harem (2015)
Another noteworthy addition, also marked with the monogram of Mahmud II, was
located inside the Chamber of Sacred Relics. A decorated marble hearth was placed
right next to the sacred baldachin case where the mantle of Mohammad was being
kept in the Privy Chamber (Hass Oda). In the next chamber, referred as Destimal
Odası, another decorated marble inscription dated 1827-28 (h.1233) carrying the
33
monogram of Mahmud II also praised the favors and benevolence of the sultan to the
palace servants (Figure 9).45
Figure 9. The marble hearth at the Chamber of Sacred Relics / The inscription at
Destimal Room in the Privy Chamber (Mustafa Cambaz)
There are several other inscriptions placed by Mahmud II at significant parts of the
Topkapı Palace and the Harem. The Council Hall (Divan) and the Tower of Justice
(Adalet Kulesi) located in the second court were also renovated and reconstructed by
Mahmud II, as is testified by a 44-line inscription located outside the Council Hall.46
In addition to stating that both the Council Hall and the Tower of Justice were rebuilt
by Mahmud II in 1818 (h.1235), the inscription emphasizes the significance of
justice and positioned the sultan and his unlimited power as the sole protector of
justice within the world (Figure 10).47 The tower is believed to symbolize the justice
45 Database for Ottoman Inscriptions, "Hırka-i Saadet, ID K4904 - Destimal Odası".
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=3037&hid=4904 (12.8.2017)
46 Şimşirgil, Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı, 50.
47 Lucienne Şenocak interpretes the Tower of Justice and the gilded window (kafes-i müşebbek)
overlooking to the Divan Hall as a panopticon, epitomizing the seeing eye of the sultan without being
seen. Şenocak, "Hadice Turhan Sultan and the Yeni Valide Mosque Complex", Tarihi Yarımada
Sempozyumu (13-15 Haziran 2008), İstanbul Ticaret Odası.
34
of the unseen ruler and the extended height and elaborate architecture emphasizee the
virtual presence of the sultans48 (Figure 11). Mahmud II, who took the epithet "adli",
"the just" after his name, used these renovations to emphasize the justice secured by
the sultan.49 The inscription of the tower confirms this connection, and symbolizes
Mahmud II's fairness and his protection over his domains by associating the tower
with the mythical Cuff mountain of justice (kule-i kâf-ı adalet) and defining it as an
imperial locus of justice (adaletgah-ı hakani).50
Figure 10. Inscription about the construction of the Tower of Justice and the Council
Hall (2017)
48 Necipoğlu, “Framing the Gaze in Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Palaces,” 305.
49 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 86.
50 Ayık, “Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve Binalarında Bulunan Kitabelerin Bir Coğrafi Bilgi
Sistemine İşlenmesi, Harita Üzerinde Gösterimi ve İnternet Ortamında Paylaşımı,” 38.
"Şehinşâh-i ciharı Mahmud Han-ı mâdelet pirâ
Mu'alla cây-ı divânı mücedded eyledi ihya Müşebbek
revzerıi zincir-i adlin bir adilidir
. . .
Adaletgâh-ı hakanîde feysal bulmayan davâ
Bu nev-caym verası kule-i kâf-ı adaletdir
Ayağı altma düşse nola dünya ve mâfihâ
Sipihr-i kine-cûyi mühcesiyle dâğdâr itti
İlim ifraz olunca kuleyi nev âftâb âsâ
lyân itdi o vâlâ kuleyi bünyad idüb zimnen
Nigehbân olduğun afâka o hakan-ı mülk-ârâ
. . ."
35
Figure 11. The Tower of Justice during the 17th century (Hans de Jode, View of the
Tip of the Seraglio with Topkapı Palace, 1659) / The Tower of Justice during the
eighteenth century (Vue de la Seconde Cour Interieur du Serail, Melling, 1819)
The new timber kiosk that was positioned on top the masonry bastion, visually and
spatially dominated the second court of the palace with its extended height, conical
lead roof, and elaborate architectural features. Three arched windows on each side of
the square-plan kiosk, provided extended panoramic views of the city and
communicated the all-encompassing vision of the ruler. During the classical era it
was believed that the latticed-windows represented the ruler’s sovereignty to see
without being seen and to control his domains through his invisible gaze. Necipoğlu
describes this effect: "the Council Hall's curtained royal window and the tower
paradoxically signified the absent sultan's omnipresence in the administration of
justice."51 It is probable that Mahmud II aimed revive the same visual ideology by
reconstructing the Council Hall and by elaborating the Tower of Justice (Figure 12).
51 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 59.
36
Figure 12. The Tower of Justice elaborated by Mahmud II (Getty Archive, Kiosque
dans l'interieur du Vieux Serail, 1865-70)
During the same era, another highly visible section extending from the palace walls
towards the cityscape, was also remodeled. The Alay Kiosk (the Kiosk of
Processions) (Figure 13), located in the outer gardens of the palace overlooking the
Sublime Porte (Bab-ı Ali) was reconstructed by Mahmud II. The renovated masonry
kiosk was built in place of an existing timber kiosk.52 According to its inscription,
the date of reconstruction was calculated either as 1810 or 1819.53 Ottoman sultans
used to watch urban processions and watch over their subjects from this kiosk,
located next to the Soğukçeşme Gate of the palace. The innovative and impressive
architecture of the kiosk with its onion dome, throne room with 12 corners, and
numerous windows overlooking the street marked the royal existence of the ruler.
The inscriptions on the windows of the Alay Kiosk clearly describe how the building
52 Gürkan, “Gülhane Parkı İçindeki Yapılar ve Alay Köşkü,” 47.
53 Eyice, "Alay Köşkü" in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. c.2, 349-350.
37
was connected with the concept of justice, (adaletgah) as a place where the sultan
could come and watch his people (Gelüb erkânını seyrettiği kasr-ı felek-dergâh) and
glorified its novel form (Küre-y-iş-şeklolub bu reşk-i kisra tak-ı sultani / Yanında
Keykubad'ın kasrı kaldı köhne bir hargâh).54 Both the Alay Kiosk and the Tower of
Justice were among the most visible structures of the royal complex. Through their
visibility, they emphasized the powerful existence of this authoritative ruler and
highlighted his much desired visibility in the imperial capital.
The construction activities of Mahmud II within the Topkapı Palace were not
limited to the aforementioned structures. According to renovation registers (tamirat
defterleri) dated between 1809 and 1836, almost every corner of the Harem, the
Enderun, and the Birun was renovated, repaired, and remodeled during Mahmud II's
reign. The renovations at Harem included the Kiosk of Osman III, the royal
apartments (daire-i hümayun), the apartments of the Queen Mother (Valide Sultan
dairesi), the apartment of the Treasurer (Hazinedar Usta dairesi), the apartments of
the crown-princes (necabetlü efendi dairesi), royal baths, the apartments of the Black
Eunuchs (Karağalar Koğuşu), and the apartment of the Chief Black Eunuch
(Darüssaade Ağası dairesi). These renovations reflected the amount of time and
money spent on the inner sections of the palace. According to these renovation
54 Ongun, "Alay Köşkü", 162; Abdurrahman Şeref and Balcı, Sarayın sırları (Abdurrahman Şeref),
42.
"Budur tertib-i saz-i saltanat-ı Sultan Mahmudun
Gelüb erkânını seyrettiği kasr-ı felek-dergâh
O gündür iyidimiz kim bendegâne fer virir gâhi
Veray-ı revzeninden mihr-i rehşan-veş o zıl-Ullah
Beraberken bu kasrın irtifaı tâk-i gerdûne
Yakin itdirdi rah-ı dâdhâne o Şehinşah
Muradı istima-ı arzıhalidir berâyânın
Saday-ı pest ile oldıkca mazlûman adâletgâh
Küre-y-iş-şeklolub bu reşk-i kisrâ tak-ı sultanî
Yanında Keykubad'ın kasrı kaldı köhne bir hargâh
Getürsün pişigâh-ı kasre pâ-bend ile a'dasın
Ser-î bedhahını Hak eylesün galtide-i şehrah
Dizildi rişte-i târihe İzzet harfi cevherle
Alay köşkün miiretteb kıldı resm-i şâh-ı gerdun-câh"
38
registers, the palace underwent a vast structural restoration, including technical
repairs and decorative renovation program, where each unit was reshaped from top to
bottom, including everything from infrastructure to furniture, and from textiles to
paintings. Among the 66 registers that transcribed and investigated, 48 of them were
dated before 1826, the year Janissaries were abolished. Following this year, the
sultan eliminating the threat of a Janissary revolt, started spending most of his time at
other palaces.
Figure 13. Engraving of the Alay Kiosk and the Sublime Porte (Thomas Allom,
1838); Alay Kiosk with its onion dome (TBMM Albums, Abdülmecid Efendi Vieux
Serai)
Another significant construction that took place within the palace grounds was the
reconstruction of the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu (Topkapusu Sahilsarayı), located
at the tip of the Seraglio (Sarayburnu). The previous shoreline palace at the Seraglio
point was built by Ahmed III during the early-eighteenth century55 and later
remodeled by Mahmud I and Selim III, all of whom were known to promote their
55 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 225.
39
rulership through imperial visibility (Figure 14). This wooden palace at the tip of the
peninsula was constructed at the most visible and most prestigious location of the
royal complex for use as a summer palace. Mahmud II, reconstructed a new timber
palace at this very significant point next to the Cannon Gate (Topkapusu) (Figure
15), to foster his visibility and emphasize his sovereignty and power at the most
prestigious location of his capital. It is also a strong manifestation for an attempt to
connect the palace with the city of Istanbul. The secluded and intraverted palace
visually, pyhsically, and architecturally opened up to the cityscape with the
construction of this palace by the shore. Many foreign sources refer to the building as
the Summer Palace or Summer Harem. Frederic Lacroix, during his visit to
Constantinople, during the reign of Mahmud II, states that a beautiful palace was
recently built at a magnificent location.56
Figure 14. Seraglio shown on the Stolpe Map from the reign of Abdülaziz (Gallica)
Edward Daniel Clarke, who visited the Topkapı Palace during the early nineteenth
century, gave a detailed description of this summer palace and the gardens
56 Lacroix, Guide du Voyageur a Constantinople et dans ses Environs, 32.
"Un nouveau palais fut construit, il y à quelques années, à l'endroit nommé Séraï-Bournou, c'est-àdireà
l'extrémité du promontoire. Riende plus beau, de plus ravissant que la situation de ce bâtiment
dans lequel on pénètre,'du côté de la mer, par une porte entièrement dorée."
40
surrounding it, defining the architecture of the palace as "fantastic style of Eastern
architecture".57 Chronicler Ahmet Lütfi Efendi also stated that the renowned
shoreline palace was built by Selanikli Abdurrahman Bey before the abolishment of
the Janissaries in 1826 (vaka-i hayriye). According to Lütfi Efendi this imperial
palace was unique in the world due to its spectacular location and architecture, but
burnt down during the era of Abdülaziz.58 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, in his article in
Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, mentions that an inscription dated 1817
(h.1233) survived from the Seraglio fire of 1863 and was preserved in the Topkapı
Palace Museum. According to the inscription, "the world emperor renewed the
Topkapı"59 and documented the renovations of Mahmud II, who is said to have
brought beauty and glory to the collapsed buildings by making a palace overlooking
the sea.60 In line with Mahmud II's visual ideologies, the Seaside Palace of
Topkapusu amplified the visibility of the ruler and manifested his power and glory
both to his subjects and to the foreigners approaching Istanbul by sea.
The Seaside Palace of Topkapusu, located where the Sea of Marmara meets
the Golden Horn and the Bosphorus, dominated the entrance to the busy ports of the
city, and could be seen both from Galata and Üsküdar.61 Its self-revealing timber
architecture, which resembled the seaside palaces built along the shores of
Bosphorus, contrasted with the traditional architectural morphology of the Topkapı
Palace, which was hidden beneath high-walls and long cypress trees and the palace
established a connection with the city (Figure 16 - Figure 17) Sir Adolphus Slade,
57 Clarke, Travels in Various Countries of Europa, Asia and Africa.
58 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 1009.“Vak’a-i Hayriyye’den mukaddem
Selanikli maktul Abdurrahman Bey ma’rifetiyle bina olunmuşdur. Mevki’ ve ebniyece alemde misli
nadir bir saray-ı ali idi. Devr-i hazret-i Abdülaziz Hani’de bir ütü şeraresiyle mefruşatıyla beraber
suzan olmuşdur.”
59 Abdurrahman Şeref, "Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, no.5, 1
Kanunievvel 1326 / 1910, 265-266. "Kıldı hakan-ı cihan Topkapı'yı nev-bünyad"
60 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 44.
61 Raczynski, 1814'de İstanbul ve Çanakkale'ye Seyahat, 40.
41
during his visit to the Topkapı Palace in 1830, depicted his impressions of the
summer palace: "We began our excursion by the most modern of these kiosks,
entering it through a massy, gilded gate in the sea wall. It was built by the late sultan,
and is no less distinguished for size than splendor, furnished in a style half French,
half Oriental..."62
Figure 15. The towers of the Cannon Gate (Topkapusu) before they were
demolished by Mahmud II (Melling, 1800s)
Figure 16. Seraglio and Mahmud II's new Seaside Palace of Topkapusu (Lewis,
1838)
62 Slade, Records of Travels in Turkey, Greece, &c., 460.
42
Figure 17. The Seaside Palace of Topkapusu after Mahmud II's renovations
(Montagu Dunn, Panorama of Istanbul, 1855)
The legendary twin towers of the Cannon Gate (Topkapusu) marked the main sea
entrance of the palace (Figure 15), and were demolished by Mahmud II. A new and
more modern residential timber complex was constructed in its place (Figure 18-
Figure 19).63 A photograph of the Seraglio by James Robertson from the mid
nineteenth century clearly shows the architectural configuration of Mahmud II's new
summer palace.64 Even though there is no written evidence or documents justifying
the demolition of the towers, it can be assumed that Mahmud II desired to gain space
for his new summer palace and direct access to the sea. The military symbolism and
defensive function of these towers was likely untenable by the reign of Mahmud II,
and a pleasant, light, and modern summer palace was erected on the place of the
medieval towers. However, the memory and image of these towers, and the cannons
placed beside them, were so strong that, after their demolishment, the name Topkapı
(Cannon Gate) kept being used to refer to the entire palace. The royal complex
historically known as "Saray-ı Cedid-i Hümayun" (the New Imperial Palace) adopted
the name "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu" (the Imperial Palace of Topkapı), as several
63 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 39–44.
64 The photograph was published by Sedad Hakkı Eldem, who stated that it was taken from Loranzo
Albums. See, Eldem, İstanbul Anıları - Reminiscences of Istanbul, 36.
43
new palaces (saray-ı cedids) were constructed in different parts of the city, especially
by the shores of the Bosphorus during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.65
Figure 18. Photograph of the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu (Lorando Albums, James
Robertson, 1850s, Eldem and Akozan, 1982, 36)
Figure 19. The Seaside Palace of Topkapusu seen at the 1862 Panorama of
Constantinople (Pascal Sebah, Öztuncay, 2006)
65 Özlü, “Dolmabahçe Sarayı’ndan Evvel Dolmabağçe...”, 39-62; Özlü, "Houses of Osman: Mobility
and Visibility in the Ottoman Court from 15th to 19th centuries", 286-294.
44
2.1.2 Testing ground for reforms: The Imperial Palace
In spite of all the construction and renovation efforts of his comprehensive
architectural program, Mahmud II preferred not to reside in the Topkapı Palace, but
rather in other palaces, especially the ones on the shores of the Bosphorus. The very
same renovation registers mentioned above also prove that the construction and
renovations were not limited to the Topkapı Palace, but also included the Beşiktaş
and Çırağan Palaces as early as 1809.66 Starting from the reign of Mahmud II, it can
be argued that the Topkapı Palace was abandoned as an imperial residence, while the
reforming ruler spent most of his time in the new and modern palaces by the shores
of the Bosphorus.67
According to Gardeners' registers (Bostancıbaşı Sicilleri), by 1815 there were
23 royal palaces and kiosks on the shores of the Bosphorus (Figure 20).68 Beşiktaş
Palace, located at the location of today's Dolmabahçe Palace, and the Çırağan Palace
were the main residences of the reforming sultan. It is believed that the sultan, after
witnessing numerous traumatic events before his accession, gradually abandoned the
Topkapı Palace as a residence. However, he still retained it as the ceremonial,
bureaucratic, and institutional core of the empire and as a venue for demonstrating
his power, glory, and possession.
66 BOA TS.MA.d 9916.32 (29 c 1224 / 11.8.1809)
"Padişah Efendimiz Hazretlerinin 1224 senesi Recec [Rebiülahir, Cemaziyelevvel, Cemaziyelahir]
mahlarına mahsuben . . . Saray-ı Cedid-i Amireleri Harem-i Hümayun derun ve birununda ve yetmiş
beş gün Beşiktaş ve Çırağan Sahil Saray-ı Hümayunu cihan . . . vuku’ buılan tamirat ve termimat ile
ber mu’tad verilen mahya hıdemât-ı anbar defteridir."
67 According to Cengiz Göncü, Mahmud II left Beşiktaş Palace on September 13, 1828 after the
breakout of the Russo-Turkish War and resided at Rami Barracks until May 26, 1830. Göncü,
“Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın İnşa Süreci, Mekan ve Teşkilat,” 17.
68 The Bostancıbaşı corps, who were traditionally responsible for the protection of imperial gardens
and palaces, became a security patrol of the city controlling the royal gardens and shores of
Bosphorus during the era of Mahmud II. See, Kayra and Üyepazarcı, Ikinci Mahmut’un Istanbul’u :
Bostancibasi Sicilleri, 7.
45
Figure 20. The records of Yalı Kasr-ı Hümayunu and Bostancitan Ocağı, Beşiktaş
Sahil Saray-ı Hümayunu, Çırağan Sahil Saray-ı Hümayunu, and Mabeyn-i Hümayun
shown in Gardeners' registers during the era of Mahmud II (Kayra and Üyepazarcı,
1992, 94)
Mahmud II played a crucial role in transforming the meaning and significance of the
Topkapı Palace, particularly shifting the semiotics of power. According to John
Freely, during the time of Mahmud II, the Topkapı Palace was virtually abandoned
in favor of his new European-style palace at Beşiktaş.69 Lady Julia Pardoe, a British
woman who wrote on the Orient, published her travel notes on Constantinople in
1836. According to Pardoe, Sultan Mahmud II compared the Topkapı Palace to its
European counterparts and rejected his architect, who had suggested that the Topkapı
Palace was superior to any other palace in the world. Mahmud II disregarded the
secluded architecture of the Topkapı Palace "hidden beneath high walls, and amid
dark trees," indicating that this morphology represents intimidation or fear, rather
than bravery. On the contrary, the "laughing palaces" of Europe were full of daylight,
free air, and sunshine, and the reforming sultan demanded a palace of such quality
69 Freely, Inside the Seraglio.
46
from his architect.70 This quote, even if imaginary or speculative, still provides
important clues regarding the perception of the Topkapı Palace by European
contemporaries with respect to the Western palaces of the era.
Prussian General Helmuth von Moltke, who was invited to the Ottoman
empire to assist with the modernization and education of the new army, viewed the
new palace of Mahmud II at Beşiktaş during an audience that took place in January
1837 (Figure 21). He portrayed the wooden pavilion of the ruler as very beautiful
and spacious, but decorated with Western furniture that could be found in any
bourgeois family in Europe (Figure 22).71 Moltke paid a second visit to the summer
palace of Mahmud II, which was located at Beylerbeyi on the Asian shore of the
Bosphorus, during the summer of 1837.72 In his letters Moltke emphasized the
difference between the traditional ceremonies of receiving foreign ambassadors at
the Topkapı Palace with his more casual visit to the sultan at the Dolmabahçe Palace.
He mentioned that the long and insulting traditional audience ceremonies, which
took place up until the abolishment of the Janissaries only ten years previously.
70 Pardoe and Bartlett, The Beauties of the Bosphorus, 19. Cited in Necipoğlu, Architecture,
Ceremonial, and Power, 258.
71 Moltke and Örs, Moltke’nin Türkiye Mektuplari, 104–6.
72 Moltke and Örs, 137. Molkte later visited Abdülmecid after the death of Mahmud II in the same
Beylerbeyi Palace in 1839.
47
Figure 21. Timber Beşiktaş Palace (Former Dolmabahçe Palace and Mosque,
Victoria and Albert Museum, SD.1263, 1820)
Figure 22. Beşiktaş Palace of Mahmud II seen from above (Pardoe, 48)
A traditional audience ceremony that took place during the first years of Mahmud II's
reign was depicted in detail by J.C. Hobhouse Broughton. According to him, the
group travelled from Dolmabahçe to the Topkapı Palace to attend the audience
ceremony, which took place on the day the Janissaries salaries were distributed
(ulufe dağıtımı). Hobhouse Broughton was not impressed at all with this long and
formal spectacle: 73
The distribution of their payment to the Janissaries lasted so long, that we
were heartily fatigued before the conclusion of the ceremony, which
73 Broughton, A Journey through Albania, and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to
Constantinople, during the Years 1809-1810, 993.
48
according to an established usage, was however, designed to captivate and
astonish us by a display of Ottoman wealth.
The comments of Charles Pertusier, who also attended an audience ceremony at the
Topkapı Palace during the early years of Mahmud II's reign in 1820, was even more
discontented, despising the ceremony as a "comedy for Ottoman pride" to create a
"false idea of greatness." He went on to describe the ceremony as:74
The presentation of ambassadors to the Grand Seignor and their visit to the
sublime porte are ceremonies which seem to be studiously contrived to
express and maintain the haughty pretentions of the Ottoman government;
which are now still more ridiculous than those times when a brilliant fortune
formed an excuse for their folly.
Mahmud II declared series of reforms, recognizing that the Ottoman empire needed
to collaborate and integrate with the West on multiple levels, from military to
bureaucracy and from education to sartorial codes. The archaic ceremonial codes for
diplomatic auditions were also transformed in order to establish deeper relations and
reciprocity on equal terms with Europe.75 Ottomans expected equal acceptance into
the European international order and developed a more balanced diplomatic
interaction with the West, treating their representatives as equals.76
The military and institutional character of the Ottoman empire changed
drastically following the abolishment of Janissaries in 1826. On June 14, 1826,
Janissaries revolted against Mahmud II, taking his reforming ideas and new army
(Eşkinciyan corps) as a threat. Upon hearing about the revolt, the sultan rushed to the
Yalı Kiosk of the Topkapı Palace from Beşiktaş and declared that he rejected the
demands of the Janissaries. The Holy Banner of the Prophet (sancak-ı şerif) was
74 Pertusier, Picturesque promenades in and near Constantinople and on the waters of the Bosphorus,
96.
75 For the details of traditional audience ceremonies that took place in the second court see:
Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 66–69; Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Develtinin Saray
Teşkilâtı; Ali Seydi Bey and Banoğlu, Teşrifat ve Teşkilatımız; Esad Efendi, Osmanlılarda Töre ve
Törenler (Teşrifat-ı Kadime); Accessing the Shadow of God.
76 I would like to thank Darin Stephanov for his comments, critiques, and reccomendations on this
section.
49
taken from the Chamber of Sacred Relics and erected at Sultan Ahmed Mosque.77
With the declaration of the şeyhülislam, thousands of students, Muslim scholars
(ulema), imams, residents of Istanbul, and the new corps of Mahmud II gathered,
resisting, and finally demolishing the Janissaries. The bloody incident took weeks,
until almost all Janissary corps in Istanbul were eliminated, and their barracks burnt.
During the course of events, tents were set up in the courts of the Topkapı Palace and
notables and scholars (erkan ve ulema) stayed in the palace gardens, while the people
of Istanbul guarded their own neighborhoods. After two and a half months, on
August 2, 1826, the Holy Banner of the Prophet was brought back to its place in the
Topkapı Palace.78
Following the auspicious event, known as Vaka-yı Hayriye, Mahmud II
established his new army, Asakir-i Mansure-i Muhammediye. The old imperial
palace at Beyazit became the Headquarters of the Commander in Chief (Bab-ı
Serasker) and barracks for the new army were built at the same area. It is known that
barracks were also established in the Gülhane gardens of the Topkapı Palace for the
new army.79 A few weeks after the destruction of the Janissaries, Mahmud II
inspected the training of his 2,000 soldiers dressed in Western uniforms in the
Gülhane gardens at the Topkapı Palace. He was said to watch the training of his new
soldiers from a window and later appeared in the field in front of his men, dressed
also in a Western uniform.80 Establishing barracks and drill fields for his new army
in the Topkapı Palace, Mahmud also transformed the traditional Bostancı
organization, who were in charge of the protection of the imperial palaces and
77 Abdurrahman Şeref and Duman, Osmanlı Devleti tarihi, 388.
78 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 110.; Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman
empire and Modern Turkey. Reform, Revolution, and Republic, 20–21.
79 Düzalan, Demirkapı Kışlası, 168.
80 Stephanov, “Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) and the First Shift in Modern Ruler Visibility in the
Ottoman empire,” 134.
50
gardens, and recognized them as Trained Imperial Gardeners (Muallem Bostanıyan-ı
Hassa), providing barracks and training grounds in the outer gardens of the Topkapı
Palace for these corps.81
Following the establishment of a new and loyal army, reforms of Mahmud II
continued in full power, targeting not only the military system but also changing the
social, financial, and institutional structure of the Ottoman state. The education
system had changed following the Greek rebellion in 1821. Greek officers and
dragomans fell out of favor, while the education of Muslim students became a new
priority, and new schools and modern educational facilities were founded. In the
palace, Muslim children were accepted to the Enderun school, which had previously
been exclusively for converts.
In 1826, the Ministry of Pious Foundations (Evkaf-ı Hümayun Nezareti) for
the centralized governance and control of pious foundations was founded; in 1838
both Evkaf-ı Hümayun and and Haremeyn-i Şerifeyn Evkaf Dairesi were affiliated
under the Ministry of the Imperial Mints (Darphane-i Amire Nezareti), which began
to control the incomes of all pious foundations within the empire.82 The same year
the Ministry of Finances (Maliye Nezareti) was founded to unify and control multiple
treasuries and eventually the imperial mint was placed under this ministry. The
buildings of the Imperial Mints and the Imperial Mint Pavilion (Darphane Kasrı) in
the first court were also refurbished during this time83 (Figure 23 - Figure 24).
According to Pars Tuğlacı and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, the timber Imperial Mint
Pavilion of Ahmed III was reconstructed in 1838 by Kirkor Amira Balyan in
81 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman empire and Modern Turkey. Reform, Revolution, and
Republic, 23.
82 Akyıldız, "II. Mahmud Döneminde Merkez İdaresinde yapılan Düzenlemeler" in Yılmaz, II.
Mahmud, 55–83.
83 Şimşirgil, Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı, 73.; Ayık, “Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve
Binalarında Bulunan Kitabelerin Bir Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemine İşlenmesi, Harita Üzerinde Gösterimi ve
İnternet Ortamında Paylaşımı,” 31.
51
masonry; however Gülsün Tanyeli states that no records were found documenting
the architect of the building84. This kiosk, which had two entrances one from the first
court and another from the Osman Hamdi Bey Yokuşu, was located next to St. Irene
and does not exist today, only the walls of the masonry ground floor remained, the
timber upper storeys were demolished.85 Another official building across from the
Imperial Mints can be seen in the Fossati engravings. The apartment of the Ministry
of Finance (Maliye Nezareti Dairesi) located in the first court of the palace was
probably built during this era (Figure 25). However, no records could be found
regarding the establishment of this building, which must have been destroyed during
the Bab-ı Hümayun fire of 1866. This building does not exist in late nineteenth
century photographs showing the first court of the palace and marked as "Eski
Maliye Dairesi Mevkii", the location of the old Ministry of Finances, in the Topkapı
Palace map of Abdurrahman Şeref Bey.86
Figure 23. Imperial Mint Pavilion (Tuğlacı, 1990, 40)
84 Eldem, Köşkler ve Kasırlar, 423.; Tuğlacı, The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture, 40.;
Tanyeli, "Darphane-i Amire bir Habitat II Mekanı", 92-95.
85 Eldem, Köşkler ve Kasırlar, v.2, 423-428.
86 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, “Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu,” in TOEM 7, 1 Nisan 1327 / 1911.
52
Figure 24. Gate of the Imperial Mint and the inscription of Mahmud II (2017)
Figure 25. The First Court of the Topkapı Palace and the apartment of the Ministry
of Finance seen at the right side of the Imperial Gate. (Fossati, 1852)
As noted earlier, continuous reforms deeply transformed Ottoman society.87 In
addition to changes in the bureaucracy and centralization of the state,88 in 1829
Ottoman sartorial codes were changed adopting the Western style of clothing,89 the
87 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman empire and Modern Turkey. Reform, Revolution, and
Republic, 26–51.
88 Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire : The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922.
89 A detailed discussion of the clothing reform could be found in Quataert, “Clothing Laws, State, and
Society in the Ottoman empire, 1720–1829.”
53
first Ottoman census was conducted in 1830, and a year later the first official
Ottoman newspaper was published. The traditional Ottoman band (mehter takımı)
was also abolished in 1833 and the mehterhane in the second court of the Topkapı
Palace was converted into a gun factory. The Red Barracks, also known as the
Otlukçu Barracks, were constructed in the Gülhane gardens close to the Otlukçu gate
for the new cavalier army of Mahmud II.90 On August 16, 1838, the Anglo-Ottoman
commerce treaty (Baltalimanı Ticaret Antlaşması) was signed, expanding the
economic privileges of the British, and fostered the Westernization of the empire.
Mahmud was known to be preparing a set of new reforms named Tanzimat-ı Mülkiye
or Tanzimat-ı Hayriye before he died, and he also intended to dedicate the Gülhane
Kiosk as the main office for the preparation and implementation of these reforms.91
The palatial institutions also changed completely during this era. The post of
Silahdar was abolished and the Imperial Enderun Administration (Enderun-i
Hümayun Nezareti), headed by the Chief Imperial Treasurer (Hazine-i Hümayun
Kethüdası), was founded to replace the posts of the Corps of the Privy Chamber (Has
Odalılar) and the Corps of the Treasury (Hazineliler).92 In 1831, the Palace
90 These barracks were built in the Gülhane gardens of the palace, close to the Otluk Gate, and later
converted into Gülhane Hospital in 1848. Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari
ve İstanbul’da İnşa Edilen Askeri Yapılar,” 106; Çiftçi, "II. Mahmud'un İstanbul'da yaptırdığı askeri
yapılar" in Yılmaz, II. Mahmud, 171.
An archival register mentions the renovations made at the barracks within the Topkapı Palace: BOA
HH.d.15535 (h.1245) Saray-ı Cedid'de, Topkapı Sarayı yakınında ve Asakir-i Hassa Kışlası'nda
bulunan karakol, çeşme vb. mahallerde yapılan tamir, tecdid vs. masarıfatı gösterir defter.
91 Akyıldız, "II. Mahmud Döneminde Merkez İdaresinde yapılan Düzenlemeler" in Yılmaz, II.
Mahmud, 69.
92 Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 16. A detached inscription kept in the second
court of the Topkapi Palace Museum depicts that the apartment of the Chief Treasurer was remodelled
during the reign of Mahmud II. Database for Ottoman inscriptions, ID K4999, No. 213 manzume
kısmı (hazine odası), Retrieved from
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=1265&hid=4999.
"Ḳıla Ḥaḳ ṭūl-ı ʿömr ile muʿammer Ḫān Maḥmūd’ı
Ki ʿāmir bu mekānı ol şeh-i mülk-i ʿaṭā oldu
Olup Seyyid Muḥammed Aġa’nıŋ vaḳtinde ābādān
Ḫazīne Ketḫüdāsı oṭası cāy-ı ṣafā oldu
Sezā Vāṣıf yazılsa ṭāḳına zībende bir tārīḫ
Ne zībā cilvegāh-ı ḫāzin-i şāhī binā oldu
1224 - Ḥarrehū Muṣṭafa Rakım"
54
Marshalcy (Mabeyn Müşirliği) was established and Enderun chambers were
completely reorganized. The use of former palatial titles was forbidden, while most
palatial bureaucracy was transferred to the Sublime Porte.93 These reforms, criticized
by Enderunlu Hafız Efendi, broke with long lasting Ottoman palatial traditions and
state customs and harshly impacted palace pages.94 A description of this imposition
was published in Le Tour du Monde in 1860:95
After the destruction of the Janissaries, Sultan Mahmud abandoned the
Seraglio for good and went to his palaces on the Bosphorus. Nevertheless, the
seat of the empire remains at the Sublime Porte; various ministries are
established there, and their innumerable employees replace the palace pages
who formerly filled these great irregular buildings and lived enclosed behind
the gloomy walls [of the Topkapı Palace].
During this era, especially the first and second courts of the Topkapı Palace were
reorganized to reflect sultan’s reforms and began housing the new and modern
military, educational, bureaucratic, and technical institutions established by Mahmud
II. Thus, the architectural changes in the palace were in line with the developments
and reforms that took place in the Ottoman state system.
While the function of the Topkapı Palace as the imperial residence
diminished, it kept its significance in the Ottoman financial and institutional system,
and adopted a bureaucratic role in the modernizing and centralizing state (Figure 26).
Thus, it could be argued that Mahmud II began using the Topkapı Palace as a
governmental office for state affairs and as a ceremonial venue, rather than as a
residence.
93 Akyıldız, "II. Mahmud Döneminde Merkez İdaresinde yapılan Düzenlemeler" in Yılmaz, II.
Mahmud, 62–64.
94 Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 184–86.
95 Mme X…, "Une visite au sérail en 1860", in Le Tour du monde, 1er semestre 1860, Vol. 7, 1-24.
"Après la destruction des janissaires, le sultan Mahmoud abandonna pour toujours le sérail et alla
demeurer dans ses palais du Bosphore. Néanmoins, le siège de l’empire reste à la Sublime Porte ; les
divers ministères y sont établis et leurs innombrables employés remplacent le peuple d’esclaves qui
remplissait autrefois ces grandes constructions irrégulières et vivait enfermé derrière ces sombres
murailles."
55
According to Shaw, Mahmud II left the Topkapı Palace as early as 1815 and
started residing in his new palace in Beşiktaş. This palace was decorated in a
European fashion and the sultan preferred European-style clothing and leisure
pursuits as well, appearing in public frequently, to attend receptions, concerts,
operas, and ballets organized in Western embassies.96 Portraits of the reforming
sultan hung at state offices and the publication of the official newspaper Takvim-i
Vekai demonstrated his desire for public visibility. Thus, not only his new palace on
the shores of Beşiktaş, but the new additions and renovations he made at the Topkapı
Palace, were designed to fulfill this new visual ideology. Mahmud II’s appeal for
visibility was declared not only by numerous edifices that he erected at different
parts of Istanbul but also by the exaggerated onion dome and novel design of the
Alay Kiosk, the prominent and visible position of his new Seaside Palace of
Topkapusu (Topkapusu Sahilsarayı), and by the amplified height and morphology of
the Tower of Justice, emphasizing verticality and visibility within the “iconographic
programme of Ottoman skyline”.97
96 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman empire and Modern Turkey. Reform, Revolution, and
Republic, 49. Some sources declare that the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu, which was detached from
the main body of the palace and remodelled by Mahmud II, was also used occasionally by his harem
as a summer residence and is known as the "Summer Harem". I think you say this already earlier.
Keep the part about Shaw, but delete the rest.
97 Preziosi, The mechanisms of urban meaning, 9.
56
Figure 26. The portrait of Mahmud II (Topkapı Sarayı Padişah Portreleri, Hippolite
Berteaux)
In this context, the ceremonial role of the Topkapı Palace became more prominent.
Even though the sultan did not inhabit in the palace of his ancestors, the imperial
complex was still used for royal ceremonies, such as weddings, treasury visits,
bairam greetings, visits of the sacred relics, and funerals. Ottoman chronicler Ahmet
Lütfi Efendi, stated that the wedding ceremony of Saliha Sultan, the daughter of
Mahmud II, with Halil Rıfat Pasha took place in the Topkapı Palace in 1834,
followed with a procession from the Topkapı Palace to Dolmabahçe.98 An archival
document dated 1836 mentions the celebrations that would take place in the Seaside
Palace of Topkapusu for the bairam (muayede-i hümayun) and the decoration of the
palace and the surrounding areas with oil-lamps (yolların ve sair mahallerin teyzini
98 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 806.
57
ve yakılacak kandiller).99 Ahmet Lütfi Efendi also gave a detailed depiction of
ceremonial visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics and the Imperial Treasury by
Mahmud II.100 The archival documents prove that from the first year of Mahmud II's
reign,101 until his last years, the visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics were
conducted in a ceremonial manner with the attendance of Ottoman notables and
sometimes even with the attendance of Muslim ambassadors.102 A ceremonial
register (teşrifat defteri) dated h.1229 (1813/14), from Ottoman archives describes
the nature of the ceremony and the royal attendants that include the Mother Queen,
Beyhan Sultan, Hatice Sultan, Esma Sultan, şeyhülislam, chief of the Janissary
Corps, and the notables.103 Two other imperial decrees (hat-ı hümayun) dating
h.1230 and h.1239 state that, as conducted every year, the visits to the Chamber of
Sacred Relics will take place on the fifteenth day of Ramadan and according to the
tradition baklava will be distributed.104
The reforming Sultan Mahmud II died on July 2, 1839 at the palace of his
sister Esma Sultan in Çamlıca. According to Ottoman chronicler Ahmet Lütfi Efendi,
following the death of Mahmud II, his dead body was carried from Çamlıca to the
Topkapı Palace from Haydarpaşa Pier with seven imperial boats, and his body was
placed in front of the Chamber of Sacred Relics and washed there by the sheikhs of
major sultanic mosques. In the mean time, the heir apparent Abdülmecid was
informed about his father’s death and was brought to the Topkapı Palace for the
enthronement ceremony. The funeral was conducted according to tradition and the
body of Mahmud II was carried to the funerary altar before the Gate of Felicity. Then
99 BOA C.SM.83.4153 (21.1.1836)
100 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 661.
101 BOA C.SM.37.1898 (1223 / 1809)
102 BOA HAT.1617.2 (1 N 1254 / 10.11.1838)
103 BOA D.TŞF.d.26092 (1229 / 1813-14)
104 BOA HAT.1532.69 (h.1230 / 1815); BOA HAT.1564.66 (h.1239 / 1824)
58
funerary prayer was led by the sultan’s primary imam (imam-ı evvel-i şehriyari),105
treasury servants burned the censer (buhurdan) during the ceremony, and the Chief
Treasurer distributed money.106 A huge crowd attended the funeral and funereal
procession from the Imperial Gate of the palace to Mahmud II’s mausoleum at
Divanyolu.107 It is recorded that thousands of people from all religions lined up in the
streets and cried after this powerful and reformist sultan.108
In sum, the era of Mahmud II was a period of substantial reforms and
ruptures in the Ottoman empire. The political, social, and institutional background of
Tanzimat reforms were established under the rule of this powerful and authoritative
ruler. In this context of continuous change and transformation, the Topkapı Palace
was also reshaped physically, symbolically, and institutionally. Diminishing its
residential function and limiting foreign visits, Mahmud II repositioned the Topkapı
Palace as a suitable ground for implementing his reforms, by establishing military
barracks and drill fields, in addition to a military hospital and school in the outer
gardens of the palace. During the same period, the Enderun system was restructured
and the reforms in the financial system also reshaped the first court of the palace,
with the reorganization of the Imperial Mints and establishment of the Ministry of
Finances (Maliye Nezareti). Thus, changing form and function of the Topkapı
Palace, was a reflection of the transforming military, socio-political, and financial
context of the era.
During the era of Mahmud II, the visual ideology of the Ottoman state was
also transformed, and the reforming ruler rendered the Ottoman sultanate more
105 BEO Sadaret Defterleri, no. 365, 92 cited in Yıldız, Yeniçerisiz Tahta Çıkmak, 339.
106 Yanatma, “The Deaths and Funeral Ceremonies of Ottoman Sultans,” 14.
107 Mahmud II was buried at his sister Esma Sultan's mansion at Divanyolu according to his will. A
tomb complex was later constructed by Ohannes and Bogos Dadyan. Akın, "Tanzimat ve Bir
Aydınlanma Simgesi" in Rona, Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi.
108 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 1006–7. “gasl ü tekfini icra ve ba’dehu
adet üzere ifraz olunan mahalle defn ü ihfa kılındı.”
59
visible in the eyes of his people, creating the illusion that his judgmental and cruel
gaze kept his subjects under constant surveillance. According to Darin Stephanov the
"concept of modern ruler visibility" was the main organizing principle behind the
representation of the Ottoman sultanic power during the latter part of Mahmud II’s
reign. According to Stephanov, modern ruler visibility is:109
[A] combination of direct and indirect components. The former include the
sultan’s physical presence at public ceremonies and the degree of his personal
exposure to the public gaze. The latter consist of a set of symbolic markers of
the ruler, such as his cypher (tuğra) on the one hand and the architectural
monuments, such as fountains, mosques, and tombs, constructed or restored
by him, on the other.
From this description, it can be determined that Mahmud II utilized architecture as a
tool for emphasizing his visibility and to mark his imperial existence. Even if he
chose not to reside in the Topkapı Palace, the royal complex underwent a
comprehensive renovation process throughout his reign. The monograms of Mahmud
II, together with repair inscriptions at almost every significant corner of the palace,
are marks of the distinctive decorative style of his period. The escalated heights and
ostentatious designs of the Alay Kiosk, Tower of Justice, and the Seaside Palace of
Topkapusu are manifestations of this visual ideology, promoting the visibility of the
ruler and compensating his physical absence from the Topkapı Palace with symbolic
and virtual signs of his existence.
2.2 The era of Abdülmecid: The ruler who "abandoned" the Topkapı Palace
When Mahmud II died on June 1, 1839, his son and successor Abdülmecid (1839-
1861) was enthroned at the age of 17. The official enthronement (cülus) ceremony of
the young sultan took place the same day at the Topkapı Palace, and was attended by
109 Stephanov, “Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) and the First Shift in Modern Ruler Visibility in the
Ottoman empire”, 130.
60
Ottoman and foreign notables.110 The accession of Abdülmecid was somewhat
different from the previous ceremonies, due to the absence of the Janissaries and new
sartorial codes for the Ottoman elites.111 After the death of Mahmud II, Abdülmecid
was brought to the Audience Hall in the Topkapı Palace,112 and Ottoman notables
were gathered at the Council Hall (Kubbe-i Hümayun) and at the Old Council Hall
(Eski Divanhane).113 According to tradition, the ceremonial throne was brought from
the Imperial Treasury and placed in front of the Gate of Felicity, and the crown
prince was taken from the Audience Hall to the second court, where the imperial
throne was located.
Ottoman notables attended the accession ceremony of Abdülmecid in the
traditional order (iyd-i şerif misüllü) but in their uniforms. This distinguishing break
from tradition was recorded in the registers of the grand vizierate (sadaret defterleri)
as "common apparel" (adi kıyafetler) and resulted in changes in the ceremony as
well.114 For instance, the tradition of “hil’at wearing” by the şeyhülislam and the
grand vizier did not take place. This was a clear consequence of Mahmud II’s
clothing reform and implies a significant visual and symbolic break in the court
rituals of the Ottoman dynasty. Similarly, due to the military and governmental
reforms of Mahmud II, representatives of abolished institutions such as Babüssaade
Ağası, Silahdar Ağa, Yeniçeri Ağası, Sekbanbaşı, Bostancıbaşı, Defterdar, Nişancı,
and Reisülküttab did not take part in the ceremony. The abolishment of the
Janissaries apparently transformed not only the institutional and military structures of
the state but also the way the ceremony was conducted. Old traditions such as
110 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 1009.
111 Yıldız, “Yeniçerisiz Tahta Çıkmak”, 329-353.
112 Sadaret Defterleri, no.365, 91 cited in Yıldız, "Yeniçerisiz Tahta Çıkmak", 332.
113 Eski Divanhane was the first Divan Hall located on the second court of the Topkapı Palace. After
Kubbealtı was built by Suleyman the Magnifient, this hall lost its significance, used for various
functions and eventually demolished during the renovations of Mehmed V Reşad in 1910-14.
114 Sadaret Defterleri, no.365, 91 cited in Yıldız, "Yeniçerisiz Tahta Çıkmak", 333.
61
granting the Janissary corps (ulufe dağıtımı) did not take place, and the traditional
military band (mehter) was replaced by a modern military marching band, (mızıka-i
hümayun) representing the modern army (Figure 27). The accession of Abdülmecid
not only exhibited the changes initiated by Mahmud II, but also foreshadowed the
upcoming reforms, namely the Imperial Rescript of Gülhane (Gülhane Hat-ı
Hümayunu), which would transform the state structure of the Ottoman empire. The
evident break with tradition while simultaneously sustaining ancient rituals was to be
a leitmotif of Abdülmecid's enthronement.
Figure 27. The Salamlık, or Sultan’s reception, at the Seraglio, Constantinople
(Illustrated London News, 1865)
2.2.1 Tanzimat reforms and modernization: Dissemination from the Gülhane
gardens to the empire
It could be said that Abdülmecid, while less cruel, followed in the footsteps of his
reforming father, Mahmud II. Soon after he came to power he realized Mahmud II's
62
unfinished project and declared the rescript of Tanzimat at the outer gardens of the
Topkapı Palace on November 3, 1839. Known as the Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayunu or
Tanzimat Fermanı, this decree changed the Ottoman ruling system, and secured
individual and property rights of both Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of the
empire.115 The decree was proclaimed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mustafa
Reşit Pasha, while the young sultan Abdülmecid watched the ceremony from the
Gülhane Kiosk (Figure 28).116 The he decree guaranteed the life, honor, and property
of all subjects of the empire; established a new and more just system for taxation;
and developed new and fair methods for conscription, education, and maintenance of
armed forces.117 Following the declaration of the Tanzimat, Abdülmecid went up to
the third court of the palace and took an oath in the Chamber of Sacred Relics,
stating that he would be loyal to the imperial decree.118 Thus, the political and
religious role of the Topkapı Palace in the declaration, confirmation, and
legitimization of this crucial decree was enshrined.
The centrality of the Topkapı Palace in the proclamation of the Tanzimat was
also sustained by certain changes in 1940, the first anniversary of Tanzimat, a
monument of justice (seng-i adalet) in memory of the Tanzimat was planned to be
erected in Beyazıt Square rather than Gülhane gardens, likely due to the fact that the
latter was an imperial garden and closed to the public at that time. Danişmend and
Sakaoğlu state that a project for a monument to the Tanzimat was intended, but was
115 For a detailed discussion of Tanzimat reforms and its impact on the Ottoman state, See, İnalcık and
Seyitdanlıoğlu, Tanzimat; Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922; Shaw and Shaw, History of the
Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2005; Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi 5; Akyıldız, Osmanlı
bürokrasisi ve modernleşme; Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey; Zürcher, Turkey : A Modern
History.; Akyıldız, "Tanzimat" in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. c.40, 1.
116 Sakaoğlu and Akbayar, Avrupalılaşmanın yol haritası ve Sultan Abdülmecid, 33.
117 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman empire and Modern Turkey, 60.
118 Kahraman, "İlklerin Sultanı" in Kahraman et al., Sultan Abdülmecid ve dönemi (1823-1861), 16–
23.
63
not realized.119 It is also believed that the execution stones (seng-i ibret), on which
the heads of the executed were displayed and the Fountain of Executioner (Cellat
Çeşmesi), in which the executer was believed to wash his sword, were removed from
the entrance of the Middle Gate after the declaration of Tanzimat.120
Figure 28. Declaration of the Tanzimat rescript at the Gülhane Gardens with a
caption ''Saray-ı Amire'de vaki Gülhane Kasr-ı Hümayunu pişgahında ellibeş
tarihinde kıraat olunan Tanzimat-ı Hayriye hatt-ı hümayunu için tertib olunmuş olan
alay-ı vala'' (Sakaoğlu, 2002, 33)
The Gülhane gardens of the Topkapı Palace continued to host the barracks for the
modern army, and the Demirkapı Barracks were also constructed at the northern
edge of the gardens (Figure 29). Inscriptions placed at the two wings of the barracks
were both dated 1839 (h.1255) and mentioned sultan Abdülmecid as the builder of
these modern edifices.121 However, it is more likely that the project was initiated
119 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 127.; Sakaoğlu and Akbayar, Avrupalılaşmanın
yol haritası ve Sultan Abdülmecid, 38.
120 Ortaylı, Osmanlı sarayında hayat.
121 Düzalan, “Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi,” 173.
64
during the reign of Mahmud II and the buildings were finalized by his successor
Abdülmecid after his sudden death. These barracks were later converted into the
Military Medical School (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i Adliye-i Şahane) until the medical
school moved to Haydarpaşa in 1903.
Figure 29. The Demirkapı Barracks on the shores of the Golden Horn (late
nineteenth century, Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
Much like Mahmud II, Abdülmecid did not reside long at the Topkapı Palace, but he
did stay in the palace during the first years of his reign122 (Figure 30). On the year
anniversary of his accession, the grand vizier paid Abdülmecid a visit at the Seaside
"Mihr-i münȋr-i saltanat Abdülmecid Han bu dem
Nur-i kudȗmü ile hak dünyayı kıldı tabdar
Vaz‟-ı esas-ı 'adille müstahkem eyler mülkünü
Kılmış binȃ-yı şevketin mi‟mȃr-ı kudret pȃydȃr
Bünyȃn-ı mülk-i düĢmen kahriyle olsun münhedim
Ȃver ȃdeme oldu bu du‟ȃ tekrarı her leyl ü nehȃr
Ol pȃdişȃhın kevkeb-i ikbȃlidir sa'dü'l-su'ȗd
Envȃr-ı tȃbend-i hüdȃ „ahdinde olur aşikȃr
İsȃr-ı nakd-i cȗd idüb yabdı bu zȋbȃ kışlayı
Olsun cünȗd-i müsteflim gencine sȃz-ı iftihȃr
Yazsa sezȃ Ziver kulu tarihini cevher
Etdi bu vȃlȃ kışlayı mesken cünȗd-i şehr-yȃr 1255"
122 Sakaoğlu and Akbayar, Avrupalılaşmanın yol haritası ve Sultan Abdülmecid, 35.
65
Palace of Topkapusu,123 however, Sakaoğlu states that from 1840, Abdülmecid
began to live mainly at the Beşiktaş Palace and visiting other palaces, rarely staying
at the Topkapı Palace.124 Abdülmecid spent most of his time at the Beşiktaş, Çırağan,
and Beylerbeyi Palaces, until he finally moved to his newly built Dolmabahçe.125 On
April 10, 1845 Ahmet Lütfi Efendi stated that the sultan moved (nakl-i ali şeref-vuku
olmuşdur) from the Topkapı Palace to the Çırağan Palace. Again, in April 1846,
Lütfi recorded that the sultan started his trip to Ayastefanos, Edirne and Varna
(seyahat-i senniye) from the Topkapı Palace with a formal procession (alay-ı
vala).126 According to the records of Cevdet Paşa, Abdülmecid used both the
Dolmabahçe and Çırağan Palaces as of April 1855.127 Still, it could be said that the
sultan used Topkapı Palace for special occasions, ceremonies, and religious visits
until the end of his reign. According to an archival document from French Archives,
Abgülmecid did not share his father's disdain for the "Old Palace" and continued
holding ceremonies for the foreign audience there128 (Figure 31).
123 BOA HAT.1625.68 (1255 Z/02/03.1840)
124 Sakaoğlu and Akbayar, Avrupalılaşmanın yol haritası ve Sultan Abdülmecid, 43.
125 Göncü, “Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın İnşa Süreci, Mekan ve Teşkilat”, 18.
126 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 1192, 1219.
127 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, v.1, 38.
128 French Archives, Direction Politique, No.82, 15.10.1839. I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Edhem
Eldem for sharing this archival document with me.
"J'ai l'honneur de rendre compte a Votre Excellence que j'ai obtenu hier mon audience de cougé de
Sultan. Elle a eu lieue au vieux Sérail, résidence d'hyver dont il a repris posesion, ne pertageant pas
la répugnance de son père pour cette ancienne demeure des ses ancetres."
66
Figure 30. Portrait of Abdülmecid (Rupen Manas, TSM Paintings Gallery 17/118,
c.1850)
Figure 31. French Archives, Direction Politique, No.82, 15.10.1839 (Courtesy of
Edhem Eldem)
The renovation registers (tamirat defterleri) found in the Ottoman archives also
indicate that a large scale renovation process took place in the Topkapı Palace during
67
the first years of Abdülmecid's reign. Among the 18 registers from 1839 to 1856,
eight of the most comprehensive records belong to the year h.1255 (1839-40), the
year Abdülmecid was enthroned. According to these renovation registers dating
h.1255, the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu, the Harem quarters and service areas, the
sultan's apartments, the kiosk of Osman III, the apartments of the Mother Queen, the
apartments of the wives of the sultan, the apartments of the black eunuchs, the
apartments of the crown prince, the marble hall and the pool, and the royal baths in
the harem were renovated. Enderun quarters, which include the renovation of the
Audience Hall and the apartments of the pages (has odalılar, seferliler, kilerliler
odaları, babüssaade ağaları, silahdarağa, rikabdarağa daireleri, kuşhane, etc.) and
the service areas in the second court that include the imperial kitchens, imperial
stables, and the Council Hall, were restored, alongside the garden kiosks that include
the Mustafa Pasha Kiosk, Yalı Kiosk, Tiled Pavilion, and main gates of the palace.129
The renovation registers became less frequent after 1840 as we see one short record
every year or two until 1855. Thus it could be argued that during the first decade of
his reign, young sultan Abdülmecid used the Topkapı Palace, together with other
shoreline palaces in his capital, as a residence. He did not implement any radical
changes in the institutional or physical character of the Topkapı Palace during the
first years of his reign and from 1839 to 1855 was content with making the usual
technical and decorative renovations.
During these years many new and modern institutions were founded in line
with the Westernization and modernization efforts of the empire, especially in the
fields of military, education, communication, and health. Hence, numerous new and
large-scale public and military buildings were erected in Istanbul during this period,
129 Renovation registers dating h.1255 (1839-40): BOA TS.MA.d.5556; TS.MA.d.9917.37;
TS.MA.d.9917.38; TS.MA.d.9917.39; TS.MA.d.9917.40; TS.MA.d.9917.44; TS.MA.d.9917.46;
TS.MA.d.9917.47.
68
many of which were designed either by foreign architects or by the members of the
Balyan family.130 On June 13, 1843, construction of a new palace at Beşiktaş was
inaugurated. This neo-classical masonry structure was built on the place of Mahmud
II's timber Beşiktaş palace by Armenian architects Garabet Balyan, Nigoğos Balyan,
and Ohannes Serveryan. Apart from the Balyan family, who acted as the chief
imperial architects for generations and who were responsible for the majority of the
imperial structures, foreign architects started to appear during the reign of
Abdülmecid.
For example, Italian architects Gaspare Fossati and his brother Guiseppe
Fosatti, who designed the Russian Embassy of Constantinople, became prominent
architects of the Ottoman state, building many significant buildings of the era.131 One
of the first projects designed by the Fossati brothers was the Bab-ı Seraskeri Hospital
(1841-43) built at the location of the Old Palace at Beyazıt. A couple years later the
architects were commissioned for significant projects in and around the Sublime
Porte and the Topkapı Palace: the design of the Audience Hall (Arz Odası) at the
Sublime Porte (1844); the University building (Darülfünun) next to the Topkapı
Palace (1845-63); the Imperial Archives (Hazine-i Evrak) at the Sublime Porte
(1846-54); the Imperial Telegraph building (Telgrafhane-i Amire) by the
Soğukçeşme Gate (1855)132 (Figure 32). The architects were also responsible for the
restoration of the Hagia Sophia and documented the hidden mosaics they discovered
during the restoration work in 1847. Thus, within the context of the Tanzimat
130 Some major public buildings erected during this era include Taksim Military Hospital, Mekteb-i
Sanayi, Mecidiye barracks, Bâb-ı Seraskeri Hospital, Darülfünun, etc. for more detailed information
about the architectural milieu of the era, See, Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek.; Tuğlacı, The Role
of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture.; Paolo Girardelli, "Architecture, Identity, and Liminality:
On the use and meaning of Catholic spaces in late Ottoman Istanbul", Muqarnas 22, 2005, 233-264;
Afife Batur, "Batılılaşma Dönemi Osmanlı Mimarlığı", Tanzimat'tan Cumhuriyete Türkiye
Ansiklopedisi, c.4, 1038-1067; Can, “İstanbul’da 19. yuzyıl batılı ve levanten mimarların yapıları ve
koruma sorunları.”; Özlü, "Tanzimat'ın Mimarları: Fossati Biraderler".
131 Girardelli, “Raimondo d’Aronco.”
132 Eyice, "İstanbul'da İlk Telgrafhane-i Amire'nin Projesi (1855)", 61-72.
69
reforms, the Topkapı Palace and its close environs were adorned with several new
projects, reflecting the modernizing ideology of Abdülmecid133 (Figure 33). These
new projects displayed the desire for intellectual, technological, military, and
educational enhancements sought by the Tanzimat regime.134
Figure 32. The Telegraph building next to the Alay Kiosk (Eyice, Tarih Dergisi,
XXXIV, 1984, 72)
As an indication of the modernizing state, the state archives (hazine-i evrak) that had
been kept at the Defterhane Hazinesi, located between the Outer Treasury and the
Council Hall in the second court of the Topkapı Palace, were transferred to the new
and modern archive building constructed within the Sublime Porte in 1854.
According to Alev Erkmen, the new archive not only sustained the name of its
predecessor, but also indicated that pre-modern conceptions of Ottoman
133 Fossati, Haghe, and Beaumont, Aya Sofia, Constantinople, as Recently Restored by Order of H.M.
the Sultan Abdul-Medjid.
134 Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek.
70
governmental system were retained.135 Establishment of the telegraph building
adjacent to the palace walls, next to Alay Kiosk136 and the development of a modern
hospital at the Gülhane gardens of the palace could be recognized as signs of the
changing function and role of the palace gardens as well. The Imperial Mint located
in the first court of the palace was also modernized in line with the coinage reforms.
New machinery was brought from London, and British engraver and photographer
James Robertson was invited to work in the mint.137 These new facilities were
mentioned in the guidebooks138 and in travel accounts of the era as well. According
to Loredan Larchey, after its abandonment by Abdülmecid, the palace no longer
represented the majesty of the empire but became a ground for recent constructions
for the military, a medical academy, a French hospital, and for a technical school.139
Figure 33. The panoramic depiction of the Darülfünun, Hagia Sophia and the first
court of the Topkapı Palace (Gaspare Fossati, 1852)
Within this changing knowledge regime,140 another important phase took place in the
palace grounds. Located in the first court of the Topkapı Palace, the former church of
St. Irene, which was used as an armory, was reorganized to display the ancient arms
135 Erkmen, Geç Osmanli Dünyasında Mimarlık ve Hafıza : Arşiv, Jübile, Âbide, 68.
136 Gürkan, “Gülhane Parkı İçindeki Yapılar ve Alay Köşkü,” 43–45.
137 Öztuncay, Robertson, 10–14.
138 Joanne and Isambert, Itinéraire de l'Orient, 362.
139 Larchey, Un mois a Constantinople. Decembre 1854, 20.
140 For an indepth discussion of the epistomological regime of the era and its impact on architecture,
See, Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek.
71
and antiquities collection held within. Together with the reorganization of arms, a
double collection of Antique Weapons and Antiquities (Mecma-i Asar-ı Esliha and
Mecma-i Asar-ı Atika) was established in the atrium of St. Irene.141 This move is
acknowledged as the foundation of Ottoman museology and as an integral part of the
intellectual and cultural measure of the Tanzimat regime as stated by Eldem:142
A library, a museum of antiques, a museum of armament, a museum of
artillery, a university… This list of achievements planned and announced in
1846 alone does suggest that the Ottomans were intent on adding a cultural
dimension to the administrative and political transformations of the
Tanzimat.
The Ottomans used St. Irene as an armory since the fifteenth century. The edifice
was also used for storing Byzantine relics143 and antique pieces as spolia. These
valuable antique pieces were brought from various parts of the empire and later used
for Ottoman constructions.144 According to its inscription, the Ottoman armory was
repaired in 1726 during the reign of Ahmed III and was named Dar-ül Esliha. Bilge
Ar, whose unpublished dissertation on the Ottoman period of St. Irene argues that the
church was converted into an "armory-museum" that could be visited by the sultan
and his entourage following this restoration,145 During the era of Mahmud I, the
building underwent a second repair, and together with a gallery, a sultanic chamber
(taht-odası) was also added to the atrium at that time.146 These changes are
documented by Choiseul Gouffier, the French Ambassador of Constantinople from
1784 to 1792 who mentioned St. Irene as an arsenal where antique weapons were
kept.147
141 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 30.
142 Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”: A Critical Reassessment”.
143 Necipoğlu, “The Formation of an Ottoman Imperial Tradition”, 84.
144 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi.”
145 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 29.
146 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 128, 144.
147 Gouffier, Voyage Pittoresque dans l'Empire Ottoman,130.
72
During the early nineteenth century, some travellers visited St. Irene and
many of them cited the items of historical significance kept within, even if they
could not inspect the collection themselves. Hobhouse Broughton, who was not able
to enter to the building during his visit in 1809, wrote that the "armoury according to
report is filled with curious specimens of the military engines of the Byzantine
Greeks, armours, weapons." His account supports the idea that the armory was
shown to foreigners before the era of Mahmud II, perhaps as early as the eighteenth
century.148 Edward Daniel Clarke, during his visit to the Seraglio, around 1817,
managed to enter St. Irene (Figure 34) and gave a brief description of the ancient
weapons, shields, engines of the Greek emperors, and other trophies. Their
inspection however was interrupted and one of the guards said if they were curious
about old armor, they "might have full leisure to survey it, when carried on sumpterhorses,
in the great annual procession of the Grand Seignior, at the opening of the
Bairam." They later saw it exhibited.149 It is quite interesting that the items in the
imperial armory were presented during public processions, proving the significance
of the collection in the eyes of the Ottomans.
However, during the era of Mahmud II and following the abolishment of the
Janissaries, Janissary weapons were collected at St. Irene and the building was
overloaded with arms. Shiploads of armor were later be sold to Europe for the price
of scrap.150 According to Alus, during the same era a good number of valuable pieces
kept in St. Irene were transferred to the Imperial Treasury at the third court of the
Topkapı Palace.151 Sir Adolphus Slade, during his stay in Constantinople between
1829 and 1831, could not enter St. Irene and stated that: "we were told, nothing
148 Broughton, A journey through Albania, and other provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to
Constantinople during the years 1809 and 1810, 993.
149 Clarke, Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, 11.
150 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 155.
151 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 29.
73
remarkable inside; but we were not invited to judge for ourselves; a subject of
disappointment, since it is well known that the armory contains many suits of
Grecian armor, with other memorials of the empire." 152
Figure 34. Former Church of St. Irene in the first court of the Topkapı Palace (Sebah
& Joallier)
Thus, the establishment of a museum and the opening of double collection of
antiquities for the inspection of foreign officers (bazı ecnebi memurlarına irae ve
muayene ittirilmesi) should be considered an important step in the history of the
Topkapı Palace during the reign of Abdülmecid. The decree of 1846 rendered the
royal collections of the palace items of curiosity and investigation, and it was a
conscious decision to the display of these collections to the foreign gaze153 (Figure
152 Slade, Records of Travels in Turkey, Greece, etc., 462.
153 The story of conversion of St. Irene into the Archeological Museum is studied and investigated by
many scholars. For a more detailed analysis, see: Alus, Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu Meydanında Kain
Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani Züvvarına Mahsus Rehber 1. 1; Fıratlı, Nezih, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri
yilliǧi; Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi; Rona, Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi; Gerçek,
Türk müzeciligi; Atasoy and Çakmakoğlu Barut, Müzeler ve Müzecilik Bibliografyasi 1977-1995;
74
35). The aforementioned irade from February 2, 1846 clearly states that, similar to
the European countries that were establishing impressive museums to display
antiquities, the atrium of the Imperial Armory would also be organized as a museum
displaying antiquities154 (Appendix A1).
Figure 35. The plan and section of St. Irene showing the areas of display after its
reconfiguration as the Military Museum (Alus, 1920)
Shaw, Possessors and Possessed; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü; Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya
İrini ve Yakın Çevresi.”
154 BOA İ.MSM.17.387_01 (h.1262/15.2.1846) See, Appendix A.1.
"Darphane-i Amire civarında vaki Harbiye Anbarında zikr olunan asar-ı atikadan çend aded mevcud
olup ara sıra memalik-i mahruse-i şahanede dahi zuhur etmekte bulunmuş olduğuna binaen anbar-ı
mezkurun vera tarafında kain mahall müze ittihaz olunarak..."
75
The foundation of the double collection of antique weapons and antiquities in the
atrium of St. Irene epitomized an emerging interest for collecting and display. The
project was undertaken by the Marshall of Tophane Fethi Ahmet Pasha, who was
responsible for the armories of Istanbul155 (Figure 36). In St. Irene, the galleries of
the atrium were closed with walls and windows156 and the first gallery was dedicated
to the display of antique weapons, coats of arms, ancient helmets, bascules,
tambours, axes, and swords. While in the second gallery some antiquities, Egyptian
mummies, some sarcophagi, vases, jars and other antique objects were displayed
facing the first gallery.157 The entrance for each gallery was marked with a marble
gate and inscriptions were placed at each gate, stating the nature of the collection
(Figure 37).158 Sermet Muhtar Alus, mentioned that a sultanic chamber was also
constructed for Abdülmecid and decorated in a European style.159 Ar argues that this
room was renamed the "hücre-i padişah," and was the same room designed during
the era of Mahmud I, and reorganized and redecorated by Kirkor Amira Balyan
during the reign of Abdülmecid.160 The oval window of this small chamber (Figure
38) could be seen in the pictures from late nineteenth century.
155 In fact, many sources present Fethi Ahmet Pasha as the "founding father of museums" in Turkey,
however Edhem Eldem discredits this argument by stating that the Marshall of Tophane was
happened to undertake this task unintentionally. Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”:
A Critical Reassessment”.
156 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 82.
157 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 31.
158 The inscriptions "Mecma-i Asar-i Esliha" and "Mecma-i Asar-i Atika" could be seen at the top of
the atrium doors.
159 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 31.
“Sur un des cours du l’atrium, il emménagea une chambre de style Louis XVI, qu'il destinait au
souverain et il invitat le Sultan auquel il fit visiter l'installation de St. Irene."
160 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 195.
76
Figure 36. The atrium of St. Irene converted into a display area for antique
collections. The door to the collections and sultan’s chamber could be seen on the
right with an oval window (Abdulhamid II Albums, Library of Congress, c.1890)
Figure 37. The inscriptions at the entrance of galleries: Mecma-i Asar-i Atika and
Mecma-i Esliha-i Atika (Ar, 200)
Figure 38. The pictures of the Throne Room from outside and inside (Ar, 375, 377)
77
During the same period, the Imperial Library, located in the third court of the
Topkapı Palace, opened its doors to foreigners for research and investigation. An
Ottoman archival document dating February 1846 declares that the Prussian
government sent a scholar to Istanbul to conduct research on Greek and Latin
manuscripts, and permission was given to investigate the collections at the Topkapı
Palace. According to this decree, it was not possible to take the antique books outside
the palace grounds as the books were kept either in St. Irene or at the Imperial
Treasury. Hence, the books of interest to the researcher would be sent to a tower by
the Lale/Lala gardens161 (perhaps Hekimbaşı tower) and had to be consulted there.162
A couple weeks later on February 25, 1846 the news about this development
appeared in the German newspapers and, on March 20, it was published by the
Moniteur Universal. According to this title, the sultan let foreigners visit his personal
library and this privilege had been obtained thanks to the efforts of Reşit Pasha.
According to this source, the sultan also ordered the inauguration of a museum that
would be open to all who were educated in science and art.163 Apparently, the
Topkapı Palace and the imperial collections kept within were a source of curiosity
161 The gardens between the Baghdad Kiosk and Hekimbası Tower at the fourth court of the palace is
recalled as Tulip (Lale) gardens but also known as Lala gardens.
162 BOA İ.HR.1514 (14.2.1846) I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Ali Akyıldız for pointing this document to
my attention:
“Erbab-ı fünundan Prusyalı Mösyö Betman nam kimsenin . . . Almanya’da fenn-i tevarih için tesis
olunmuş olan meclis tarafından Dersaadet’te ve Saray-ı Hümayun-ı Şahanede bulunan bazı Yunan ve
Latin kitaplarının taharri ve muayenesi zımnında kendine memuriyet verilmiş olduğundan o makule
kütub-ı atika bulunan mahallerin muayene ettirilmesi hususuna müsaade-i seniyye-i şahane erzan
buyurulmasını elçi-i muma-ileyh dahi ifade ve iltimas edip merkumun taharri eylediği şeyler
zikrolunan Yunan ve Latin kitapları demek olarak bunlar ise bazı pek eski kütüphanelerde ve suret-i
işara göre Cephane-i Amirede bulunabileceğine...”
[Answer:] "Vakıa bu misüllü kütüb-i atika-i muteberenin Hazine-i Hümayunda ve sair mahallerde
mevcut bulunup ta o makule izhar arzu eden muteber adamların muayene etmesine ruhsat-ı seniyye
erzan buyurulduğu . . . kütub-ı mezkure Saray-ı Hümayunda kain Lale Bahçesi nam mahalde Kule
tabir olunan mevkiye vaz’ ettirilip malum-ı alileri buyurulduğu vechile bunlar vaktiyle Hazine-i
Hümayuna vaz olunmuş olmak cihetiyle bir adedinin harice çıkarılması uyamayacağından o makule
istek eden muteber adamlar olduğu halde bi’l-istizan kütüb-i mezkurenin mahal-i mezkurda muayane
ve ru’yet ettirilmesi hususuna ruhsat ve müsaade-i seniye-i hazret-i mülukane erzan buyurulması…”
163 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü, 391.; Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”: A
Critical Reassessment”.
78
and mystery for the Europeans. Thus, the doors of the palace, once strictly closed to
the foreign gaze were gradually opening during the course of the nineteenth century.
The establishment of the double collections at the former church of St. Irene
also marked the evolving consciousness of antiquities within the Ottoman realm. As
early as 1847, a collaboration initiative with the British Museum for the finding and
preservation of antiquities was drafted.164 According to this proposal, all
archeological findings belonged to the Ottoman State and only one of twin items
could be given to foreign states. This could be interpreted as the Ottoman desire for
the possession of archeological items, which were of certain value for Europe. It also
demonstrated a rising Ottoman consciousness of the past and a simultaneous desire
to possess the past and future of Ottoman lands.165 Whether as a result of emulation,
competition, or possession, it is a fact that an interest in the pre-Ottoman past of the
empire also emerged during the reign of Abdülmecid. Antique objects began to be
collected and displayed within close proximity of the Topkapı Palace. This new
focus indicates how the historical core of the Ottoman capital, particularly the
Topkapı Palace, the Sublime Porte, the Gülhane gardens, Hagia Sophia, and the
Hippodrome, were adapted for new roles and were positioned as showcases for
Ottoman interest in the cultural realm of history.
The transfer of the ancient costumes collection (Mecma-i Elbise-i Atika), also
known as the Janissary Museum, from St. Irene to its new location at Ibrahim Pasha
Palace at Sultanahmet166 could be considered a complementary step in creating a
historical and touristic center. For example, the antique pieces found with the
164 Eldem, " Osmanlı Dönemi'nde Arkeoloji, Koruma Ve Müzecilik: İlk Adımlar", Mimarlar Odası
Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet'e Türkiye'de Mimari Koruma Kültürü Konferansları, 26.11.2016.
165 For a detailed discussion on the topic, See: Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums,
Archeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman empire; Bahrani, Çelik, and Eldem,
Scramble for the Past : A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman empire, 1753-1914.
166 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 212; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü,
392.
79
precincts of the Topkapı Palace and the snail head of the Serpentine Column found
during the construction of Darülfünun were sent to St. Irene for display.167 The
Byzantine sarcophagi found in the second court of the Topkapı Palace could not be
transferred to St. Irene but their place was marked with an inscription dating h.1263
(15.6.1847), which indicates that they are to be carried to the museum later168 (Figure
39). These cases epitomized the changing perspective of the era and redefined
networks between institutions, buildings, places, and actors. Accordingly, not only
the pre-Ottoman past, but the Ottoman patrimony also started gaining attention. In
addition to the restoration of Hagia Sophia, an order was also issued for the
restoration of the fountain of Ahmed III, which was to be made without damaging its
original shape.169 Hence, it could be stated that early signs of consciousness towards
authenticity, preservation, revivalism, and the relevance of the Ottoman or pre-
Ottoman past began to emerge during this era, in parallel with the development of
''tourism'' in the Ottoman lands.
167 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 210.
168 Ebersolt, Mission archéologique de Constantinople., 2.
169 BOA A.MKT.NZD.151.90 (6 L 1271 / 22.06.1855)
"Bab-ı Hümayun haricinde vaki sebil ve çeşme harablaşması ve bir müddet daha tamir olunmadığı
halde külliyen harab olacağı bedihi bulunmuş olduğundan heyet-i haliyesi bozulmayacak ve resmine
halel gelmeyecek suretde zikr olunan sebil ve çeşmenin tamiri..."
80
Figure 39. The inscription on a column in the second court stating the place of the
Byzantine sarcophagi, which was later moved to the Imperial Museum (2017)
2.2.2 Relocation of the Ottoman court and the emergence of a new imperial
architectural language
The Crimean War (1853-56) that took place between Russia and the joint forces of
Ottoman empire, Britain, France, and Sardinia was another turning point during the
reign of Abdülmecid. This war proved that the Ottoman empire needed financial,
military, and political alliance with Europe to maintain its unity. It also intensified
the Westernization and modernization of the empire through fostering interaction and
communication with Europe. The financial burden of the war exceeded expectations,
leading the Ottoman empire to take foreign loans for the first time in its history, and
consequently indebted large sums to European forces. Therefore, it could be said that
the Crimean war brought about the end of Ottoman financial, political, and military
autonomy and also facilitated the establishment of deeper cultural, intellectual, and
ideological ties with Western Europe. During the war, Istanbul hosted European
81
military forces and several educational, medical, and military institutions were
founded to respond to the needs of allied forces housed in various parts of the capital.
Within the Topkapı Palace, the existing hospital at the Gülhane gardens was
expanded,170 a new hospital building was constructed nearby,171 and the unfinished
building of the Darülfünun was also used as a French hospital.172 Travel accounts of
the era confirm that during the Crimean war, the hospitals within the palace grounds
were assigned to French soldiers.173 The French forces also renovated a fifteen-meter
high lighthouse that marked the southern edge of the Seraglio by the Sea of
Marmara174 (Figure 40). Right after the end of the Crimean War, on February 18,
1856, the Islahat Fermanı was declared and signed at the Paris convention, securing
individual rights and equal citizenship of Muslim and non-Muslim Ottoman subjects.
In fact, this decree was the immediate result of the Crimean War and is recognized as
the direct intervention of European states into the internal affairs of the Ottoman
empire.175
170 Düzalan, “Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi,” 60.
171 BOA HR.MKT.98.91 (19 R 1271 / 9.1.1855)
"Gülhane hastanesinde ölen Fransa asakir-i muavinesi emvatı içün müdeffin ittihaz olunmak üzere..."
BOA İ.DH.1288.101401 (01.B 1271 / 20.3.1855)
"Asakir-i Nizamiye-i Hazret-i Şahane hastaganı için Gülhane Hastahanesi civarında dört - beş yüz
hasta istihab eder sundurma heyetinde ariyet olarak çend aded ebniyenin sürat-i inşası derece-i
ehemmiyetde olmasıyla bade lazım gelen defteri takdim olunmak üzre ebniye-i mezkurenin hemen
inşası..."
172 Akyürek, "Bir Hayalin Peşinde: Sultan Abdülmecid Döneminde Eğitimde Reform ve
Darülfünun’un Kuruluşu" in Kahraman et al., Sultan Abdülmecid ve dönemi (1823-1861); Tuğlacı,
The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture.
173 Larchey, Un mois a Constantinople, 18.
174 "Phare de la Pointe du Serail", Journal de Constantinople, 1.12.1857.
175 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, 67–68.; Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi 5, v.2, 1-6.
82
Figure 40. Newspaper article concerning the new lighthouse at the Seraglio Point
(Journal de Constantinople, 18.2.1856) / Announcement of the inauguration of the
Dolmabahçe Palace (Journal de Constantinople, 17.7.1856)
Following the war, Abdülmecid officially moved to his recently finished
Dolmabahçe Palace. This ostentatious palace was completed in thirteen years,
possessed a façade of 600 meters, and was finalized in 1856 (Figure 41). Armenian
architects Garabet Balyan, his son Nigoğos Balyan, and Ohannes Serveryan were
responsible for its construction. According to İlber Ortaylı, the main reason for
constructing the Dolmabahçe Palace was a lack of large ceremonial venues in the
Topkapı Palace that would meet the standards of diplomatic audiences during the
nineteenth century.176 Cengiz Göncü and Alyson Wharton emphasize the increasing
role of diplomacy in the Ottoman politics during the nineteenth century and argue
that the function of the new palace was to create a setting for meeting the demands of
diplomatic protocol for international negotiations177 (Figure 42). Hakan Karateke
highlights the role of diplomacy and changing traditions especially for audition
176 Ortaylı, "Niçin Dolmabahçe?", Dolmabahçe Konferansları, İstanbul, 22.2.2010.
177 Göncü, “Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın İnşa Süreci, Mekan ve Teşkilat.”; Wharton, The Architects of
Ottoman Constantinople. The Balyan Family and the History of Ottoman Architecture., 115.
83
ceremonies during the nineteenth century.178Apparently, the Topkapı Palace, with its
spatial organization in line with traditional Ottoman ruling system and protocol
rituals, had become inadequate to meet the demands of the nineteenth century
protocol rules, which developed with increasing complexity and ostentation.
Figure 41. The Ceremonial Gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace during and after the
construction (Getty Archive, 1852; Getty Archive, 1865-70)
Figure 42. Sea façade of the Dolmabahçe Palace (Selman Sarıhan Collection)
According to Pars Tuğlacı, Abdülmecid resided temporarily in the Yıldız Kiosk
during the construction of the Dolmabahçe Palace, rather than staying at the Topkapı
178 Karateke, Paditeke, ERO_ITEM!, 1466eke
84
Palace.179 Additionally, the news published at Journal de Constantinople indicates
that Abdülmecid also resided at the Çırağan Palace before moving to the newly built
Dolmabahçe Palace.180 The royal move that took place on June 11, 1856 was
announced at Ceride-i Havadis, which praised its architectural aspects as well as the
decoration and furnishing181 (Figure 43):
As the Imperial Shoreline Palace of Beşiktaş came to a conclusion and its
necessary furnishings were delightfully and elegantly prepared and its
decoration and fabrics are close to finish, his majesty the sultan gloriously
arrived to the aforementioned shoreline palace on the third Friday of this
month.
Figure 43. Announcement of Abdülmecid's move to the Dolmabahçe Palace
(Ceride-i Havadis, no. 791, 7 L 1272 / 11.6.1856)
179 Tuğlacı, The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture, 118.
180 "Le Sultan au bal costumé", Journal de Constantinople, no.673, 4.2.1856; "Le Sultan au bal de
l'Ambassade de France", Journal de Constantinople, no.674, 7.2.1856.
181 Ceride-i Havadis, no.791, 7 L 1272 / 11.6.1856
"Beşiktaş Sahilsarayı Hümayunu reside-i hüsn-i hitam ve mefruşat-ı mükteziyesi dahi bigayat-ı latif ve
zarif olarak hazırlanıp ferş ve tezyini karin-i tamam olmuş olduğundan mah-ı carinin üçüncü cuma
günü öğleden sonra sahilsaray-ı mezkure bil-şevketvala celal-i nakil-i Hümayun şevketmakrun-ı
hazret-i padişahi şerefpirai vuku' olmuşdur."
85
Remarkably, the new palace built on the location of Mahmud's shoreline palace was
still defined as the Beşiktaş Palace at Ceride-i Havadis, rather than the Dolmabahce
Palace. The July 17, 1856 issue of the Journal de Constantinople announced the
inauguration of the new palace of Dolmabahçe (palais de Dolma-Bagtché) with an
imperial dinner.182 The article also praised the rich and ostentatious decoration of the
reception hall and its architectural features as well. Following the relocation of
Abdülmecid and his royal harem to this new, ''delightful and elegant'' (latif ve zarif)
palace, the residential function of the Topkapı Palace came to an end. A new chapter
in the life of the imperial complex has started.
Even though the modernizing ruler abandoned the Topkapı Palace as an
imperial residence, renovation and construction activities continued. Especially
following the Enderun fire of 1856, the architectural morphology and functional
composition of the third and fourth courts were transformed. The comprehensive
remodeling of the third court modified the Audience Hall (Arz Odası), the Enderun
School, the apartments of the White Eunuchs, the chambers of the Expeditiary
Forces (Seferli Odası), the chambers of the Commissary Corps (Kilerli Odası) and
the chambers of the Treasury Corps (Hazineli Odası).183 The Audience Hall was
severely damaged by the fire and remodeled completely. Two monogram
inscriptions praising sultan Abdülmecid were placed on either side of the entrance to
the chamber after the renovations184 (Figure 44). Another inscription dating 1858
182 "Diner Impérial", Journel de Constantinople, No.720, 17.7.1856.
"Ainsi que nous l'avions annoncé, le grand banquet donné par S. M. I. le Sultan pour inaugurer son
nouveau palais de Dolma-Bagtché et pour feter la conclusion de la paix, a eu lieu hier, dans la
manifique salle du trone, resplendissante d'or, de merbres précieux, des feux de mille lumières: le
lustre qui est d'une beauté des plus remarquables, attirait surtout les regards. . . . le grand banquet
donné par S. M. I. le Sultan pour inaugurer son nouveau palais de Dolma-Bagtché et pour feter la
conclusion de la paix, a ey lieu hier, dans la magnifique salle du trone, replendissante d'or, de
marbres précieux, des feux de mille lumiéres..."
183 Müller-Wiener and Sayın, İstanbul’un tarihsel topografyası.
184 Ayık, “Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve Binalarında Bulunan Kitabelerin Bir Coğrafi Bilgi
Sistemine İşlenmesi, Harita Üzerinde Gösterimi ve İnternet Ortamında Paylaşımı,” 57.
86
was placed at the entrance of the chambers of the Treasury Corps, informing us that
Abdülmecid has always been constructing new and beautiful edifices.185
Figure 44. Two inscriptions praising Abdülmecid, located on both sides of the
entrance gate to the Audience Hall (2017)
According to Abdurrahman Şeref and Sedad Hakkı Eldem, the chambers of the
Kilerli Corps were demolished by Dayezade Mehmed Bey and converted into the
chamber of the Chief Treasurer (Hazine Kethüdası odası).186 Additionally, the
buildings located in front of the chambers of the Seferli corps, such as the
nakkaşhane, the apartments of the chief of the Seferli corps, and the dining halls of
the çuhadarağalar were also demolished. The chambers of the Seferli Corps were
pulled back and positioned in line with the galleries of the Imperial Treasury.
According to the accounts of Ata Bey, the Chief Treasurer Dayezade Mehmed Bey
185 Ayık, 70.
"Şehriyâr-ı bende-perver hazret-i Abdülmecid
Daima itmektedir icâd-ı âsâr-ı güzin
İşte yaptırdı hazine koğuşun ferman idüb"
186 Eldem and Akozan, Topkapı Sarayı, 26; Abdurrahman Şeref and Balcı, Sarayın sırları
(Abdurrahman Şeref); Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih Köşkü ve Tarihsel
Evrimi Üzerine Gözlemler.”
87
also demolished the apartments of the superintendents of the Treasury corps, the
Commissary corps, and the Seferli corps, in addition to damaging the ancient
buildings remaining from the era of Mehmed II.187 The two passages connecting the
third and the fourth courts were also opened during this era (Figure 45).
Figure 45. The passages that were opened during the mid-19th century connecting
the third court and the fourth court (2016)
The spatial changes that took place in the third court were in line with Mahmud II's
reforms and redefined the institutional character of the palace. According to Mahmud
II's reorganization of the Enderun system, the Commissary pages (Kilerliler) and the
187 Tayyarzade Ata Bey and Arslan, Tarih-i Enderun, I:415.
"Bin iki yüz altmış beş [1848-49] tarihinde her nasılsa hasbe'l-kader hazine kethüdası olan Seferlili
Daye-zâde Mehmed Beg, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Haz hazretlerinin binalarından olup gayet metin
olarak kaş ve rokoka hükmine girmiş olan yaldızlı oymalı gayet müzeyyen, metin ve rasin deva'ir-i
âsâr-ı âtikayı ve kilar koğuşunu külliyeden hedm iderek kilar koğuşını bi't-tagyir hazine kethüdası
dairesi tanzim ve Murad han-ı Rabi asrında yapılmış olan muntazam hane-i hassayı ta'til ile has otayı
eski dülbend agası yerine nakl ü tersim ve hazine ve kilar ve seferli kethüdaları yerlerini bütün bütün
hedm iderek bunca eslaf-ı selatin-ı izamin âsâr-ı âliyelerini bilâ-mûcib mahv itmiş..."
88
pages of the Privy Chamber (Has Odalılar), who were in direct service of the sultan,
were disfunctioned and the Chief Treasurer (Hazine Kethüdası) became responsible
for the management of the Enderun. Therefore, it could be stated that Abdülmecid
recognized the institutional changes implemented by Mahmud II and realized them
with series of architectural modifications. A painting depicting the third court before
the fire of 1856 (Figure 46) shows the scope of the alterations implemented during
this era. Comparing this painting with the photograph of Kargapoulos (Figure 47), it
can be seen that the front part of the Seferli rooms were demolished and brought in
line with the galleries of the Treasury. A free-standing building seen in the middle of
the third court has also disappeared (Figure 48). This building could be the apartment
of the Falconers (Doğancılar Koğuşu), as marked in the Bobovius plan of the
palace.188 A map found in the palace archives provides information about the new
configuration of the third court. Sedad Hakkı Eldem suggests that it could be an
architectural plan of the renovations implemented after the Enderun fire of 1856.189
The plan clearly shows the new arrangement of the Enderun court and the novel
functions given to the apartments (Figure 49).
188 Ali Ufki et al., Topkapı Sarayı’nda yaşam.
189 Eldem and Akozan, Topkapı Sarayı, 73. It is known that reproductions of this plan existed in the
palace archives, however the original document can not be found.
89
Figure 46. The Third court before the fire of 1855 (Topkapı Palace Museum
Paintings Gallery, No. 17/709, Şehabeddin Efendi, c.1850, from Eldem and Akozan,
1982)
Figure 47. The galleries of the Imperial Treasury and the Seferli Rooms following
the renovations (Kargopoulos, TSMA)
Figure 48. The third court today, looking from the Imperial Treasury towards the
Audience Hall (2016)
90
Figure 49. The plan of the third court, dated mid-nineteenth century (Eldem and
Akozan, 1982, L: 66)
A renovation register from the Ottoman archives dated 1856 (h.1272) provides
important clues about the nature of the renovations conducted in the Enderun court
and the fourth court of the palace. (Appendix A2) The first part of the document
dated 21 Ca 1272 (29.1.1856) stated that the rooms around the Chamber of Sacred
Relics, the apartments of the Privy Chamber corps, and the Enderun Mosque next to
it were renovated. It also refers to the renovations made in the first chamber of the
Imperial Treasury and mentions that the cases with windows (camlı dolaplar) in this
chamber are to be repaired. This proves that the first chamber of the Imperial
Treasury was also organized as a display and opened to foreign visitors during the
91
reign of Abdülmecid.190 According to Nedret Bayraktar and Selma Delibaş, who
conducted extensive research on the treasury registers (hazine defterleri) of the
nineteenth century, the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury was reorganized and
opened for foreign visitors during the Crimean War.191
The second part of the aforementioned document, dated 10 Z 1272
(12.8.1856) mentions the demolition of the Çadır Kiosk, the Sofa Mosque, and the
Sofalı apartments. The document also mentions that the apartment of the Chief of
Enderun (Ağa Dairesi), previously known as the apartments of the Commissary
Corps (Kilerli koğuşu) (Figure 50 - Figure 51), was also renovated within the scope
of this project, and was carried out by Aron Kalfa and Arakil Kalfa.192 This register
not only gives us information on the scale of the renovation project carried by
Abdülmecid after his move to the Dolmabahçe Palace, but also provides details
about the costs of the project and the actors taking part in it. According to this
document, the project was realized under the direction of Chief Imperial Treasurer
Mehmed Bey (Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüda-i Esbakı Mehmed Bey).193
Apart from Ata Bey, who mentioned the works of Dayezade Mehmed Bey in
his accounts; Tezakir-i Cevdet also provides interesting details about this personage.
190 BOA TS.MA.d.4613 (21 CA 1272 / 29.1.1856) See, Appendix A.2.
"1272 senesinin Cemaziyelevvelin 21. günü tarihiyle daire-i hümayun dahilinde vaki Hazine-i
Hümayun-ı Şahanenin birinci hanesi tamiriyle camlı dolapların masarıfatı ve Hırka-i Şerif civar-ı
aliyyesinde bazı mahal-i âlilerin tamiri ve Hırka-i Saadet hademelerinin müceddeden yapılmış olan
koğuş masarıfatıyla ittisalinde vaki’ Cami-i Şerifin tamir ve termimi ve yollarının tesviyesi ve demir
tulumba masraflarıyla . . ."
191 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri, 13.
192 TS.MA.d.4613 (10 Z CA 1272 /12.8.1856) See, Appendix A.2.
"1272 senesi Zilhicce’nin 10. günü tarihli Çadır Kasr-ı Hümayunu şahane ve Sofa Cami-i Şerifi ve
Sofalı Ocağının hedmiyle sabıkda Kilerli Koğuş tabir olunan mahal yapılmış olan Ağa Dairesinin
masarıfatları olarak yedi mahda sarf olunan eşya-i malzeme ve amele yevmiyelerinin masarıfatları
kafesi Arakil Kalfa yediyle olduğu . . ."
193 BOA TS.MA.d.4613 (1272 / 1856) See, Appendix A.2.
"Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüda-i Esbakı Mehmed Bey'in zaman-ı aliyelerinde Daire-i Hümayun-ı
Şahanede icra buyurulan ebniye-i aliyelerinin tamir ve termimi ve bazı mahallerin müceddeden
inşasına dair evrak-ı perakende."
92
According to the accounts of Cevdet Pasha, gossip about the Chief Treasurer
Mehmed Bey scandalized palace circles. According to rumor, Mehmed Bey was
accused of dismantling some treasures among the sacred relics, which included the
vessel of John the Baptist and the sword of Constantine, and throwing them to the
sea. As a result of these accusations, the Chief Treasurer was imprisoned in the
Topkapı Palace while the viziers controlled the Treasury of the Sacred Relics and
confirmed that everything was in place. Later it was understood that the appointment
of Mehmed Bey to the Chief Treasury and the head of the Enderun organization
created unrest among the Treasury pages because it did not follow traditional codes
of promotion, as he was originally a member of the Seferli corps. As a result the
Treasury servants mislead him and accused him of throwing sacred objects into the
sea and of demolishing the imperial mosque. This mosque is mentioned in Cevdet
Pasha's account, and is likely the Sofa Mosque, which was demolished and rebuilt
during this era.194
Figure 50. Apartments of the Kilerli corps converted into the apartments of the
Chief Imperial Treasurer, the view from the third court (2016)
194 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, 18–19. A footnote stating that "he removed even the
sultanic mosque" (bu sırada Sultan Camii'ni dahi kaldırmış) was later crossed out in the original text.
93
Figure 51. The newly built apartments of the Chief Treasurer and the Treasury
Corps as seen from the fourth court (2016)
Like his predecessor Mahmud II, Abdülmecid also continued renovating the Topkapı
Palace and added new structures to the most visible parts of the palace, even after he
stopped residing there. In fact, it could be said that the architectural program of
Abdülmecid emulated the model of Mahmud II, and similar structures were
constructed at similar locations of the palace. According to the new Ottoman visual
ideology, the virtual existence of the ruler was represented and enhanced through the
architectural and symbolic visibility.
In addition to the renovation of the Enderun Court, Abdülmecid also focused
on the fourth court and implemented a large-scale construction and landscaping
project at the Üçüncüyeri section of the palace gardens. This quite prominent and
visible site at the Topkapı Palace was reshaped in line with the new imperial
architectural language of the reforming sultan (Figure 52). Within this framework,
Abdülmecid reconstructed Mahmud II's Sofa Mosque and constructed a new
imperial pavilion right next to it in 1858. The Çadır Kiosk and the Üçüncüyeri Kiosk
94
were demolished and the New Kiosk (Kasr-ı Cedid) or the Mecidiye Pavilion (Figure
53) was built at the fourth court of the palace, at a specific location overlooking the
Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus, and the Asian shores of the city. One of the inner
gates of the palace, Üçüncüyeri gate, which provided access to the fourth court from
the Gülhane gardens was also remodeled.
Figure 52. The Mecidiye Kiosk and the Kule Kiosks within the context of
Abdülmecid's renovation project of the fourth court (Gertrude Bell Archive, 1911)
Figure 53. The Mecidiye Kiosk, Northern and Southern Façades (2016)
95
Many sources indicate that the Mecidiye Kiosk was built in 1858-59,195 yet, based on
an archival document, Cengiz Göncü, argues that Mecidiye Kiosk was built in
1843.196 However, renovation registers from the Ottoman archives clearly mentions
that Çadır Kiosk, Sofa Mosque, and Sofalı chambers were demolished in 1856
(h.1272).197 It is known that Mecidiye Kiosk was built on the location of Çadır
Kiosk, after its demolishment (Figure 54 - Figure 55). Even though the Mecidiye
Kiosk has no inscriptions, Sofa Mosque, which was renovated during the
construction of the area had an inscription dating 1858/59 (h.1275).198
Figure 54. The outer gardens of the palace and the Goth Column before the
remodeling of Abdülmecid (Preaulx, The Gardens of the Seraglio with European
visitors inspecting the Column of the Goths, Constantinople, Victoria and Albert
Museum Collection, 1800-1820)
195 Ortaylı, Osmanlı sarayında hayat; Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 269.
196 BOA D.DRB.HAT.28.25 (C 1258 / 7.1843) "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda müceddeden inşa
olunan daire" cited in Göncü, “Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın İnşa Süreci, Mekan ve Teşkilat,” 19.
197 BOA TS.MA.d.4613 (10 Z 1272 / 12.8.1856) See, Appendix A.2.
"1272 senesi Zilhicce’nin 10. günü tarihli Çadır Kasrı Hümayun-ı Şahane ve Sofa Cami-i Şerifi ve
Sofalı Ocağının hedmiyle..."
198 Eldem and Akozan, Topkapı Sarayı, 54.
96
Figure 55. Photograph of the Üçüncüyeri Kiosk and the Goth Column before the
construction of the Mecidiye Kiosk (Eldem and Akozan, 1982, L:189)
According to Tuğlacı, the Mecidiye Kiosk was designed by Serkis Balyan199 and
reflected the imperial architectural language of the period with its eclectic blend of
Neo-classical, Baroque and Rococo elements, creating a visual connection with the
newly built Dolmabahçe Palace. This single-storey structure is the last of the
imperial pavilions built in the hanging gardens of the Topkapı Palace and displays
the changing architectural morphology of the era. Abdülmecid left his imperial stamp
at the palace of his ancestors, even after he left it for a more modern residence.
The new pavilion had a rectangular plan of 15 meters by 38 meters and rose
on the ancient basements of the Çadır Kiosk and the Üçüncüyeri Kiosk.200 The
rectangular terrace parallel to the structure, opened up to one of the most spectacular
views of the Seraglio, overlooking both the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus. Not
only the architectural style but the interior decoration of this New Kiosk reflected the
199 Tuğlacı, The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture, 531.
200 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 270.
97
European taste of the ruler. Decorated with Louis Philip style French furniture, the
pavilion also housed many paintings, sculptures, mirrors, chandeliers, European
accessories, clocks, and textiles as well. A picture from the late nineteenth century
depicts the portrait of Abdülmecid in the background and the small-scale
reproduction of the Trajan's Column in the foreground (Figure 56 - Figure 57).
According to the memoirs of Leopold de Belgique, who visited Constantinople in
1860, the column of Trajan was a gift from the Pope to Abdülmecid, and was kept at
the Dolmabahçe Palace at that time together with other gifts sent from France and
Russia.201 The column must have transferred to the Mecidiye Pavilion later.
Figure 56. Interior of the Mecidiye Kiosk (TSMA, c.1890)
201 Léopold et al., Voyage à Constantinople, 54.
98
Figure 57. The interior and exterior views of the Mecidiye Kiosk (Elia Archives,
c.1920)
Abdülmecid’s new pavilion was built for him to rest and to host guests during his
visits to the Topkapı Palace. This modern pavilion also attests to Abdülmecid's
disdain for traditional Ottoman architecture and pre-modern life-style. Even during
his short visits to the palace, he preferred to spend time in a European setting. The
new pavilion was also used to present the modern face of the Empire to foreign
guests as well.
The Southern façade of the Mecidiye Kiosk opens up to the Sea of Marmara
via a marble terrace, and its Northern façade overlooks the Gülhane gardens. The
fourth court of the palace, also known as the Tulip Gardens was separated from the
Gülhane gardens via retaining walls. The sultan habitually accessed Topkapı Palace
from the sea and access to the fourth court from the outer gardens was secured with
the Üçüncüyeri Gate (Figure 58). During the renovations of Abdülmecid two
noticeable guardrooms, known as the Kule Kiosks, on either side of the gate were
constructed. The morphological similarity between this new gate and the Imperial
gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace and the Tophane clock-tower communicated the new
imperial architectural language and symbolic stamp of the ruler (Figure 59).
99
Figure 58. The Kule Kiosks and the Üçüncüyeri gate between the Gülhane gardens
and the fourth court (2016)
Figure 59. Shared architectural language of the time: The guard tower by the
Imperial gate of the Dolmabahçe Palace / The Kule Kiosk guard tower by the
Üçüncüyeri gate of the Topkapı Palace / The Tophane clock-tower built during the
reign of Abdülmecid (2017)
A small structure right next to the Mecidiye Kiosk, recalled as the Chamber of
Imperial Robes (Esvap Odası) was also erected as a part of Abdülmecid's project for
100
reorganization of the area (Figure 60). In this small chamber, the visitors dressed in
their ceremonial clothes before being admitted to the presence of the sultan or before
attending the imperial ceremonies.202 The structure visually and architecturally
complemented the Mecidiye Kiosk and the Kule Kiosks with its rectangular form,
architectural style, and decorative aspects. The Sofa Mosque, which was constructed
by Mahmud II, was also remodeled within the context of this project and
complemented with matching decorative elements on its façade.
The remodeling of the third and fourth courts of the Topkapı Palace by
Abdülmecid could be interpreted as an attempt to mark the royal existence of the
ruler, who has abandoned the palace. The most secluded and privy areas of the
palace, where the sultan traditionally lived with his pages and with his harem, now
displayed the modernizing face of the empire and were converted into an area of
prestige that communicated the existence of the non-existing ruler. It could also be
stated that, with increasing European sightseers to the Topkapı Palace, the Enderun
court including the Audience Hall, the Imperial Library, and the Imperial Treasury
became points of touristic interest. The Bagdad and Revan Kiosks and hanging
gardens of the palace also attracted the attention of the foreign visitors, who were
mostly hosted in the fourth court as a sign of Ottoman hospitality. Thus, the new
configuration of the Enderun court and the Tulip gardens was in line with the new
function of the palace: a show-case of Ottoman modernity for the visitors, that often
included the sultan himself.
202 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 271.
101
Figure 60. The Chamber of Imperial Robes (Esvap Odası), the Sofa Mosque, and
the Mecidiye Kiosk (2016)
Another quite significant change in the architectural morphology of the Topkapı
Palace was the renovation of the Tower of Justice (Figure 61). No archival records,
inscriptions, or construction documents could be found about this principal
modification. The timber kiosk resting on the masonry tower was replaced with an
elaborated neo-classical tower. In fact, many sources refer to this existing tower as
the tower of Mahmud II, in reference to the inscriptions found in front of the Council
Hall. However, in James Robertson's panorama of Constantinople dated 1855, the
older version of the tower could be seen from a distance (Figure 62). Another, much
closer photograph was taken by Claude-Marie Ferrier in 1857,203 clearly depicting
the wooden tower-kiosk of Mahmud II. Another panorama dated 1862 shows the
Seraglio and the newly built Tower of Justice204 (Figure 63). An undated photograph
203 Léopold et al., Voyage à Constantinople, 141.
204 Öztuncay, Dersaadet’in fotoğrafçıları, 700.
102
by James Robertson shows the Seraglio from the sea of Marmara and the Tower of
Justice in its new form. These two interesting photographs published by Bahattin
Öztuncay (2003) and by Sedad Hakkı Eldem in Reminiscences of Istanbul (1979)
also show the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu at the tip of the peninsula, showing the
state of the palace before the fire of 1863 (Figure 64).205 It is known that Robertson
came to Istanbul in 1851 with the order of Abdülmecid to work at the Ottoman
Imperial Mint and started professional photography in 1853. Most of his
photographic works were dated to the reign of Abdülmecid and exhibited in various
parts of Europe from 1853 to 1860.206
Figure 61. The new Tower of Justice with its neo-classical tower (TSMA, Abdullah
Fréres)
205 Eldem, İstanbul Anıları - Reminiscences of Istanbul, 4.
206 Öztuncay, Robertson, 240–42.
103
Figure 62. Panorama of Constantinople (İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, J.
Robertson, 1855)
Figure 63. 1862 Panorama of Constantinople by Pascal Sebah (Bahattin Öztuncay,
2003)
Figure 64. Seraglio and the newly built Tower of Justice before the fire of 1863 (J.
Robertson, from Eldem, 1979, 4)
104
Even though, I could not find any precise documents dating the construction of the
new tower, I assume that the renovation was initiated during the era of
Abdülmecid207, as the last phase of his project for refurbishing the Topkapı Palace
and for leaving his imperial mark at the most visible part of the palace. The new
tower replacing the timber cihannuma was of masonry and characterized by three
columns with Corinthian capitals on each corner. Arched windows, covering almost
the whole façade, defined the elongated body of the tower. A frieze, finishing the
body of the structure, was carried by detached columns and the conic spire of the
tower was also replaced with an angled octagonal form. The neo-classical
architectural language of the new tower was also in line with the architectural style
of the era of Abdülmecid, rather than the orientalist and neo-gothic forms used
during the reign of Abdülaziz.208 A closer look at the similar tower-like structures of
the Mecidian era, such as the Tophane clock tower (Figure 66) and guard towers of
Dolmabahçe Palace (Figure 59) confirms the shared architectural vocabulary of the
period.
In sum, first Mahmud II and then Abdülmecid, known as the reforming
sultans of the early nineteenth century, followed a similar strategy regarding the
Topkapı Palace. Both modernizing rulers preferred to reside at their newly built
palaces on the shores of the Bosphorus, rather than inhabiting at the palace of their
ancestors. However, to compensate their absence from the traditional core of the
Ottoman ruling system, they tended to leave their imperial signatures at the most
visible and significant parts of the Topkapı Palace and confirmed their virtual
existence via architectural modifications. These architectural edifices, towers, kiosks,
207 It is also possible that the renovation of the tower was finalized during the reign of Abdulaziz due
to the sudden death of Abdulmecid in 1861.
208 See Ersoy, “On the Sources of the ‘Ottoman Renaissance.’” for an in depth discussion of
architectural style during the era of Abdülaziz.
105
mosques, and gates both historically and symbolically represented the seeing eye of
the sultan granting justice for his subjects.
Figure 65. Mahmud II's Tower of Justice (Claude-Marie Ferrier, 1857) / La Grande
Tour du Palais Imperial du Top-Kapou (Abdullah Freres, Library of Congress, 1890)
Figure 66. Detail from the Tophane clock tower (2017) and the Tower of Justice
(2016)
106
The palace adopted new functions and new meanings during the early Tanzimat
era,209 while Mahmud II completely transformed the inner mechanism and
institutional character of the Enderun system, his architectural modifications were
mostly at decorative level, emphasizing his power and existence at significant
locations of the royal complex. Mahmud II's most ambitious architectural projects
included the Alay Kiosk (Alay Köşkü) and the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu
(Topkapusu Sahilsarayı), both of which were located at the edges of the palace most
visible to his subjects. Abdülmecid, on the other hand, implemented comprehensive
spatial and architectural transformations at the core of the Topkapı Palace, making
architectural changes in line with the new palatial system established by his
predecessor. In other words, Mahmud II's palatial and institutional reforms were
materialized by his son and successor Abdülmecid. Especially following the fire of
1856, Abdülmecid found the chance to reshape the Enderun court and the Tulip
gardens, demolishing some structures and erecting new ones, including a new
pavilion bearing his name.
During the reign of Abdülmecid, the immediate surroundings of the Topkapı
Palace were also transformed with the restoration of Hagia Sophia; the construction
of Darülfünun; and with the establishment of the collections of antique weapons,
antique clothes, and antiquities. The area was positioned as a cultural, historic, and
touristic center. It could be said that the new organization of the outer gardens of the
palace also targeted European visitors, whose number incrementally increased during
and after the Crimean war. The following section will focus on the role of foreign
visits and the emergence of tourism in the architectural and institutional reformation
of the Topkapı Palace.
209 I tend to define the era of Mahmud II as a part of early-Tanzimat, as the military, legal, political,
and institutional background of Tanzimat reforms were established in this period.
107
2.3 The gradual abandonment of the palace and the emergence of "tourism"
The Seraglio, hidden behind high walls and evergreen cypress tress, has always been
a point of curiosity and mystery for the foreign gaze. The spatial organization of the
Topkapı Palace, located at the tip of the Seraglio, surrounded by the sea of Marmara
and the Golden Horn and enclosed by Byzantine sea-walls and Fatih's land-walls
(Sur-i Sultani), as well as its interconnected system of courtyards, epitomized the
“well-protected domains”210 of the Ottoman ruler. The first court was historically of
semi-public character. The consecutive courts of the palace became more and more
secluded as one proceeded inwards. The second court was dedicated to state affairs
and ceremonials, and only those possessing a permit could access to this court. The
third and innermost court was designated as the privy areas where the sultan lived
with his pages and with his harem. This section, forbidden to all foreign gazes, was a
point of curiosity and mystery for the Western imagination, becoming a source for
Orientalist fantasies. Before the nineteenth century, many curious travellers either
joined a diplomatic envoy during their official audience or broke into the palace
grounds via illicit methods to satisfy their wonder. However, during the course of the
nineteenth century, the Topkapı Palace began to open its doors first to European
diplomats, then to aristocratic visitors, privileged travellers, and finally to Western
tourists.211 This section will analyze the underlying dynamics of this transformation
and explain the opening of the palace grounds to foreign visitors during the first half
of the nineteenth century in two parts. The first sub-section focuses on the practices
of access during the pre-modern era and investigates the period of transformation
from seclusion to accessibility. The second sub-section covers the reign of
210 Ottoman state named itself as "memalik-i mahrusa-i şahane" (the well-protected domains of His
Imperial Majesty), Deringil, The Well Protected Domains.
211 Özlü, “Single P(a)lace, Multiple Narratives: The Topkapı Palace in Western Travel Accounts from
the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Century.”
108
Abdülmecid, when the Topkapı Palace and the royal collections within gradually
opened its doors to foreign visitors and was positioned as a touristic site.
2.3.1 Diplomatic visits and illegal ventures
The Topkapı Palace has always evoked the curiosity of foreigners, many of whom
were searching for ways to enter and discover the inner parts of this mysterious
Sérail of the Grand Signor. The most common methods for venturing into the inner
parts of the Ottoman palace were either to join a diplomatic crew attending an
audience ceremony held at the Topkapı Palace or to attain a position that provided
access to the palace grounds. Foreign gardeners, merchants, doctors, mechanics,
architects, painters, musicians, military advisors, etc. had access to various parts of
the palace depending on their position. Some of them later wrote memoirs or
informed others, who did not get the chance to penetrate into forbidden parts of the
palace, providing valuable information regarding palace life and its architectural
composition as well. Accounts of Albertus Bobovius (Wojciech Bobowski, Santuri
Ali Ufki Bey), a former page and dragoman who spent most of his life in the
Enderun, was a significant source for understanding the institutional and
architectural configuration of the Topkapı Palace during the 17th century.212
Similarly, French gem merchant and famous traveller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, who
visited Constantinople twice during the late seventeenth century, published his sixvolume
book recording his voyage to the East. One of the volumes, Nouvelle relation
de l’interieur du serail du grand seigneur was published in 1675.213 In this book, he
portrayed the architectural aspects of the imperial complex and royal life within the
Topkapı Palace, depending on second-hand information gathered from two out-of-
212 Ali Ufki et al., Topkapı Sarayı’nda yaşam.
213 Tavernier, Nouvelle relation de l’interieur du serail du grand seigneur.
109
favor servants of the palace, who he met during his travels. Tavernier saw some parts
of the palace himself and actually managed to enter the second courtyard as part of
the entourage of the French Ambassador Marcheville. In his letter to the king of
France, he compared the richness, beauty and grandeur of the Ottoman palace to
French ones, and of course favored the ones in his own country.
There also exist numerous textual and visual accounts depicting the
diplomatic visits of foreign envoys. The reception ceremonies were of particular
importance for both parties and the Ottomans strictly followed protocol codes during
these receptions. A strict set of rituals were performed to impress foreign envoys and
to present the power and glory of the empire since the fifteenth century.214 Many
foreign envoys and ambassadors verbally and visually depicted their impressions of
their visit to the palace and their encounter with the Ottoman sultan (Figure 67).
There are numerous accounts and memoirs of foreign visitors written about the
Topkapı Palace, some of which are products of the imagination, while others give
crucial information regarding the palace.
Figure 67. Depiction of an audience ceremony from the sixteenth century (Deutsche
Fotothek, Zacharias Wehme, 1581-82)
Jean Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737), Jean Claude Flachat (1720-1775), François
214 Talbot, “Accessing the Shadow of God: Spatial and Performative Ceremonial at the Ottoman
Court.”
110
Baron de Tott (1733-1793), Choiseul Gouffier (1752-1817), Antoine Ignace Melling
(1763-1831) were among the ones who had the chance to visit the palace grounds
during the eighteenth century due to their diplomatic position or their personal
connections (Figure 68). The secluded and mysterious palace of the Grand Seigneur
has always been a point of wonder for the Western imagination and there was an
ever-increasing demand to enter the palace grounds. While some of them joined in
diplomatic envoys to gain access up to the second court, others relied on secondhand
information or risked their lives by sneaking into the palace grounds.
Figure 68. Depiction of an audience ceremony in the Council Hall and the Audience
Hall (J.B. van Mour, eighteenth century)
Many travellers were not able to enter the palace grounds and depicted only the
enchanting silhouette of the Seraglio from Pera, which in fact, evoked even more
desire to discover the life lying beneath its walls (Figure 69). During the eighteenth
century some European travellers and artists such as Cornelius Loos (1686-1735),
Jean Baptiste Hilair, de L’Espinasse, J. Velasquez, Jan Jacques François Le Barbier
(1738-1838), Antoine Laurent Castellan (1772-1838) depicted numerous
representations of the Topkapı Palace and the Seraglio. Following his visit to
111
Constantinople during the late eighteenth century, British traveller Elias Habesci
chose a significant sub-title to his travel accounts: The Present State of the Ottoman
empire including a particular description of the Court of the Grand Signor.
European readers were eager for information on the mysterious seat of the Ottoman
sultan. Rather than providing an architectural or physical description of the complex,
Habesci explained the political and military system and the royal function of the
palace. He probably was not able to see the inner courts of the palace himself but
since the Topkapı Palace was at the core of the Ottoman way of ruling, he found it
necessary to depict how the palace and the state functioned. He described the palace
as an enclosure, "in which the Ottoman monarch resides, together with his
household; that is to say, all the officers, guards, Women, and slaves, employed in
his immediate service. The extent of this vast enclosure might well suffice for a
moderate town…”215
Figure 69. The Seraglio seen from the Dutch Consulate (J.B. van Mour, 1726-1744)
215 Habesci, The present state of the Ottoman empire containing a more accurate and interesting
account of the Turks than any yet extant: Including a particular description of the court and seraglio
of the Grand Signor, 142.
112
Until the nineteenth century diplomatic visits, personal relations, and unauthorized
sneaking were the only possible ways to go beyond the first court of the palace. It
was possible to potentially secure a visit to the palace grounds during times when the
sultan was not residing in the palace. For instance, in 1741 Chevalier de Bauffremont
stated that:216
While the Grand Signor was formerly in Adrianople with his entire court and
harem, it was possible to see the interior of the palace in Constantinople; but
as he rarely goes away from the capital nowadays, and as he nearly always
leaves behind some of his women when he does, I know of no one who
actually claims to have seen it.
During the era of Selim III, who spent less and less time in the Topkapı Palace, it
became easier to access the palace grounds. J.B. Lechavalier, in his book published
in 1800 depicted the Topkapı Palace, the Arsenal (St. Irene), and all three courts of
the palace in detail. He had access to the third court and also mentioned the Imperial
Library, the Audience Hall, the baths and the Harem gardens, and visited the
Imperial Treasury, providing a detailed description of its four chambers.217
By the beginning of the nineteenth century the practice of visiting the palace
had changed in its form and meaning. Rather than paying a formal visit to the sultan
European ambassadors and high-ranking officials demanded to visit and see the
palace grounds and royal gardens of the Çırağan, Beşiktaş,218 and the Topkapı
Palaces. The earliest petitions found in the Ottoman archives for the “contemplation”
(temaşa) of the palace grounds were dated 1804 and 1805. These permits were given
as a diplomatic courtesy, first to the French ambassador219 and then to those of
216 Chevalier de Bauffremont cited in Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, The Grand Seraglio of
Stambul, 8.
217 Lechavalier, Voyage de la Propontide du Pont-Euxin, 201-215.
218 BOA HAT.167.7002 (h.1215 / 1801)
"Rus generallerinden bir şahsın hadayık-ı hassadan Çırağan ve Beşiktaş Saraylarını temaşaya ruhsat
itası istidasında bulunmak istizanını havi..."
219 BOA HAT.168.7136 (29.Z.1218 / 10.04.1804)
“Fransa elçisi geçen gün kasr-ı şahanelerini temaşa eylediği esnada…”
113
Britain220 and Russia.221 The political and pompous tone of these imperial decrees
(Hatt-ı Hümayun) also suggests that the visits carried a diplomatic and political
function. (Appendix A3) The privilege of visiting the Topkapı and other imperial
palaces was an official diplomatic courtesy and concession made for the European
ambassadors. Thus, not every high-ranking official could secure permission to visit
the palace grounds. For example, according to a document dated 1806, the demand
of the French deputies to visit the Topkapı Palace was rejected.222
Another interesting document from this era is the permission given to the
Spanish ambassador to visit the Imperial Armory (St. Irene). However, the document
states that the petition was actually made by the French ambassador, who apparently
had much more prestige in the eyes of the Ottomans.223 It is also noteworthy that as
early as 1808, the armory located at the former church of St. Irene became a point of
curiosity for the Europeans and the collection kept inside was shown to privileged
visitors. Haluk Dursun suggests that the early nineteenth century marks the
220 BOA HAT.167.7065 (29.Z.1219 / 31.03.1805)
“Elçi-i mersumun icrâ-yı merasim eylemesi ve Fransa elçisinin temaşa eylediği misillü Topkapı ve
Çırağan ve Sahilsarayı ve Kasr-ı Cedidi elçi-i mersum dahi temaşa etmesi sohbeti dermeyan
olunmakla işbu Pazartesi günü resmen mülakat için Bab-ı Ali'ye vurud eyledikden sonra Perşembe
günü salifü'l-vasf Kasr-ı Hümayunlarını temaşa eylemek ve Salı günü dahi Divan-ı âlilerine gelip
hazret-i cihan-mevfur-ı cihandarilerine yüz sürmek üzre müzâkere olunarak…”
221 BOA HAT.167.7039 (29.Z.1219 / 31.03.1805) See, Appendix A.3.
“Geçen sene Topkapı Bahçesi'ni temaşa için França elçisine ruhsat verildiği vakit isterler ise Rusya
ve İngiltere elçileri dahi temaşa eylemeleri karin-i müsaade-i şahaneleri idiği . . . mersûmânın bu defa
Topkapı bahçesini temaşalarına ruhsat-ı seniyyeleri sezavâr olur ise hem elçi-i mersum ve hem
general-i merkûmun celb ve taltifleri mucib olacağı...”
222 BOA HAT.262.15103 (29.Z.1220 / 1806)
"Benim Vezirim, müsade olunmazdır meğer böyle elçi takririyle evvela cevami'i gezsinler münasib
olmayan mahallere ruhsat virulmesun nemani? Beşiktaş ve Çırağan yalısını gezsinler Topkapı
bağçesine dahi bir mahzur yoğ ise gelsünler."
223 BOA HAT.1356.53164
"Müsaade-i Hümayunum olmuştur"
"Saray-ı Hümayunlarında olan cebehanenin seyr ve temaşası içün kendüye ve İspanya elçisine ruhsat
verilmesini dünki gün Bab-ı Alide Reis efendi kullarının odasında vuku bulan mükaleme esnasında
Françe elçisi ifade ve inha etmek olub bu makule mahal ve mevakinin seyr ve temaşasına ruhsat
verilegeldiği mesbuk olmak hasebiyle mersumanın istidaları vechle mahal-i mezkurun seyr ve
temaşasına müsaade-i mülukaneleri erzani buyurulur ise iktiza edenlere beyaz üzrine ferman-ı ali
ısdarıyla tenbih olunacağı ..."
114
beginning of the concept "tourism"224 in the Ottoman empire and important
landmarks such as Hagia Sophia and other sultanic mosques, together with imperial
gardens and palaces began opening their doors to foreign visitors.225
However, with the accession of Mahmud II, visits to the imperial palaces
were restrained. It is believed that Mahmud II limited the access to the palace
grounds after witnessing the bloody Janissary revolts and the execution of Selim III.
Thus, no permission decrees to visit the palace were found during the reign of
Mahmud II, with the exception of his last year. Then, only three imperial decrees
dated 1839 were found in the Ottoman archives, securing a permit for the British,
French, and Italian (Sardinian) noblemen.226 One of the documents, issued a week
before the death of the sultan, explained that George Cambridge (Corc Kembiric), a
cousin of the British Queen, had his request to visit the sultan at Çamlıca denied in a
diplomatic manner. Instead, he was granted permission to visit the sultanic mosques,
the Çırağan, and the Topkapı Palaces and the Imperial Mint.227 As understood from
this document, the privilege to visit the palace grounds, which was exclusively
provided for this noble British visitor, was given as a diplomatic courtesy and used
as a political tool.
During the reign of Mahmud II, as in earlier periods, attending an audience
ceremony was the most convenient way to gain access to the inner courts of the
palace. As emphasized by Lacroix, it was easy to enter the palace during the era of
224 The word "tourist" appeared in dictionaries as as late as 1830s. See, Boyer, Histoire générale du
tourisme du XVIe au XXIe siècle.
225 Dursun, "Osmanlı Devletinde Turizmin Gelişimine Dair Bazı Gözlemler", 67-78.
226 BOA HAT.1179.46599; HAT.1189.46863.
227 BOA C.HR.142.7063 (1 R 1255 / 14.6.1839)
"Çamlıca'yı teşrif-i Hümayunu vuku bulmuş ve mümaileyhin mahal-i mezkurda huzur-ı meali mevfur-ı
mülükaneye duhuli biraz tekellüflü olacağından ve ifade-i vakıaya göre kendüsü dahi beş on gün
zarfında avdet edeceğinden bu aralıkta bunun istizanı yakışık olmaz yollu tasdiki mucip olmamak için
tercüman-ı mersuma ifade olunmuş olduğu mahal-i mezkur teşrif-i ali cihetiyle mevsimi olmadığını
itiraf ile cevami-i şerifeyi temaşa eylemek üzere bir kıta buyruldu tahrir ve ita kılınmış ise de
mümaileyh Çırağan Sahilsaray-ı Hümayunuyla Topkapı Saray-ı aliyesini ve Darphane-i Amireyi
gezmek istemiş oldugundan işbu mahall-i aliyenin dahi seyr ve temaşsına ruhsat verilmesi..."
115
Selim III, but with the reign of Mahmud II it again became difficult for foreigners to
enter the palace grounds unless they mingled with the procession of an ambassador
during the days of diplomatic reception.228 Without such an occasion, entrance to the
royal complex was even more difficult for the ordinary traveller, as stated by D.
Porter:229
It was easier to enter to the inner courts of Seraglio before, but since the
revolution, which cost Selim the third his life, the access has been shut to all
Franks, except for . . . medical men and others in the service of the sultan.
According to the memoirs of Edward Raczynski, who visited the first court of the
palace in 1814 with a friend, their attempt to make a sketch of the Middle Gate was
harshly rejected by the guard, who shouted at them: "How dare you? Don't you have
any respect for this palace?"230 Another traveller allowed to enter the first court
stated that they "penetrated a considerable way into the first court, but were civilly
sent back by one of the Bostangees".231
During the later years of the era of Mahmud II, John Auldjo visited the first
court of the imperial complex, but was not able proceed to the second court of the
Topkapı Palace. This traveller, writer, geologist best known for climbing the summit
of Mont Blanc−was incapable of penetrating the inner parts of the Topkapı Palace.
He confessed that he thought about bribing the guard but did not dare to.232 During
the same year, in 1833, famous French writer, orientalist, poet, and politician
Alphonse de Lamartine also attempted to enter the third court during his journey to
228 Lacroix, Guide du Voyageur a Constantinople et dans ses Environs, 26.
"Sousle règne de Sultan-Sélim, de débonnaire mémoire, l'accès de la demeure impériale était facile et
les Francs s'y introduisaient impunément sous le plus futile prétexte; mais à la mort de ce souverain,
la consigne qui interdisait l'entrée du palais à tout profane fut remise en vigueur, et il ne fut plus
permis d'y pénétrer qu'aux jours de réception diplomatique, en se mêlant au cortège de l'ambassadeur
qui allait recevoirle kaftan d'honneur."
229 Porter, Constantinople and Its Environs in a Series of Letters, 37-38.
230 Raczynski, 1814'te İstanbul ve Çanakkale'ye Seyahat, 36.
231 Frankland, Travels to and from Constantinople V1: in the years 1827 and 1828, 110-111.
232 Auldjo, Journal of a visit to Constantinople: and some of the Greek islands, in the spring and
summer of 1833.
116
the Holy Lands. During his visit to the Topkapı Palace he attained the first two courts
without difficulty, but the guard on the third gate would not let him go further, even
though a high-ranking Ottoman officer accompanied him:233
And we next entered the last court of the Seraglio, which is inaccessible to all
persons but those who have official employments about the palace, and to the
ambassadors on the occasion of their reception . . . Having reached the last
gate, the soldiers on guard obstinately refused to let us pass. In vain did
Rustem Bey make himself known to the officer on duty. In reply to his
applications, the latter referred to his instructions, and declared that he should
risk his head by allowing me to enter.
On their way back, Lamartine and the Ottoman officer came across the Chief
Treasurer of the palace and through with his help were able to enter the inner parts of
the Topkapı Palace. As far as we can understand from other travel accounts of the
era, it was still possible to see the inner sections of the palace for those with
necessary connections or sufficient funds for bribery. The palace grounds could be
illegally penetrated, especially when the sultan was away in his summer residence in
Beşiktaş or residing elsewhere. English naturalist, mineralogist and traveller Edward
Daniel Clarke, during his travel to Istanbul around 1814, had the chance to visit the
Topkapı Palace twice. His first visit included a tour of the first court and the Imperial
Armory located in St Irene, where he saw antique weapons and armor belonging to
the Byzantine emperors. In his second visit he was able to sneak into the summer
palace and also saw the gardens with the help of a German gardener who worked for
the palace. His depictions of the Harem must have been addressing the Seaside
Palace of Topkapusu, which was used as the summer harem of Mahmud II. He
mentioned that during Ramadan the palace was almost empty, but his accounts
233 Lamartine, Souvenirs impressions pensees et paysages pendant un voyage en orient (1832-1833),
225.
117
proved that some parts of the palace were actively used, as he recorded the signs of
residential use in the Harem and private pavilions of the sultan234 (Figure 70).
Figure 70. Engraving depicting the Sofa Kiosk and the Baghdad Kiosk at the
hanging gardens of the palace (W.H. Bartlett from Pardoe, 1838)
Even though there were exceptional cases, during the early nineteenth century it was
not possible for every European to go beyond the first court of the Topkapı Palace.
The royal complex, hidden behind high walls and ever-green cypress tress, did not
display itself to the Western gaze. Many European travellers depicted the sublime
panorama of the Seraglio and the Historic Peninsula from Pera (Figure 71) and, more
often than not, speculated on the mysterious life in the palace and the Harem,
contributing to an assemblage of Orientalist clichés.
234 Clarke, Travels in various countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, 34.
118
Figure 71. View of the Seraglio from the French Consulate (Laborde, Vue de la
Pointe du Sérail Prise du Consulat de France, 1838)
2.3.2 Tourism with a permit
Following the death of Mahmud II in 1839, his successor Abdülmecid sustained the
ideological ideals and political reforms of his father. It could be stated that the
change of the sultan did not create an immediate political or ideological break within
the ruling system. However, the accessibility of the Topkapı Palace had transformed,
as I will try to present in this section. The palatial visits during the era of
Abdülmecid could be categorized into three periods. Between 1839-1845, in the first
years of his reign the palace was almost closed to foreign visitors, with only a couple
exceptional permits, mostly for granting access to various shoreline palaces. Starting
from 1844 until 1855 permits for accessing the sultanic mosques and the Topkapı
Palace given to foreign diplomats and notables started to appear. Following the
Crimean War, the number of visits started to increase, and by 1855 the permits were
issued by the Scribal Department of the of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Hariciye
Nezareti Mektubi Kalemi). After this change, access to the Armory / Museum and the
Imperial Treasury was granted to numerous foreign visitors. Especially following the
119
move of Abdülmecid to the Dolmabahçe Palace until the end of his reign, dozens of
documents written in a similar tone and format, all of which granted access to the
palace grounds, were issued. This period marks the emergence of tourism in the
Ottoman empire, and is defined as "tourism with a permit" by Edhem Eldem.235
In fact, the beginning of tourism in the Ottoman empire was paralleled by the
development of tourism as a concept and as practice in Europe and America. The
word ‘tourist’ first appeared as an adjective and then as a noun in the dictionaries of
the 1830s. In France, it was first used to designate aristocratic British citizens who,
from the seventeenth century onwards, took the ‘Grand Tour’ as the culmination of
their education.236 The word soon became a generic description for the modern
traveller.237 The edited volume Voyages and Visions: Towards a Cultural History of
Travel (1999), by Jas Elsner and Joan-Pau Rubiés, focuses on the act and history of
travelling and investigateds the emergence of tourism in the Western world.238 They
offer a historical survey of the practice of travelling in Western culture, showing its
development from Greco-Roman antiquity, through Christian Europe and finally to
modern Western civilization. The changing perception of travel becomes a journey
towards modernity, from religious to empirical, from lone traveller to tourist. The
authors show how, with the rise of modernity and imperialism, subjectivity gives
way to a religion of empiricism: scientific observation and a desire for objectivity
served to distance the ‘superior’ European gaze from the ‘inferior’ cultures under
observation, thus creating an orientalist discourse. The act of travelling and travel
writing involved the invention and construction of the "other". In accordance with
235 Eldem, "Ayasofya: Kilise, Cami, Abide, Müze, Simge".
236 Hudson, The Grand Tour, 1592–1796.
237 Boyer, Histoire générale du tourisme du XVIe au XXIe siècle.
238 Elsner and Rubiés, Voyages and Visions: towards a cultural history of travel.
120
Said’s argument in the Culture and Empire.239 Mary Louise Pratt suggests that
“travel writing was systematically involved in meaning-making process” and she
presents its heterogeneity and interactive structure as a genre. Pratt does not focus on
the Orient or Muslim world as the subject of European travel writing—according to
her, the rest of the world, whether East or West of Europe, was conceived and
visualized as "places of alterity".240 According to Kuehn and Smethurst, “through the
formal conventions of the travel narrative, mobility is spatialised and synchronized,
so the travel writer is able to present reality as an orderly representation”. 241 The
mobility of the Western traveller is not a random voyage but an orderly mobility
where the idea of travel, politics of travel, culture of travel and writing travel all
carry representational values.242
Eventually, the act of travelling lost both its individual and scientific edge
and turned into mere tourism. Geographer and cultural critic Dean MacCannell
focuses on the travelling individual and scrutinizes the concept of ‘the tourist’ from
the perspective of social theory. According to MacCannell, the tourist and tourism
are products of modernizing Europe: sightseeing is the mass leisure activity of the
modern age.243 MacCannell, and Elsner and Rubiés, historicize travelling and
travellers and present the historical transformation of travel literature, questioning
whether travel writing has transformed in a similar manner. Nebahat Avcıoğlu
suggests that travel literature is significant for “transporting architecture (both style
and function) of one culture to another”.244 The emergence of tourism in the Ottoman
empire enhanced Ottoman interaction with the West, and the opening of the Topkapı
239 Said, Culture and Imperialism.
240 Pratt, Imperial Eyes : Travel Writing and Transculturation.
241 Kuehn and Smethurst, Travel writing, form, and empire: The poetics and politics of mobility.
242 Gharipour and Özlü, The City in the Muslim World.
243 MacCannell, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class.
244 Avcıoğlu, “David Urquhart and the role of travel literature”.
121
Palace to foreign gaze changed Ottoman ideas of self-identification and selfrepresentation.
Against the seeing, observing, and judging eye of the West, Ottomans
had to continuously develop strategies for presenting and constructing a prestigious
image of empire.
During the first years of Abdülmecid, much like those of Mahmud II, not
many visitors could enter the Topkapı Palace. Occasional permits such as "İrade
Dahiliye" and "Hatt-ı Hümayun" were found in the archives, mostly granting access
to Çırağan, Beylerbeyi, or the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu.245 As explained in the
previous section, the extensive renovations in the palace during the first years of
Abdülmecid's reign could have limited visits as well. Still, it could be said that
during his first years Abdülmecid followed the same strategy as Mahmud II and
limited the access to the palace grounds. The travel guide of John Murray, dated
1840, explains the touristic places of Constantinople and included a brief depiction
of the Topkapı Palace's first and second courts. According to Murray's guidebook it
was not possible to see the collections at St. Irene and the third court was also closed
to the visits: "Thus far in witnessing some state procession may strangers enter the
Seraglio ; as of the present Sultan, is disappointed man's curiosity might cost him
dear, by the absence of that gay dazzling should he proceed further."246 The travel
accounts of Eugene Bore (1840),247 M.J. Charles Teule (1842),248 confirmed that it
was not possible to go beyond the Third Gate of the palace except for the diplomatic
audiences and mentioned its abandoned status.
245 BOA İ.DH.10.481; İ.DH.10.491; İ.DH.34.1608. Documents granting access to the imperial
shoreline palace (Sahilsaray-ı Hümayun-ı Şahane) from the year 1840 (h.1256).
246 Murray, Hand-book for Travellers in the Ionian Islands, Greece, Turkey, Asia Minor and
Constantinople, 159.
247 Bore, Correspondance et Mémories d'un Voyageur en Orient, 142.
248 Teule, Pensees et notes critiques extraites du journal de mes voyages dans l'empire du Sultan de
Constantinople, vol 2, 394.
122
By 1844 documents granting access to the palace and the sultanic mosques
begin to appear in the Ottoman archives. Hagia Sophia and the mysterious Topkapı
Palace were most frequently the subject of these decrees.249 A document dated 1844
stated that permission was given to visit the Topkapı Palace and instructed the Chief
Treasurer to show the visitors around according the customs (emsal ve usule vechle
rüyet ve temaşa ettirilmesi).250 The documents from 1845 to 1855 were found under
the grand vizierate documents of the foreign states (Sadaret Düvel Ecnebiye Evrakı).
Following the Crimean war the permits were issued by the Scribal Department of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Hariciye Nezareti Mektubi Kalemi). Except for a
document granting access to the Iranian ambassador,251 almost all of the permits after
this date were given to members of the American or European aristocracy, diplomats,
and high bureaucrats, as confirmed by the New York Daily Times article from
1851:252
By a firman from the Sultan, which it is not difficult to obtain, a large party,
mostly Americans, were permitted to visit the Seraglio, St. Sophia, and other
mosques, and whatever has hitherto been more especially sacred from the
approach of foreigners, and not to be irreverently regarded by the Turk
himself.
Thus, it could be said that some parts of the palace attracted special attention from
Western visitors (Figure 72). The opening of the double collection of antique
weapons and antiquities (Mecma-i Asar-ı Esliha and Mecma-i Asar-ı Atika) at the
former church of St. Irene in 1846 must have triggered demand to visit the Armory
249 Eldem, "Ayasofya: Kilise, Cami, Abide, Müze, Simge".
250 BOA A.MKT.12.97 (19 Ca 1260 / 6.6.1844)
"Beyzade-i mumaileyh ve refikasına Saray-ı Hümayun-ı mezkurun emsal ve usulü vechle rüyet ve
temaşa ettirilmesi..."
251 BOA A.AMD.1.38 (12.7.1845 / h.1261)
252 "Constantinople-The Sultan-Seraglio, &c.", New York Daily Times, 30.9.1851.
123
and the collection of antique clothes. But contrary to the persistent demand of the
visitors, the Chamber of Sacred Relics was kept closed to the foreign gaze.253
Figure 72. Travel Account from 1845 (Charles White, Three years in Constantinople
and Domestic Manners of Turks in 1844)
With rising interest in Hellenic culture and Greek antiquity, especially after the
Greek War of Independence, Greek territories, the Balkans, the Dardanelles, and
Constantinople became itineraries on the Grand Tour for Europeans. As explained
before, Hagia Sophia and the Topkapı Palace, together with the Imperial Treasury,
253 A document dating 1855 stated that the entrance of theAustrian prince to the Chamber of Sacred
Relics was prevented and precautions should be taken for the future visitors as well. BOA
HR.SYS.205.8 (h.1271 / 31.10.1855)
"Hırka-i Saadet odasına girilmesine ve sair mahallere bakılmasına ikdam ve arzuyane muamele
gösterilmesi bu dahi rey-i aliyelerine muhalif göründüğünden mani' olunmuş ve bundan böyle misafir
vukuunda lütfen ve ihsanen ve dirayetlice bendegandan terkin buyurulması niyazı babında emr ü
ferman..."
124
the Imperial Mint, the Imperial Library, and the Armory, became points of attraction
for European visitors. Gérard de Nerval mentioned that "all foreigners could visit the
grand palaces and the mosques on certain designated days, by paying two or three
thousand Turkish piasters."254 According to Charles White, who visited Istanbul in
1843, around 700 Piasters was necessary to grant a permit to visit the Topkapı
Palace, Hagia Sophia and other sultanic mosques:
Officer of the Porte, intrusted with firman - 200 Piasters
Kavass (police-agent) of Embassy - 30 Piasters
Officers of Seraglio - 150 Piasters
Aya Sofia Mosque - 100 Piasters
Sultan Achmet do. - 60 Piasters
Sulemanya do. - 40 Piasters
Bajazet - 40 Piasters
Osmanya - 40 Piasters
Mohammed - 40 Piasters
White also gave a translation of the firman given to the visitors255 and stated that: "In
truth, these firmans are not easily granted, and cannot be obtained during the Sultan's
residence."256 Having had a tour of the Topkapı Palace and the shoreline palace,
White also visited the armory and the library, providing details about the collection
of antique weapons and books. He also mentioned a “collection of gem-studded
sabres, poniards, and knife-daggers, principally belonging to” sultans in the second
volume of his travel account. According to White, this imperial collection "form[s]
one of the most brilliant remnants of bygone Oriental splendor now extant. They are
254 De Nerval, Voyage en Orient, v.II, 205.
"Tout étranger peut visiter les grandes résidences et les mosquées, à de certains jours désignés,
enpayant deux ou trois mille piastres turques."
255 White, Three Years in Constantinople, v.1, 19.
"The ambassador of _____ to the Sublime Porte, having represented by a note that certain _____
gentlemen (beyzadeh), who have arrived at Constantinople, are desirous to visit the noble imperial
mosques of the capital of the kaliphs. To conformity therefore with this request of the representative of
a friendly power, his highness SB (the vizir) has condescended to accord a favorable reply.
Consequently the present order is addressed to you. Therefore, when these gentlemen and their
attendants, accompanied by such officer as may be appointed, ahali present themselves at the mosque
whereof each of you is guardian, permit them to visit the same, and conduct yourself towards them
with becoming respect. Nineteenth Sefr [sic], 1259 (twenteeth March, 1843)."
256 White, v.1, 46.
125
preserved in a chamber of the palace of Top Kapoussy, in a glazed closet contiguous
to Abdoul Hamid's bath".257 The collection he mentioned, but had not visited, could
be early displays of the Imperial Treasury.
Responding to the increasing demands of foreign visitors, the palace grounds
were opened for tourism. Defined by Edhem Eldem as “tourism with a permit”,258
the primary destinations of these elite tourists were the imperial mosque of Hagia
Sophia, the Imperial Palace of the Topkapı, the Janissary Museum, and the Armory
at St. Irene. The armory, located in the first court of the palace, housed not only
ancient weapons but also the Janissary costumes (until it was separated as a
individual museum in Sultanahmet), Byzantine remains, antiquities, and ancient
relics.259 An interest in the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu and the Imperial Library
also arose during this period, and the travel accounts of the era provide details about
the palatial tour.
These visitors, most often than not, travelled from the sea route and
disembarked at the quays of the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu, visiting this
impressive "half-oriental half-European" timber structure. Famous French author
Gustave Flaubert, visited the Topkapı Palace in August 1851. He wrote that they
started their tour from the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu and had to take off their
shoes while entering the apartments. He was impressed with the view overlooking
the Bosphorus and compared it with the paintings of Gudin and claimed that the
impact of Versailles could be seen in its gardens.260 After visiting the shoreline
palace they proceeded towards the third court seeing the Imperial Library, Audience
257 White must have been referring to the first chamber Fatih's bath next to the treasury, White, v.2,
238.
258 Eldem, "Ayasofya: Kilise, Cami, Abide, Müze, Simge".
259 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archeology, and the Visualization of History in the
Late Ottoman empire.
260 Flaubert, Voyage en Orient. (1849-1851), 344.
126
Hall, and the college of Enderun pages. The group later passed through the second
court, which was not of much interest to them and finally reached the first court,
ending their tour by inspecting the collections at St. Irene.261
The visit of Théophile Gautier in 1852 followed a similar route, where they
started their tour from the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu and left the palace from the
first court to inspect the Imperial Gate and the fountain of Ahmed III.262 French
romantic poet, novelist, and traveller, Gautier describes how the once secluded and
mysterious imperial complex has opened its doors to visitors, especially those of
European origin, with all the collections and spectacles surrounding it: the palace
itself had evolved into a tourist attraction. According to Gautier, when the sultan was
in his summer residence the palace could be visited with a firman and added that "ten
or twelve people usually collect for the visit, which involves frequent bakshish,
amounting altogether to not less than one hundred and fifty or two hundred francs. A
dragoman precedes the company and settles troublesome details with the keepers of
the doors." He also mentioned that tourists must bring their slippers with them to the
palace, removing and replacing their shoes a total of at least eight times before they
might enter the various buildings within the palace. His disdainful tone can easily be
recognized. According to him the palace was nothing like the Alhambra but had been
“erected without any preconceived plan, according to the caprices and needs of the
moment”. Gautier also mentioned a smaller room at the end of connected halls,
which was decorated by two paintings by Michel Bouquet and contained a large
clock with a depiction of Seraglio and a closet with treasures displayed:263
[T]he same room contains a closet, the curtains of which, drawn back, allow
to blaze out with gleam of gold and gems, the real luxury of the Orient. It is a
treasury in no wise inferior to that of the Tower of London. It is customary
261 Ibid., 344-352.
262 Gautier, Constantinople, 220.
263 Gautier, 224.
127
that each sultan should bequeath to this collection some object which he has
used more particularly. Nearly all [sultans] have given weapons. . . . Sultan
Mahmoud, as a poet and a calligraphist, gave his inkstand, a mass of gold
covered with diamonds. Through a sort of civilized coquetry, he sought to
introduce a thought amid these instruments of brutal force and to show that
the brain is as powerful as the arm.
After visiting the shoreline palace, Gautier and his group were taken to the third
court, where they saw the Audience Hall, the lodgings and classrooms of pages, and
the library. He was particularly impressed with the oriental architecture of the library
but expressed his doubts about the authenticity of the portraits of Ottoman sultans
drawn on silsilename that was presented to them. Their tour ended at the first court
with a visit to St. Irene, which was filled with muskets, swords, modern pistols
arranged with a military symmetry. He also noted that a "much more interesting
collection is that of the historical weapons preserved in a tribune transformed into a
gallery at the end of the apse", which confirms that the main building of the church
was on display as well as the atrium.264
The Crimean War (1853-56) was another breaking point for the empire's
relation with Europe. The military and economic support of the British, French and
Italian forces transformed their relationship with the West. The long-term lodging of
European troops within the city created military, social, and architectural
transformation. The abandonment of the Topkapı Palace coincided with this era. The
new role of the Topkapı Palace in this changing socio-political context responded to
European demands for visits and reflected an effort to display the self. Starting in
1853 the number of visits to the Topkapı Palace increased incrementally and by 1855
the format of the imperial permits had also changed. Issued by the Scribal
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs265, these decrees had a standardized
264 Gautier, 230.
265 Found in the "BOA HR.MKT - Hariciye Mektubi Kalemi" folder of the Ottoman Archives.
128
format, stating the name, country of origin, and desired destination of the visitors.
As understood from the series of documents, the petitions were written in Ottoman or
in French and a note of acceptance was issued at the back of the page, informing the
Chief Imperial Treasurer (Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası) about the permission given
to the specified person and his party to visit the palace.
A petition dated 1856 was written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Le
Ministre des Affaires étrangeres de l'Empire Ottoman) in French and asked for a
permission to visit the Old Palace and the Imperial Treasury (Figure 73). This is one
of the earliest archival documents where a visit to the Imperial Treasury was
officially requested. However, neither in the Ottoman translation of the document,
nor in the answer, was a visit to the treasury mentioned.266 Still, the French officer
must have been informed that a visit to the Imperial Treasury in the Topkapı Palace
was possible, as he made an official request for himself and for his family.
During the same years, the French Ambassador of Constantinople La
Baronne Durand De Fontmagne, who stayed in Istanbul between 1856 and 1858,
wrote that they visited the treasury of the palace during their visit. His very brief
mention of the treasury did not provide any details about the architectural setting or
the content of treasury, but stated that the uncut gems withered under the dust did not
create a huge impact on the visitor, and the ambassador claimed that there existed
many other jewels unveiled.267 During the visit of this French ambassador the guests
were accepted at the Baghdad Kiosk by the Chief Treasurer, and later the group was
offered lunch at a tent pitched at a favorite location of the sultan. De Fontmagne
depicted the ambiance and the food served in detail with an arrogant tone, disdaining
266 BOA HR.MKT.153.13 (22.7.1856)
267 De Fontmagne, Un se'jour l'ambassade de France a Constantinople, 53.
129
Ottoman culinary traditions.268 What is most interesting is the existence of a tent at a
premium location that was used for hosting foreign visitors. I would propose that this
location could be the Çadır Kiosk (Tent Kiosk), which was later replaced by the
Mecidiye Kiosk. The very same kiosk was used in the same manner to host the
visitors of the palace. Thus, one can argue that there was spatial and ceremonial
continuity for hosting visitors and offering them food or drinks within the Topkapı
Palace, which would be sustained until the end of the empire.269
Figure 73. A petition written by a French officer to visit the Topkapı Palace and the
Imperial Treasury (22.7.1856, OBA.HR.MKT.153.13)
268 De Fontmagne, Un se'jour l'ambassade de France a Constantinople, 49
"C'est dans le fameux kioskque de Baghdad que nous avons été reçus par le pacha, conservateur des
trésors du sultan. Aprés les compliments, il nous a conduits vers une tente qui avait été préparée sur
l'emplacement meme d'un pavillion favori du grand seigneur et d'ou la vue est la plus belle. . . .
Cependant, notre tente avait pris un aspect imposant. Deux camps, mais pas trop séparés (on nous
traite en chrétiens et chrétiennes)."
269 Today the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk is used as a restaurant and as the museum cafeteria, which
resembles a historical continuity of hosting traditions.
130
A document dating October 1856 confirmed that the palace and the Imperial
Treasury were shown to the protocol chief of the Queen of England and a police
commissioner.270 Again in October 1857 a decree (irade) was issued granting access
to the Russian ambassador and his entourage to visit the Imperial Treasury and
informed the Chief Treasurer about their visit.271 In light of these documents and
travel accounts of the era it could be stated that the Imperial Treasury at the third
court of the Topkapı Palace was already arranged in a way to accept visitors and to
display the collection as of 1856. However, during this era, even though obtaining
entrance to the palace grounds became relatively easy, the treasury seemed to be
opened only for selected guests of higher rank. Thus, it was a sign of privilege and
diplomatic courtesy to be able to see the private treasury collection of the sultan.
The petitions of the era, the travel accounts, and the travel guides confirmed
the acknowledgment of the Ottoman capital as a touristic site and the monuments of
the city into visiting spots. The 1845 publication of John Murray's travel guide
introduced touristic sites including the suburbs of Constantinople, such as Galata,
Pera, Eyüp, Scutari, and the villages of the Bopshorus; the fountains, mosques, walls,
and gates of the city together with its Byzantine heritage, which included Hagia
Sophia, Hippodrome, Burnt Column, Column of Theodosius, Cistern of Constantine.
In the same guidebook a section was also dedicated to the Seraglio. Within the walls
of the Topkapı Palace, not only the inner courts and the imperial pavilions, but also
the Imperial Mint, the Janissary Museum, and the Armory were also mentioned as
points of interest for foreign visitors. According to an article published in 1851 in
New York Daily Times, the armory was shown to the group visiting the Seraglio and
270 BOA HR.MKT.164.9 (21.10.1856 / 21 S 1271)
271 BOA İ.HR.148.7787 (5.10.1857/ 17 S 1274)
" ... ol-vechle Hazine-i Hümayunu seyr ve temaşa eylemeleri muta'alık ve şerefsudur buyurulan emr-i
irade-i cenab-ı mülukane-i muktezai ... bulunmuş ve keyfiyet-i Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası saadetlü
ağa hazretlerine bildirilmiş olmağla olbabda..."
131
it "has objects more curious than such curious places normally have." The article also
mentioned the Janissary costumes as well as the weapons on display: "Costumes are
there no less than weapons."272
The move of the Janissary Museum from St. Irene to the Mehterhane building
in the Palace of Ibrahim Pasha, in 1852, created another point of attraction for
foreign visitors.273 Thus, the petitions for visits started to include various sites within
the city. An Ottoman document dated 1857 responded to a petition by an “English
Gentlemen” to visit the mosques, the Imperial Palace, the Armory, the Imperial Mint,
and the Janissary collection (Figure 74). These touristic spots located in and around
the Topkapı Palace present the new role of the palace and the changing profile of its
visitors.274 The same year a petition from an American tourist to visit the mosques,
the Topkapı Palace and the antiques costumes collection was approved, and the
Chief Treasurer and the Marshal of Tophane were also informed about their visit.
The document states that the visitors could see the sultanic mosques, the Topkapı
Palace, and the "museum" as well. This probably refers to the dual collections at St.
Irene, as it was referred to as museum by the Ottoman authorities.275 Numerous
petitions from the last year of Abdülmecid's reign asked for permissions to visit the
mosques, museum and the Topkapı Palace.276 Dozens of similar petitions were found
272 "Constantinople-The Sultan-Seraglio, &c.", New York Daily Times, 30.9.1851.
273 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 212; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü,
392.
274 BOA HR.MKT.193.64. (20.07.1857)
“İngiltere devleti tebasından Lord Somris nam-ı beyzade madamesiyle beraber camileri ve Saray-ı
Hümayunu ve Cebehane ve Darbhane ve yeniçerilerin elbiselerini seyir ve temaşa etmek sevdasında
bulunduğundan lazım gelen evamir-i aliyelerinin virilmesi niyazında iltimas olunur.”
275 BOA HR.MKT.227.10_02 (1857)
“Amerika Zaptiye Müşirine buyruldu-i ali ve Tophane Müşirine ve Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdasına
tezkire-i samiye, Amerika tebaasından Wafer Şahın cevami-i şerife ve Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunuyla
müzeyi rüyet ve temaşa ettirilmesine dair.”
276 BOA HR.MKT.379.9; HR.MKT.382.74; HR.MKT.382.96.
132
in the Ottoman archives between 1855 and 1861, until the end of Abdülmecid's
reign, documenting the points of interest for European visitors during this period.277
Figure 74. Petition dated 1857 to visit several venues in Istanbul (BOA
HR.MKT.198.64)
The research conducted by Edhem Eldem analyses the number and nature of these
visits in Istanbul during the Tanzimat era. The number of official petitions by the
foreign visitors rose incrementally from 1839 to 1861. According to Edhem Eldem,
this sharp increase after the Crimean War indicated Ottoman integration with the
West.278 In their petitions, foreign visitors asked for permission to enter the imperial
palaces, sultanic mosques, monuments, the Armory, and the Janissary museum.
These petitions were sent to the Ottoman offices of foreign affairs through their
respective embassies. According to these petitions, imperial palaces (saray-ı
hümayun), and sultanic mosques (cevami-i şerife) were the most popular destinations
277 I had access to 75 archival documents granting permit to the Topkapı Palace and other touristic
sites of Istanbul between 1855 and 1861.
278 Eldem, " Osmanlı Dönemi'nde Arkeoloji, Koruma Ve Müzecilik: İlk Adımlar".
133
among foreign tourists.279 An interest in archeology and the pre-Ottoman past also
appeared during this era, and some archeological excavations took place around the
Hippodrome. The area surrounding the Serpentine Column and the Egyptian Obelisk
were unearthed, their original levels were discovered and the monuments were
surrounded by railings in 1856280 (Figure 75). Thus, it could be said that the Historic
Peninsula turned into a major attraction during the emergence of tourism in the
Ottoman empire during the era of Abdülmecid. The visitors, mostly of American and
European origin, directed their attention to the monuments in the historic core of the
city—in and around the Topkapı Palace—and pled to see the various collections
within the palace.
Figure 75. The Hippodrome before its reorganization (James Robertson, Getty
Archives, 1853-57) / The Serpentine Column after the leveling and encircling of
Byzantine monuments (Sebah et Joaillier)
279 Eldem, "Ayasofya: Kilise, Cami, Abide, Müze, Simge"; Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman
“Museum”: A Critical Reassessment”.
280 Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek, 146–49.; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 83.; Çelik, The Remaking
of Istanbul, 111.
134
A few non-Western visitors existed as well, as evidenced by the petitions made by
the Iranian ambassadors to visit various parts of the Topkapı Palace and the Imperial
Treasury in 1845, 1860 and 1861 respectively.281 Another document from 1858
stated that Ali Agha from the Crimean Muslims and a member of the Russian army
wanted to visit the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the Topkapı Palace with his fellow
officers. The answer to the petition stated that this chamber was exclusively open to
the members of the Harem and could only be visited on special days, so the Crimean
notables were allowed to visit only the appropriate areas of the palace that are open
for visiting.282
As understood from the travel accounts of the era, the Topkapı Palace
became much accessible especially following Abdülmecid's move to the
Dolmabahçe Palace. The visitors of the period, more often than not, mentioned the
neglected and abandoned state of the Topkapı Palace and defined it as the "Old
Palace" or "Vieux Serail" in their memoirs. Joanne and Isambert's guidebook
mention that, as Abdülmecid moved to a new palace, the Topkapı Palace started
being called the "Eski-Sérai", and the palace became a residence for old sultanas.283
While Ubicini compared the palace, abandoned since Mahmud II, to a
"necropolis",284 Faultrier Godard stated that the palace, with its "halls, debris antique
281 BOA A.AMD.1.38 (7 B 1261 / 12.7.1845); HR.MKT.338.67 (26 Za 1276); İ.HR.90.10623 (10 B
1278 / 11.1.1862)
282 BOA HR.MKT.270.91 (12 Ca 1275 / 31.12.1858)
"Kırım ahali-yi Müslümanından ve Rusya ordusu asakir-i zabitanından Ali Ağa bugün Dersaadet'e
gelerek çend nefer rüfekasıyla beraber Hırka-ı Saadet dairesini ziyaret arzusunda bulunmuş olub işbu
daire-i muhteremenin Harem ve ahalisi ile eyyam-ı mahsusundan ma'ada günlerde ziyareti mümkün
olamayıp bunlar hasbe'l-mücibe bu babda pek ziyade izhar-ı arzu etmekte olduklarına mebni takriben
müsaid olan yerlerin mümaileyhe ziyaret ettirilmesi . . ."
283 Joanne and Isambert, Itinéraire de l'Orient, 361.
284 Ubicini, La Turquie Actuelle, 63.
"En effet, l’ancien palais des sultans, abandonné par Mahmoud après la destruction des janissaires et
devenu l’asile des eunuques en retraite et des favorites disgraciées du harem , ressemble plutôt à une
nécropole qu’à une résidence souveraine."
135
columns, and friezes, resembled a museum".285 Most travellers mentioned the violent
history of the palace, including the executions done within its monumental gates, and
the display of heads in front of the portals, etc., thus reproducing oriental clichés of
the nineteenth century.
During their tour of the palace, a dragoman accompanied them and provided
brief information about the buildings in the first and second courts, pointing out the
Imperial Gate, the Imperial Mint, the Middle Gate, the Imperial Kitchens, the
Council Hall, and the Tower of Justice. They seemed to pay more attention to the
Enderun court, which was an exotic mystery for the European gaze and were given
the chance to enter the Audience Hall and the Imperial Library. After 1855, the
visitors were not taken to the fourth court or the hanging gardens of the palace,
probably due to the ongoing renovations that took place in the Tulip Gardens and the
construction of the Mecidiye Kiosk during these dates. Almost all visitors were taken
to St. Irene and inspected the newly established collections within the armory with
curiosity and interest, giving a detailed depiction of the items on display: weapons,
and Janissary figures with costumes.286 Hence, as a response to the increasing
demand from Western visitors, the collections that attracted the most attention,
which were the royal treasury, Janissary costumes, and ancient arms, were started
being displayed as touristic sites during the Tanzimat era.
285 Godard, D'Angers au Bosphore pendant la guerre d'Orient, Constantinople, Athenes, Rome, 73.
286 Blanc, Journal de mon voyage a Constantinople, 59; Joanne and Isambert, Itinéraire de l'Orient,
363; Godard, D'Angers au Bosphore pendant la guerre d'Orient, Constantinople, Athenes, Rome, 74;
Fontmagne, Un se'jour l'ambassade de France a Constantinople, 54.
136
CHAPTER 3
THE REIGN OF ABDÜLAZİZ
During the era of Abdülmecid, while the Topkapı Palace was frequently a destination
for touristic visits, it was still used for certain ceremonials, royal weddings, Friday
prayers, and bairam greetings until 1867.287 After the sultan’s move to the
Dolmabahçe Palace, he paid occasional visits to the Topkapı Palace, especially for
bairam greetings, for royal visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics,288 and for official
visits as well.289 The Tezakir-i Cevdet depicts Abdülmecid’s last bairam greeting
(muayede) ceremony on June 1861, conducted at the Topkapı Palace despite his
severe illness. Abdülmecid was very tired and weak during the ceremony and fainted
afterwards, resting a while at the Topkapı Palace (Figure 76). Later he went back to
the Dolmabahçe Palace and gave his farewell to the royal family, including
Abdülaziz. The reforming sultan passed away a few days later at the age of 38,
leaving the empire with huge debts, serious internal and external problems, and
uncompleted reforms.290
287 Kılıç, "Osmanlı Devlet Törenlerinin Topkapı Sarayı'ndan Dolmabahçe Sarayı'na İntikali", in
Kahraman, 150. Yılında Dolmabahçe Sarayı Uluslararası Sempozyumu, 41–50.
288 Religious visits by Abdülmecid to the Topkapı Palace were recounted in detail in the newspapers
of the era. For instance,
Journal de Constantinople, 19.5.1858:
"Samedi, au point du jour, la cour du Sérail de Top-Capou, depuis la porte de Bab-Houmayoum
jusqu'a la façade à tourelles si gracieussement ornementées du palais central, presentait un spectacle
unique de magnificence et d'animation."
Journal de Constantinople, 24.7.1858:
"Le Sultan, revetu du manteau impérial, et portant sur son fez la superbe aigrette en brillans qui le
décore dans les grandes cérémonies, a quitté, au point du h-jour, le palais de Top-Capou, par la porte
de Bab-Houmayoum, pour aller à mosquée de Sultan Ahmet. . . . Après la prière, le Sultan a quitté la
mosquée pour retourner au palais de Top-Capou, ou il a reçu, dans la salle de trone, les homages et
les félicitations accoutumés de ministres et hauts dignitaires de l'Empire..."
289 For example, according to a newspaper article dated 28.8.1858, Abdülmecid paid an annual visit to
the Sublime Porte to meet with his ministers passing through the Topkapı Palace with a certain
ceremony.
Journal de Constantinople, 28.8.1858:
"Sa Majesté débarquée à Yali Kiosque, monta à cheval, et traversant les jardins du vieux Serail entra,
vers cinq héures du soir, dans le cour de la S. Porte..."
290 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, 136–39.
137
Figure 76. The last Bairam greeting of Abdülmecid in front of the Gate of Felicity
(Le Monde Illustré, 06.07.1861, Le sultan Abdul-Mejid recevant les ulemas avant de
se rendre aux fetes du Kourban-Bairam, celebres les 18, 19, 20, 21 juin, a
Constantinople, Derniere cérémonie a laquelle a assisté le sultan)
The death of Abdülmecid on June 25th, 1861 marked a beginning of a new era with
the enthronement of his brother Abdülaziz. While Abdülmecid lost his life at the
Dolmabahçe Palace, his body was brought to the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu by
imperial boats and later carried to the Chamber of Sacred Relics. The funeral took
place directly after Abdülaziz’s accession ceremony, and the new sultan did not
attend the funeral of his predecessor, but left for Dolmabahçe Palace immediately
after his accession.291 Ottoman notables and dignitaries, on the other hand, waited for
the ceremony either in Kubbealtı or on the chairs placed in the second court and
attended the funeral.292 According to Edhem Eldem this was “the last imperial
funeral performed with all the traditional Ottoman pomp and magnificence.” 293 The
journal L’Illustration verbally and graphically depicted the funeral of Abdülmecid,
with an engraving by Pierre Montani showing the military procession of the coffin
291 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, 140–41.
292 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Halaçoğlu, Sultan Abdülhamid’e Arzlar (Maʻrûzât), 46.
293 Eldem, Death in Istanbul, 96.
138
from the Middle Gate to the Imperial Gate. The June 26, 1861 issue of the Levant
Herald also covered the funeral and depicted the ceremony in detail. Yanatma states
that the funeral cortege of Abdülmecid is a reflection of a “modern Tanzimat
ceremony”, while still retaining the Islamic tradition.294 Thus, this traditional and
religious ceremony was transformed in resonance with the Tanzimat reforms.
According to Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, the funeral of Abdülmecid filled the streets of
Istanbul with unprecedented crowds, whose sorrow was sincere.295
Figure 77. Funeral of Abdülmecid (L’Illustration 962, August 3, 1861 from Eldem,
2005, 97)
Following the death of Abdülmecid, Ottoman dignitaries visited the apartment of the
heir apparent at the Dolmabahçe Palace to take Abdülaziz to the accession (cülus)
ceremony to be held at the Topkapı Palace. The mother of Abdülaziz, Pertevniyal,
was unsure about the faith of her son and reluctant to let him go off the Dolmabahçe
294 Yanatma, “The Deaths and Funeral Ceremonies of Ottoman Sultans,” 26.
295 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Halaçoğlu, Sultan Abdülhamid’e Arzlar (Maʻrûzât), 46–47.
139
Palace, yet she followed the dignitaries up to the Topkapı Palace.296 All Ottoman
notables were gathered in the Topkapı Palace and the allegiance ceremony took place
in the second court, in front of the Gate of Felicity, according to tradition. However,
in his memoirs Ahmet Cevdet Pasha states that a minor change in the protocol
caused unrest.297 Against all naysayers, the accession ceremony for Abdülaziz took
place and the reign of another reforming ruler, a follower of Tanzimat ideals, began
again in the Topkapı Palace.
3.1 Reckoning with the past
Like his predecessors, Abdülaziz did not reside in the Topkapı Palace, and directly
after the enthronement ceremony, he returned to the Dolmabahçe Palace, where he
was already living. It could be said that a new era emerged for the Topkapı Palace
during the reign of Abdülaziz. While its royal and political significance declined, the
historical and representational value of its imperial kiosks and royal collections was
emphasized. Also beginning in the era of Abdülaziz, especially during the early
years, touristic visits were either suspended, or the method for granting permissions
changed. Only a few permissions could be found in the Ottoman Archives that secure
access to the palace, and these were written in a different format and issued from
different departments than earlier petitions298 (Figure 78). There is no archival record
296 Ali Akyıldız, “Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan”, 307; Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and
Baysun, Tezâkir, 140. Halûk Y. Şehsuvaroğlu, Sultan Aziz, Hususi, Siyasi Hayatı, Devri ve Ölümü,
Hilmi Kitabevi, İstanbul 1949, 24-25.
297 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Halaçoğlu, Sultan Abdülhamid’e Arzlar (Maʻrûzât), 46.; Akyıldız,
“Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan”, 308.
According to rumor, some of the Ottoman deputies preferred Prince Murad instead of heir apparent
Abdülaziz. The name of Abdülaziz was written in the blank space left in the protocol note (teşrifat
pusulası) declaring his accession and this minor carelessness created tension during the accession
ceremony and revealed the competition between the two crown princes, that would later cost
Abdülaziz his life.
298 BOA İ.HR.187.10403 (17 S 1278 / 24.8.1861)
"Tebrik-i Cülus-ı Hümayun-ı Hazret-i Mülukane zımnında İngiltere devleti tarafından gönderilmiş
olan General William Kodrinton..."
140
explaining why the visits were suddenly discontinued, or indicating that the
bureaucratic procedure for touristic visits changed during the reign of Abdülaziz.
However, I suggest that a series of fires destroying various parts of the Topkapı
Palace must have prevented visits to the imperial complex for a certain period.
Despite this, there are a number of travellers from this era depicting their visits to the
palace.299
Figure 78. Two documents from the era of Abdülaziz granting permission to visit
the imperial palace (BOA A.MKT.NZD.367.5; A.MKT.NZD.391.6)
BOA İ.HR.190.10623 (10 B 1278 / 11.1.1862)
"İran sefir-i fevkaladesi devletlu Resim Han hazretleri Hazine-i Hümayunu temaşa etmek arzusunda
bulunduğundan..."
299 De Gasparin, À Constantinople; Russell, A diary in the East during the tour of the prince and
Princess of Wales; Grey, Journal of a visit to Egypt, Constantinople, the Crimea, Greece & c.;
Millaud, Voyages d'un fantaisiste. Vienne, le Danube, Constantinople; De Chambrier, Un peu partout.
Du Danube au Bosphore; De Amicis, Constantinople.
141
3.1.1 The fires of Seraglio
In 1863, two years after the accession of Abdülaziz, a fire swept away the Seraglio,
completely destroying the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu. According to Illustrated
London News, "the disaster which has deprived the Turkish capital of one of its most
striking and historically interesting monuments" took place on Monday, August 10,
1863. In less than two hours, the whole building had burned down. The Grand-vizier
who was at Dolmabahçe at that time, hurried across the sea with palace caiques, and
was soon followed by other ministers. Even though all land and marine soldiers,
military forces and firefighters (tulumbacılar) headed to the scene of the fire, they
couldn't extinguish it. According to the article, almost 3,000 troops were sent to the
site and some strong ships from the naval shipyard of Tophane put forth an excellent
attempt to control the fire, but none of those efforts could save the renowned Seaside
Palace of Topkapusu (Figure 79).
Figure 79. Burning of the Old Seraglio at Constantinople (The Illustrated London
News, Sept 5, 1863)
142
Ottoman chronicler Lütfi Efendi stated that the fire was initiated by a spark from a
flatiron and caused the collapse of the whole building. He also claimed that the two
imperial palaces by the sea were devastated, while the one at the Seraglio burned in
the fire, the other palace at Beylerbeyi was decaying.300 The Ceride-i Havadis
echoed these accounts, stating that the fire started on Monday, August 11 at 4:30
local time in the Harem section of the palace due to an accident. It also put forth that
the fire fighters of the Historic Peninsula and boats from the Arsenal headed to the
Seraglio to save some of the furniture and valuable items, but could not reach the
shore due to the strong wind. Unfortunately both the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu
and the guard rooms (zabitan dairesi) across the Imperial Military School (Mekteb-i
Harbiye-i Şahane) located in the palace gardens were completely destroyed.301
Again, according to Le Monde Illustré, the palace was completely ruined, including
its famous library. The loss was estimated as 200,000 liras, approximately 4,600,000
francs.302 Rasim Efendi reported that, in the days following the fire, palace servants
were sent to the area to search for jewels and valuable remains. According to rumor,
the incident was a case of arson to cover the thefts that took place in the abandoned
imperial palace.303
This unfortunate incident deformed the leitmotif of the Topkapı Palace, the
characteristic architectural feature of the Seraglio and by destroying a landmark of
the city, leaving a flat empty piece of land after its legacy. The fire created an
irreplaceable loss for the history and the memory of the city and fostered the neglect
of the Topkapı Palace. The Seraglio lost its previous charm and beauty now that the
imperial kiosks adorning the tip of the peninsula were gone. This prestigious
300 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, v.X, 104.
301 Ruzname-i Ceride-i Havadis, no 687, 26 Safer 1280 / 12.8.1863.
302 "Le Vieux Serai", Le Monde Illustré, 7 No.333, 29 Aout, 1863, 136.
303 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 44.
143
shoreline palace, which had defined the majestic character of the peninsula and gave
its name to the entire imperial complex, had vanished in a couple of hours (Figure
80). This fire must have been an immense financial and historical loss for the royal
family and the citizens of Istanbul, aggravating the decadence and neglect of the
Topkapı Palace in the coming years (Figure 81). A couple weeks after the fire,
Cevdet Efendi sent a letter expressing his condolences to the sultan, and stated that
this unfortunate incident would be an opportunity for building a more ostentatious
palace in its place.304
Figure 80. The fire of the Seraglio (Illustrated London News, Sept 5, 1863, No.
1220)
304 BOA TŞR.BNM.4.16 (8 Ra.1280 / 23.8.1863)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun ihrakı vakıa-yı mukadderesi mücib-i elem nizam olmamak kabil değil
ise de . . . din ü devlet ve müeyyed kavaim-i satvet ve saltanat-ı velinimetimiz padişahımız efendimiz
hazretlerini bu mülkü millete bağışlasın. Az vakit içinde rükua varmış olan Topkapu Sarayı devletin
kıyamına muvafık oldukları gibi inşallahü'l-kerim muhterik olan bir eski sarayın yerinde Osmanlı
milletinin büyüklüğünü bildirecek tesisat-ı azimeye muvaffakiyet-i seniyye ..."
144
Figure 81. The Seraglio during the 1863 fire of and after (Cengiz Kahraman
Collection)
Numerous travel accounts mention the fire of 1863 and mark this year as the date of
the palace’s real abandonment. For instance, De Chambrier indicated that the palace
was abandoned first following the abolishment of the Janissaries and again with the
fire of 1863.305 Mr. William Grey also referred to the site as a "Byzantine Palace
burnt in 1864", when his group headed to the Seraglio point with caiques to visit the
palace and the Imperial Treasury in April 1869.306 It is interesting that the memory of
the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu was replaced with a Byzantine Palace, both of
which now belonged to a distant irreplaceable past. Evidently, the fire was a huge
blow for the palace and the loss of the shoreline palace damaged its imperial prestige
and integrity of Sur-u Sultani.
The renovation registers of the era give us an idea about the time and money
spent on the Topkapı Palace, thus could be considered as an indication of sultanic
305 De Chambrier, Un peu partout. Du Danube au Bosphore, 334.
306 Grey, Journal of a visit to Egypt, Constantinople, the Crimea, Greece, 163.
145
interest towards the royal complex.307 After the Seraglio fire of 1863, no renovation
efforts were documented. A financial record (ceyb-i hümayun ve harc-ı hassa irad ve
masraf defteri) from the Topkapı Palace Archives stated that items and furniture
saved from the fire were auctioned to generate income for the decoration of the
Malta Kiosk and Küçükçekmece Kiosk. This document, issued a couple months after
the fire could be read as an indication of the sultan's disinterest towards the Topkapı
Palace and his attraction to the new hunting pavilions on the shores of the
Bosphorus.308 A document dating 1865 provides information about the leveling of
the Topkapı Palace grounds and the demolition of the imperial kiosks around it
within a period of four weeks.309 Thus, after the fire of 1863 rather than putting effort
to reconstruct the shoreline palace and its environs, Abdülaziz preferred to demolish
and flatten the entire area, directing his attention to the renovation of the Harem and
Enderun sections of the Topkapı Palace.
Another register from 1864 states that the imperial pavilion and the hall that
was used by the sultan himself next to the Chamber of Sacred Relics were to be
repaired.310 Another series of renovation registers give weekly reports about repairs
307 Four renovation registers under Hazine-i Hassa Defterleri (BOA HH.d.21648; HH.d.21779;
HH.d.21653; HH.d.21781) are found before the fire of 1863, giving details about the repair of
imperial kitchens (Matbah-ı Amire masarıf-ı tamiriyesi) at the Topkapı Palace, stating the costs of the
repair, the amount of materials used, and the number of workers that took part in the renovation of
imperial kitchens.
308 BOA TS.MA.d.394 (Teşrinisani 1279 / 10.1863) Ceyb-i Hümayun ve Harc-ı Hassa İrad ve Masraf
Defteri
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu harikinden çıkmış olan bir takım köhne defter-i surre eşyalar ile Feriye
Dairesi eşyalarından olup istimali gayr-i şayan bulunan konsol ve sandalye ve ebniye ve eşya ve
sairler Hazine-i Hümayunu Şahane canibinde füruht olunarak hasıl olan etmanı? Malta Kasr-ı
Hümayunu ile Küçükçekmecede kain Kasr-ı Hümayunu sahanelerin mesarıfatı mefruşatlarına
mahsuben Hazine-i Enderun-ı Hümayuna irad kaydolunan..."
309 BOA HH.d.21718 (10 L 1281 / 8.3.1865)
“Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu arsası tesviyesi ve civarında kâin Kasr-ı Hümayunların hedminde
müstahdem amelenin seksen bir senesi Ramazan-ı şerifinin dokuzuncu gününden sene-i merkuma
Şevval-i şerifin sekizinci gününe kadar dört hafta zarfında icap eden yevmiyat ile mübayaatın tanzim
kılınan defteridir.”
310 BOA HH.d.11937 (1864 / h.1281)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Hırka-i Şerif civarında kâin Kasr-ı Hümayun ameliyesinde zât-ı
şahaneye mahsus oda ve sofanın . . . [tamir] masarıfat-ı sairesini mübeyyin defterdir."
146
conducted in the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury during June-August, 1864.311
These ten registers provide detailed information about the cost of materials and
workers used for the renovation of the Imperial Treasury that lasted ten weeks. A
detailed report was written at the end of each week, sealed by the building officers
(ebniye memuru) Mehmed İdris and Nerses Kalfa. The first chamber of the Imperial
Treasury had already been opened for visits during the era of Abdülmecid and
reorganized to accept foreign visitors. These documents suggest that Abdülaziz
(Figure 82) emphasized the touristic function of the palace and preferred to renovate
sections of the palace that attracted the attention from foreign visitors (Appendix
Maps).
Figure 82. Portrait of Sultan Abdülaziz (P. Guillemet, 1873, TSM Paintings
Collection)
311 BOA TS.MA.d.7827.01; TS.MA.d.7827.02; TS.MA.d.7827.03; TS.MA.d.7827.04;
TS.MA.d.7827.05; TS.MA.d.7827.06; TS.MA.d.7827.07; TS.MA.d.7827.08; TS.MA.d.7827.09;
TS.MA.d.7827.10 (Muharrem-Safer-Rebiülevvel 1281 / Haziran-Temmuz-Ağustos 1864)
"Bin iki yüz seksen senesi der-dest-i tamir kılınan Hazine-i Enderun-ı Hümayun birinci koğuşu
ebniyesinin bedayet-i haftası zarfında vukuʻbulan bi'l-cümle yevmiyat ve masarıfat-ı sairesini
müsta'mel kıt’a defteridir ki ber-vech-i ati zikr ü beyan olunur. 8 Muharrem 1281"
147
A couple years following the fire at the Seraglio, another fire destroyed the main
imperial gate of the palace overlooking the Hagia Sophia in 1866 (h.1283). This fire
that took place in the first court of the palace burnt down the main monumental
Imperial Gate (Bab-ı Hümayun), the timber kiosk located on top of it, and the
Department of Finances building (Maliye Nezareti) that was located across the
gate312 (Figure 84). The gate was repaired, but the imperial timber kiosk, which gave
the Imperial Gate a grand presence, was completely terminated (Figure 85). After the
repairs, the monogram of Abdülaziz was placed on the inner façade of the gate. Two
marble fountains on two sides of its outer façade were also built, giving a majestic
look to the Imperial Gate in accordance with the aesthetic understanding of the
Azizian era. (Figure 86) It could be argued that the morphology of the imperial gate
resembled the gate of the Ministry of War at Beyazit (Bab-ı Seraskeri) (Figure 83).
This monumental gate, designed by Bourgeouis, carried the monogram of Abdülaziz
and completed in 1865 (h.1282),313 a couple years before the renovation of the
Imperial Gate of the Topkapı Palace (Figure 83). A similar triadic composition was
applied to the Imperial Gate after the fire, where two marble fountains were placed in
deep niches on two sides of the gate. The inscriptions on the fountains were dated
1868 (h.1285), and an Arabic text meaning "All who are suffering take refugee in
him" was written on the left panel, while the inscription on the right panel could be
translated as the "Sultan is the shadow of God on earth".314
312 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 28; Müller-Wiener and Sayın, İstanbul’un
tarihsel topografyası.
313 Özcan, "Bab-ı Seraskeri", c.4, 364.
314 Database for Ottoman Inscriptions, "Bab-ı Hümayun", ID K4749 and ID K4750 (13.8.2017).
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=3006&hid=4750
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=3006&hid=4749
148
Figure 83. The Gate of the Ministry of War at Beyazit, designed during the reign of
Abdülaziz
On February 15, 1868 the Illustrated London News stated that "the historical Bab
Humayoum, from which the Porte takes its name, has been pulled down, and a new
entrance into the Seraglio enclosure is being built to the left of the fountain of St.
Sophia. Another architectural landmark of old Stamboul has thus disappeared."315
Another article from the Levant Herald, dated 1869, mentions that the Bab-ı
Hümayun ''damaged some time ago by a fire, was rebuilt in the Moorish style and
adorned with marbles and inscriptions''.316 It is also recorded that a small fire took
place in the Harem in 1873 and extensive repairs were conducted afterwards.317
According to several archival documents and renovation registers from 1867 to 1876,
315 The Illustrated London News, 15.2.1868, 167.
316 Levant Herald, 29.3.1869. I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Edhem Eldem for bringing this article
to my attention.
"La Bab Houmayoun, endommagée il y a quelque temps par un incendie et qui a été reconstruite dans
le sytle mauresque, et ornée de marbres et d'inscriptions."
317 BOA HH.d.23053 (29.Z.1289 /27.02.1873)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Harem dairesinde muhterik mahallerde sıva ve döşeme ve cam
çerçeve misüllü tamir..."
149
the Harem and Enderun also underwent continuous repairs until the end of
Abdülaziz's reign.318
Figure 84. The Imperial Gate during the late-eighteenth century (Melling, 1809)
Figure 85. The Imperial Gate with the timber kiosk before the fire of 1866 (Bab-ı
Hümayun to Topkapi Sarayı, with the Fountain of Sultan Ahmet III, Victoria &
Albert, 1810)
318 BOA TS.MA.d.563; HH.d.16062; HH.d.16071; HH.d.21011; HH.d.21012; HH.d.21450;
HH.d.21495; HH.d.20888; HH.d.23044; HH.d.23053; HH.d.23054; HH.d.23061 (renovation registers
from 1867 to 1876)
150
Figure 86. The Imperial Gate after the fire of 1866 (Albert-Kahn, Archives de la
planète, 27.11.1922, A 36661)
These devastating fires that took place at various parts of the palace and the ongoing
constructions of the treasury and palace grounds explains the suspension of touristic
visits to the palace during the reign of Abdülaziz. The sultan also spent his financial
resources on the construction of two new palaces on the Asian and European shores
of the Bosphorus, and reconstructed masonry palaces with an orientalist style at
Çırağan319 and Beylerbeyi.320 Within this context, especially following the fire of
1863, the Topkapı Palace was completely discarded as an imperial residence and the
Bosphorus became the new axis of the imperial capital. Thus, there was an
accelerated shift in the center of gravity of the city from the Historic Peninsula
towards the more modern and Europeanized parts of Istanbul during the reign of
Abdülaziz.
319 Tuğlacı, The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture, 318.
Abdülaziz constructed a new palace at Çırağan, designed by Nigoğos Balyan and constructed by
Sarkis Balyan and Agop Balyan. The construction started in 1864 and was finalized in 1871 for a total
cost of 5 million Ottoman gold liras. Abdülaziz interfered in every detail of his new palace.
320 Tuğlacı, 396–97.
Another imperial palace was built by Sarkis Balyan and Agop Balyan on the Asian shores of the
Bosphorus as a summer residence for the sultan. The construction of the Beylerbeyi Palace was
initiated in 1861 and the palace−with its marble façade, landscaped gardens, and orientalist
decorations−was completed in 1864. Abdülaziz began to reside at the Beylerbeyi Palace on April 21,
1864 and a statue depicting him on a horse-back was also placed in this palace.
151
3.1.2 The Rumeli Railroad: A route to Europe through the palace gardens
Another important development during the reign of Abdülaziz was the construction
of the Rumeli Railroad, connecting Istanbul to Europe. Known as the Orient Express,
the construction of this railroad was an integral part of the Ottoman empire's
modernization attempts and fostered its economic, commercial, and cultural
integration with Europe. During the era of industrialization, transportation became
crucial for economic development and hailed as a sign of progress. Hence, bridges,
tramlines, steamboats, railroads, and even a subway line were initiated in the
Ottoman capital during the Tanzimat era.321 The construction of the railroad
connecting Constantinople both to the West and to the East was a grand step in
integrating the Ottoman empire with the global capitalist system and was regarded as
a crucial precaution for the military defense of the area against Russian threats.322
Archival documents at the Centre des Archives Diplomatiques de Nantes
shows that the first propositions for constructing a railroad connecting
Constantinople to Adrianople came during the reign of Abdülmecid. According to a
proposal dated April 1858 and signed by "Eingenieur un chef du ponts et chaussées",
this ambitious project was composed of five sections: 1. From Küçükçekmece to
Yedikule; 2. From Yedikule to Langa Bostanı; 3. Crossing Istanbul; 4. Crossing the
port; 5. From Galata to Pera.323
Providing details about each section of the project, the report proposed that
the railroad would follow the coastline up to Küçükçekmece and further on to
Yedikule. From Yedikule, the railroad would go beyond the city walls and would be
constructed parallel to the shore until it reached the gardens of Langa Bostan. In this
321 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, 82–103.
322 Engin, Rumeli demiryolları, 49.
323 "1. de Kutchuk Tchechmedje a Yedi-Koule; 2. de Yedi-Koule a Vlnaga-bostan; 3. Traversée de
Stamboul; 4. Traversée du port; 5. de Galata a Pera", Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes,
408/103 Chemins de fer, April 1858.
152
unbuilt area, it would be relatively easy to construct the railroad and a station on
open terrain, and after this point the railroad would continue crossing Istanbul
underground until it reached the Golden Horn, at a point between the Fatih Mosque
and the Süleymaniye Mosque. The proposal justified the underground passage by
arguing that, "this tunnel will prevent any damage to the houses, monuments and to
the Old Palace of Istanbul". The proposed railroad would pass through the port of the
Golden Horn over a bridge, and after reaching Galata, the railroad would continue up
to Pera. As seen in the attached map (Figure 87), this proposal from 1858 aimed to
connect Pera and Stamboul by railroad and respected the built environment and
historic fabric of the old city.324 News about this railroad project was published in
the newspapers of the time as well.325 However, this project "Chemins de fer de
Kutchuk Tchezmedge à Pera à travers Constantinople (1848-1863)" was not realized
and abandoned until a new project was proposed a decade later.
The new railroad project was titled "Chemis de fer de Roumélie (1868-
1876)" 326 was proposed to Abdülaziz, who was eager to implement it as soon as
possible. His recent European tour must have influenced the sultan’s decision. The
Minister of Public Works (Nafia Nazırı) Davut Pasha was sent to Europe to find a
suitable investor for the project. A copy of the contract between Davud Pasha,
representing the Ottoman government and the Sultan, with Baron Maurice de Hirsch,
a Belgian banker, was found in the French Diplomatic archives. Signed in Paris on
April 17, 1869 the final version of the project was titled "Chemins de Fer de la
Turquie d'Europe". In the French diplomatic archives, documents titled as
"convention de concession", "cahier des changes", "traversée de la Bosnie", and
324 "Note sur un projet de chemin de fer a construire a Constantinople", Centre des Archives
diplomatiques de Nantes, 408/103 Chemins de fer, April 1858.
325 "Projet: D'un Chemin de Fer à Constantinople", Journal de Constantinople, 1.5.1858.
326 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, "Chemis de fer de Roumélie (1868-1876)".
153
“convention principale d'exploitation" were attached to the contracts.327 Among
hundreds of pages stating the details of the railroad and its rights of expropriation, no
detailed information was given on the projected itinerary of the railroad, which
would pass through the cities of Filibe, Salonica, Adrianople, İnos, Bergos, and
Sava.328
Figure 87. The 1858 Proposition for Rumeli Railroad (Sur un chemin de fer a
construire à Constantinople, 1848-1863, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de
Nantes)
The second article of the Cahier des Charges stated that the itinerary of the railroad
would be proposed to the Ottoman government accompanied by topographical plans
and sections. The proposed itinerary should adapt to the exigencies of the
topography, the general interests of the Ottoman empire, the government, and the
locals. According to Article 3, within three months the Ottoman government would
327 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, "Chemins de Fer de la Turquie d'Europe", 1869.
328 Engin, Rumeli demiryolları, 51.
154
make its decision about the itinerary of the railroad.329 Another interesting article in
the contract was about the statues, medallions, art objects, archeological fragments
that would be found during the construction of the railroad (Figure 88). Half of these
findings would belong to the company and the other half would be owned by the
Ottoman state, and the government shall hold the right for preemption.330 According
to the document, a copy of this agreement would be issued as an "Irade" or as an
"Imperial Hat" and all articles would be executed in the Ottoman empire, giving
Baron Hirsch utilization of the railway for 99 years.
Figure 88. Orient Express in the Ottoman lands (Chemis de fers de la Turquie
d'Europe, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes)
329 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, Cahier des charges, page 3-4 (P1060402-403),
Article 2 and Article 3.
330 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, Cahier des charges, Article 31.
155
The contract stated that the project would be finalized within seven years but the
execution of the project took much longer and cost much more than expected. The
first phase of the railroad connecting Yedikule to Küçük Çekmece started on June 4,
1870. Around 2,000 workers took part in the first phase of the construction and the
first 15-kilometer part of the railroad was completed by the end of the same year.
The opening ceremony took place in January 1871, with the attendance of a large
crowd and the Grand Vizier. However, following the completion of the first phase,
the distance of Yedikule from the commercial and financial center of the city created
complaints among the public, who demanded the line to be extended towards the city
center. Thus, extension of the line from Yedikule to Sirkeci was proposed and
supported by the investor company. The itinerary of the railroad would follow
Narlıkapı - Langa Bostanı - Yenikapı - Kumkapı - Çatladıkapı - Balıkhane Kapısı
and from there penetrating the palace grounds following the coastline until it reached
Sirkeci331 (Figure 89).
Figure 89. The first phase of the railroad up to Yedikule (BOA HRT.h.1711)
331 Engin, Rumeli demiryolları, 64.
156
The Ottoman sources indicate that the railroad crossing through the palace grounds
was a cause of discussion and unrest among Ottoman dignitaries. Vahdettin Engin
mentioned that several meetings and discussions of the proposed route took place
among Ottoman notables. Rıza Pasha objected to the project, but Grand Vizier Ali
Pasha put an end to the discussion, stating that the decision belonged to the sultan as
the owner of the imperial lands.332 According to the article of Abdurrahman Şeref
Bey published at the Journal of the Society of Ottoman History (Tarih-i Osmani
Encümeni Mecmuası), Mehmed Rüştü Pasha strongly objected to the use of palace
grounds for the passage of railroad and rejected the construction of a station at such a
prestigious location in the city. However, Abdülaziz made clear that he was ready for
all sorts of compromises in order to realize such an auspicious project. Rumor says
that the sultan expressed his enthusiasm for this new technology by stating that the
railroad should come to Istanbul, "even if it had to pass through his own back".333
Grand Vizier Ali Pasha agreed with the sultan and, against all objections, the
construction of the railroad started in accordance with the proposal.
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, who published a series of articles on the Topkapı
Palace between 1910 and 1911, stated that it would have been much better if another
route were selected for the railroad.334 In the same article, after referencing the
objections of the Ottoman elites about the construction of the railroad, Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey also presented the perception of the locals and the palace servants with
332 Engin, 70.
333 Koçu, Topkapu Sarayı, 1960; Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul.
334 Abdurrahman Şeref, "Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, no.5, 1
Kanunievvel 1326 / 1910, 285.
"Rumeli şimendiferinin Saray içinden geçerek Sirkeci'de müntehi olması vaktiyle bin elvanla bade-yi
ihtilaf olub mütercim Mehmed Rüşdü Paşa şehrin mentühabbir noktasının istasyon ithazına ve bahusus
hat-ı hadidin saray-ı Hümayun dahilinden imrarına şiddetle itiraz etmiş ise de Sultan Abdülaziz
Han demiryolu gibibir müesses-yi nafianın hasuli için her türlü fedakarlığı ihtiyare razı ve kail ve
sadrazam Ali Paşa dahi fikr-i şahaneye mütemail olmağla itirazlara iltifat olunmayarak Baron Hirş'e
istenilen suretle müsaide buyurulmuşdu. Şimendüfere başka bir güzergah bulunsa elbette daha
muvaffak olur idi."
157
these words: "An 80 year-old palace servant retired as the chief-barber of Sultan
Mahmud, when he heard about the demolishment of the gardens by the Yalı Kiosk
because of the railroad, asked in despair what will happen to the sultan of the elves
who established his council every Wednesday at this location"335 This quote not only
criticized the bold decision of Abdülaziz, but also represented the indifference of the
sultan towards the beliefs and values of the population.336 However, neither these
superstitious oppositions nor the patrimonial significance of the area and the shore
kiosks prevented the sultan from implementing his modernizing agenda (Figure 90).
Figure 90. The route of the Rumeli Railroad in Istanbul (Ottoman Archives of Prime
Ministry)
335 Ibid., 22.
"Sultan Mahmud'un berber başılığından mütekaid Memiş efendi isminde seksenlik bir zat demir yolu
inşatı için Yalı Köşkü civarında vaki şimşirliğin bozulacağını haber aldıkda "Eyvah o şimşirlikde her
çarşamba geceleri cin padişahı meclis kurardı şimdi nerede kuracak" diye teessüf etmiş."
336 Tuğlacı, The Role of Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture, 318–19.
In fact, this was not the first time the reforming sultan faced a similar situation; during the
construction of New Çırağan Palace, demolishment of the Mevlevi lodge in the area also created
rumors of misfortune for the sultan.
158
The Rumeli railroad penetrated into palace grounds and followed the coastline to
Sirkeci, passing through the Seraglio. It is possible that the fire of 1863, which had
demolished the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu and flattened the area, played a major
role in this decision (Figure 91). The expropriation of the land, especially in and
around the dense neighborhoods of Istanbul, would have created a large financial
burden for the Ottoman government. The use of imperial gardens belonging to the
sultan (hassbağçe) must have reduced the land costs for the railroad route. Thus,
instead of other proposed routes, such as extending the line to Ayvansaray, or
constructing an underground tunnel, the most economical and practical option was to
compromise the spatial and visual integrity and the imperial identity of the Topkapı
Palace. The railway demolished several imperial kiosks and the area that was
previously known as the place of the Imperial Gardeners (Bostancıbaşı yeri),
including the Gülhane gardens, the gardens of Selim, and some parts of the Medical
School. Even the cypresses and other trees in these gardens were trimmed and sold to
generate income for the treasury.337
An interesting document from June 1872 is a translated copy of a letter
written by Baron de Hirsch stating that the railroad passing through the imperial
gardens of the palace was creating an unpleasant visual appearance. Hirsch proposed
to build a double-lane tunnel to hide the railroad within and to prevent the
construction of bridges within the palace grounds. This project proposed to
regenerate the authentic appearance of the gardens (saray-ı hümayun bahçesini
manzaraca hal-i sabıkına irca ile) and stated that the drawings depicting the imperial
gardens were attached and sent to the necessary agencies. Unfortunately, these
337 BOA TS.MA.d.7832.01 (1289 Ş / 10.1872)
"Şimendüfer tarikine isabet eden Gülhane ve Sultan Selim bahçesi civarıyla Bostancıbaşıyeri tabir
olunan Mekteb-i Tıbbiyenin pişgahında bulunan bu defa kat' ve harice füruht olunan servi ve sair
ağaçların esmanını mübeyyin olarak pusula kaydolundu."
159
architectural drawings could not yet be found in the Ottoman Archives.338 A year
later, a complaint was sent to the Ministry of Public Affairs (Nafia Nezareti) stating
that Baron de Hirsch refrained from building the tunnel he proposed and an extensive
investigation was requested to determine whether the construction of the tunnel in
the palace was applicable.339 Apparently, the proposed tunnel was never realized and
a railroad bisecting the gardens of the Seraglio was implemented without any visual
or architectural precaution (Figure 92).
Figure 91. Map showing the fires at the Topkapı Palace and the route of the railroad
338 BOA HR.TO.456.16 (24 Ra 1289 / 1.6.1872)
"Meserret-i celil-i vekalet-uzmaya 1 Haziran 1872 tarihiyle Mösyö Hirş tarafından takdim kılınan
arizanın tercümesidir.
Demiyolun İstanbul mevkafı hakkında zat-ı sami-i hazret-i sadaret penahileri ile cereyan eden
musahabet esnasında demiryolun Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu bahçesinden açıkta olarak geçmesi
nazar-ı teessüfle görüldüğünden saray-ı mezkura teşrifi meali redif-i Hümayun ve vukuunda hattın
hiçbir tarafı görünmemesi ve güzergah-ı Hümayunda köprü bulunmaması nezd-i sami-i vekalet
penahilerinde müstelzim olduğunu his eylemiştim. Arzu-yı şahaneye tevfik hareketle mahzuziyet-i
seniyyeyi istihsal etmek ve bu vesile ile dahi irae-yi measir-i ubudiyet eylemek akdem-i amalim
olduğundan Saray-ı Hümayun bahçesini manzaraca hal-i sabıkına irca ile güzergah-ı Hümayunda
demiryol eseri meşhud olmamak üzere iki hatlı bir tünel inşa olunması suretini arz ve teklif etmekliği
lazımeden addederim. Tünelin inşası halinde bahçe-i mezkurun manzarasını tayin eder bir resim
leffen takdim kılınmış olmakla nezd-i aliye rehin-i tasvib olduğu halde taraf-ı eşref-i hazret-i
mülükaneye olan ubudiyetimin bir bergüzarı olmak üzere icra-yı iktizasına musaraat kılınacaktır."
339 BOA A.MKT.MHM.468.53 (25.N.1290 / 16.11.1873)
"Mezkur tünelin yapılmasında bir guna mahsur-ı müşkilat olup olmadığını tahkik ve işar olunmak..."
160
Figure 92. 1875 Map of the Topkapı Palace after the construction of the Rumeli
Railroad (Atatürk Kitaplığı, 1875, Hrt_003143)
The partial demolition of the city walls and palace walls, together with the
destruction of the imperial shore kiosks, barracks, hospitals, medical schools, and
botanical gardens within the outer gardens of the palace, were among the immediate
outcomes of the railroad project. Vahdettin Engin states that during the construction
of the railroad, the aim was to cause minimum harm to the surrounding imperial
buildings.340 However, during the construction numerous shore kiosks adorning the
seawalls of the palace were destroyed (Figure 93). Abdurrahman Şeref claimed that
these small but elegant kiosks, including İshakiye Kiosk, İncili Kiosk and other
kiosks from the era of Sultan Murad and Mahmud, were demolished by Galib Pasha,
340 Engin, Rumeli demiryolları, 69.
161
who was aware of Abdülaziz's disregard for the Topkapı Palace and for the small
kiosks.341
An archival document from 1873 mentions local resistance opposing the
demolishment of a mosque at the location of the Sirkeci train station.342 The Medical
School also remained on the railroad’s route but the building was not completely
evacuated, only a small portion was modified.343 According to archival documents
dated 1874, the botanical garden used by the Medical School (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye)
collided with the railway and the plants were transferred to the Galatasaray botanical
garden.344 According to the research conducted by Feryal İyez and Valide Gezgör in
the Archives of National Palaces (Milli Saraylar Arşivi), some antique columns were
found during the demolishment of the shore kiosks.345 However, their publication
does not provide detailed information regarding these antique columns.346
341 Abdurrahman Şeref, "Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, no.5, 1
Kanunievvel 1326 / 1910, 291.
"Sultan Abdülaziz Han'ın Saray-ı Cedide ve öyle ufak tefek köşklere idam-ı rağbetinden bilaistifade
Mekteb-i Harbiye nazırı Galib Paşa merhum ser karanlıkda bulunduğu esnada mesarif-i zaideyi
mucib oluyor diyerek bu köşkleri yıkdırmışdır."
342 BOA A.MKT.MHM.456.38 (12 R 1290 / 3.11.1873)
"Rumeli demiryolunun Sirkeci iskelesinde kain istasyonunun tevsii için Daye Hatun Cami-i Şerifinin
hedm olunacağı istihbar olunduğundan bahisle ibkası istidasına dair ahali tarafından takdim olunan
arzuhal..."
343 Engin, Rumeli demiryolları, 69.
344 BOA A.MKM.MHM.472.15 (7.1.1874 / 18 Za 1290)
Mekteb-i Tıbbiye’nin Hasbahçedeki botanik bahçesinin Rumeli demiryolu hattıyla çakışması
nedeniyle bitki ve ağaçların Galata Sarayı botanik bahçesine nakli.
345 "Demiryolu inşası sırasında yıktırılan köşklerden çıkan somaki direkler vs. 1291/92 (Milli Saraylar
Arşivi Belge no: 122)" cited in, İyez and Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan Belgeler
Doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı Onarımları.
346 It is known that the area is rich in antique remains. For example, during ground reinforcement
works conducted at the lower sections of the Mecidiye Kiosk in 2015, numerous marble columns and
antique pieces were also discovered.
162
Figure 93. Rumeli Railroad crossing the palace grounds (Atatürk Kitaplığı,
Bel_Mtf_000761)
Four depots for railway and customs were also built at the Gülhane gardens of the
palace, overlooking the Sea of Marmara. Two buildings with rectangular plans and
central courtyards were erected during the construction of the Rumeli railway around
1871.347 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey also stated that these depots were built during the
reign of Abdülaziz.348 A document dated 1875 from the Ottoman Archives
mentioned that two additional depots needed to be constructed next to the existing
two depots at the Gülhane gardens.349 The two depots were added later during the
last years of Abdülaziz. However, three of these depots have the Ottoman coat of
arms (arma-i Osmani) carrying the monograms of Abdülhamid II and indicate
347 Gültekin, “Gülhane Bahçesi 19. Yy Anıtları ve Çevre Değerlendirmesi,” 64; Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda
Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari.”
348 Abdurrahman Şeref, "Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, no.5, 1
Kanunievvel 1326 / 1910.
349 BOA İ.DH.703.49228 (25 Ca 1292 / 29.6.1875)
"Gülhane meydanında bir kıta kargir anbar geçende tesis ve inşa olunduğu misilli . . . anbar-ı
mezkurun iki cenahına birer anbar daha inşasına bu kerre şifahen emr ü ferman-ı isabet-beyan-ı
cenab-ı mülükane müteallik ve şerefsudur buyrulmuş..."
cited in, Anıtlar Kurulu Arşivi, "Topkapı Sarayı Sur-u Sultani alanı içerisinde bulunan eski askeri
bölgenin çevre düzenleme projelerinin ve alandaki yapıların rölöve, restitüsyon, restorasyon, inş. müh.
teşhir tanzim projelerinin hazırlanması işi: 4 Adet Tescilli Depo Sanat Tarihi Raporu", Almira
Tasarım Mimarlık İnşaat Turizm Ticaret Ltd.Şti, Şubat 2013.
163
construction dates from his reign.350 It is likely that during the reign of Abdülhamid
II these depots, initially built for the construction of the railroad, went through a
comprehensive renovation and adopted military functions.351 The fourth building
with a triangular pediment and pitched roof does not have an Ottoman coat of arms
or inscription. Most probably the inscription was removed from the building during
the later addition of the pitched roof (Figure 94).
Figure 94. Depots built during the construction of the Rumeli Railway (Abdulhamid
II Albums, Library of Congress)
Another military structure was also erected at the Seraglio point, known as the
Aziziye Karakolu. This police station was placed at the tip of the peninsula by the
shoreline. According to Çiftçi, the existing police station was damaged by the fire of
1863, renovated by Abdülaziz, and later reconstructed by Abdülhamid II in 1900.352
This neo-classical building with a pediment and a columned portico could be seen in
350 The Ottoman coat of arms and Abdülhamid's monogram is seen on the first building (1313 / 1896),
on the second building (1310 / 1893), and on the fourth building, but there is neither a coat of arms
nor a monogram on the third building whose architectural configuration was interfered with. Gültekin,
“Gülhane Bahçesi 19. Yy Anıtları ve Çevre Değerlendirmesi”; Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı
Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari.”
351 A detailed survey of the military structures erected in the Topkapı Palace during the reign of
Abdülhamid II is discussed in Chapter 5.
352 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari,” 258.
164
engravings from 1876 (Figure 95). The structure emphasized the deserted state of
Seraglio after the fire of 1863, but also symbolized the authoritative control of the
modernizing state over its subjects.
Figure 95. Detail from the Seraglio Point, (London Illustrated, 17.06.1876)
During the reign of Abdülaziz, the Topkapı Palace faced two major interventions
damaging its outer gardens. The Seraglio fire of 1863 wiped away one of the most
significant structures of the royal complex, completely changing the visual and
architectural characteristics of the peninsula. A decade later, Rumeli Railroad
crossed from the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace severely damaged the visual
and spatial the integrity of the imperial lands. The picturesque outer gardens of the
palace became a route for trains, enduring the noise, vibration, and pollution they
brought. The outer gardens of the palace were already utilized for implementing new
technological developments and applying military or medical reforms during the
reigns of Mahmud II and Abdülmecid, as explained above. However, the era of
Abdülaziz marks another threshold in the perception and utilization of the royal
165
precinct. The secluded domains of the imperial household and the traditional seat of
the Ottoman sultan lost its privy status and mysterious aura, and began to be treated
as any other state-owned estate (miri arazi) by the Ottoman ruler. In fact, the
crossing of the railroad through the privy lands of the sultan can be interpreted as an
early attempt for the nationalization of the royal palace, as the private domains of the
Ottoman court were opened for public use and put in the service of the community
for the sake of modernity. This attempt had a two-fold impact: While the railroad
facilitated modernization of the empire as a technological development connecting
Istanbul to Europe, it was also a sign of modernity itself, blurring the sharp
distinction between the privy and the public, the royal and the civil domains.
During the age of modernization and Westernization, the relationship
between the empire and its own past was redefined. In addition to the major
interventions that took place in the Topkapı Palace, the demolishment of the Galata
Walls, the Hocapaşa fire of 1865, and the great fire of Pera in 1870 severely
transformed the architectural fabric of the whole city during the reign of
Abdülaziz.353 The Ottoman capital witnessed an overwhelming change in the late
Tanzimat era with the introduction of new financial, educational, recreational,
industrial, and municipal institutions, and with the development of infrastructure,
tourism, architecture, and transportation354 (Figure 96).
353 For further discussion on the urban developments in Istanbul during the late Tanzimat era; See,
Akın, 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Galata ve Pera; Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul; Eldem, Goffman,
and Masters, The Ottoman City between East and West : Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul; Schiele et al.,
19. yüzyılda İstanbul hayatı.; İlhan Tekeli, "19. Yüzyılda İstanbul Metropol Alanının Dönüşümü" in
Tanzimat, 525-540; Stefan Yerasimos, "Tanzimat'ın kent reformları üzerine", in Tanzimat, 505-524.
354 Abdurrahman Şeref and Duman, Osmanlı Devleti tarihi, 447–71.
166
Figure 96. Advertisements for the Orient Express (Gallica, Bibliotheque national de
France)
3.2 The Topkapı Palace as a repertoire for imperial imagery
3.2.1 Universal exhibitions: Display of imperial kiosks and royal collections
During the era of Abdülaziz, the Ottoman empire continued its Westernization and
modernization efforts, fostering its military, economic, cultural, and social bonds
with Europe. Many reforms were carried out providing equal rights to non-Muslim
subjects of the empire during the late-Tanzimat period. Civil, educational, military,
bureaucratic, architectural, and institutional developments shaped the socio-political
and financial structure of the empire, which was eager to be a part of European
civilization. Universal exhibitions that emerged as an outcome of the new imperialist
and colonialist world order were among the most important showcases of progress,
development, and self-display that emerged during the second half of the nineteenth
century. Enhancing the peaceful interaction and commercial ties between nations,
167
these exhibitions also intensified economical, cultural, and technological
competition. Participation in these world fairs was particularly important for
modernizing countries of the non-West such as Egypt, Tunis, and the Ottoman
empire and became an arena of competition among them.
After its modest participation to the Great Exhibitions organized in London in
1851, in Paris in 1855, and again in London in 1862, the Ottoman empire decided to
organize a small-scale national exhibition in Istanbul in 1863.355 The Ottoman
General Exposition (Sergi-i Umumi-i Osmani) was organized to improve the national
economy and local industry, and took place at the Hippodrome. A limited number of
international companies also attended the exhibition, and their costs were covered by
the Ottoman government.356 The exhibition hall, designed by the French architect
Auguste Bourgeois and decorated by Léon Parvillée, occupied the Northern edge of
the Hippodrome.357 Italian architect and painter Pietro Montani 358 also took part in
the project and designed an additional building known as the imperial chamber
(daire-i hümayun), which was attached to the main exhibition space.
The main building had a rectangular plan, arranged around a central inner
courtyard, and had four entrances on four sides. The projected main entrance to the
exhibition hall, looking towards the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, was emphasized with its
increased height and symmetrically arranged arches on the façade. The book written
355 Batur, "19. Yüzyıl Uluslaraası Sanayi Sergileri ve Osmanlı Sergi Yapıları" in International
Congress of Turkish Art, Turkey, and Kültür Bakanlığı, 9. Milletlerarası Türk sanatları kongresi,
299–310.; Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek, 176.
356 Yazıcı, "The First Ottoman Exhibition Building in Atmeydanı and the Collaboration of Architects
Bourgeois - Parvillée - Montani, in Pitarakis, Hippodrom/Atmeydanı, 139.
357 Afide Batur, "19. Yüzyıl Uluslaraası Sanayi Sergileri ve Osmanlı Sergi Yapıları" in International
Congress of Turkish Art, Turkey, and Kültür Bakanlığı, 9. Milletlerarası Türk sanatları kongresi,
299–310.
358 Yazıcı, "Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Mimar Montani Efendi", 42-47.
168
by Pierre Baragnon359, Empire Ottoman, Coup d'oeil Général sur l'Exposition
Nationale à Constantinople (1863), provides detailed information about the
exhibition (Figure 97) and suggests that the exhibition hall took early Ottoman
architecture as a model.360 Turgut Saner and Göksun Akyürek state that the Tiled
Pavilion built by Mehmed II in the Topkapı Palace was an inspiration for the façade
of the exhibition hall361 (Figure 98). Miyuki Aoki Girardelli, states that even though
the pointed arches and details of the pavilion resembled the Tiled Pavilion and Bursa
Yeşil Mosque, the overall scheme of the building was alien to Ottoman spatial
configurations.362 The architect of the pavilion, Bourgeois, was known to have a
special interest in the architecture of Mehmed II's era as well. Ergüney and
Pilehvarian also claim that Leon Pervillée, who took part in the design of the
exhibition hall, worked previously in the restoration of the Tiled Pavilion363 and was
influenced by the architectural morphology of this fifteenth century pavilion.364
According to Turgut Saner the Tiled Pavilion was an inspiration not only for the
exhibition hall of 1863 but also for the Pavillion du Bosphore built for the 1867 Paris
World Fair and for the twin pavilions of the Ministry of Defense in Istanbul.
According to Saner, the "Çinili Köşk was considered a vital monument which had to
359 The autor of the book is not mentioned, except for the initials S.P.B. referred to at the end of the
Préface. According to Edhem Eldem's research, Coup d'oeil Général sur L'Exposition Nationale a
Constantinople (1863) was written by Pierre Baragnon, the editor of the Journal de Constantinople.
360 S.P.B., Coup d'oeil Général sur L'Exposition Nationale a Constantinople (1863), 13:
"Ce palais, d'une construction solide, élégante et légère, rappelle le style introduit en Europe et
généralement adopté sous le regne des premiers empereurs Ottomans."
361 Saner, "A Nineteenth Century Interpretation of Çinili Köşk (Istanbul) in an Orientalist Manner",
Art Turc / Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art -Geneva (17-23 Eylül
1995), Geneva, 617-618; Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek, 190.
362 Aoki, “Léon Parvillée: Osmanlı Modernleşmesinin Eşiğinde Bir Fransız Sanatçı,” 135.
363 Ergüney and Kara Pilehvarian, "Ottoman Representation in Nineteenth Century Universal
Expositions", 224-240.
364 The interest of Leon Pervillée in Ottoman çini tiles is known, thus the Tiled Pavilion in the
Topkapı Palace must have been a source of inspiration for him. Ahmet Ersoy states that Leon
Parvillée took part in the restoration of Ottoman monuments in Bursa. Miyuki Aoki Girardelli and
Mustafa Cezar, mention that Pervillée took part in the restoration of Bursa Yeşil Mosque and the
Tiled Pavilion as well. Aoki, “Léon Parvillée: Osmanlı Modernleşmesinin Eşiğinde Bir Fransız
Sanatçı”; Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi.
169
be taken into account while searching for a new, revivalist architecture that would be
the expression of the national image"365 (Figure 99).
Figure 97. Photo of the Exhibition Hall for Sergi-i Umumi-i Osmani (Abdullah
Freres, Empire Ottoman, Coup d'oeil Général sur l'Exposition Nationale à
Constantinople, 1863)
Figure 98. The Tiled Pavilion (2016)
365 Saner, "A Nineteenth Century Interpretation of Çinili Köşk (Istanbul) in an Orientalist Manner",
618.
170
Figure 99. Exposition Nationale à Constantinople (Le Monde Illustré, 4.4.1863);
The Tiled Pavilion (Getty Archive, Sebah, Le Serail de faienece, 1870)
The exhibition, which attracted 150,000 visitors, was opened by the attendance of
Sultan Abdülaziz and the Egyptian Khedive Ismail and kept open for five months.
More than 10,000 items were displayed in this exhibition, together with a section on
architecture, paintings, and fine arts. According to a small article titled "Exposition
Nationale à Constantinople" in Le Monde Illustré, the collection from the arsenal
and from Tophane attracted the most attention, where some weapons and models
were displayed.366 The exhibition book of 1863 also gave a detailed description of
the sections on display.
Another interesting section of the Ottoman General Exposition was the partial
display of the Imperial Treasury collection. Precious jewelry and valuable objects,
such as necklaces, brooches, bracelets, belts, combs, aigrettes, swords, jugs, and
writings sets from the Topkapı Palace collection were displayed in a special cabinet.
The book gave a list of 42 treasury objects on display in the exhibition and stated that
the valuables were brought to the exhibition hall each morning and brought back to
the Imperial Treasury at Zarb-hane (Imperial Mint) each evening367 (Figure 100).
For the first time, the imperial collection of the sultan, which was kept in the
366 "Exposition nationale a Constantinople", Le Monde Illustre, 4 Avril 1863.
367 S.P.B. [Baragnon], Coup d'oeil Général sur l'Exposition Nationale à Constantinople (1863), 28-29.
171
Topkapı Palace away from the eyes of his subjects, was publicly displayed. The
display of the treasury was an indicator of the importance given to the exhibition by
Abdülaziz and of the changing meaning of the imperial collections. Being a point of
attraction for tourists visiting Istanbul, the Imperial Treasury and its collections were
positioned as objects of self-display recreating an oriental tale, and celebrating the
richness and glory of the Ottoman sultan as well:368
A few steps further, dazzling irradiations, emanating from the jewels of His
Imperial Majesty, fixed the gaze. There are riches of which the reveries of the
Arab poets can scarcely give a faint idea: diadems, necklaces in which pearls
and emperors vie with brilliance and size with diamonds with the most
sparkling reflections, a bunch of brilliants An inestimable price and a fairy
work, a tchibouk in enameled gold around which ravishing arabesque of
jewels run. . . In the midst of all these treasures are the Imperial aigrettes,
which seem to be preserved as a reflection of His Imperial Majesty the
Sovereign.
Thus, the private collections of the royal family, rather than being kept away from
public gaze, was displayed and began to symbolize a collective Ottoman past, reproducing
the idea of oriental splendor. The Sergi-i Umumiye-i Osmani exhibition
emphasized not only their financial value, but also their artistic aspects and
craftsmanship, as fine products of palace artisans (ehl-i hiref) and symbolic value
comparable to that of world sovereigns. Hence, the Ottoman exhibition in Istanbul
provided the chance for exercising techniques of self-representation and display for
the Ottoman empire, that would later be advanced for the World Fairs of Paris,
Vienna, and Chicago.
368 Ibid., 27.
" A quelques pas plus loin, d'éblouissantes irradiations, émanées des joyaux de Sa Majesté Impériale,
fixent le regard. Là sont des richesses dont les rèveries des poëtes arabes peuvent donner à peine une
faible idée: des diadémes, des colliers où les perles et les émaeraudes rivalisent d'éclat et de grosseur
avec des diamants aux reflets les plus éntincelants, une botte en brillants d'un prix inestimable et d'un
travail féerique, un tchibouk en or émaillé autour duquel ravissantes arabesque de pierreries courent
. . . Au milieu de tous ces trésors replendissent les aigrettes Impériales, qui semblent avoir conservé
comme un reflet de l'Auguste Majestée du Souverain."
172
Figure 100. List of objects from the Imperial Treasury displayed in the Ottoman
General Exposition (S.P.B. [Baragnon], 1863, 28-29)
Another important international exhibition that the Ottoman empire took part in was
the Exposition Universelle de 1867. Sultan Abdülaziz accepted the invitation of
Emperor Napoleon III to attend the opening of the Universal Exhibition in Paris.
Queen Victoria also invited Abdülaziz to London, and during his one-and-a-halfmonth
journey, the sultan visited France, Belgium, England, Prussia, and Austria,
becoming the first Ottoman ruler paying a diplomatic visit to Europe. In Paris, the
sultan attended the ostentatious opening ceremony of the Exposition Universelle
together with Khidive Ismail and visited the Ottoman pavilion. The Ottoman
presence in the exhibition was much larger and attractive than the previous one. Due
to Abduaziz's attendance, the preparations started months previously, when
thousands of items were sent to Paris, including industrial and commercial items, as
173
well as establishing, a section on fine arts. In the first gallery of the Ottoman section
valuable armor was displayed, 369 in the fine arts section paintings of Osman Hamdi
and Amadeo Preziosi were presented.370 The Ottoman pavilion was designed as a
small neighborhood representing Ottoman social and cultural life, and was praised by
Adalbert de Beautmont, who wrote that the pavilion exceeded expectations.371
Leon Parvillée also took part in the design of the Ottoman pavilion,372 which
was composed of a mosque, a Turkish bath, a fountain, and a Turkish house.373 A
triumphal arch was placed at the entrance of the Ottoman section in honor of Sultan
Abdülaziz. This imperial gate clearly took its references from the Middle Gate (Bab-ı
Selam) of the Topkapı Palace with its two towers with conical caps on each side.
This gate also had the monogram of Abdülaziz, marking the entrance to the domains
of the sultan, and a depiction of the gate was published at the cover page of Le
Monde Illustré (Figure 101).
369 Karaer, “Sultan Abdulaziz’in Avrupa Seyahati Ile Osmanlı ve Batı Kamuoyundaki Yankıları,” 80.
This armor could have been brought from the collections from St. Irene.
370 Ersoy, “On the Sources of the ‘Ottoman Renaissance.’”
371 De Beaumont, "Les Arts décoratifs en Orient et en France", 147.
(https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Arts_d%C3%A9coratifs_en_Orient_et_en_France/03) 11.8.2017.
" A côté de la Perse se trouve la Turquie. Cette année, au lieu de la place trop modeste qu’elle
occupait en 1855, elle couvre le plus grand espace de toutes les puissances d’Orient. On s’imaginait
généralement en France qu’à part les pantoufles et les tuyaux de pipe, l’essence de rose et les
pastilles du sérail, il n’y avait plus rien à demander à l’industrie de ces contrées. La Turquie nous
prouve que, si ses fabriques ne sont plus aussi nombreuses et aussi occupées qu’elles l’étaient jadis,
elles n’ont pas encore perdu complètement ce sens de la couleur et de la ligne qui placera toujours la
fabrication orientale, si primitifs qu’en soient d’ailleurs les procédés, au-dessus de tout ce que
produit à grand renfort d’inventions et de machines notre Europe civilisée!"
372 Miyuki Aoki Girardelli informs us that according to Barillari and Godoli, this project was a
collaborative effort of Barborini and Pervillée. Aoki, “Léon Parvillée: Osmanlı Modernleşmesinin
Eşiğinde Bir Fransız Sanatçı,” 22; Barillari and Godoli, Istanbul 1900 : Art-Nouveau Architecture and
Interiors, 42.
373 Çelik, Displaying the Orient, 66.
174
Figure 101. The triumphal gate erected in honor of the Sultan at the entrance of the
Ottoman section (Arc de triomphe éelevé en l'honneur du Sultan, a l'entrée de la
section ottomane, Le Monde Illustré, 11, no. 535, 13.7.1867)
Even though the Ottoman empire was in the process of rapid modernization, rather
than representing its modern face and emerging novel types of architecture, the
organization committee preferred to represent the empire through its traditional
architecture and building types. The buildings constructed for the exhibition were
influenced by the Green Mosque (Yeşil Cami) in Bursa, Haseki Bath in Sultanahmet,
and the Tiled Pavilion from the Topkapı Palace, all of which were representatives of
classical Ottoman architecture from the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries.374
According to the illustrations showing the plans and sections of the structure, the
projected elevated entrance of La Maison du Bosphore would have been defined with
pointed arches and two side stairs, neither of which are typical features of Ottoman
residential architecture. Miyuki Aoki Girardelli states that while the front façade of
the Bosphorus House referenced the Tiled Pavilion, the back elevation resembled a
374 Ergüney and Kara Pilehvarian, "Ottoman Representation in Nineteenth Century Universal
Expositions", 231.
175
typical Bosphorus mansion.375 Leon Parvillée seemed to apply a similar morphology
both for the exhibition hall of Sergi-i Umumi in Istanbul and for the Bosphorus
House displayed in Paris. The Tiled Pavilion is a likely inspiration for these
structures, with its elevated entrance, its front gallery defined with arches, and
symmetrical organization. Perhaps Parvillée found the architectural configuration of
the Tiled Pavilion, which is closer to neo-classical architectural forms, and took it as
a model for representing the 'authentic yet Western' face of the Ottoman empire. The
interior of the Bosphorus House, however, reflected the oriental aspects of a
residential unit with its colors, decoration, and spatial configuration (Figure 102).
Figure 102. Engraving of the Bosphorus House (Exposition Universelle de 1867, La
Maison du Bosphore, Dessin de Lancelot, Magasin Pittoresque, 1867)
Abdülaziz’s European tour had great a influence on the Ottoman ruler, as he was the
first sultan to pay a peaceful visit to Europe. Abdülaziz was greeted with great
375 Aoki, “Léon Parvillée: Osmanlı Modernleşmesinin Eşiğinde Bir Fransız Sanatçı,” 201.
176
enthusiasm in London, Berlin, and Vienna and attracted huge public interest.
Attending numerous exhibitions, concerts, museums, and balls, Abdülaziz was
influenced by European culture, alongside economic and military power. In addition,
Abdülaziz became fully aware of the importance of creating a self-representative
"Ottoman identity" in this new competitive capitalist world order, noticing that even
his own image as an "Oriental ruler" was a representation of his cultural and political
identity.376
After his return to Istanbul, Abdülaziz intensified his modernization and
Westernization efforts and became a loyal follower of Tanzimat and Islahat reforms.
As the Empire’s economic, political, and cultural integration with the West
improved, it became more dependent on European powers, which dominated its
economy and intervened into its internal politics. The establishment of the Ottoman
Bank with French and British capital, the construction of the Orient Express, the
foundation of the first municipality, the demolition of the Galata walls, the
construction of tram lines improved transportation system and urban infrastructure,
while the construction of hotels, theatres, cafés, and passages, and foundation of a
museum were discernable outcomes of integration and interaction with Europe.377.
The most significant palaces, mosques, military and official buildings constructed
during the reign of Abdülaziz, reflected a unique architectural style, which could be
interpreted as an appropriation of a Western imaginary of the Orient. Ahmet Ersoy
develops this connection, stating: "Orientalism was embraced by its very objects, the
self-styled "Orientals" of the modem world, as a marker of authenticity and as a
strategically located aesthetic tool to project universally recognizable images of
376 According to the European press, the Western appearance and sophisticated manners of Abdülaziz
became a point of disappointment among people who were hoping for an Oriental despot in exotic
clothes and surrounded with concubines. Karaer, “Sultan Abdülaziz’in Avrupa Seyahati Ile Osmanlı
ve Batı Kamuoyundaki Yankıları,” 76; Çelik, Displaying the Orient, 36–38.
377 Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi III, Islahat Fermanı Devri (1861-1876), 113-120.
177
cultural difference."378 Within this context, the architectural roots of the empire were
positioned as depictions of a distant and long-gone past and utilized as a
representation of authenticity and cultural identity, rather than being the actual
source of inspiration for a newly emerging eclectic architectural vocabulary.
In 1873, the Ottoman empire attended another World Exhibition in Vienna.
Not totally satisfied with their display in the 1867 Paris exhibition, the Ottoman
presence in this exhibition was quite ambitious, aiming to "create the desired image
of technical competence and cultural gravity". The area of display was three times as
large, and preparations started as early as 1871 under the coordination of İbrahim
Edhem Pasha.379 The son of İbrahim Pasha, Osman Hamdi was the exhibition
commissioner and Pietro Montani designed the Ottoman pavilions. Together with the
architectural reproductions, three significant volumes—Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani
(L'Architecture Ottomane), Elbise-i Osmaniyye (Les Costumes populaires de la
Turquie en 1873), Le Bosphore et Constantinople—were also produced for the
Vienna Exhibition, presenting the cultural diversity and architectural richness of the
empire.380 The production of these volumes was evidence of Ottoman determination
to display its cultural and historical assets in a Western format and aimed to create a
respected and scientific image in the eyes of Europeans.381
378 Ersoy, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary, 5.
379 Ersoy, 57.
380 Launay and Vienna International Exhibition, Osmanlı mimarisi, Usul-i Mi’mari-i Osmani =
L’architecture ottomane = Die Ottomanische Baukunst; Osman Hamdi Bey et al., 1873 yılında
Türkiye’de halk giysileri; Dethier, Le Bosphore et Constantinople.
381 For an in depth discussion of these books and the Vienna exhibition, See, Ersoy, “On the Sources
of the ‘Ottoman Renaissance’”; Ersoy, “A Sartorial Tribute to Late Tanzimat Ottomanism.”; Eldem,
"Elbise-i Osmaniye'yi Tekrar Ele Almak 1-2-3-4", Toplumsal Tarih 248-250-252-253, August 2014,
Oct 2014, Dec 2014, Jan 2015.
178
Figure 103. The replica of the Fountain of Ahmed III in the Ottoman Pavilion at the
Vienna World Fair of 1873 (Ergüney and Kara Pilehvarian, 233)
The Ottoman pavilion, which was composed of seven structures, aimed at reflecting
the Ottoman architectural patrimony. A real size replica of the Ahmed III Fountain,
which was originally located in front of the main gate of the Topkapı Palace, was
constructed with attention to details, workmanship and decorative elements, together
with a marketplace (bedesten), a coffee house, and a residential unit382 (Figure 103).
One of the most interesting structures of the Ottoman pavilion was a small domed
structure titled the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hassa). Built out of cast iron, this
building exhibited pieces from the treasury of the sultan (Figure 104). This collection
was selected from the Imperial Treasury, originally kept in the Topkapı Palace, and
brought to Vienna under extreme security measures. A document dated 1872, details
the costs of the books (Usul-i Mimari and Elbise-i Osmaniyye) and of the special
kiosk that would be constructed to keep the items from the treasury.383 A register
382 Çelik, Displaying the Orient, 69.; Ergüney and Kara Pilehvarian, "Ottoman Representation in
Nineteenth Century Universal Expositions", 224-240.
383 BOA A.MKT.MHM.443.58 (17 L 1289/ 13.12.1872)
179
from the Topkapı Palace Archive provides a list of the treasury items sent from
Istanbul to Vienna. According to this detailed document, antique armories, jeweled
objects, shields, and armors from the mausoleum of Mehmed II, and some objects
such as plates, pitchers, basins, and old metals from the Imperial Treasury, were also
transferred to Vienna as demanded by Edhem Pasha and the exhibition committee384
(Figure 105).
Figure 104. Drawing of the Imperial Treasury pavilion constructed for the Vienna
Exposition 1873 (BOA PLK.p.01022)
“Hazine-i Hümayunda mahfuz olup Viyana'da açılacak sergide ibrazı mukteza-i irade-i seniyyeden
olan asar-ı nefisenin muhafazası için ve Fenn-i Mimari-i Osmani namıyla Türk ve Fransız ve Alman
lisanlarinca tanzimi iktiza eden ve memalik-i şahanenin her cihetinde mutavattın tebaa-i Müslime ve
gayri-Müslimenin kıyafetlerini maruf olmak üzere . . . tertibi mukarrer bulunan kitabın mecmu-i
mesarifi olup . . . 120.000 kuruşun Hazine-i Celilece ifası.”
384 BOA TS.MA.d.993.01 (7 R1290 / 4.6.1873)
"Ba-irade-i seniyye-i cenab-ı şehinşahi Hazine-i Hümayun-ı Şahanade mevcut bulunan esliha-i atika
ve elmas ile müzeyyen ve yakut ve zümrüt ve firuze . . . ve altın işlemeli eşya-i nefise ile bu defa bairade-
i hazret-i şehriyari Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han Gazi Türbe-i Şerifesinden gelmiş olan zırh
takımları ile bazı eski maden ve mürettebatı ve tabak ve legen ve ibrik gibi buna mumasil eşya-i
saireden Nafia Nazıri Devletli Ethem Paşa ve Viyana sergi komisyonu azasından bazı bendelerinin
marifetiyle eşya-yı mevcutdan bi'l-ifraz tahrir olunup Viyana sergisine gönderilecek eşyaların miktarı
mubeyyin defterdir."
180
Figure 105. Listings of the treasury items sent to 1873 Vienna World Exhibition
(BOA TS.MA.D.993.01)
Ceren Göğüş’s unpublished masters thesis compiles news from the Austrian press
about Ottoman participation in the Vienna Exhibition, and provides detailed
information about the transfer of treasury items to Vienna.385 According to the
Austrian newspapers, the collection, which has never before left the Topkapı Palace,
was kept in the treasury room of the Hofburg Palace until the completion of the
Ottoman pavilion.386 Due to some financial burdens and technical problems, the
completion of the iron treasury kiosk was delayed, and finally the opening ceremony
was held on July 9, 1873. According to Ottoman archival documents, the Austrian
Emperor attended the opening and expressed his appreciation for the elegance and
385 Göğüş, “19. yy. Avusturya gazeteleri ışığında Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun 1873 Viyana Dünya
Sergisine katılımı.”
386 Die Presse, 25.4.1873; Wanderer, 25.4.1873; Neue Preussische Zeitung, 1.5.1873;
Weltausstellungs-Zeitung, 26.4.1873 cited in Göğüş, 179.
181
good taste of the construction.387 The letter of Osman Hamdi, who was the exhibition
commissioner, confirmed that388 (Figure 106 - Figure 107 - Figure 108):
The Emperor seemed really interested in examining the precious objects
contained in the windows of the Imperial Treasury, and in particular he was
occupied with the fine arms, many of which belonged to our illustrious
sovereigns.
Figure 106. Telegram from Osman Hamdi, informing the Istanbul government about
the progress of the Imperial Treasury pavilion (BOA HR.İD.1218.44_02)
387 BOA HR.İD.1218.47 (9.7.1873) "Inauguration du Trésor Impérial". Letter to Rachid Pacha from
Cabouli Ottoman Ambassador of Vienna: “L’Empereur m’a également parlé du Kioske ou est
enfermié le Trésor Impt. Et a beaucoup apprécié l’elegance et le bon gout de sa construction.”
388 BOA HR.İD.1218.47 (9.7.1873) Report of Osman Hamdi Bey written in French to Cabouli Pasha,
Ottoman Ambassador of Vienna.
“L’Emepereur a paru prendre un virai interèt à l’examen des objects précieux contenues dans les
vitrines du Pavillion du Trésor Imperial et s’est occupé d’une façon toute particulierè des belles
armes qui ont été la propriété de plussieurs de nos illustres souverains.”
182
Figure 107. Letter from Osman Hamdi informing the Ottoman Ambassador Cabouli
Pasha about the opening of the Imperial Treasury (BOA HR.İD.1218.47_03) / The
letter of Cabouli Pasha to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Rachis Pasha (BOA
HR.İD.1218.47_02)
Figure 108. Visits to the Ottoman Treasury Pavilion in Vienna Exhibition of 1873
(Çelik, 1992, 72)
183
The Imperial Treasury kiosk was designed by Montani and was modeled after
classical Ottoman mausoleum, applying Beaux-Arts principles of composition and
adopting an orientalist repertoire.389 The Austrian press celebrated the richness and
beauty of the treasury collection with admiration. An article from Fremdenblatt
emphasized that this rich collection was just a small portion of the actual treasury
kept in the Imperial Palace. Visitors to the Imperial Treasury in the Topkapı Palace,
according to the author, could witness thousands of precious stones, jewelry, helmets
adorned with pearls, and little mountains composed of thousands of swords and
armors.390 An article published by The Times mentioned that the Ottoman treasury
was finally opened after a delay and gave a detailed depiction of the items on display
in the Vienna Exposition, which included the throne of Nadir Shah, as well as chain
armor owned by Murad I Gazi and his Persian helmet. The author of the article
referred to the difficulty of seeing these valuable objects in the Topkapı Palace and
celebrated the display of the Sultan’s treasury:391
It is not many years since even the most powerful protection could not
procure you access to see the Treasury of the Ottoman Sultans in the old
Seraglio. It was jealously guarded from the eye of the stranger . . . The
restriction have been relaxed, indeed, of late, for how could they resist the
spirit of the times. Still, . . . in spite of the firman, . . . there will be a sort of
general conspiracy to allow him to see as little as possible . . . As their
jealousy is not confined to the Treasury, but is extended even to such
harmless things as the Library, not to speak of the archives. Under this
circumstances the sending of a portion of the Imperial Treasure to the
Exhibition and there exposing it to the gaze of the multitude was a
considerable concession to the spirit of the age.
According to the Austrian press, the opening of the Imperial Treasury display
attracted immense attention from the public and the tickets were sold-out before
noon. The help of police forces was needed to control this huge demand of visitors.
389 Ersoy, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary, 82.
390 Fremdenblatt, 26 Temmuz, 1873, cited in Göğüş, “19. yy. Avusturya gazeteleri ışığında Osmanlı
İmparatorluğunun 1873 Viyana Dünya Sergisine katılımı,” 183.
391 “The Sultan’s Treasure", The Times, 7.8.1873.
184
The collection was kept open only three days per week and only for three hours at a
time. The article complained that it was not possible to enjoy the beauty of the
collection due to huge crowds within the kiosk, and demanded that the exhibition be
kept open more than three hours.392 Responding to the demand of the visitors and the
Austrian press, the Ottomans decided to keep the treasury exhibition open to visits
everyday.393
The World fairs of the nineteenth century were competitive stages for
countries to present not only their industrial productions and technological
advancements, but also to rediscover and to represent their national identities and
collective pasts. In this respect, the Ottoman Empire was searching for an "ideal
vision of itself as world-class empire" to manifest its own cultural and architectural
heritage.394 Within this context, the Topkapı Palace was reevaluated through
different lenses as an authentic representation of an idealized past and classical
Ottoman art and architecture. Thus, while searching for leitmotifs of their own
heritage, the Ottomans referred to the abandoned Topkapı Palace as a rich and
authentic manifestation of their imperial identity. Various kiosks, gates, towers,
fountains, decorative and architectural elements, tiles, oriental patterns, art works,
and imperial collections in and around the imperial complex were reproduced,
referenced, and displayed within the context of international exhibitions held in
Paris, Vienna, and later in Chicago.
The wide public interest for the palatial collections created a consciousness of
the objects themselves and their actual display in the capital. Thus, it could be stated
392 Die Presse, 10.7.1873; Fremdenblatt, 11.7.1873, cited in, Göğüş, “19. yy. Avusturya gazeteleri
ışığında Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun 1873 Viyana Dünya Sergisine katılımı,” 183.
393 Neue Freie Presse, 17.9.1873, cited in, Göğüş, 183.
“Buradan sevinçle bildiriyoruz ki, Osmanlı komisyonu halk ve gazetelerin isteklerini dinleyerek,
eskiden haftanın üç günü açık olan hazineyi haftanın her günü ziyarete açmıştır. Gün içinde açık
olduğu saatler de iki den üçe yükseltildi.”
394 Ersoy, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary, 50.
185
that the Ottomans experienced the exhibitory order, practicing various display
strategies for manifesting imperial prestige and discovering their cultural distinctions
during the world fairs. This competitive praxis of self-display within an international
context laid the foundation for the museumification of the Topkapı Palace and
enabled the emergence of several actors who would later play significant roles in the
cultural and artistic development of the empire.
3.2.2 St. Irene renamed and reconfigured: The Imperial Armory and the Imperial
Museum
The European tour of Abdülaziz and his visit to the Universal Exhibition in Paris had
a huge impact on the domestic politics of Abdülaziz. The sultan, who lived a modest
life during the first years of his reign, was shaken by the new world order based on
the display of the self and the celebration of progress. The universal exhibitions were
the ultimate showplaces for the disciplinary power of Europe and the new visual
regime, which required the discovery, invention, and representation of this imagined
self.395 The era of Tanzimat rulers was shaped under the influence of this ideology,
and new codes for representing the power, prestige, legitimacy, and sustainability of
the empire were continuously sought. A constant urge for more novel, more modern,
and more advanced styles was dominating the architectural arena, while on the other
hand, a search for authenticity, identity, and history was also eminent. A
'museumified and authentic' past was re-created and displayed especially as a
response to an increasing number of encounters with the West. During the heydays
of Orientalism and increased divergence between the West and the non-West,
Ottomans choose to turn their face to their roots and aimed to represent their genuine
395 Mitchell, Colonizing Egypt.
186
identity by selecting forms from their distant past. In this respect, the Topkapı
Palace, being the ultimate representative of the Ottoman "golden-age" and its
glorious past, became a rich repertoire for Ottoman revivalism. The imperial
collections kept within the palace attained an inherent display value responding to "a
new aesthetics of difference and modern culture of authenticity".396 Thus, both the
Topkapı Palace itself and its royal collections were gradually converted into a
museum, becoming a performative stage for self-display.
Abdülaziz's visit to Europe and exposure to several museums and galleries
must have triggered the Ottoman interest in antiquities and fine arts as well. Within
this context, the long-forgotten archeological pieces at St. Irene were recalled and
rejuvenated. Immediately after Abdülaziz's return from Europe, a catalogue of the
collection at St. Irene was prepared and published by Albert Dumont at Revue
Archeologique in 1868. In his text, Dumont was critical about the inaccessibility of
this collection to visitors, even though it was in fact aimed especially for European
archeologists.397 This statement also confirms that the archeological collection was
kept behind doors without any public access. The same year, the need for a modern
public museum in the empire, similar to civilized European counties, was uttered in
the Ottoman circles. The need of establishing a museum was discussed as a way to
deal with the exploitation of Ottoman archeological resources by the European
powers and with the fact that European museums were filled with antiquities taken
from Ottoman lands.398
On January 1869, the first bylaw on antiques was proposed to the Sublime
Porte by the Council of State and issued a month later. According to this text, a
396 Ersoy, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary, 9.
397 Dumont, La Musee Sainte-Irene, Revue Archeologique, v.26; cited in Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey
Sözlüğü, 180.
398 The letter of İsmail Pasha sent to the Council of State in October 12, 1868, cited in, Bahrani, Çelik,
and Eldem, Scramble for the Past : A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman empire, 1753-1914, 317.
187
public museum had to be established (umumi bir müze-hane tanzimi) in the Ottoman
capital. The old Armory within the grounds of the Topkapı Palace, in which old
weapons and some antiquities were already being kept, was found suitable for
preserving the antiquities in an orderly manner and would be organized as a public
museum.399 By June of 1869 St. Irene was renamed as the Imperial Museum (Müze-i
Hümayun) and the appointment of Edward Goold as the museum director was
announced with a decree:400
A museum shall be constituted and established in the capital of the Ottoman
empire, similar to those existing in all civilized states of Europe and the
antiquities discovered during excavations within the empire shall be
transferred to this museum and the existing ones shall be categorized and
classified...
This decree implies that neither St. Irene nor the antique pieces previously collected
in its atrium were actually considered as a museum by the Ottomans. In fact, St.
Irene was either referred as the Armory or as the Janissary museum by foreign
visitors. The majority of the travelers visiting the former church did not even
mention the antiquities collection displayed at its atrium.401 It was the exotic
collection of Ottoman arms and Janissary costumes displayed in the main building of
St. Irene that attracted the visitors, rather than a number of antique pieces deposed at
its atrium. As understood from the decree of 1869, the previous demarche for
establishing an archeological collection at St. Irene during the reign of Abdülmecid
could not come to realization. As stated by Eldem, the museum project inaugurated
in 1846 was "stillborn" and soon forgotten:402
399 BOA İ.ŞD.11.547 (4 L 1285) cited in, Bahrani, Çelik, and Eldem, 320.; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey
Sözlüğü, 57.
400 BOA İ.DH 594.41355 (1869.06.20); Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 84–86.
"Bi'l-cümle düvel-i mütemeddine-i Avrupa memalikinde mevcut olduğu misillü Darü’s-saltanat-ı
Seniyyede dahi bir müzehane teşkil ve tesisi ve Memalik-i Şahanede icra-yı hafriyat ile bulunabilecek
asar-ı atikanın oraya nakl ve vazı ve mevcut olanların sınıflara taksim ve tertibi..."
401 Among the travel accounts consulted only Gustave Flaubert mentioned the antique pieces
displayed in the atrium of St. Irene. See, Flaubert and Nadeau, Voyage en orient 1849-1851, 344.
402 Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”: A Critical Reassessment”.
188
[T]he museum . . . simply fell into deep neglect that would last almost
three decades. The only relatively successful project was that of the
military museum that had almost accidentally formed around the armory of
Hagia Eirene. If anything, the ruling elite of the time, but especially the
majority of Western visitors were more concerned with the weapons stored in
the church than with any of the handful of antiques that ended up cluttering
the atrium.
Thus, Ottomans made another attempt for the foundation of a modern archeological
museum two decades later, in 1869, and renamed the collection of antiquities at St.
Irene as the Imperial Museum.
After being appointed director of the newly founded Imperial Museum,
Edward Goold published a catalogue in 1871, introducing 147 pieces from the
collection.403 Ferruh Gerçek claims that a copy of this catalogue was also published
in Takvim-i Vekai, probably to inform the Ottoman citizens about the progress of the
state and the emergence of the museum.404 However, as no visitor records could be
found in the archives thus far, it is still unknown by whom and through which
procedure this museum was being visited. The foundation of the museum was more
of a political decision than an attempt to establish an institution for certain audiences
to visit and appreciate the collection.
Despite this, it was the archeological collections that were presented as the
forerunner of museology in the Ottoman empire.405 In fact, it was the collection of
antique weapons displayed at the Imperial Arsenal and the royal collections of the
Imperial Treasury that were actually attracting an audience. Hence, rather than the
archeological museum, which had almost no organic or historical relationship with
the Topkapı Palace and did not evoke any interest among Europeans, it was the
403 Catalogue Explicatif, Historique et Scientifique d'un Certain nombre d'objects contenus dans le
Musee Imperial de Constantinople fonde en 1869 sous le Grand Vizirat de Son Altesse Aali Pacha.
404 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 87–88.
Gerçek did not specify the date and issue of Takvim-i Vekai, in which the collection of the museum
was published and I could not find the afromentioned issue.
405 Şapolyo, Müzeler tarihi; Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi; Eyice, Semavi Eyice
armağanı; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi; Shaw, Possessors and Possessed; Shaw, “Museums and
Narratives of Display from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic.”
189
Topkapı Palace itself and its imperial collections that were sought after and visited.
Given this distinction, it could be argued that the foundation of museology in the
Ottoman empire was established with the display of the armory, Janissary costumes,
and the treasury at the Topkapı Palace, not with the collection of Greco-Roman
antiquities. The archeological museum, which did not relate to the Ottoman past and
their cultural codes, was a later and artificial endeavor that emulated the Western
model as a political declaration of modernization and possession. Even after the
foundation of the Imperial Museum in 1869, it was the Armory that remained the
major point of attraction.
During the same era, the Janissary costumes were also brought back from its
location at Sultanahmet to St. Irene and displayed at the gallery of the former church
as a part of the military collection. According to Shaw, the "unification" of Janissary
costumes with the antiquities collection "created a single museological unit through
which the state could begin to express a relatively holistic vision of its heritage and
its vision for the future as bolstered by that heritage."406 On the contrary, even
though placed in close proximity, these two displays represented totally diverse
epistemologies and the archeological collections were not accepted as a part of
Ottoman heritage either by the Europeans or by the Ottomans themselves, as
emphasized by Eldem: "Tourists wanted to see Janissaries and exotic weapons,
rather than a few marbles scattered in Hagia Eirene’s atrium."407 Hence, the
antiquities collection displayed in the atrium of St. Irene versus the ancient arms and
janissary costumes displayed within the main space of the former church represented
diverse pasts and manifested different narratives; while the latter was associated with
Ottoman dynastic and military history, the former was a synthetic adaptation of
406 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archeology, and the Visualization of History in the
Late Ottoman empire, 57.
407 Eldem, “The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”: A Critical Reassessment”.
190
European norms of collecting and display (Figure 109). In this respect, the
distinction between the military and archeological collections and the physical,
institutional, and epistemological isolation of the Imperial Museum from the Topkapı
Palace became more evident with the move of the archeological collection to the
outer gardens of the palace, to the Tiled Pavilon, a couple years later.
Figure 109. The Atrium of St. Irene holding the antiquities collection and the
Armory where the old arms and armor were displayed. (Plan from Peschlow, 1977)
According to travel accounts that reappeared after 1867, the Armory was shown to
the tourists as a part of the palatial tour of Topkapı. A. De Gasparin records that a
firman was needed to visit the arsenal and the museum of figures, which was a
strange collection showing all samples of the personnel of the Old Palace.408 A
couple years later, in 1873 J. De Chambrier also stated that a firman was necessary to
408 De Gasparin, A Constantinople, 170.
191
enter the museum of arms and antiquities. According to his depictions some
sarcophagi were present outside of the building but he was critical of the fragmented
nature of the collection: "this collection does not speak a uniform language of
arsenals or of museums."409 Albert Millaud, who also visited the armory during his
tour of the Topkapı Palace, defined the museum of costumes and old weapons "of
little value" (peu de valeur), while defining the Imperial Treasury that he visited
during the course of the same tour as of no historical value but with inestimable price
of jewelry.410
Numerous other travellers mentioned the armory as a part of their visit to the
Topkapı Palace between the years 1869 to 1873. After visiting the Imperial Treasury,
the Baghdad Kiosk, the Imperial Library, the Audience Hall and the Council Hall
located at the inner courts of the palace, these tourists were also taken to St. Irene in
the first court to finalize their tour. According to the New York Times, the arsenal
and the small museum next to it could be visited as a part of the palatial tour:411
[In] the same inclosure are the buildings in which are the throne-rooms,
library, and arsenal, in the latter of which are stored away a large number of
muskets of American manufacture. On the floor above are a number of
effigies, representing the various phases in Turkish costume, and among these
are those of the Janizaries. Near this building is a small museum, containing
some curiosities from Egypt.
Travel accounts of the era also mentioned the nature of the arms and Janissary
costumes collections displayed in the armory (Figure 110). However, the antiquities
collection kept in the atrium did not attract much attention and was even ignored. In
light of the travel accounts, it could be stated that even though it was named as the
Imperial Museum, the antiquities in the atrium of St. Irene was either inaccessible or
409 De Chambrier, Un peu partout. Du Danube au Bosphore, 334.
"Cette collection ne parle point l'uniforme langue des arsenaux et des musees."
410 Millaud, Voyages d'un fantaisiste. Vienne, le Danube, Constantinople. 274-276.
411 "Seraglio Point", The New York Times, 31.8.1873.
192
attracted little attention compared to the arms displayed inside the main body of St.
Irene.
Figure 110. St. Irene as the Imperial Museum and the antiquities displayed outside
the building (Berggren Guillaume, Getty Archive, 1880)
However, the double function of the former church of St. Irene as an imperial armory
and as a museum of arms and costumes, created unease surrounding the visits and
unrest among the military personnel.412 The access of foreign visitors to the armory
and their ability to inspect the Ottoman arms annoyed the military officials, and by
1873 a petition was made to move the museum to another location in the Topkapı
Palace. The document dated July 12, 1873 complained that many foreign visitors
were able to visit the armory with the permission given by the Sublime Porte and
inspect the arms and military supplies. The same document suggested that the İncili
Kiosk, which was empty at that time, could be established as a museum and the
collections in the armory could be transferred there, or to any other suitable
412 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 232; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 93.
193
location.413 However, as explained in the previous section, the İncili Kiosk was soon
to be demolished due to the construction of the Rumeli Railroad. Around the same
time, news over Minister of Education Cevdet Pasha’s visit to the museum and his
desire to expand the museum to make it easier for the public to access took place in
the Ottoman Press (Figure 111). It is interesting that neither the term armory nor the
museum was used to define the building, which was defined as "numunehane", a.k.a.
specimen house.414 Another document dated December 1873 stated that the armory
would be left for the sole use of military and the Tiled Pavilion within the imperial
palace will be organized as a museum.415 The Tiled Pavilion was already appointed
as an armory under the direction of military as early as 1850 by Tophane Müşiri
Fethi Ahmed Pasha,416 thus the transfer of the collections from one armory to another
in the palace grounds, under the command of the military is not quite surprising.
413 BOA A.MKT.MHM.471.11_01 (16 Ca 1290 / 12.07.1873)
“Yeni Sarayda kain Harbiye Ambarı'nın bir dairesi Müzehane ittihaz olunduğu cihetle teba-i
ecnebiyeden pek çok zevat canib-i Bab-ı Aliden verilen müsade ile orayı gezmekte ve bu sırada mevcut
ve mahfuz bulunan esliha ve mühimmatı dahi nazar-ı tetkikten geçirmekte olup bu ise münasip
olmadığına ve saray-ı mezkur dairesi dahilinde bulunan İncili Köşk hali ve şimdilik buraca dahi bi
lüzum olduğu cihetle asar-ı atikanın nakliyle oranın ayrıca müzehane ittihazı . . . asar-ı atika-i
mezkurenin ber-mucib-i işar-ı sabık İncili Köşk'e veyahut diğer münasip bir mahalle nakli…”
414 Hakayıku'l-Vakai', No.129, 23 Ce 1290 / 6 Temmuz 1289 (18.7.1873) cited in Gerçek, Türk
müzeciligi, 94.
"Maarif-i Umumiye Nazırı Devletlü Cevdet Paşa Hazretleri maiyetlerinde nezaret müsteşarı atufetlü
Sadullah Bey Efendi hazretleri ve Numunehane-i Hümayun müdürü Doktor Detiye [Dethier]
bulunduğu halde Pazartesi günü Numunehane-i mezkurı teşrif ile mevcud bulunan asar-ı nefise-i
atikayı muayene buyurmuş ve Numunehanenin biraz daha tevsi'i ile halkın ziyaretini teshil etmeğe
karar vermiş oldukları işitilmiştir."
415 BOA A.MKT.MHM.471.11_04 (28.L 1290 / 19.12.1873)
“Dersaadette mevcut asar-ı atika için mukaddema Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu civarında vaki
cephaneden tahsis kılınmış olan dairenin heyet ve vusatça adem-i kifayeti cihetiyle asar-ı merkumenin
suret-i memure ve muntazamada vaki ve hıfzı kabil olamayacağı gibi mezkur cephane Asakir-i Şahane
eslihasına mahsus bulunmasından naşi daire-i mezkurenin lüzum-ı terk ve tahliyesi dahi canib-i valayı
seraskeriden dermeyan kılınmasına ve saray-ı mezbur müştemilatından Çinili Köşk'ün Müzehane
ittihazına elverişli olup bundan başka münasip mahal bulunamamasına binaen işbu köşkün Müzehane
ittihazı hususuna…”
416 BOA C.AS.936.40558 (12 M 1267 / 17.11.1850) cited in, Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve
Yakın Çevresi,” 198.
"Be-marifet-i hazret-i Fethi Paşa Müşir-i Tophane-i Amire . . .
Tophane-i Amire nazırı saadetli beyefendi hazretlerinin işbu takriri meali Saray-ı Cedid-i Hümayun
dahilinde kain Harbiye Anbarı ittihaz olunmuş olan Sırça Saray tabir olunan mahalin bazı yerleri
tamir olunmakta oldugu halde anbar-ı mezkurun bundan akdem sundurma kılıklu sathına inşa
olunmuş olan sakfının feshiyle müceddeden kurşun ferş ve etrafında mevcud mermer şebekelerinin
ikmal-i ? mahal-i sairesinin dahi icabına göre tamir ve termimi..."
194
Figure 111. The article regarding the enlargement of the museum and its opening to
public (Hakayıku'l-Vakai, No.129, 23 Ce 1290 / 18.7.1873)
In 1874 a decision for the reorganization of the Tiled Pavilion as a museum was
taken and the second bylaw of antiquities was also issued by the Ottoman state.
During the same year, news about the opening of a museum school in Istanbul,
comprising schools of museology and archeology, also appeared in the Ottoman
press.417 All these developments proved the rising interest of Ottomans towards
archeology and museology and their desire to establish a scientific museal collection
in line with European standards. The renovation of the Tiled Pavilion, commissioned
to an architect named Montereano, started in 1875 and continued throughout 1876.418
However, with the dethronement of Abdülaziz on May 30, 1876, the renovation
works were interrupted and the museum school project approved by the sultan was
never realized. Establishment of an autonomous archeological museum, separated
from the collection of arms, could only be realized under the sultanate of
Abdülhamid II.
417 Mecmua-i Maarif (12 B 1291 / 24.8.1874) mentioned the opening of the Asar-ı Atika Okulu,
which would comprise a school of museology and archeology, cited in Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 102–
3.
418 Construction documents about the conversion of the Tiled Pavilion to the museum BOA
MF.MKT.33.132 (27.01.1876); MF.MKT.37.29 (28.05.1876).
195
3.2.3 Dethronement of Abdülaziz and his imprisonment at the Topkapı Palace
During the last years of Abdülaziz the internal and external hardships, economic
problems, and provincial rebellions caused public turmoil in the empire. The
authoritative rule and excessive spending of Abdülaziz created unrest within the
members of the Sublime Porte, who were in favor of the heir apparent Murad. Prince
Murad, known for his mild character and approval of enlightening ideals, was an
ideal candidate for the desired shift towards a Constitutional regime. On May 30,
1876, the military forces under the control of Hüseyin Avni Pasha, Mithad Pasha,
Mehmed Rüştü Pasha, and Süleyman Pasha besieged the Dolmabahçe Palace, from
both land and sea. They took crown prince Murad from his chamber and transferred
him to the Ministry of War (Bab-ı Seraskeri) at Beyazıt. The ministers paid their
allegiance to the new sultan in the ministry and the dethronement of Abdülaziz and
simultaneous enthronement of Murad V was announced with cannon fire.419
Abdülaziz, waking up with the sound of cannon fires in his chamber at the
Dolmabahçe Palace immediately understood his dethronement and did not resist. The
dethroned sultan, his sons and immediate entourage were sent to the Seraglio by boat
under the heavy rain420 (Figure 112). When they arrived at the quay of the Topkapı
Palace, the deposed sultan was transferred to the Chamber of Selim III with a coach
but his family was made to walk all the way up to the Harem. His mother
Pertevniyal, his wives and other children were also sent to the Topkapı Palace
afterwards.421 After his arrival at the Topkapı Palace, his desire for warm soup and
some bread was rejected and the selected location of his imprisonment, where his
predecessor Selim III was assassinated, is believed to have damaged Abdülaziz’s
419 Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi 5, v.III, 108-111.
420 His sons Yusuf İzzeddin Efendi, Mahmud Celâleddin Efendi, Başmâbeyinci Mehmed Bey and
Mâbeyin Başkâtibi Âtıf Bey were sent to Topkapı together with Abdülaziz.
421 Akyıldız, "Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan", 340-41; Şehsuvaroğlu, Sultan
Aziz, 106–10.
196
mental health. He was kept in the Topkapı Palace for three days, where he begged
the new sultan Murad, writing him letters for his transfer to another more convenient
place.
Figure 112. The deposed Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz being conveyed to Top-Capu, Seraglio
Point, (London Illustrated, 17.06.1876)
In his letters to Murad V, Aziz celebrated the enthronement of his successor and
pleaded the new ruler to save him from this "painful grave" (tengnây-ı-ıztırâb) and
demanded his transfer to an appropriate place (mahal-i mahsus).422 Murad V sent a
letter stating his sorrow for the poor conditions of the Topkapı Palace (aram
buyrulan mahalin hal-i harabisi) and assured the transfer of Abdülaziz to a more
convenient location. Feeling extremely uncomfortable due to the conditions in the
Topkapı Palace, Abdülaziz wrote a second letter to Murad V and insisted on his
422 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 267.; Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi 5, 356.; Ahmet
Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, 156. Ahmet Cevdet also stated that these notes were published in
the newspapers of the era.
197
transfer to another location. The apologetic tone of Murad V's answer is noteworthy,
where the new sultan stated that the "tight and uncomfortable condition of the
Topkapı Palace" was not previously known to him and his transfer to any palace he
wished would be secured.423
The three days of imprisonment in the Topkapı Palace was recorded as
psychological torture for Abdülaziz. Known for his disdain of this ancient palace, he
believed that he was purposefully placed in the chamber of Selim III and would soon
share the same destiny as his uncle. It was a twist of fate that the Topkapı Palace,
disregarded and abandoned during the reign of Abdülaziz, finally became a prison
for him and his family. The suffering and misfortune of Abdülaziz became a source
for the folk songs of the period:424
Seni tahttan indirdiler (They dethroned you)
Üç-çifteye bindirdiler (Made you take a boat)
Topkapu’ya gönderdiler (Sent you to Topkapı)
Uyan Sultan Aziz uyan (Wake up Aziz wake up)
Kan ağlıyor bütün cihan (The world is crying after you)
Abdülaziz was finally transferred to the Feriye Police Station next to the Çırağan
Palace. It is believed that this kiosk was prepared to detain heir apparent Murad by
Abdülaziz, but ultimately became a prison for himself. Still, this modern building by
the Bosphorus was found more suitable and appropriate for the dethroned sultan.425
Abdülaziz lived only three days at Feriye, and Sunday morning on June 4, 1876, his
body was found dead in his chamber.426
423 Şehsuvaroğlu, Sultan Aziz, 124–25.
"Huda hakkı için Topkapı Sarayı'nın ol veçhiyle zıyyık ve rahatsız olduğu bilinemediğinden orası
tensip olunmuş, ben Zat-ı Şahaneleri tarafından bilvekale bulunuyorum. Saray-ı Hümayunların kaffesi
Zat-ı Şahanelerinindir. Hangisini emr ü ferman buyururlarsa oraya teşrif buyursunlar, daha ne
suretle mutayyep olurlarsa o vechile arz edersiniz."
424 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 275.
425 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, Tezâkir, 156.
426 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa and Baysun, 157.;Karal, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi 5, 356–57.
198
Following the suspicious death of Abdülaziz, neither an official investigation
nor a serious medical examination was conducted. It is still a mystery whether
Abdülaziz was assassinated or committed a suicide with a pair of scissors. After his
death, the ministers, who organized the coup proposed that the corpse of the former
sultan be washed in the Feriye Palace, where he died. However, Murad V rejected
the idea and stated that a sultan’s body could not be washed anywhere but in the
Topkapı Palace.427 This incident clearly presents the ongoing symbolic role and
imperial prestige of the Topkapı Palace in the contemporary politics. Whether or not
the body of the dead ruler should be washed in the palace became a political
decision, and a matter of esteem for the deposed sultan. Interestingly, Murad V who
was known as a puppet monarch, refused the proposal of the state ministers and
insisted that the funeral of Abdülaziz should be conducted according to tradition.
This could be interpreted as an effort to protect the prestige of the sultanate against
the committee of the state. However, the ceremony was very modest compared to the
previous funerals.
The body of Abdülaziz was brought to the Yalı Kiosk Quay from Feriye with
a small steamboat and carried to the Topkapı Palace without any respect or care. The
corpse was laid on an untidy mattress was covered with a white curtain and a black
shawl was placed in the Chamber of Sacred Relics.428 Contradicting the Ottoman
sources, according to Le Monde Illustré the funeral was a "great show" (une grande
pompe) and the engraving in the same journal depicted a great crowd of local and
foreign men and women watching the ceremonial procession in the first court of the
427 Yanatma, “The Deaths and Funeral Ceremonies of Ottoman Sultans,” 32.
428 Ibid., 33. BOA.Y.E.E. 19.39 (22 CA 1297)
According to Yanatma; the clothes of the dead sultan was taken off by cutting and preserved in the
Imperial Treasury until the Yıldız Trials and brought back to the treasury after the trials.
199
Topkapı Palace429 (Figure 113). Pertevniyal, Abdülaziz’s mother was also sent to the
Topkapı Palace against her will and her communication with the outside world was
cut off. She was kept in the palace under very poor conditions for 38 days.430 The
Topkapı Palace, was now not only a place of detention for the royal family, but also
a site of isolation and seclusion.
Figure 113. The funeral of Abdülaziz (Le Monde Illustré 1002, 24.06.1876, p.412)
With the death of Abdülaziz, a chapter was closed in the history of the Ottoman
empire, and the era of Tanzimat, defined by the reforms and Westernization politics
of the three sultans: Mahmud II, Abdülmecid, and Abdülaziz, came to an end. This
turbulent era, marked with the centralizing efforts of the Ottoman state and with the
restructuring of the legal, administrative, military, financial, and educational system,
429 "Funérailles d'Abd-ul-Aziz", Le Monde Illustré , no.1002, 24.06.1876, p.406.
430 Akyıldız, "Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan", The Journal of Ottoman Studies
47, 2016, 345.
200
created irreversible ruptures with the past.431 Detached from its traditions and ancient
customs, the sultans of the modernizing Ottoman state implemented new strategies
for sustaining their imperial existence and emphasizing their public visibility.
Adopting a new visual regime, the rulers of this era utilized architecture and other
representative tools not only to promote their politics but also to legitimize their own
presence. Abandoning the Topkapı Palace, the sultans of Tanzimat had an
ambiguous relationship with the imperial palace of their ancestors as well.
Mahmud II and Abdülmecid, while virtually terminating the residential
function of the palace, marked their existence with architectural modifications and
additions. The monograms and inscriptions of Mahmud II adorned almost every
significant corner and the most visible pavilions of the palace, symbolizing the
justice and surveillance of the sultan. The most visible corners of the Topkapı Palace,
the Seaside Palace of Topkapusu, the Alay Kiosk and the Tower of Justice, were
architecturally articulated and remodeled by Mahmud II.
Following the same path as his predecessor, Abdülmecid remodeled the
Tower of Justice and erected a new pavilion at another noticeable point in the palace.
His architectural reconfiguration of the Enderun Court also referred to the
institutional reforms held by Mahmud II. During the reign of Abdülmecid, especially
after his move to the Dolmabahçe Palace, the palace grounds were opened to foreign
visits and the Collections of Antique Weapons and Antiquities were established in
the Imperial Armory. The first chamber of the Imperial Treasury was also opened to
foreign visits and that chamber was reorganized with windowed cabinets to display
the treasury collection. Hence, the palace grounds and imperial collections were
431 İnalcık and Seyitdanlıoğlu, Tanzimat.
201
positioned as points of interest for the distinguished visitors with enough funds and
connections to secure a visit.
During the reign of Abdülaziz, the Topkapı Palace was destroyed by several
fires and with the crossing of the Rumeli Railroad through the palace gardens.
Abdülaziz, was not concerned with the spatial integrity or symbolic preservation of
the palace and marked his royal existence with emblems of modernity. The Rumeli
Railroad, connecting the Ottoman capital to Europe, was accepted as a symbolic
route to modernization. Renaming the antique collections at St. Irene as the Imperial
Museum was another indication of the emulation of the West. With the rising
Ottoman interest in its own past and with an urge to display their distinctive imperial
identity, the Topkapı Palace and the imperial collections kept within, were utilized as
an authentic and rich repertoire for artistic and architectural representations. The
world fairs of the period created the perfect setting for searching, inventing, and
staging the Ottoman imperial identity. Following the Tanzimat era, Abdülhamid II,
would benefit from this emerging visual language and the regimes of display to
enforce his legitimacy and authoritative rule throughout his 33-year-long reign.
202
CHAPTER 4
REGIME OF SIGNS, SYMBOLS, AND RITUALS: THE HAMIDIAN ERA
4.1 Legitimization practices: Rituals and ceremonials
[In] societies conscious and radical innovation is also possible, but it may be
suggested that it can be legitimized in only a few ways. It may be disguised
as a return to or rediscovery of, some part of the past which has been
mistakenly forgotten or abandoned, or by the invention of an anti-historical
principle of superior moral force enjoining the destruction of the present/past,
for example a religious revelation or prophecy. (Hobsbawm, 1972, 4)
The reign of Abdülhamid II is understood as a new epoch in the history of the
Ottoman Empire, and the legacy of this authoritative and interesting ruler that shaped
the destiny of the country and the region for 33 years is still a matter of ideological
debate today.432 Within the political and social context of the rapid changes and
sharp transformations that shook an empire struggling with severe internal and
external problems, Abdülhamid II developed strategies for sustaining his rule and for
keeping the empire together. While introducing modern institutions and applying
Western educational, financial, military, and bureaucratic models, he also turned his
face towards the past and towards his ancestors for the legitimization of his rule. His
modernization and centralization attempts were defined as a "Culmination of the
Tanzimat" by Stanford Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw433 and Orhan Koloğlu defines
Abdülhamid II as "the ultimate product of the nineteenth century Ottoman society,"
claiming that he belonged to a group named the "Reformist Restorators".434 Ruptures
432 I would like to pay my respect and homage to our dear Professor Yavuz Selim Karakışla, whom we
have lost recently, in November 2016. We had the chance to have intensive readings and discussions
on the reign of Abdülhamid II during his course titled "Abdülhamid II: Ulu Hakan mı, Kızıl Sultan
mı?" evaluating the period from multiple perspectives, and from the lens of various historians
reflecting different ideologies.
433 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1976, 172.
434 Orhan, Abdülhamit Gerçeği, 13.
203
and disconnections from the past were compensated with an increased emphasis on
history, traditions, ancient ceremonials, and dynastic rituals. Elaborated with a touch
of modern visual techniques, these ceremonies became public spectacles and were
performed with great pomp to present the authority and supremacy of the ruler. As
elaborated by Selim Deringil, Abdülhamid II effectively utilized symbols of power
and rituals of sovereignty to confirm his rule in the eyes of his subjects.435 Taking
their references from an archaic distant past, these ceremonies were employed to
legitimize the present, creating an emblematic bridge between the past and the future.
According to Mehmet İpşirli:436
Sultan Abdülhamid was highly successful in using protocol and ceremonies
to publicize the state and legitimize the leader and power in a multi-faceted
and effective way. Sultan Abdülhamid gave great importance to enriching the
ceremonies in order to enliven national and religious feelings in the Turkish
and Muslim components, people who had been shocked by the defeats,
invasions and economic depression of the era.
In this section, I will try to present how the Topkapı Palace was positioned as a
representation of dynastic tradition and as an agent of legitimization during the late
Ottoman era. The section especially focuses on the utilization of the past by
Abdülhamid II and elaboration of the imperial palace at the symbolic and ceremonial
levels, or in Hobsbawm's words as a "form of mythologized and perhaps ritualized
history".437 In other words, as the palace was detached from its “genuine” function as
the imperial residence of the Ottoman dynasty and its ceremonial role was
emphasized, as an agent confirming the dynastic legitimacy and patrimonial
continuity of the Ottoman state. During the late-nineteenth century the palace as a
ceremonial venue was positioned as a highly symbolic entity to re-establish the
435 Deringil, “Legitimacy Structures in the Ottoman State”; Deringil, The Well Protected Domains;
Deringil, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908”;
Deringil, Simgeden millete : II. Abdülhamid’den Mustafa Kemal’e devlet ve millet.
436 İpşirli, "The Ceremonies of Sultan Abdülhamid II", in Yılmaz, II. Abdülhamid, 137.
437 Hobsbawm, “The Social Function of the Past,” 5. cited in Deringil, “Legitimacy Structures in the
Ottoman State”, 354.
204
broken link between the past and the present. This chapter focuses on the concept of
continuity in the late Ottoman context and considers the institutional, symbolic,
ceremonial, patrimonial, and visual aspects of this continuation. Mimicking the past,
particularly on ceremonial and representative levels, indicates an endeavor for public
approval and a failed attempt to resist the increasing pace of change in the
modernizing empire. The struggle between modernity and the concept of the past is
complex and multi-faceted, as suggested by Marshall Berman: “modernists can never
be done with the past: they must go on forever haunted by it, digging up its ghosts,
recreating it even as they remake their world and themselves.”438 Thus, this chapter
is an attempt to discuss the symbolic and ceremonial role attributed to the Topkapı
Palace during the era of Ottoman modernization, and how the archaic palace was
positioned as a modern institution for representing the imaginary imperial past.
During the pre-modern era, the Topkapı Palace was the core of the Ottoman
ruling system and the ultimate representative of Ottoman visual ideologies, dynastic
continuity, and patrimonial power. The brilliant work of Gülru Necipoğlu focuses on
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of the palace, an era when the imperial traditions
and canons were established. The second half of the fifteenth century and the
sixteenth century was, and still is, accepted as the "golden age" of the empire.439
Necipoğlu presents how architecture, ceremonial, and power were epitomized within
the presence of the Topkapı Palace.440 The Topkapı Palace was an architectural
manifestation and spatial embodiment of Mehmed II’s Kanunname and an
expression of dynastic continuity and legitimacy for the generations to come.
Furthermore, it was a reflection of the Ottoman idea of sovereignty, ceremonial,
438 Berman, All That Is Solid, 346.
439 Nostalgia for this period of "ultimate" power and glory has evoked during an era of the–so called–
Ottoman decline. See, Kafadar, “The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in
the Post-Süleymanic Era”; Kafadar, "The Question of Ottoman Decline".
440 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power.
205
architecture, ritual, gender politics, and the relation between private and public life.
Architectural configuration of the Topkapı Palace has always been a solid
manifestation of palace rituals and palace life as stated by Necipoğlu: “Palace
ceremony and protocol were increasingly elaborated together with their architectural
framework.”441 (Figure 114)
Figure 114. The accession ceremony of Selim III in 1789 (Konstantin Kapıdağlı,
Topkapı Palace Museum Collection)
Starting in the late seventeenth century, the Ottoman dynasty began to reside in other
palaces for longer periods of time.442 By the eighteenth century, the new palaces on
the shores of the Bosphorus and the Kağıthane River were erected, together with
441 Ibid., 25.
442 Especially during the second half of the seventeenth century, the Edirne Palace became the main
residence of the Ottomans. By the beginning of the eighteenth century Ahmed III was forced to return
by the populace to Istanbul and initiated an architectural campaign all over the city. See, Hamadeh,
The City’s Pleasures in Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century; Artan, “Architecture as a Theatre of Life:
Profile of the Eighteenth Century Bosphorus”; Hamadeh, “Ottoman Expressions of Early Modernity
and the ‘Inevtibale’ Question of Westernization.”
206
novel additions and shore kiosks at the Topkapı Palace. Still, it could be said that the
traditional core of the state continued to be the Topkapı Palace until the nineteenth
century. Following the nineteenth century, with the modernization of the empire, the
Topkapı Palace encountered drastic transformations that ended up altering and
abolishing many of the archaic palatial institutions, especially during the era of
Mahmud II and his successors. New uses and functions attributed to the palace and
several architectural, physical additions reflect the intensity of Ottoman reforms.
While the Topkapı Palace was virtually abandoned during the era of Mahmud II, it
was during the reign of Abdülmecid that the residential function of the palace came
to an end for the Ottoman rulers.
The “abandonment” of the “traditional” house of Osman for the sake of
“modern” palaces built in European taste was interpreted as a solid manifestation of
modernization and Westernization endeavors of the Ottoman rulers. However, the
abandonment of the palace did not take place suddenly, as a rupture, but through
gradual steps leading to the displacement of the Ottoman court over decades. Even
though the Topkapı Palace has lost a great deal of its royal, residential, and
governmental functions and faced numerous physical and functional alterations after
the nineteenth century, some of its traditional roles and symbolic meanings were
sustained. Furthermore, ceremonial and ritual traditions addressing the ongoing use
of the palace for symbolic purposes also need to be addressed to better understand
the new functions and meanings attributed to the royal complex after its
abandonment. The palace continued to signify the imperial continuity and dynastic
legitimacy of the Ottoman ruler even after the displacement of the Ottoman court
(Figure 115).
207
Figure 115. An imperial ceremony taking place in the Divan court of the Topkapı
Palace (D’Ohsson, Tableau général de l’Empire ottoman, Paris 1787-1820)
Traditionally the palace, particularly its hierarchical courts served as ceremonial
venues for: accession (cülus and biat) ceremonies, the visits to the Chamber of
Sacred Relics (Hırka-i Saadet ziyareti), bairam greetings (muayede), flag exchange
rituals before campaigns (sancak-ı şerif teslimi), sword girding ceremonies (kılıç
kuşanma merasimi) (Figure 116), purse ceremonies (surre alayı), royal weddings,
and funerals.443 Particularly the second court, the so-called Divan Meydanı and the
third court known as the Enderun Meydanı, which housed the Chamber of Sacred
Relics and the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Enderuni / Hazine-i Hümayun), sustained
their symbolic, religious, and ceremonial significances. During the nineteenth
century, the Topkapı Palace, stripped off of its traditional role as a royal residence
and mostly used for representational and ceremonial purposes. This continuity of
ceremonial and ritual functions, however, indicates a change in Ottoman selfrepresentation
and self-legitimization practices. During the second half of the
443 Esad Efendi, Osmanlılarda Töre ve Törenler (Teşrifat-I Kadime); Ali Said Bey, Teşrifat ve
Teşkilat-I Kadimemiz; Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilâtı; Tayyarzade Ata Bey and
Arslan, Tarih-I Enderun; Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power.
208
nineteenth century the desolate palace became ground upon which royal and
religious spectacles ‘staged the past’ and a representation of the empire’s selfportrayal.
By mimicking the rituals of the ancien régime, the Ottomans performed
and mimicked their own past. Thus, with a “modern” awareness of time and with a
realization of the inevitable rupture of the past and the present, the Ottomans
attempted to bridge this gap with romantic tendencies444.
Figure 116. Sword Girding Ceremony of Abdülmecid (Amel-i Bende-i Pavlo
Verona, Topkapı Palace Museum Paintings Gallery)
Hakan Karateke, in his book Padişahım Çok Yaşa scrutinizes the role of ceremonies
and rituals in the late Ottoman context.445 According to him the monarchs of the premodern
states came to power by hereditary rights and the sovereign is virtually
identified with the regime. Rituals and ceremonial continuity, especially during the
age of modernization when not only Ottoman, but all monarchic states of the world
suffered from a crisis of legitimation, became particularly important. In the edited
444 Bann, Romanticism and the Rise of History.
445 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!
209
volume Legitimizing the Order, Karateke and Reinkowski state that legitimacy
“signifies the claim of a right to be in power by the political power and its factual
acceptance by those over whom this authority is established.”446 Therefore
ceremonies that “serve to reinforce social identity, to gloss over disharmonies, or to
buttress the hierarchical position of the authority figures vis-à-vis the general public”
were used for legitimizing the power and authority of the ruler.447 This chapter will
illustrate how the “abandoned” Topkapı Palace functioned as a ceremonial venue
during the last century of the empire. Regardless of the numerous modern and
ostentations palaces built on the shores of and on the hills of the Bosphorus, most
crucial ceremonies and significant rituals directly related with succession of rulership
took place in the Topkapı Palace, which sustained its role as the symbolic core of the
state and as an emblematic gate for stately power (Figure 117).
Figure 117. Imperial ceremony held in front of the Gate of Felicity during the reign
of Abdülaziz (The Salamlik, or Sultan’s Reception, at the Seraglio, Illustrated
London News, 25.3.1865)
446 Karateke and Reinkowski, Legitimizing the Order : The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, 15.
447 Karateke and Reinkowski, 49.
210
Not all imperial ceremonies continued to be practiced in the Topkapı Palace after its
abandonment, for example Friday processions, bairam greetings (muayede), envoy
greetings, purse ceremony (surre alayı), official receptions etc. were held mostly at
the Dolmabahçe or the Yıldız Palaces, especially after the reign of Abdülaziz.
Abdümecid continued to hold bairam greetings at the Topkapı Palace until the end of
his reign. The royal purse ceremony, the annual ceremony for sending gifts to Mecca
and Medina, began to take place in the Dolmabahçe Palace after Abdülmecid's move
there.448 Still, as explained above, certain ceremonies of particular symbolic
significance continued to be held in the Topkapı Palace throughout the nineteenth
century until the collapse of the empire. Those ceremonies were directly related with
the transfer of power to and legitimization of the new ruler. Compared with the
classical era, where the sultan’s presence was immersed in the body of the palace so
that his actual presence could be neglected; after their abandonment of the Topkapı
Palace, the physical and symbolic presence of sultans in the palace became more
crucial. In other words, during the earlier periods the ceremonial absence of the
sultan was the norm, as he did not appear except for the two religious holidays and
during his accession, as stated by Gülru Necipoğlu:449
The second court was like a magnificent theater with an impressively large
cast, but the principal actor very rarely appeared on stage. With a few
exceptions, its ceremonial centered on the virtually absent ruler. His symbolic
presence was implied by the prominence of the third gate that expressed the
supreme authority of the sultan, whose centralized state government operated
from the nucleus of the second court.
As the sultan did not reside in the third court anymore, he became more visible in
ceremonial settings as a symbol of imperial legitimization. The idea of the seclusion
of the Ottoman sultan known as "inziva-i şahane"–set and enforced by the
448 Buzpınar, "Surre", TDV, c.37, 569.
449 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 56.
211
Kanunname of Mehmed II–450 was disregarded starting with the eighteenth century,
and by the nineteenth century a new visual regime was adopted, where the visibility
and public presence of the sultan became promoted. The sultan’s absence from the
palace was somehow substituted with his physical presence and organization of more
ostentatious processions highlighting the sultan's march to the Topkapı Palace as
public spectacles. As convincingly presented by Selim Deringil, with the decline of
the ultimate and divine power of the sultans, the more visible and better represented
they became in the eyes of their subjects.451 Thus the ceremonies, as ultimate means
of expressing the authority of the ruler and the continuity of courtly power, gained
alternative meanings during the era of modernization. As stated by Jeroen Duindam
"all courts sought to convince wider audiences that their power could not be
challenged."452 The Topkapı Palace was associated with the concept of imperial
continuity and the unquestionable authority of the Ottoman dynasty, even during the
times of declining power and authority of the sultanship.
4.1.1 The accession ceremony of Abdülhamid II
After the fall of Abdülaziz, heir apparent Murad was selected as the new Ottoman
sultan by the committee of the state, however his reign lasted only a couple months
due to his unstable mental health. The unfortunate case of Murad V well-presents the
power relations embedded in ceremonial practices. During the accession of Murad V,
who came to power following a military intervention in 1876, the traditional
ceremonies of accession failed to be fulfilled. Hence, the legitimacy of the ruler
became questionable in the eyes of his subjects. According to Duindam:453
450 Necipoğlu, 39–46.
451 Deringil, The Well Protected Domains.
452 Duindam, Dynasties, 6.
453 Duindam, 154.
212
[dynastic power] included a strong element of heredity (. . .) but it was rarely
determined entirely by the unchanging rules of succession. Succession
adhered to certain rules and prohibitions connected to the ideas of rulership,
but it left room for the intervention of ruling elites, and notably for those
present at the heart of power at court.
The cülus and biat ceremonies of Murad V went against Ottoman traditions,
primarily because his accession ceremony did not take place in the Topkapı Palace.
As cited by Karateke, Serasker Hüseyin Avni Paşa insisted that the accession
ceremony should take place at the Ministry of War, which was in accordance with
the military spirit of the coup dethroning Abdülaziz.454 Following this
“unconventional” biat ceremony at the Ministry of War, Sultan Murad V proceeded
to the Topkapı Palace and visited the Chamber of Sacred Relics in accordance with
the imperial tradition, but there was no audience invited for the ceremony. After the
declaration of Murad V as the new sultan, Ottoman statesmen rushed into the
Dolmabahçe Palace and a second biat ceremony was conducted there without the
imperial throne, but with an ordinary gilded chair. Apparently, a fake mimicry of an
ancient ceremonial practice was not sufficient for the legitimation of the ruler, as
Murad V was never able to actually take over the throne.
The death of Abdülaziz only a week after the enthronement of Murad V and
the assassination of the Minister of War Hüseyin Avni–the chief organizer of the
coup d'etat–deeply shook the new sultan.455 He was said to completely lose his
psychological health after these tragic incidents and refrained from public
appearance. The rumor said that the new sultan was having a nervous breakdown and
continuously repeating the phrase "I don't want blood, I don't want the sultanate" and
failed to conduct the Friday processions, let alone the sword girding ceremony.456
During his short reign that lasted only three months, the condition of Murad V
454 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 30–31.
455 Orhan, Abdülhamit Gerçeği, 107.
456 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 279.
213
worsened and he was not able to perform the sword girding procession, which was
essential to garner approval in the eyes of his subjects. The conspiracies behind the
death of Abdülaziz and the unstable mental condition of Murad V created unrest
among the public. Danişmend also stated that the approaching Ramadan was a major
source of crisis for the committee of the state, believing that Murad's inability to
attend the bairam prayer and to conduct the bairam greetings ritual would create
hardship surrounding the legitimization of the new government.457 According to a
document found in the Ottoman archives, which was dated in the last week of
Murad's reign, the cost of gratuity that would be distributed during the sword girding,
military inspection, and visit to the Sacred Relics were calculated. However, the new
sultan was unable to perform these tasks.458 Finally, the government decided to
depose Murad V due to his insanity and offered the sultanate to crown prince
Abdülhamid (Figure 118).
457 Danişmend, 283.
458 BOA Y.PRK.HH.1.16 (1 B 1293 /23.7.1876)
01_ "Bi’l-cümle vala-i kabul irsal-i tabiye-i Hümayun şahaneleri için Hırka-i saadet daire-i aliyesine
ve civarlarında bulunan Sünnet Odasına teşrif-i şahaneleri vukunda ber-mutad bazı kullarına ihsan."
02_ "Taklid-i Seyf alayı resm-i valasında taraf-ı eşref-i hazret-i padişahiden ber-mutad sabık inayet
ve ihsan-ı hazreti şahane buyurulan."
03_ "Zat-ı şevketmeab cenab-ı mülukane orta kapudan Bab-üs Saadeye tevhiye buyurduklarında
sultan müşarülileyha efendimiz hazretleri kethüdalığı marifetiyle altın ve sikke hülasa nisar
olunacağı."
214
Figure 118. Abdülhamid II
On August 30, 1876, the committee of ministers (heyet-i vükela) had a meeting at the
Council Hall of the Topkapı Palace. The choice of the Council Hall as the venue for
this critically important meeting indicates that the Topkapı Palace retained its
political significance and symbolic role for legitimization, especially during the
times of crisis. It is also noteworthy that the Council Hall, which had historically
hosted the official state meetings of the viziers during the pre-modern era, was used
for an undisclosed meeting of the committee of ministers of the newly established
Ottoman Parliament. During this critical meeting, the ministers decided to depose
Murad V and enthrone Abdülhamid instead. Immediately after, crown prince
Abdülhamid was taken from the Dolmabahçe Palace to his mother’s house for
security reasons and a secret invitation was sent to the Ottoman notables to meet at
215
the Topkapı Palace the following day. The next day, religious leaders (ulema),
viziers, ministers, and state officials were gathered at the second court of the Topkapı
Palace and Abdülhamid II was brought to the Chamber of Sacred Relics.459
According to Hakan Karateke, Abdülhamid II, who was known for his anxiety,
wanted to change the rituals of the accession ceremony and demanded to place the
ceremonial throne in the Audience Hall (Arz Odası) rather than in the second court.
However, the grand vizier refused his request and the accession ceremony took place
in front of the Gate of Felicity according to custom (Figure 119). During the
ceremony both the şeyhülislam and the grand vizier read a decree declaring Murad V
as "cünun-i mutbık" (suffering from permanent insanity) and put an end to his shortlived
rulership based on the Islamic law. After the announcement of this declaration,
Ottoman notables paid their allegiance to the new sultan Abdülhamid II. An archival
document provides details about the accession ceremony of Abdülhamid II stating
that, accession was not a simple task but required a number of necessary procedures
and rituals.460 According to this document, the golden throne was placed under the
dome and viziers stood at the right side of the throne, high ranking bureaucrats stood
on the left side, and the religious leaders took their place across the throne forming a
semi-circle.461 After the completion of the accession ceremony, Abdülhamid II
ordered the transfer of Murad V to the Çırağan Palace, which would be a prison for
the deposed sultan and his family until the end of his life.462
459 Ayyıldız, II. Abdülhamid dönemi saray merasimleri, 20–24.
460 BOA Y.PRK.TKM.1.19 (11 Ş 1293 / 1.9.1876)
"Vuku bulan tebdil-i saltanat bir küçük iş değildir zira o babda ittihaz olunacak pek çok usul ve
muamelat ve icab-ı halden olan bazı teşebbüsat ve icra kılınacak hayli müzakerat var idi."
461 BOA Y.PRK.TKM.1.19 (11 Ş 1293 / 1.9.1876)
"Kubbealtına vaz olunan altın Taht-ı Hümayuna cülus buyurdular. Vükela Taht-ı Hümayunun sağ
tarafında, sair büyük memurlar sol tarafında kaim olup ulema dahi taht-ı aliyenin karşısında bir nısf
daire teşkil ederek..."
462 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 61.
216
Figure 119. Ceremonial throne placed in front of Bab-üs Saade (Albert Kahn
Archives de la planète, A 36605, 1922)
After the declaration of Abdülhamid II as the new Ottoman ruler, the military corps
in the courts of the "Old Palace" presented their respects to the new sultan and the
military band played tunes. The entire city was decorated with flags and 101 canon
balls were fired from the fleet and from specific locations within the city. The people
of Istanbul poured into the courts and gardens of the Topkapı Palace and chanted:
"long live the sultan".463 Following the accession ceremony held in the Topkapı
Palace, Abdülhamid II proceeded to the Dolmabahçe Palace with the imperial boat.
Due to a large number of audiences that included non-Muslim religious leaders and
463 BOA Y.PRK.TKM.1.19 (11 Ş 1293 / 1.9.1876)
"Sultan Abdülhamid Han-ı sani . . . nam-ı samisiyle cülus-ı Hümayunları ilan olundu ve o esnada
saray-ı kadimin havlu-i dahilinde saf-ı beste selam olan asakir-i şahane ifa-i resm-i tazimat ve mızıkai
Hümayun icra-i nağmat eyledi. Bütün ebniye-i emiriye sancak-ı şahane ile tezyin olundu. Mevaki-i
lazımeden ve donanma-i Hümayundan 101'er pare top atıldı. Resm-i beyitin icrasına mübaderet
olundu. Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun avlu ve bahçelerine fevc fevc tecemmu iden halk (padişahım
bin yaşa) cülus-ı hümayuna müsaraat ediyorlardı."
217
foreign notables for the first time, the accession ceremony continued at the
Dolmabahçe Palace464.
Abdülhamid II was well aware of the power of public ceremonials and rituals
legitimizing his sovereignty and fully utilized the tools of representation and symbols
of power throughout his 33-year-long reign. Religious and dynastic legitimization
themes were employed, reflecting the glory and supremacy of the Ottoman state on
behalf of the persona of the sultan.465 To compensate the "legitimacy crisis" due to
the declining prestige of the Ottoman state in the international arena and the
weakening reputation of the sultanate within the Ottoman Empire, Abdülhamid II
implemented strategies for presenting the symbolic existence and authority of
himself and his palace, referring to both traditional and modern techniques of
representation. His 'double' accession ceremony held both in the Topkapı Palace and
later in the Dolmabahçe Palace with the attendance of both Ottoman and foreign
participants epitomized the legitimization strategy of Abdülhamid II, which would
evolve into pure spectacle during his reign. The sword girding ceremony, which
Murad V failed to fulfill, was performed with great pomp and as a grand spectacle by
Abdülhamid II, a week after his accession.
4.1.2 Sword girding ceremony: A public procession throughout the city
According to Islamic rule, accession ceremonies were followed and completed by a
public procession named Kılıç Alayı. The sword girding (kılıç kuşanma) ceremony is
comparable to that of the crowing ceremony in the Western context, but conducted as
a procession from the Topkapı Palace to Eyüp and back to the Topkapı Palace. Eyüp,
where the tomb of the legendary Arab saint-fighter Abu Ayyub al-Ansari was found,
464 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 36.
465 Deringil, The Well Protected Domains, 21.
218
was established by Mehmed II as the religious center of Istanbul.466 After visiting the
tomb of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, the holy sword, belonging either to Prophet
Mohammad, Osman I, Selim I, or to one of the caliphates, was girded to the new
sultan by the şeyhülislam or by the nakibüleşraf .467 The new sultan would present
his existence and his power during the public processions that was conducted both
via land and sea routes. This ceremony and the public procession from the Topkapı
Palace to Eyüp carried a vast significance within the eyes of Ottoman subjects and
was accepted as an important aspect of the new sultan’s legitimacy.468
On the seventh day of his accession, on September 7, 1876, Abdülhamid II
embarked from the Dolmabahçe Palace with an ostentatious imperial boat
accompanied by the imperial navy and by several other boats carrying his family and
his entourage. (Figure 120) The imperial fleet sailed towards Eyüp through the
Golden Horn, disembarked at the quay and headed to the tomb of Ayyup al-Ansari
(Figure 121). After offering prayers for this legendary Muslim saint, the royal group
gathered at the courtyard of the Eyüp Mosque. The şeyhülislam Hayrullah Efendi,
who had a crucial role in the dethronement of Murad V, girded the holy swords to
the new sultan. Abdülhamid II, preferred to carry two swords, one of Caliphate
Omar, who represents justice in the Islamic tradition and also the sword of Osman
Gazi, which was known as the imperial sword (saltanat kılıcı) representing the
foundation of the Ottoman Empire.469
466 Kafescioglu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul : Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the
Construction of the Ottoman Capital.
467 Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilâtı, 192–93.
468 Deringil, The Well Protected Domains.
469 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 61.; Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!
219
Figure 120. The arrival of Abdülhamid II to Eyüp with imperial caiques for the
sword girding ceremony (Le Monde Illustré, 23.09.1876)
Figure 121. The ceremony that took place in the courtyard of the Eyüp Mosque (Le
Monde Illustré, 23.09.1876)
220
After the sword girding ceremony held in Eyüp, Abdülhamid II and his entourage
paraded to the Topkapı Palace with the imperial carriages via the ceremonial
Divanyolu470 (Figure 122). On his way back to the Topkapı Palace, the new ruler
also visited the tombs of his ancestors Selim I, Abdülmecid, and Mehmed II paying
his homage to these powerful sultans and also implying his loyalty to Tanzimat
reforms. This public procession was performed with the participation of a huge
crowd, ensuring the approval of the new sultan in the eyes of the public471 (Figure
123). It was recorded that there were approximately five or six hundred thousand
spectators watching the ceremony. Abdülhamid II must have recognized the power
and significance of public ceremonies and spectacles even in his first week of
rulership. When he arrived at the Topkapı Palace, the new sultan visited the
Chamber of Sacred Relics, rested a while in the palace of his ancestors, and later
took the imperial boat from the Seraglio point back to the Dolmabahçe Palace.472
Figure 122. The map showing the route to and from Eyüp during the sword girding
ceremony (OBA.HRT.h.0668)
470 This significant ceremonial axis connecting the Topkapı Palace to Edirnekapı conveyed the idea of
imperial continuity from Byzantine era to Ottoman era. See, Cerasi, “The Urban and Architectural
Evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu”; Cerasi and Özdamar, Divanyolu.
471 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 290.
472 Ayyıldız, II. Abdülhamid dönemi saray merasimleri, 30–34.
221
Figure 123. The public procession of Abdülhamid II from Eyüp to the Topkapı
Palace (Le Sultan, apres l'investiture, se rend au palais de Top-Capou, Le Monde
Illustré, 23.09.1876, 196)
4.1.3 Visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics: Religious legitimacy
Religious ceremonies, such as Friday processions, greeting ceremonies during
bairams, fast breakings (iftars) and feasts throughout the holy month of Ramadan,
mahya lightings between minarets of sultanic mosques, mass prayer ceremonies
during huzur-ı hümayun lessons, celebration of the birth of the Prophet, sending
pilgrimages to holy lands and their greeting on their return, and sending gifts to
Mecca and Medina with a procession (surre alayı), etc. were of particular
significance during the reign of Abdülhamid II.473 With the promotion of caliphate
by Abdülhamid II, who defined himself as the "halife-i Müslimin ve emirü'lmüminin",
these religious ceremonies were performed as grand public spectacles.474
473 İpşirli, "The Ceremonies of Sultan Abdülhamid II" in Yılmaz, II. Abdülhamid, 137–38.
474 Buzpınar, "The Question of Caliphate" in Yılmaz, 133.
222
Another major religious ceremony performed as an urban procession was the
ceremonial visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the Topkapı Palace (Figure
124). Every year, the sultan and his entourage paid a visit to the sacred relics kept in
the Privy Chamber on the fifteenth day of Ramadan.475 These visits were not limited
to the presence of the sultan but to Ottoman notables, Enderun and Harem servants
were also invited to take part in this religious ceremony. Once the day of the visit
was established, a formal invitation was sent to the şeyhülislam, the viziers, and other
Ottoman notables, so that after praying at the Hagia Sophia Mosque, they would
come to the Topkapı Palace with their ceremonial attires,476 but without their medals
or swords, which carried the risk of damaging the holy mantle.477 The visits were
conducted according to the ranks of the attendants. The preparations and cleaning of
the rooms started in advance and the whole ceremony took a couple days during the
sacred month, Ramadan.478
The sacred relics are composed of numerous items that are believed to belong
to Prophet Mohammad, the first Caliphs and other religiously significant persons.
The display of the holy mantle during specific times of the year was an ancient
tradition. The holy mantle, together with beard of Prophet Mohammad (lihye-i şerif)
and some significant sacred relics were brought to Istanbul by Selim I following his
conquest of Egypt in 1517. The sacred collection has been enriched throughout time
via acquisitions and gifts. These relics were kept at the Imperial Treasury, until they
were transferred to the Privy Chamber (Has Oda), a sultanic chamber built by
475 The visits could be on a different date as well. Ali Seydi Bey mentiones that Hırka-i Saadet
Ceremony took place on the eighteenth day of Ramadan during the era of Abdülhamid II. See, Ali
Said Bey, Teşrifat ve Teşkilat-I Kadimemiz, 162.
476 Ali Said Bey, Teşrifat ve Teşkilat-ı Kadimemiz, 162.
477 Ayyıldız, II. Abdülhamid dönemi saray merasimleri, 68.; BOA İ.DUİT.15.58
"İşbu resm-i alide büyük üniforma iktisa ediliyor. Yalnız nişan kordonu kılıç ve üçüncü rütbe nişanlar
talik edilmez ve eldiven dahi takılmaz..."
478 Tayyarzade Ata Bey and Arslan, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi Tarih-i Enderun (Târih-I Atâ), I:308.
223
Mehmed II at the northern corner of the third court. Starting with the late sixteenth
century the sacred relics were kept in this room and within time, both the function
and the name of the Has Oda has changed, and it was referred to as either Hırka-i
Şerif or Hırka-i Saadet Dairesi.
Some of the items in the sacred relics collection were purchased, collected,
and circulated over the centuries. In particular, the beard of the Prophet was in
constant circulation479 and was sent to different mosques within the empire. Even
though the royal family left the palace and transferred many items from Topkapı to
their newly built palaces,480 the relics continued to be kept and visited in the Topkapı
Palace.481 This fact well presents the role of rituals embedded in space and especially
the significance of the Topkapı Palace as the locus for sustaining dynastic traditions
and imperial continuity.
479There are numerous documents on the circulation of Prophet'd beard (lihye-i şerif) in the Ottoman
Archives. Selected sample documents are:
BOA DH.MKT.2555.131 (13.11.1901) “16 Teşrinievvel sene 317 tarihli tezkirede Hazine-i Evkafdan
dahi lihye-i sa'adet-i hazret-i nebevi mevcud olmadığı izbar kılınmıştır.”
BOA DH.İD.33.60 (14.06.1914) "Zonguldak'ta daire-i hükümet karşısında kain yeni cami-i şerif
minberine teberrüken ve teyemmüren vaz' olunmak üzre lihye-i sa'adet ihsan ve ihdası..."
Valide Sultan of Abdülaziz, Pertevniyal also sent a Sakal-ı Şerif to Kaşgar Muslims and to the tomb of
Abdülkadir Geylani at Baghdad. See, Akyıldız, “Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide
Sultan,” 333.
480 Several symbolic, valuable or decorative items were transferred from the Topkapı Palace to other
palaces especially during the nineteenth century. For example, the imperial throne was transferred to
the Dolmabahçe Palace for bairam greetings or for other important ceremonies. (See BOA
Y.PRK.SGE.14.7 for the transfer of the throne to the Topkapı Palace for bairam greeting ceremony in
1896. Abdülhamid II also moved the library collection and some objects from the Imperial Treasury
to Yıldız Palace as a sign of authority and legitimacy. See, Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II.
Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli Hazine defteri.
481 An interesting printed (matbu) archival document stated that it was not possible to send the beard
of the Prophet due to the limited number of items left in the Chamber of Sacred Relics. BOA
DH.HMŞ.28.14 (26.04.1911) “Hülasa: B’ad-ezin mu-yi mübarek irsali mümkün olamayacağına
dair”
224
Figure 124. The entrance to the Chamber of Sacred Relics (Musée Albert-Kahn,
Archives de la Planète, A 36615, 1922)
During the nineteenth century the tradition of visiting the Chamber of Sacred Relics
continued. During the era of Mahmud II the ceremony was held and defined as a
highly prestigious courtly tradition (adat-ı saltanat-ı senniye)482 and the tradition was
conducted during the reigns of Abdülmecid483 and Abdülaziz.484 The ceremony to
482 Ahmet and Aktepe, Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi, 661.
483 Number of archival documents exist in the Ottoman archives about the sultanic visits to the
Chamber of Sacred Relics during the reigns of Abdülmecid after he left the palace, providing details
about the ceremony, the list of invitees, and the list of gift distributed during the ceremony. See,
BOA A.TŞF.11.81 (1268) Hırka-i Saadet merasimine davetlilerin listesi.
BOA A.TŞF.18.149 (1270) Hırka-i Saadet ziyareti resm-i alisi tertibi.
BOA İ.DH.345 22741 (1272) Hırka-i Şerif ziyaretlerine başlanması.
BOA İ. DH.379.25006 (1273) Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti resm-i alisinin icrası.
BOA İ.DH.402.26643 (1274) Hırka-i Şerif ziyaretine dair.
BOA İ.DH.430.28469 (1275) Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti resm-i alisinin icrasına dair.
BOA İ.DH.1290.101489 (1276) Ramazan ayının onbeşinde Hırka-i Şerif'te yapılacak törene dair.
BOA A.TŞF. 33.34 (1277) Ramazan'ın onbeşinci günü Hirka-i Şerif'in ziyarete açılışında hazır
bulunulması.
484 Documents regarding the Hırka-i Saadet visits during the the first years of Abdülaziz:
BOA HH.d.27802 (1278) Pertevniyal Valide Sultan'nın Hırka-i Şerif ziyaretinde verdiği atiyye ile
yıllık atiyyeleri.
BOA İ.DH.1291.101549 (1278) Ramazan ayının onbeşinde Hırka-i Şerif'te yapılacak törene dair.
BOA İ.DH.1291.101566 (1279) Ramazan ayının onbeşinde Hırka-i Şerif'te yapılacak merasimin,
vekillerin ve üst düzeymemurların katılımıyla, sabah saat altıda başlayacağı.
225
visit the sacred relics was conducted on the fifteenth day of Ramadan (Figure
125).485 After the silver chest of the holy mantle was opened by the Sultan, other
state notables starting with grand vizier and grand mufti touched their face to the
mantle. The part of the mantle where the face of the person was touched was cleaned
by a special cloth (dest-i mal) and the cloth was given to that particular person. After
everyone in the room touched the mantle and visited the silver chest, the holy mantle
was washed in a golden pot and dried with special scents. This water was put in tiny
bottles and distributed to palace notables and to the members of the Harem.486 This
ceremony was of particular significance for the Ottoman court and the protocol was
strictly followed, even the quantity of holy water distributed to each visitor was
recorded.487 The position of each person attending the ceremony within the chamber
and their order of saluting the Holy Mantle was registered as well in teşrifat defteri.
BOA İ.DH.1292.101618 (1281) Ramazan'ın onbeşinde, mutad olduğu üzere, Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti
resm-i alisinin yapılması.
BOA HH.d.27801 (1281) Ramazan'da Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti için Topkapı Sarayı'na gidildiğinde
verilen atiyyeler.
BOA İ.DH.1293.101643 (1282) Ramazanın onbeşinci çarşamba günü saat beş civarında Hırka-i Şerif
ziyareti merasiminin yapılacağı.
485 The preparations for the ceremony started a couple days in advance. The sacred relics were
transferred either to the Baghdad, Revan or Sünnet Kiosks, so that the Chamber of Sacred Relics were
deeply cleaned and censed. Before the ceremony Tülbent Ağası and fifteen other palace officials
(Hane-i Hassa Ağası) carried the sacred relics back to their place in the Privy Chamber. The night
before the ceremony the chamber was cleaned with rosewater one more time under the supervision of
the sultan who would conduct the morning prayer in this room. Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 195.
486 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 196; Tayyarzade Ata Bey and Arslan, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi
Tarih-i Enderun (Târih-I Atâ), I:315–20. Ata Bey provided a detailed account of traditional
ceremonies.
487 Some archival documents recording the amount of water distributed to the guests during the
ceremony:
BOA D.TŞF.d.26064 (1198) Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti sırasında Hanım Sultan ve sair sahıslara tevzi
edilen su miktarını gösterir defter.
BOA D.TŞF.d.26065 (1199) Hırka-i Şerif töreninde ziyaretçilere verilen su miktarını gösterir defter.
BOA D.TŞF.d.26073 (1206) Ramazan-ı şerif münasebetiyle Hırka-i Şerif'de yapılan merasimde
ziyaretçilere verilen şişe suyu sayısını gösterir defter.
BOA D.TŞF.d.26092 (1229) Hırka-i Serif ziyareti dolayısıyla Valide Sultan, Beyhan Sultan, Hatice
Sultan, Esma Sultan, seyhülislam efendi, yeniçeri ağası ve sair şahıslara verilen su miktarını gösterir
defter.
BOA D.BŞM.d.9659 (1244) Önde gelen devlet adamlarına tevzi olunan Hırka-ı Şerif suyu ile ilgili
kayıtları havi defter.
226
Figure 125. The plan of the Enderun court and a close view of the Chamber of
Sacred Relics at the northern corner. (TSMA, Abdurrahman Şeref Bey Plan, 1910)
This ceremony traditionally took place within the walls of the Topkapı Palace and
was open to the members of the royal family and palace servants.488 However, during
the nineteenth century, when Ottoman sultans began to reside at other palaces, these
visits gained public significance. The sultan’s procession from other palaces to the
Topkapı Palace became a public spectacle, called the Hırka-i Saadet Alayı.
Especially during the era of Abdülhamid II, these visits became carefully
choreographed spectacles, presenting the role of the sultan as Caliph, communicating
his position as the protector of Islam and inheritor of Mohammad's heritage. During
the first years of his reign, following the visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics,
Abdülhamid II stayed in the Topkapı Palace until fast breaking (iftar), had dinner in
the Baghdad Kiosk, and returned back to the Yıldız Palace with a lantern procession
(fener alayı),489 distributing food and cigars to onlookers. After his arrival to the
488 Tayyarzade Ata Bey and Arslan, Tarih-I Enderun, I:317–19.
489 "Hırka-i Saadet Ziyaret Fiyuzat İştiali", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.14 (17 Ramazan 1307 / 26.4.1891)
"Bağdad Köşkü Hümayunlarında iftar ile . . . hazret-i şehinşahiyi havi levhalar ve bayraklar ve
fenerlerle tezyin ve tenvir edilmiş olduğu gibi..."
227
Yıldız Palace, sacrifices were distributed.490
Abdülhamid II, especially during the last decade of his reign, did not leave
the Yıldız Palace at all, except for the annual visits to the Sacred Relics, which
signified the importance attributed to this ceremony and the Topkapı Palace as well.
Due to the significance of the procession, preparations started 15 days in advance
and the route to the Topkapı Palace was controlled and security forces were placed
under the bridges and at strategic locations.491 As the procession was one of the rare
occasions when sultan left Yıldız Palace and made himself visible in public, strict
security measures were taken on this ceremonial route, 492 which was also decorated
for the imperial procession.493 As an extreme security measure, the names of all the
instructors and students watching the procession was recorded and submitted to the
palace afterwards.494 Additionally, armed soldiers were also placed at each gate and
at various locations within the Topkapı Palace.495 Abdülhamid II used the
ostentatious imperial carriage (saltanat arabası) only during the Friday prayer
processions (Figure 126) and once a year during the Hırka-i Saadet visits to the
Topkapı Palace.496 Later, the sultan started using the imperial boat as well, following
the route from Yıldız Palace to Dolmabahçe Palace, then to the Seraglio Point with
490 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 199.
491 BOA ZB.370.115 (11 Teşrinievvel 1322 / 24.10.1906)
"Ramazan-ı şerifin on beşinci günü Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununa teşrif-i şahane-i şeref vukuunda
ittihaz ve icrası icab eden tedabir-i inzibatiye ve tekidiye cümlesinden olmak üzere köprüler altlarının
liman ve rüsümat ve zabıta dairelerince şimdiden memurin-i lazıme ikamesiyle temin-i tarassudatı..."
492 In the Ottoman Archives there are numerous documents regarding the Hırka-i Şerif visits of
Abdülhamid II and the security measures taken accordingly. A few selected examples are as follows:
Y.MTV.76.60 (1310.N.11) Padisahın Hırka-i Serif ziyareti sırasında Topkapı Sarayı'na gönderilecek
ihtiram kıtası hakkında Tophane Müşirligi'nin istizanı.
BOA ZB.600.127 (1324.E.27) Halife Abdülhamid II, Topkapı Sarayı'ndaki Hırka-i Saadet'i ziyaret
edeceginden yol güzergahında gerekli tedbirlerin alınarak emniyetin saglanması.
BOA ZB.600 128 (1324.E.27) Halife Abdülhamid II, Hırka-ı Saadet'i ziyaret edeceginden
güzergahtaki deniz vasıtalarının hareketinin yasaklanması ve gerekli tedbirlerin alınması.
493 BOA Y.PRK.ASK.208.55 (1321.N.14) Hırka-i Şerif ziyaretinde gemilerin bayraklarla süslenmesi.
494 BOA Y.MTV.76.127 (1310.N.23) Padisahın Hırka-i Saadeti ziyareti sırasında yola dizilen
mekteblilerin ve hocalarının isimlerini havi defterin takdimi.
495 BOA Y.PRK.SGE.9.89_001 (13 N 1320/14.12.1902)
496 Ayyıldız, II. Abdülhamid dönemi saray merasimleri, 265.
228
imperial boats, and finally to the Topkapı Palace.497 The anxious Sultan, who was
afraid of an attack, did not announce his route–weather from land or sea–until the
last minute as a security measure.498
Especially during the reign of Abdülhamid II, the visits to the Holy Mantle
gained a public yet political meaning, emphasizing the religious role of the sultan as
the Caliphate of the Muslim world, possessor of the holy relics and the protector of
Islam. This increased emphasis on the Ottoman Caliphate carried a diplomatic
significance and was used as a political tool against the West.499 Deringil argues that
this emphasis on the caliphate, especially during the era of Abdülhamid II, was a
reflection of changing politics and a system of legitimacy. He states that “the novel
usage of the caliphate as a quasi-papal office with sway over the entire Islamic world
must be seen in this context.”500 A New York Times article dated 1896 depicts the
public procession of the sultan from his Yıldız Palace to the Seraglio. Apart from the
security of the sultan, the military tone of the procession must have created an
ostentatious spectacle promoting the power of the sultan in the eyes of his subjects
and foreign onlookers:501
On these occasions to be sure, he is attended by 12,000 of his best troops,
strong muscular fellows, equipped with the latest warlike weapons who array
themselves on both sides of the road leading from the palace to the mosque.
He is driven by his own coachman, Ali Bey, in a carriage drawn by two
magnificent white Arabs. . . . His bodyguards, mounted on Arabian steeds
and attired in the most gorgeous of European uniforms, while the Imam of the
Padisah, dressed in flowing robe and green turban, a band of learned Ulemahs
of Arabia and Syria, some of the favorite wives, closely secluded in their
carriages, and attended by the eunuchs; the Grand Vizier, the Sheik ul Islam,
497 Ayyıldız, 66.; Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 223.
498 BOA DH.MUİ.16 -1.32_01 (16 Eylül 1325 / 29.9.1909)
"Zat-ı hazreti padişahinin Dolmabahçe'den bahren teşrif ve ayn-ı tarikle avdet buyuracakları beyan
olunur efendim"
BOA DH.MUİ.16 -1.32_02 (10 Eylül 1325 / 23.9.1909)
"Hırka-i Saadet ziyareti için teşrif-i şahanenin hangi tarikle şerefvuku olacağı tayinine dair Emniyet-i
Umumiye Müdüriyetince henüz malumat olmadığından..."
499 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 221–39.
501 "Life in Yıldız Palace", New York Times, Jan 19, 1896, 33.
229
the Generals of his army, resplendent in uniforms; Ministers of State,
officers, Secretaries, and dignitaries without number, a moving mass of
glittering grandeur, attend his progress.
Figure 126. Yıldız Palace during a public procession (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards
Collection)
The participants to the sacred relics visits were also of particular importance and
carried political significance.502 During the earlier periods the ceremony was
conducted within the palace and only the royal family, Enderun and Harem servants
together with highest-ranking officials, could attend the ceremony. However as
explained above, this annual ceremony gained a public significance, where Ottoman
notables and officers started being invited, which became an issue of prestige and a
sign of high rank in the protocol. During the sacred visits specific clothing
regulations were also dictated503 and almost all viziers and high-ranking officials
502 BOA İ.HUS.123.92 (22 N 1322 / 30.11.1904)
"Surre-i Hümayun ve ıyd-ı din-i şerifeyn ala-yı valalarıyla Hırka-i Saadet ziyaret-i münifesi mevlud-i
risaletpenahi kıraaeti resm-i aliyeleri için rical-i ilmiye ve mülkiyeye yazılacak tezkirelerin emsal-i
mukayyedesine harfiyen mutabık olarak yazılmasına . . . davet olunacak rical-i ulema ve mülkiyeyi
natık olarak teşrifat dairesince tanzim edilecek cetvelin nezaret-i müşarü'n-ileyhaca bi't-tasdik..."
503 BOA Y.PRK.A.7.56 (14 N 1309 / 22.11.1904)
230
were invited to the ceremony. The day of the procession was declared an official
holiday for governmental offices.504 The family of the sultan, his wifes, notable
harem ladies, and eunuchs also visited the Chamber of Sacred Relics (Figure 127)
with a separate procession either from the Yıldız or Dolmabahçe Palaces to the
Topkapı Palace. Traditionally, the Mother Queen (Valide Sultan), accompanied by
the members of the Harem, led these visits.505 As the mother of Abdülhamid II died
before his sultanate began, the cortege of the Harem was led by the Kadın Efendi
during his reign.506 During the ceremony, the Harem ladies and eunuchs of the
existing and previous sultans waited for their turn at the Koltuk Odası.507 This was
also an interesting occasion when the new and old members of the harem
encountered each other in the halls of the Topkapı Palace.
"İşbu şehr-i siyam-ı mefharet-i encamın on beşinci Salı günü ber mu’tad Hırka-ı Saadet-i hazret-i
risalet-penahi ziyaret-i münifesi icra olunacağına yevm-i mezkurda saat altı buçukta üniforma ve
serbestsiz lacivert pantolon ve kordonsuz nişan-ı alileriyle emsal-i vechiyle Topkapı Saray-ı şevket-i
ihtivasında vaki Enderun-ı Hümayun Dairesine azimete himmet buyurulmaları..."
504 BOA DH.MKT. 7.75 (20 Mart 1309 / 1.4.1893)
"Yarınki pazar günü Hırka-i Saadet resm-i aliyesinin icrası mukarrer bulunmak hasebiyle vukela-i
fiham hazeratıyla bi’l-cümle rical-i devlet bittabi resm-i ali-i mezkurda bulunarak . . . yarın Bab-ı Ali
ile sair devairin tatil edilmesi..."
505 Akyıldız, “Müsrif, Fakat Hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan,” 336.
506 "Hırka-i Saadet Ziyaret-i Fiyüzat-ı İştimali", Takvim-i Vakayi, 17 Ramazan 1308/ 26.4.1891,
no.14: "Saltanat-ı seniyye devletlu atufetlu Kadın Efendi hazretleriyle Harem-i Hümayun erkan-ı
muhadderat-ünvan dahi Hırka-i Mübareke-i seyyid-ül mürseline vaz-ı cibah tazim ve ibtihal ederek
saat dokuz kararlarında tehlilat ve tekbirat ile resm-i celil-i ziyarete hitam verilmiştir." Kadın Efendi
mentioned in the article must be Perestu Kadın, step-mother of Abdülhamid II.
507 Ali Said, Saray Hatıraları Sultan Abdülhamid Han’ın Hayatı cited in Akyıldız, Osmanlı
bürokrasisi ve modernleşme, 68.
231
Figure 127. The dome of the Hass Oda (Privy Chmaber) (2014)
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, the visits to the Holy Mantle were publicly
announced in newspapers.508 The official newspaper Takvim-i Vakayi covered the
sultan's religious procession to the Topkapı Palace on the front page, referring to the
significance of the imperial visits509 (Figure 128). The 1891 issue of Takvim-i Vakayi
included details about Abdülhamid's procession from Yıldız Palace to Hagia Sophia
for prayer (selamlık resm-i alisi) and his visit to the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the
Topkapı Palace afterwards. The full-page article also mentioned the titles and posts
of the attendees and the distribution of the destimal,510 which included a religious
verse on them, to the guests. The article published in 1892 emphasized the role of the
sultan as the "Caliph of all Muslims" (Emirü'l-müminin, halife-i ruy-ı zemin,
508 BOA İ.HUS.51.123 (13 N 1314 / 15.Şubat.1897) ''Hırka-i Saadet-i hazret-i risaletpenahi ziyareti
resm-i alasının şehr-i ramazanın onbeşinci Çarşamba günü sabıkı misillü icra-i mukarrir
bulunduğunun yarınki gazetelerle ilanı..."
509 "Hırka-i Saadet Ziyaret-i Fiyuzat-ı İştimali", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.14, 17 Ramazan 1307 /
26.4.1891.
"Ziyaret-i Hırka-i Saadet Resm-i Münaifi", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.259,16 Ramazan 1309 / 14.4.1892.
"Ziyaret-i Hırka-i Saadet Resm-i Risaletpenahi", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.13, 16 Ramazan 1326 /
12.10.1908.
510 Piece of cloth distributed to the attendants of the ceremony after visiting the sacred relics.
232
müstemen-i şeriat, resul-ü kibriya velinimet padişahımız efendimiz hazretleri).511 The
article informs us that after breaking his fast at Baghdad Kiosk, Abdülhamid II
returned back to the Yıldız Palace with another public procession, visiting the major
routes of the city. During the procession Muslim and non-Muslim subjects chanted
"long live the sultan"512 and filled up the streets, which were decorated with posters,
flags, and lanterns, in hopes of having a glimpse of Abdülhamid II ".513 After the
intervention of the Committee of Union and Progress in 1908 and the declaration of
Second Constitution, the ceremony seemed to become more modest. Takvim-i Vakayi
of 1908 announced the last visit of Abdülhamid II briefly with a single paragraph514
(Figure 129).
511 "Ziyaret-i Hırka-i Saadet Resm-i Münaifi", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.259, 16 Ramazan 1309 /
14.4.1892.
512 Takvim-i Vakayi, no.14, 17 Ramazan 1307 / 26.4.1891.
"Padişahlarını görmek için ta sabahtan sokaklara dökülen nice binlerce teba-i sadakat nümud lisan
ve cananlarından virud-zevan her an olan (padişahım çok yaşa) dua-yı icabet ihtivası tekrarü'ltezakir
kılınmışdır."
Takvim-i Vakayi, no.259, 16 Ramazan 1309 / 14.4.1892.
"Asakir-i mansure-i şehinşahileri ile mekatib-i muhtelife şakirdanı ve ahali-yi sadıka kulları safiyet'tüs
selam ve ihtiram oldukları gibi rayat-ı zaferayat-ı Osmani ile nice ebniyenin cephe-i sadakat-ı
beyniyesi tezyin ve fevanis ve kanadil rengarenk ikadı ile iraye-i asar-ı cemile meserret kılınıp büyük
küçük kafe-i halkın lisanı (padişahım çok yaşa) dua-yı ihlas intimasıyla tertib olunmuştur."
513 Takvim-i Vakayi, no.14, 17 Ramazan 1307 / 26.4.1891.
"Padişahlarını görmek için ta sabahtan sokaklara dökülen nice binlerce teba-i sadakat nümud lisan
ve cananlarından virud-zevan her an olan (padişahım çok yaşa) dua-yı icabet ihtivası tekrarü'ltezakir
kılınmışdır."
Takvim-i Vakayi, no.259, 16 Ramazan 1309 / 14.4.1892.
"Asakir-i mansure-i şehinşahileri ile mekatib-i muhtelife şakirdanı ve ahali-yi sadıka kulları safiyet'tüs
selam ve ihtiram oldukları gibi rayat-ı zaferayat-ı Osmani ile nice ebniyenin cephe-i sadakat-ı
beyniyesi tezyin ve fevanis ve kanadil rengarenk ikadı ile iraye-i asar-ı cemile meserret kılınıp büyük
küçük kafe-i halkın lisanı (padişahım çok yaşa) dua-yı ihlas intimasıyla tertib olunmuştur."
514 "Ziyaret-i Hırka-i Saadet Resm-i Risaletpenahi", Takvim-i Vakayi, no.13, 16 Ramazan 1326 /
12.10.1908.
"Ziyaret-i Hırka-i Saadet resm-i risaletpenahi adet-i müstehasine-i saltanat-ı seniyyeden olduğu üzre
Topkapı Sarayı saadet-i ihitivasında mahfuza-i ihtiram olan Bürde-i Mukaddese-i hazret-i
risaletpenahi ziyareti resm-i behin kudsiyet rehini dünki gün merasim-i mutade ile icra buyurulmuş..."
233
Figure 128. Announcements of visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the front
cover of Takvim-i Vakayi (17 Ramazan 1308 / 26.4.1891 ; 15 Ramazan 1309 /
13.4.1892)
Figure 129. Newspaper announcements about sultan's visit to the Chamber of Sacred
Relics during the Second Constitutional Era (Takvim-i Vakayi, 12.10.1908 / Tasvir-i
Efkar, 13.10.1914)515
According to the memoirs of Hakiye Koray, daughter of Şakir Paşa, during the era of
Abdülhamid II, visitors to the Holy Mantle were seated at Hünkar Sofası, the main
515 I would like to thank to Gizem Tongo Overfield Shaw for bringing these announcements to my
attention.
234
anteroom located in the Harem section and entered the Chamber of Sacred Relics
one-by-one as their names were called.516 According to Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil,
Abdülhamid II conducted these visits with fear and organized severe security
measures within the city. However during the era of Mehmed Reşad,517 the same
tradition continued without fear and the processions became grander and more
ostentatious.518 After 1909 printed tickets were given to attendees at the ceremony.519
An irade from the Second Constitutional era found in the Ottoman archives explains
the nature of the protocol during the visits. According to this document, apart from
the sultan and his family, heads of the senate and the parliament (ayan ve mebusan
reisleri), Ottoman notables and dignitaries, ministers (vükela-yı fiham), scholars
(rical-i ilmiye), military officials (rüesa-yı askeriye), first and second degree
bureaucrats, the mayor of Istanbul, the governor of Beyoğlu and Üsküdar, the chief
of police forces, municipality officials of İstanbul, the Ottoman navy, members of
the chamber of commerce and the bar, and two Muslim members of the İttihat-ı
Anasır Cemiyeti were officially invited to the ceremony.520 This document also states
the rank and the dress code of the visitors within the chamber and the order of the
visits. A plan of the Privy Chamber was also attached to the document showing the
place of each group of visitors and their route within the chamber521 (Figure 130).
This document clearly depicts the governmental organization of the Ottoman state
516 Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, Topkapı Sarayıʼnda padişah evi, 1986, 91–92.
517 BOA DH.EUM.THR.51.62 (19 R 1327 / 04.10.1909) The visit of Mehmed V to the sacred relics,
his arrival to Seraglio from the sea, and his procession towards Fatih Mosque through Divan Yolu.
518 Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 105–7, 223. According to the memoirs of Halit Ziya, he attended four of
the Hırka-i Şerif visits, which had great religious significance and he kept a couple of the muslins
distributed during the ceremony as a souvenir.
519 BOA BEO.3642.273091 (13 N 1327 / 28.9.1909)
"Hırka-i Şerif ziyareti resminde hazır bulunmak üzere Ramazan-ı şerifin onbeşinci günü Topkapı
Saray-ı Hümayununa davet olunacak zevata verilmek için tab ettirilecek olan biletler esmanının
dahiliye tahsisatı meyanındaki masarif-i tabiye tertibinden tesviyesi."
520 BOA İ.DUİT.15.58_01
521 BOA İ.DUİT.15.58_02
235
during the Second Constitutional era, with the inclusion of ministers and deputies to
the protocol.
Figure 130. The protocol for the visits to the Chamber of Sacred Relics (BOA
İ.DUİT. 15.58)
1. Veliahd Hazretleri (The Heir Apparent)
2. Şehzadegan Hazeratı (The crown Princes)
3. Sadrazam Paşa Hazretleri (Grand Vizier)
4. Şeyhülislam Efendi hazretleri (Grand Mufti)
5. Şerif Hazretleri
6. Sadaret ve Meşihatı ihraz etmiş zevat-ı kiram
7. Meclis-i Ayan Reisi (Head of the Senate)
8. Meclis-i Mebusan Reisi (Head of the Parliament)
9. Vükela-yı Füham Hazeratı (Ministers)
10. Müşiran ve Mansub-ı Vüzera (Generals and Viziers)
11. Erkan-ı Mabeyn-i Hümayun (Mabeyn officials)
12. Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası (Chief Treasurer)
13. Teşrifat Müdür-i Umumisi (General Director of Protocol)
14. Damatlar Hazeratı (Son-in-laws)
15. Sudur-ı İzam (Notables and Dignitaries)
16. Teşrifat Müdürü (Director of Protocol)
17. Taşıyıcı zat (Carrier)
18. İmam-ı Evvel (First Imam)
19. İmam-ı Sani (Second Imam)
20. Hafızlar (Quran Readers)
236
Traditionally this ceremony and the Chamber of Sacred Relics was only open to the
Muslim population. During the twentieth century, this rule seemed to have remained
unchanged. According to archival documents found at Archives Nationales de
France, information regarding these ceremonies was sent to the foreign embassies,
but the ambassadors were not invited to take part in the ceremony. One of the
documents was dated September 21, 1910 (Figure 131) and announces that a
ceremony will take place on the sixteenth day of Ramadan at the Topkapı Palace and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs could accept the ambassador only after this ritual.
Another letter corresponded with the French High Commissioner of Constantinople
to inform him about the “religious customary ceremony” that would take place on
June 24th 1919, the 25th day of Ramadan. These documents, informing the foreign
embassies about the royal visits to the Sacred Relics in the Topkapı Palace, could be
interpreted as political reminders, emphasizing the role of the Ottoman ruler as the
Caliph of all Muslims around the world.
The increasing importance attributed to the annual visits to the Chamber of
Sacred Relics during the late Ottoman era was a reflection of internal and external
politics, where the signs, symbols, and rituals were used as political tools for
granting public popularity and international prestige. Thus, together with the weekly
Friday prayer processions, annual visits to the Topkapı Palace were significant public
spectacles where the sultan made himself visible to his subjects. These public
processions also gained a touristic significance as well, and many foreign travellers
visiting Istanbul attended these processions and documented the pompous ceremony
in their accounts. Pierre Loti attended one of the public processions of Abdülhamid II
237
in 1890 and wrote a detailed account about this spectacle, which he described as a
"beautiful painting" (cesim bir tablo).522
Figure 131. Information regarding the ceremony that will take place at the Topkapı
Palace on the sixteenth day of Ramadan. (17.09.1910, Archives Nationaux de
France, Nantes) / Information on the religious ceremony that will take place in the
Topkapı Palace on the 25th day of Ramadan. (22.06.1919, Archives Nationaux de
France, Nantes)
The visits to the sacred relics also carried a political significance, with the increasing
emphasis projected on the caliphate. The title of the Ottoman ruler as the Caliph–the
head and protector of all Muslims in the world–was promoted during the reign of
Abdülhamid II and used as a political trump against the West. Thus, the preservation
of the sacred relics in the Topkapı Palace, objects of ultimate significance confirming
522 Pierre Loti's observations on Abdülhamid II's Friday procession was published in Figaro and the
article was translated into Ottoman. BOA Y.PRK.TKM.34.56
"Bulunduğum mevki zat-ı şevketsimat-ı hazret-i padişahinin ikametlerine mahsus "Yıldız" Saray-ı
Hümayun köşklerinden birisinin penceresi idi. Bu pencere o kadar güzel bir nezarethanedir ki yek
nazarda cesim bir tabloyu göz önünde tahbim ettirmektedir."
238
the title of Caliphate, under the protection of the Ottoman sultan communicated the
role of the ruler in the Muslim world. The aforementioned documents informing the
foreign embassies about the visits to the sacred relics and the announcement of the
procession in the newspapers of the era emphasized the increasing significance of
these processions in domestic and international politics.
4.1.4 A spatial analysis: The circles of legitimization
Imperial ceremonies were strictly political and the venue of the ceremony carried
substantial political connotations. It can be argued that even though the Topkapı
Palace was abandoned as the imperial residence and lost its previous grandeur during
the nineteenth century, it sustained its political meaning and ceremonial significance
at some levels. Gülru Necipoğlu highlights the importance of the ceremonial
continuity and deciphers the role of ceremonials and rituals in the imperial tradition
as:523
The perpetuation of ceremonial communicated a message of timeless order
and stability, bestowing permanence and legitimacy on an arbitrary social
construct. . . . It froze time into an eternal present and created the illusion of
an order transcending mere human experience.
Perceiving the meaning and significance of ceremonials and rituals from such a
perspective, one can understand why the Topkapı Palace played a crucial role in the
actual and symbolic sustainability of the empire. Ottoman ceremonials stage a power
play where every single detail, player, costume, and action carried and conveyed a
message of sovereignty, authority, and patrimony. This is why, even if the court was
away from the Topkapı Palace or if the ceremony was conducted at another place,
the setting mimics the spatial configuration of the Topkapı Palace.524 In a parallel
523 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 68.
524 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 142.
239
manner, even the smallest modification in the courtly rituals, costumes, objects being
used, sequence of the ceremony, mimics or actions of the sultan, or the positions of
the attendants convey strong political messages.
Ironically, the more the Ottoman dynasty detached from their traditional and
pre-modern way of ruling, the more they emphasized traditions as symbols of
dynastic continuity. The sovereignty of the nineteenth century ruler had to be
constantly reconfirmed by referring to traditional customs and rituals. As well put by
Deringil, “increased effort expended by the great powers to appear more imperial
and more majestic through elaborate ceremonial and the additional pomp and
circumstance of the state.”525
Ceremonies are performances of a symbolic nature, which create an aura of
sovereignty and authority, and they were crucial for securing popular acceptance of
the ruler and for constructing a majestic image. This popular acceptance became a
crucial aspect for the stability and authority of the ruler, especially during the vibrant
political scene of the late Ottoman era, where sultans in power were being deposed
one after another. Karateke states that “besides displaying the power and stability of
a regime, which is certainly one of the primary goals of the ceremonies, the symbols
involved also serve to reveal the ideological basis, world-view, and objectives of the
regime to the targeted population.”526 The ceremonies in the Topkapı Palace reflect
the continuation, legitimacy, sovereignty, and authority of the regime, but also reflect
changes that took place in the empire’s self definition. Thus, ceremonies offer clues
about the regime's self-definition, and by analyzing the nuances among ceremonies,
one can understand the changing political and ideological status of the state.
525 Deringil, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908”,
6.
526 Karateke, An Ottoman protocol register, 2.
240
Many of the court ceremonies, such as bairam greetings, envoy receptions,
Friday processions, royal purse ceremonies (Surre Alayı) were held either in the
Yıldız Palace or the Dolmabahçe Palace (Figure 132). However, the Topkapı Palace
was particularly used for ascension ceremonies and for funerals, all of which are
directly related with the exchange of sultanic power. The palace itself was used as a
venue for legitimizing the dynastic continuity and for sustaining the diminishing
prestige of the sultanate during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this respect,
the Topkapı Palace kept its symbolic status as a place of legitimization, especially
during the accession of the new ruler. This process was well-structured in terms of
political and spatial hierarchy. Traditionally following the death of a sultan, the
crown prince was immediately brought to the Topkapı Palace, and his sultanate was
approved by the grand vizier and the grand mufti (şeyhülislam) in the Chamber of
Sacred Relics. Thus, the legitimization process started in the most sacred section of
the palace, which could be accepted as the heart of the royal complex positioned
between Enderun and Harem, between the third and fourth courts. The two most
important and most authorized Ottoman officials, the head of state affairs and the
head of religious affairs, confirmed the rulership of the new sultan by kissing his
sleeve and paying their allegiance.
241
Figure 132. The royal purse ceremony (Surre Alayı) in front of the Dolmabahçe
Palace (Selman Sarıhan Collection)
Immediately after, the funeral ceremony took place with the approval of the new
sultan. The dead ruler was taken to the Chamber of Sacred Relics for washing and
shredding. In the mean time, the second phase of legitimization would take place in
the second court of the palace in front of the Gate of Felicity. This ceremony was
performed in front of a much larger crowd, where the Ottoman dignitaries, religious
and military notables, and statesmen paid their allegiance to the new ruler. Thus, the
circle of legitimization was enlarged spatially, politically, and symbolically (Figure
133). Following the approval of the new sultan by the Ottoman dignitaries and
notables, his ascension was announced with the fire of cannonballs to the public,
including an audio dimension encircling a wider area within the city.
242
Figure 133. The circles of legitimation during the accession ceremonies and funerals
in the Topkapı Palace
Still, the new ruler needed to be approved in the eyes of the public. Consequently,
another level of legitimization was ensured by a public procession, which traversed
the whole city (Figure 134). For the sword girding ceremony the new ruler reached
Eyüp by making himself visible throughout the city. This procession via Divanyolu
and the Golden Horn was a mean of securing popular acceptance and carried a
religious significance as well. Thus, the administrative and religious authority of the
ruler was confirmed within the eyes of the citizens by this urban procession. The
Topkapı Palace was again the starting and ending point of this enlarged circle of
legitimization and it is only through such complex set of symbolic places, images,
acts, and settings that the “majesty [can] be made”.527
After being acknowledged in the eyes of Ottoman notables and the public, the
sultan sustained his symbolic bond with the Topkapı Palace and visited the Chamber
527 Geertz, 124 cited in Karateke, 1.
243
of Sacred Relics at least once a year during the holy month of Ramadan. These
ceremonial visits, in the form of urban processions, not only carried a religious
significance but also communicated the ancient ties of the ruler with his ancestors as
the owner and protector of these relics, which were still being kept in the Topkapı
Palace. The palace positioned was a symbol of dynastic continuity and the sultan-as-
Caliph emphasized his role as the leader of the Muslim world, protector of sacred
relics, and the hereditary of the prophet.
Figure 134. The circles of legitimization within the city during the sword girding
ceremony and Sacred Relic visits
Like all ceremonials, Ottoman court ceremonials were subject to change, particularly
escalating during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Counter to the attempt
to preserve and retain certain court traditions and rituals, it was not possible for
Ottomans to sustain absolute “continuity”. Even before the nineteenth century,
244
Ottoman Court ceremonials faced several modifications and alterations.528 During
the course of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman ruling system faced major
transformations and with the collapse of the illusion of continuity Ottomans tried to
sustain the court ceremonials as a way of maintaining dynastic continuity and
political legitimation. However, against this conscious effort for retaining and also
inventing traditions, the ceremonials of the last century were in fact much different
from those of earlier centuries and reflected the modernization of the empire. To sum
up, even though the Topkapı Palace was positioned as an agent of ceremonial and
ritual continuity, this conscious effort itself is a solid manifestation of the inevitable
changes that took place in the political, social, and ideological arenas. Accordingly,
the tension between continuity and change can be well observed within the context
of the Topkapı Palace.
4.2 Symbols of authority, modernity, and security
4.2.1 Memorials and military structures in the palace grounds
Abdülhamid II came to power in a very turbulent era, when the empire was
struggling with various internal uprisings and external problems. He was brought to
power with the condition that he established a constitutional regime and a
parliament. Five months after his enthronement, on December 23, 1876, with the
declaration of Kanun-i Esasi the Ottoman State was officially ruled by a
constitutional monarchy. The 1876 Constitution did not limit sultan’s rights of
sovereignty and gave him the power to convene or dissolve the parliament; to
appoint and dismiss the ministers; to enforce laws; to declare war and peace; and to
528 Peksevgen, Ottoman Court Ceremonies and the Multiple Ceremonial Center; Karateke, An
Ottoman protocol register.
245
conclude treaties.529 On March 19, 1877 the first Ottoman parliament was
inaugurated at the ceremonial hall of the Dolmabahçe Palace, with the attendance of
Abdülhamid II. The golden throne was brought from the Topkapı Palace for this
occasion and the opening address of the new sultan was read in front of the Chamber
of Notables (Meclis-i Ayan) and members of the parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan).530
However with the start of the Russo-Ottoman war in 1877 and due to the severe
defeat of the Ottoman army a year later, Abdülhamid II prorogued the first Ottoman
parliament on February 14, 1878.531
This traumatic war gave Abdülhamid II the chance to restore the monarchy;
to establish his centralized authoritarian regime; and to diminish the popularity of the
constitutionalists, including Midhat Pasha. Abdülhamid II, however, was declared as
"Gazi" (warrior) after the declaration of the war with Russia.532 At the beginning of
the war, a minor victory that gave the Ottomans hope occurred at Sohum Castle,
which was taken back from the Russian forces.533 To immortalize his early success, a
memorial was erected at the second court of the Topkapı Palace, directly across from
the Gate of Felicity. The inscription from the castle was brought from Sohum to
Istanbul.534 The eighteenth century inscription was placed on an antique Byzantine
base,535 and together with a new inscription,536 a marble frame with classical features
529 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1976, 175.
530 Arı, "The Opening Ceremony of Meclis-i Mebusan and the Address of Abdülhamid II" in Yılmaz,
II. Abdülhamid, 283–96.
531 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 101.
532 BOA İ.DH.745.60943_02 (4 Mayis 1293 / 16.05.1877)
"Rusyalının ilan-ı harb etmesininden dolayi zat-ı hilafet simat efendimiz hazretlerinin techiz-i erbab-ı
gaza ve cihat buyurmalarina velhamd vuku bulan muzaffariyet-i hüsniye mebni ... hümayun-ı
şahanenin menabir-i cevamide unvan-ı Gazi ile yad olunması için canib-i ser-i şeriften verilen fetva-i
şerif..."
533 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 91.
534 The castle was later invaded by Russian forces and the Ottomans had to flee from the city. Some
sources claim that the inscription was brought to Istanbul after the fall of the castle.
535 Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, 552.
536 "Sohum Kalesi Kitabesi", Database for Ottoman Inscriptions. Retrieved from
http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/verse.aspx?ref=list&bid=3052&hid=5068.
246
and an ornamented top piece was assembled to compose this eclectic memorial, as a
reminder of Abdülhamid II's claim to sovereignty (Figure 135). The memorial
praised Abdülhamid II for taking back the castle from the Russians and his
monogram dated h.1294 (1877-78) with the title "Gazi" was placed on top of the
memorial stone.537 According to the inscription, the castle was invaded by Russians,
and was taken back by Gazi Abdülhamid Han.538
Figure 135. The memorial of Sohum Castle placed in between Council Hall and the
Gate of Felicity in the second court of the palace (2016)
‘Asr-ı Han-ı Ahmed-i Saliss’de Sohum Kal‘asında
Yapılıp bābının üstüne bu ṭaş kondı heman
Sonra Moskof eline geçmiş iken nice zamān
Vatan-ı būm olup oldu nizamı talan
Kal‘ayı Rusiya’dan Han-ı Hamid-i Sani
Zor ile aldı gerüye şeh-i gazi-i zaman
Geldi ferman-ı hümayunu ile işte bu seng
Buraya vaz‘ını emreyledi şah-ı devran"
537 Yılmaz, "II. Abdülhamid'in "Gazi" Sultan Olması" in Yılmaz, II. Abdülhamid, 275.
538 Şimşirgil, Taşa Yazılan Tarih Topkapı Sarayı, 83.
"Kaleyi Rusiye'den Han-ı Hamid-i sani
Zor ile aldı gerüye şeh-i gazi-yi zaman establish"
247
This marble memorial was a small yet highly symbolic edifice, erected in the name
of Abdülhamid II. It marked the beginning of his absolute rule after the dismissal of
the parliament and could be accepted as the pioneer of many memorials, monograms,
Ottoman coat of arms, clock towers, which would be erected at various corners of the
empire to manifest his rule and to symbolize his power. Ottoman war medals
produced for the veterans of the Russo-Ottoman war in 1878 also carried the title "el-
Gazi" next to the monogram of Abdülhamid II.539
During the 33-year-long reign of Abdülhamid II, numerous renovations were
conducted within the palace. According to the renovation registers, these were
conducted mostly in the Harem, the Baghdad Kiosk, the Chamber of Sacred Relics,
the Imperial Treasury, Enderun apartments, the Audience Hall, the Council Hall, the
kitchens, and main gates of the palace.540 However, no inscription or monogram
belonging to Abdülhamid II remains from these repairs. In fact, the major
architectural additions and modifications took place in the outer gardens of the
palace, with the construction of some military, medical, educational, and official
buildings and depots. (Appendix B.5)
The ammunition depots and powder magazine (baruthane) located at the
Gülhane gardens towards the shore of the Marmara Sea, were composed of four units
(Figure 136). Three of the structures had rectangular plans and inner courts, except
for one, which was differentiated from other three with its pitched roof and
pediment.541 Aynur Çiftçi and Nadide Seçkin date the construction of these depots to
539 Eldem, Pride and Privilege : A History of Ottoman Orders, Medals and Decorations, 255.
540 The renovation records of the era were transcribed by Ayşenur Yıldıztaş, analyzed and categorized
by myself: BOA TS.MA.d.2905.055, 1877; TS.MA.d.2905.054, 1877; HH.d.12404, 1877;
HH.d.14792, 1880; HH.d.14792, 1880; HH.d.15404, 1880; HH.d.9545, 1882; HH.d.17630, 1883;
MAD.d.879, 1882; MAD.19094, 1882; HH.d.20568, 1882; HH.d.19202, 1884; TS.MA.d.5253, 1888;
TS.MA.d.474, 1889; HH.d.11106, 1890; HH.d.29469, 1893; HH.d.27808, 1894; HH.d.29844, 1894;
TS.MA.d.7436.02, 1899; TS.MA.d.9582, 1899; TS.MA.d.10169, 1900; TS.MA.d.7436.01, 1900;
TS.MA.d.9582, 1899; HH.d.27239 ,1901.
541 Düzalan, “Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi,” 15–16.
248
1876 (h. 1292) and state that these buildings were erected during the construction of
the railway.542 The depots must have gone through comprehensive repairs or
renovations during the reign of Abdülhamid II, as three of the buildings carried the
monogram of Abdülhamid II alongside the Ottoman coat of arms (Figure 137). The
Ottoman coat of arms on the façade of the first building is dated h.1313 (1896) and
the one on the second building is h.1310 (1893). The date on the third coat of arms is
unreadable.543 An archival document dated 1889 mentioned that these ammunition
magazines were in a state of ruin and military equipment had to be transferred to
Tophane.544
Several photographs of these military ammunition magazines exist in
Abdülhamid II albums (Figure 138). Further south of these military facilities the
Gülhane Military Hospital (Gülhane Seririyat Hastanesi) was also renewed and
enlarged during the reign of Abdülhamid II (Figure 139 - Figure 140), who believed
hospitals and schools represented a level of modernity and the advancement of the
empire. At the northern side of the Gülhane gardens, by the Demirkapı, the Imperial
Medical School (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye)545 was also actively used and renewed (Figure
141) until both facilities were finally moved to their new building at Haydarpaşa in
1903.546
542 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari.”; Çiftçi and Seçkin, "19. Yüzyılda
İstanbul’da İnşa Edilen Askeri Yapıların Koruma Sorunları", 66.
543 Çiftçi; Gültekin, “Gülhane Bahçesi 19. Yy Anıtları ve Çevre Değerlendirmesi.”
544 BOA Y.PRK.SGE.4.4 (6 S 1308 / 21.9.1890)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunun Gülhane cihetinin haritasını henüz ikmal etmeksizin Tophane
tarafından bir yaver gönderilerek tatil-i ameliyat ettirilmiş ve alat ve edevat dahi geri aldırılmış
olduğu gibi kema fi’s-sabık köhne cephaneler bera-yı muayene baruthaneye suret-i muntazamada
nakl ettirilmekte..."
545 Düzalan, “Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi.”
546 The Haydarpaşa Military Hospital was designed by Alexandre Vallaury and Raimondo D'Aronco
in 1894. With the completion of the monumental building in 1903, the medical school and the
hospital, both of which were located in the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace, were moved to the
Asian shore of the capital. Girardelli, “Raimondo d’Aronco”; Özlü, “Alexandre Vallaury, İstanbul’a
Damgasını Vuran Levanten Mimar.”
249
Figure 136. The military depots located at the Marmara side of the Gülhane gardens
(2016)
Figure 137. The Ottoman coat of arms on the façades of the ammunition magazines
(4 Adet Tescilli Depo, Sanat Tarihi Raporu, 4. Kurul Arşivi)
Figure 138. A general view of the ammunition magazines in Gülhane (Abdülhamid
II Albums, Library of Congress)
250
Figure 139. Air view of the Seraglio and the ammunition magazines (Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-8098, 1918)
Figure 140. Gülhane Hospital (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Bel_Mtf_760)
251
Figure 141. The plan of the Military School of Medicine and Two students from the
Medical School (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
4.2.2 Police stations: The silent guardians of the regime
Police stations were among the most significant additions to the imperial complex
during the reign of Abdülhamid II. According to the archival record, there were ten
police stations within the walls of the Topkapı Palace as of 1885.547 These police
stations, which were placed at strategic locations within the palace such as the
internal and external gates and close to significant buildings, presented the imperial
mark of the Hamidian regime. An archival document from 1908 lists the names and
ranks of the police officers at the various police stations within the Topkapı Palace.
This document mentions these police stations: "Bağdat Kasrı Karaholhanesi,
Hazine-i Hümayun Karakolhanesi, Hamidiye Karakolhanesi, Gülhane Cebehane
Karakolhanesi, Demirkapı Karakolhanesi".548
Several police stations were also constructed or renovated during the reign of
Abdülhamid II at various locations within the Topkapı Palace. A series of documents
547 BOA TS.MA.624.57 (1303 S 17 / 25.11.1885)
"Topkapı Sarayı muhafazasına memur olan asakir-i şahanenin nöbet oldukları on bab karakolhanenin
penceresinin 70 adet camının şikest olmasından dolayı işbu mevsim-i şitada efrad-ı mezkurenin
soğuktan muhafazaları için mezkur camların şimdiden ikmali."
548 BOA Y.PRK.ASK.258.16 (2 Haz 1324 / 15.06.1908)
252
from Topkapı Palace Museum Archives mention the renovation and/or construction
of the Soğukçeşme police station in 1882, of the Demirkapı police station in 1888,
and of the Hamidiye police station in 1890.549 According to an archival document,
after the earthquake of 1894, the guardian of the Topkapı Palace sent a letter stating
that the Hamidiye, Bagdad Kiosk, Imperial Treasury, and the Cebehane police
stations in the palace were severely damaged and requested 40 tents for the soldiers
who had inhabited these stations.550 This data gives a clue regarding the number of
corps appointed in the palace grounds, which probably reached a couple hundred,
considering all ten of these police stations were inhabited by soldiers.
The Abdurrahman Şeref Bey Map of 1911, shows five police stations within
the precincts of the Topkapı Palace. I have spotted three more police stations within
the palace grounds and marked their place in the map. Four of the police stations do
not remain currently, and these are marked with red. As stated before, according to
archival documents there were ten police stations in the Topkapı Palace during the
reign of Abdülhamid II, and these buildings not only symbolized the authoritative
hand of the state over its subjects but also enforced the security of the Topkapı
Palace, which was becoming a point of attraction for foreign visitors. These police
stations, located at significant points within the Seraglio emphasized the royal and
the ceremonial significance of the Topkapı Palace and the cautious care for the
precious collections kept within (Figure 142).
549 TS.MA.E.635.70
550 BOA Y.PRK.SGE.6.30 (6 M 1312 / 10.7.1894) cited in Küçükalioğlu Ozkılıç, Sema, "1892
depreminin İstanbul üzerindeki etkileri (Deprem sonrası imar faliyetleri)", 102.
253
Figure 142. The police stations during the reign of Abdülhamid II. Blue shows
currently extant police stations; Red shows non-existing police stations.
The Hamidiye police station:
The most interesting buildings among these police station are the currently nonexisting
ones: The Hamidiye police station, the Bagdad Kiosk police station, and the
Aziziye police station. This section will shed light on the architectural and
institutional features of these police stations with the help of textual and visual
documents. The Hamidiye police station, as its name signifies, was among the most
significant of these structures. An archival document mentions the construction of
the Hamidiye police station within the Topkapı Palace in 1890.551 Another
document helped me to find out the location of the Hamidiye police station. The
petition demanded that trees be planted on two sides of the road passing in front of
the School of Medicine, from the Demirkapı gate to the Hamidiye police station,
which was next to the prayer area (namazgah). According to this document, this was
551 TS.MA.635.70 (10.4.1306 / 22.4.1890)
"Müceddeden inşa olunan Hamidiye Karakolhanesinin önündeki bulunan bekçi için lüzum görülen
nakliye bölüğünden alınan bervech-i bala 230 guruş alındığına mübeyyin işbu pusula takdim kılındı."
254
the route of Abdülhamid II during his visit to the Chamber of Sacred Relics.552 The
albums of Abdülhamid II include two photographs of this police station from the
façade and from the side. The captions on the album prints are: "Corpse de garde du
Palais de TopKapou / Topkapı Sarayında kain Karakolhane-i Hümayunun / Topkapı
Sarayında kain Karakolhane-i Hümayunun yan taraftan alınmış resmi." (Figure 143)
More pictures of this prominent police station taken from the land, from the
sea, and from the side, are found in the Yıldız Albums at the Istanbul University
Rare Books Collection, and give us detailed information about this structure and its
architectural configuration (Figure 144- Figure 145). This building was composed of
two parts and connected with a decorated arch reflecting the official status and
military significance of the building. The building was located on a steep topography
and the corridor between the two units created a passage to the lower elevation
towards the sea. As understood from the photographs, the police station was
overlooking the Bosphorus, towards Tophane and Dolmabahçe. The building could
be found in the panoramic photographs of the era as well. The picture by Sebah et
Joaillier clearly depicts the exact position of the Hamidiye police station, which was
located at the outer gardens of the palace, by the Üçüncüyeri Gate, next to the Goth
Column.
552 TS.MA. 604.35 (1314.Ş.16 / 20.1.1897)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde mevcud ağaçların mürevvir zaman ile çürümüş olanların
başka aralıkda hubub eden şiddetli rüzgarın tesiriyle şikest olanların yerleri açık kalarak manzara-i
mahalliyenin letafetine halel gelmiş olmağla bu gibi bu gibi iktiza eden mahallere yeniden ağaç rekz
olunması lazımıyla beraber mezkur saray isalinin Demirkapı medhalinden Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i Askeri-i
Şahane ebniyesi önünden Hamidiye Karakolhanesi pişgahındaki namazgaha kadar mahtud olan ve . .
. şehr-i Ramazan-ı şerifin onbeşinci günü mezkur saray-ı aliye teşrif-i . . . hazreti hilafetpenahiye
müsadif bulunan şehr-i ahin iki canibine münasib ağac fidanlarının rekz olunması hakkında..."
255
Figure 143. Hamidiye police station at the Seraglio point (Abdülhamid II Albums,
Library of Congress)
Figure 144. South façade of the Hamidiye Police Station (İstanbul Üniversitesi
Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
Figure 145. Side view of Hamidiye Police Station (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir
Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
256
While it is possible to spot the police station in the pictures from the Hamidian era
(Figure 146), the building is absent in a photograph dated 1914 (Figure 147). The
Hamidiye police station was demolished during the construction of the Gülhane Park
after the declaration of the Second Constitution. As stated in an archival document
dated 1912 the buildings located at the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace from
Soğukçeşme gate to the ammunition depots were to be demolished for the
reorganization of the area as a public park.553 Another document stated the need for
the demolition of military structures within the area.554 The mayor of Istanbul, Dr.
Cemil Topuzlu also mentioned in his memories that there were some large police
stations and wooden barracks in the area that he was eager to have demolished for
the beauty of the park. According to his memoirs, the barracks were demolished with
the intervention of Cemal Pasha.555 An archival document from 1913 proves that the
police station and the ancient water depot underneath were demolished during the
construction of the second phase of the Gülhane Park by the order of Cemal Pasha
and against all the objections of the Ministry of War556 (Appendix A.9). Today, not a
single trace of this police station, which once dominated the Seraglio, can be found
within the palace grounds (Figure 148).
553 BOA DH.İD.153.10_54 (9 Teşrinievvel 1328 / 22.10.1912)
554 BOA DH.İD.153.10_46 (26 Teşrinisani 1328 / 9.12.1912)
555 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 150–51.
"Birçok bostanların, büyük karakol binalarının, ahşap barakaların bulunduğu ve Gülhane denilen çok
geniş çıplak araziyi bir park yapmak için Hazine-i Hassa'dan bila-bedel aldım ve bu işi bahçeler
mütehassısı Fransız Mösyö D'eruvan'a havale ettim. Bütün bunlar yıkıldıktan sonra Mösyö D'eruvan
buraya Fransa'dan getirttiği 20.000 mütecaviz muhtelif cinste ağaçlar diktirdi. Geniş yollar açtı."
556 BOA DH.İD.153.10_67 (9 Kanunievvel 1329 / 22.12.1913) See, Appendix A.9.
"Mahal-i mezkurda vaki ahşab ve kargir bir kışlanın ref'iyle duvarlarının inşası için akdemce birinci
Kolordu-yı Hümayun kumandanı vekili ve İstanbul muhafızı Cemal Beyefendi ile mahal-i mezkura
azimet olunduğu sırada mezkur mahzenin lüzumsuzluğundan bahisle setr ve imlası mir-i müşarülileyh
tarafından beyan edilmiş olduğu işar kılındığı . . . Mahal-i mezkura karip iki bab karakolhanenin
hedm ve ref'i için Cemal Beyefendinin vuku bulan beyanatının su haznesine de teşmili hiç vechile
muvafık olmayıp..."
257
Figure 146. Hamidiye police station seen from the Sea of Marmara (Cengiz
Kahraman Collection)
Figure 147. The Seraglio Point as of 1914 (Cengiz Karaman Collection)
Figure 148. The site of the Hamidiye police station today (2017)
The Baghdad Kiosk police station:
According to another photograph from the Abdülhamid II albums, a remarkable
police station was also constructed close to the Baghdad Kiosk. The picture of this
double-storey building carries the caption: "Corps de guarde du Kiosque de Baghdad
258
au Palais de Top Kapousu / Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Bağdad Kasr-ı
Hümayunu pişgahında karakolhane-i hümayun" (Figure 149). The police station
with its watch-tower, coat of arms on its front facade, pointed arches, moldings,
oriental details, ornamented façade, and its entrance emphasized with double
columns all reflected the imperial architectural language of the Hamidian era. This
language could be defined as a combination of historicist and orientalist forms with
neo-classical details that engaged in the Beaux-arts principles of elaborate facade
design, symmetry, and functional planning. The photographs of various other police
stations shown in the Abdülhamid II albums prove that there was a shared
architectural vocabulary for police stations during the Hamidian era. These police
stations were defined by their symmetrical plans and single surveillance tower with
round windows. The neo-classical style of the building, its pointed windows, and
military details of the profiles were among the distinguishing features of these police
stations (Figure 150 - Figure 151).
According to a document found in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives, the
decision to construct a police station by the Baghdad Kiosk was made in June 1889,
instead of an existing guard room (nöbet mevkii), which was later demolished.557 An
earlier document dated 1886 mentions the existence of a police station next to the
Baghdad Kiosk.558 Aynur Çiftçi located the inscription stones of the police station in
her dissertation and confirmed the construction date of the building as h.1307
557 TS.MA.E.599.89 (1306.L.4 / 3.6.1889)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu nöbet mevkilerinde müteheddim asakir-i şahane efradının ikameti için
Bağdad Kasr-ı Hümayunu civarinda bir bab karakolhane inşası mukteza-i emr-ü irade-i seniyye-i
cenab-i şehinşahiden olmasına mebni geçenlerde keşfiyat-i lazime bi'l-icra intihab olunan mevkide
tazim ve takdim kılınan resim mucibince bir karakolhane inşasi hususuna bi'l-istizan..."
558 TS.MA.E.607.5 (1304.S.10 / 8.10.1886)
"Topkapı Sarayı'nda Bağdad Kasrı altındaki karakol ile Mustafa Paşa Kasrı arasındaki büyük çınar
ağacının içi boşalmış, kökü çürümüş olduğundan çıkacak bir rüzgarda devrilerek kasır ve karakola
zarar vereceğinden çınar ağacının kesilmesine izin verilmesi."
259
(1889).559 The police station was located at the northern edge of the Garden with
Lions (Arslanlı Bahçe) in the fourth court of the palace, next to the vaulted basement
of the Baghdad Kiosk. A renovation register dated 1889, mentions the existence of
the police station below the Baghdad Kiosk.560
Construction plans and elevations found in the Ottoman archives prove that
the police station was expanded and a refectory, a small powder magazine, and a
guardroom were added to the building in 1905561 (Figure 152-Figure 153).
According to these plans, the police station was located right below the Baghdad
Kiosk, beside the marble pool. A similar structure is also seen in the Gurlitt562 map
of 1912563 (Figure 154) and "karakolhane" is written at the same spot on
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey’s map of 1911. The police station reflected the imperial
existence of Abdülhamid II at one of the most prestigious locations of the Topkapı
Palace. Its elevated tower made it particularly visible and it could be distinguished
even from Pera or from the Asian side of the city. Based on research in the Archives
of the National Palaces (Milli Saraylar Arşivi), Feryal İrez and Vahide Gezgör
mention that this police station was demolished during the early twentieth century.564
559 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari,” 274. The inscription was transcribed
by Aynur Çiftçi as:
"Yazdı târihini Muhtar-ı sadâkat-girdâr
Sâye-i rahmet hakk şâh-ı Hamid'ül-âsâr
Karakolgâh nevin tarz-ı sipâh-ı devlet
Kıldı inşâ karakol-hâne-i ceyş-i şevket
Nazif 1307"
560 BOA TS.MA.d.474 (27.Ş.1306 / 28.4.1889)
"Kasr-ı mezkurun [Bağdat Kasrı] tahtında karakolhane çerçevelerinin tecdidi"
561 BOA PLK.p.481 (15 Eylül 1321 / 28 B 1323 / 23.9.1905)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Bağdad Kasr-ı Hümayunu civarında inşası mutasavver taamhane ve
debboy ve cebehanelik Saray-ı Hümayun-ı mezkur muhafız dolabı üzerine tadil olunan resm-i
müstehiddir."
562 Permits were given to Prof. Gurlitt to conduct research at the Topkapı Palace in 1907, 1910 and in
1911.
BOA BEO.3741.280509 (17.4.1326 / 30.4.1910)
TS.MA.E.379.819 (1329 Ca 2/ 1.6.1911) Profesör Gurlitt de dahil olmak üzere Almanya Devleti
tebeasından muhtelif kişi ve gurupların Hazine-i Hümayun'u ziyaret etmek için müsaade talepleri.
563 Gurlitt, Konstantinopel.
564 İrez and Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan Belgeler Doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı
Onarımları, 39.
260
Aynur Çiftçi refers to an archival document from the Archives of the National
Palaces as well.565 According to this document dated January 17, 1916 (4 Kanunisani
1331) the police station located in front of the Baghdad Kiosk was demolished by
contractor İsmail Ağa.566 The foundation of the police station was discovered during
the 1965-66 restorations (Figure 155). A marble coat of arms, disassembled from the
building during its demolition, is displayed today in the second court of the palace567
(Figure 156)
Figure 149. The police station in the front of the Baghdad Kiosk in the Topkapı
Palace (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
565 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari,” 275.
566 Milli Saraylar Arşivi, Defter 3787 no.30, cited in Çiftçi, 275.
"4 Kanunisani (1)331
Bi-l-münakkasa Topkapı Seray-ı Hümayunu'nda Bağdad Kasrı cephesi önündeki karakolhane
binasının hedmini der-uhde eden müteahhid İsmail ağa ameliyyat-ı hedm-i müddet-i muayenesi
zarfında icra' ve ikmal itmiş olduğuna dair ser-mi'mar-ı esbak tarafından bi-l-muayene tanzim kılınan
merbut keşf-i sani ile tasdik ve tahakkuk itdirilerek..."
567 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari.”
261
Figure 150. Hamidiye police station on the left and the tower of the Baghdad Kiosk
police station on the right (Sebah & Joaillier, Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
Sarıyer- Mesar Burnu Police Station Koşuyolu Police Station
Büyükdere Police Station Pazarbaşı Police Station Yıldız Police Station
Figure 151. Police Stations from the era of Abdülhamid II with similar
morphologies (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
262
Figure 152. The plan and elevation of the Baghdad Kiosk police station (BOA
PLK.p.481, 15 Eylül 1321 / 28.9.1905)
Figure 153. The plan of the Baghdad Kiosk police station (BOA PLK.p.481, 15
Eylül.1321 / 28.9.1905)
Figure 154. Gurlitt map of 1912, the Baghdad Kiosk Police Station shown at the
northern corner right next to the Baghdad Kiosk
263
Figure 155. Foundations of the police station found during the 1965-1966
restoration of the Topkapı Palace (TS.MA.55/46)
Figure 156. Coat of arms from the demolished police stations displayed in the
second court of the Topkapı Museum (2016)
264
Figure 157. The location of the Baghdad Kiosk police station today (2016)
The Seraglio police station:
It is known that there were police stations in the Topkapı Palace and also at various
parts of Istanbul before the reign of Abdülhamid II. However, during the Hamidian
era police forces were institutionalized, and the police stations became emblematic
structures representing the regime. Traditionally the imperial Gardeners (Bostancı),
who were responsible from the cultivation of the outer gardens of the palace, were
also in charge of the security of the palace grounds.568 The transformation and
institutionalization of the security forces started as early as the late eighteenth
century, during the reign of Selim III with establishment of Nizam-ı Cedid corps.
These new modern military units were established under the Bostancı Ocağı and
568 Özcan, "Bostancı" in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., c.6, 309.
265
were called the Bostancıyan Tüfenkçisi.569 After the abolishment of the Janissary
army new modern corps founded by Mahmud II were also held responsible from the
internal security of the country. The Bostancı organization was not abolished but
reconfigured in this period. 570 However, there was an era of transition until the
Tanzimat, which stretched as late as 1845, when the Marshalcy of the police forces
was founded and put in charge of public security (Zaptiye Müşirliği).571 During the
reign of Abdülhamid II the police institution was reorganized; in 1879 police forces
were separated from military forces; and in 1881 police forces were officially
founded with the establishment of the Ministry of the Police Forces (Zaptiye
Nezareti). 572
Figure 158. Detail from the Seraglio panorama showing three police stations
overlooking the Golden Horn (Sebah & Joaillier, Getty Archive, c.1880)
An earlier example of a police station, which once existed at the tip of the Seraglio,
could be dated to the reign of Abdülmecid or even to the reign of Mahmud II. In a
569 Sönmez, Zaptiye Teşkilatı, 10.
570 Özcan, "Bostancı", Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., c.6, 309.
571 Sönmez, Zaptiye Teşkilatı, 14.
572 Salkımlı and Örsel, Osmanlı Devleti Emniyet-I Umumiye 10 Nisan 1845, 5.
266
photograph from 1860s the neo-classical façade of this building can be seen with a
colonnade and a pediment (Figure 159). During the Seraglio fire of 1863 this
building must have been damaged, restored by Abdülaziz, and renamed as the
Aziziye police station573 (Figure 160). During the reign of Abdülhamid II the
existing police station was damaged after the earthquake and replaced by a larger
structure, reflecting the architectural style of the era. According to an archival
document from r.1316 (1900) the police station had to be demolished and
reconstructed by the Italian architect Raimondo D'Aronco and a military barrack was
also erected nearby.574 After its reconstruction and enlargement, this building located
at the most visible point of the Seraglio, reflected the architectural style of the era
and promoted the Hamidian regime (Figure 161). The façade of the building was
adorned with repeating pilasters placed between arched windows. The extensions
divided the façade into seven units with a projected middle unit emphasizing the
centrality and symmetry of the building. The location of this building was also
marked as "karakolhane" on the Abdurrahman Şeref map as well.575 This prominent
structure marking the Seraglio point was demolished during the Republican era,
probably during the construction of the coastal road in 1956 (Figure 162).
573 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari,” 258.
574 BOA Y.PRK.MYD.23.35 (24 Temmuz 1316 / 5.8.1900).
"Hareket-i arzdan rehnedar olan Aziziye Karakolhane-yi Hümayunlarının tehlikeden masun bir hal-i
mümküneye ifrağı hakkında . . . heman mezkur karakolhaneye gidilerek ve mimar Mösyö D'Aronco
dahi karakolhaneye celb edilerek tetkikat-ı mevşukafata icra edildi. . . . İş bu tamirat karakolhanenin
haricinden ifa olunacağı cihetle asakir-i şahaneleri için ayrıca baraka inşasına lüzum görülmüştür. . .
ve karakolhanenin bi-hedm inşası emr-i ferman buyrulduğu...."
575 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası,
No.6, 1326 (1910).
267
Figure 159. Detail from the Seraglio Point in 1862 (Bahattin Öztuncay, 2005)
Figure 160. The Seraglio point and previous façade of the Seraglio police station
after the fire of 1863 (Getty Archive)
Figure 161. The Seraglio police station enlarged during the reign of Abdülhamid II
(Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
268
The aforementioned police stations, which once characterized the silhouette of the
Historic Peninsula, are now gone (Figure 158 - Figure 160 - Figure 161 - Figure
162). The remarkable locations of these buildings overlooking the Bosphorus and the
Golden Horn, alongside their distinguishing architectural features, marked the virtual
presence of the sultan and his surveillance and control over his subjects. This
surveillance and control of the society through police forces reflected the
mechanisms of the modernizing and centralizing state. Numerous police stations
both in the Topkapı Palace, in the city, and in the empire created a network of
security and control securing the permanence of the Hamidian regime. These three
police stations mentioned above occupied the most prominent and visible points of
the Seraglio, and were demolished, perhaps to erase the conflicted legacy of
Abdülhamid II, while other police stations located at less visible parts of the Topkapı
Palace remain today.
Figure 162. The Seraglio point today (2017)
269
Existing police stations:
It could be said that Abdülhamid II marked the royal complex with a characteristic
building typology that also reflected the political character of the time. Evidently, the
police stations provided protection for the anxious sultan, who was obsessed with his
own security and the protection of the imperial palaces as well. The Yıldız Palace, as
the main residence of Abdülhamid II, was also protected by approximately 15,000
corps in addition to police stations at its outer gardens.576 To highlight the obsessive
anxiety of the sultan, Abdurahman Şeref Bey stated that the openings on the wall
between the Sofalı Kiosk and Hekimbaşı Tower were filled out on the order of
Abdülhamid II because they faced towards the Yıldız Palace.577
As explained in the previous section, Abdülhamid II left the Yıldız Palace
only for his annual visits to the Sacred Relics, and the police stations provided extra
security for the sultan. For instance, an archival document dated 1902 provides
details about the security measures taken during the sultan's visit to the Topkapı
Palace. Apart from two soldiers accompanied by a palace official who were placed at
each door of the imperial kiosk, twenty-two armed soldiers were stationed at various
gates of the Topkapı Palace during the royal visit and another armed group would
also patrol and control these guards.578 Thus, police stations erected at strategic
576 Findley, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda bürokratik reform, 263.
577 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası,
No.7, 1327 (1911), 419.
"Kara Mustafa Paşa Köşkü ile Taş Kale arasında sedin üzerine inşa kılınmış olan duvarın kemerli
pencereleri Yıldız'a nazır olmak hasebiyle Hakan-ı sabıkın vehmine dokunub kemal-i ihtimam ile
ördürülmüşdür."
578 BOA Y.PRK.SGE.9.89 (13 N 1320 / 14.12.1902)
"Hırka-i Saadet ziyareti resm-i alisi esnasında Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunları daire-i hazırasının her
iki kapısında Kapıcı Bekir ve Mustafa Ağalarla refakatlerinde iki nefer tüfengi kulları bulundurulup
emr ve muhafazaya fevkalade dikkat edeceklerine dair kendilerine tebligat-ı katiyye icra kılınmış ve
diğer tüfenkyan kullarından dahi Üçüncü Kapıda dört ve Akağalar Kapısında dört ve Orta Kapıda
dört ve Bab-ı Hümayunda iki ve Saffet Çeşmesi Kapısında iki ve Demirkapı’da iki ve Yeni Köşkün
ittisalindeki kapıda iki ve Otluk Kapısında iki neferi ki ceman yirmi iki nefer tüfenkyan kulları ikame
olunacak ve harem ziyareti esnasında dahi dışarıda bir tüfengi kulu gezdirileceği bu kavilden başka
umum kapı ve nöbet mahallerinde ikame edilmiş olan tüfengi nöbetçilerini teftiş etmek üzere ayrıca
bir tüfengi devriye kolu gezdirilecektir."
270
points of the palace not only marked the symbolic existence of the ruler, but also
reflected the politics of control and surveillance during the Hamidian era. Thus,
during the authoritarian reign of Abdülhamid II, numerous police stations were
erected at various parts of the empire, as a tool and symbol of the modernizing and
centralizing state. These police stations were photographed and their inaugurations
were announced in the newspapers as well.
For instance, a short announcement published in İkdam in 1901 informed its
readers about the opening ceremony of a new police station in the Topkapı Palace
and the attendance of several high-ranking officials at this ceremony.579 An archival
document from the same date confirms the opening of the Cebehane (ammunition)
police station next to the military facilities in the Gülhane gardens of the palace in
1901.580 A picture from the Yıldız Albums shows the building right next to the
Güvercinlik Kiosks and defines it as the Cebehane police station. The subtitle seen
on the photograph states that: "Saye-i şevketvaye-i hazret-i hilafetpenahide tecdiden
inşa kılınan Gülhanenye kain Cebehane Karakolhanesinin cebhesinin görünüşü"
(Figure 163). The police station and the cistern below still exist today and are used
by the armed forces (Figure 164).
579 "Resm-i Küşad", İkdam, 22 Mayıs 1901, from Osmanlı Gazeteleri, http://osmanligazeteleri.com.
"Topkapu Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde inşa idilmekde olan karakolhanenin inşaatı hitam bulmakla
Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası saadetli Edhem Bey ve muhafazı saadetli Rıza Paşa hazeratı ile
başkatip saadetlu Bekir Beg, haftani saadetlu Rıza ve ser-gulam saadetlu Kadri Bey efendiler hazır
oldukları halde kurbanlar zebh olunarak resm-i küşadı icra kılınmışdır."
580 TS.MA.E.598.22 (1319.S.9 / 28.5.1901)
"Topkapı Sarayı Gülhane mevkiindeki Cebehane karakolunun inşaat ve tamiratının tamamlandığı
gayretleri görülen İkinci Fırka-i Hümayun inşaat-ı askeriye komisyonu Reisi Kaymakam Salih Bey ile
müdürü Binbaşı Vahid Bey, Yüzbaşı İbrahim Edhem ve Habib Ağa'nın birer nişanla taltif edilmeleri."
271
Figure 163. Cebehane police station at Gülhane gardens (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir
Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
Figure 164. Cebehane police station and the cistern below (Courtesy of Ahsen
Karagöl, 2017)
Among the numerous police stations within the Topkapı Palace some of them still
remain today. For example, the police station in the first court of the palace also
remains intact. The police station is distinguished by its size and is located next to St.
Irene, carrying an Ottoman coat of arms with the monogram of Abdülhamid II. The
architectural style of the single-storey building reflects the characteristics of the reign
as well (Figure 165). Even though this building was in a larger scale, its architectural
features reflected a shared vocabulary with the other police stations, especially given
272
its elevated entrance, symmetrical planning, windows with pointed arches, and
stylistic window frames. The police station was shown in the 1909 issue of Ressimli
Kitab with the caption "The crowd in front of the military office watching for the
new recruitments"581 (Figure 166) and also in the March 1910 issue of Servet-i
Fünun.582 These newspaper articles inform us that new recruits were enlisted in the
military service for the Balkan wars at this police station (Figure 167). The building
was listed as a military police station (askeri karakol) in the Abdurrahman Şeref Bey
map as well. Most probably, this police station is the one stated as Asakir-i Şahane
Karakolhanesi, in the Ottoman archival documents.
Figure 165. Topkapı Palace police station in the first court and its coat of arms
before restoration (c.2000, Courtesy of Ahsen Karagöl)
581 Ressimli Kitab, cild 3, no.18, Mart 1326 / April 1910
"İstanbul’da ilk defa olarak taht-ı silaha alınan efrad-ı askeriyeyi temaşa itmek üzere ahz-ı asker
dairesi önünde ictima eden muttefirciyan / Foule assistant au recrutement des Constantinopolitains a
Eski Serail"
582 Servet-i Fünun, c.38, s.980, 4 Mart 1326 / 17.3.1910
"Topkapı Sarayında ahz-ı askeri kalemi ve erbab-ı esnan"
273
Figure 166. The crowd in front of the police station (Ressimli Kitab, cild 3, no.18,
Mart 1326 / April 1910)
Figure 167. The recruitment office and the new recruits in the first court of the
Topkapı Palace (Servet-i Fünun, c.38, s.980, 4 Mart 1326 / 17.3.1910)
Another police station located at the Eastern hills of the palace right below the
Imperial Treasury still exists today. It must have been constructed to guard the
precious treasury collection, which was frequently visited by foreign travellers
during the course of late nineteenth century. The inscription on the building was
dated h.1318 (1900/01) and mentions the name of Abdülhamid II as the patron of the
274
building.583 Its architectural style, especially its pointed windows and window
frames, also confirms the stylistic features of the Hamidian era. Some archival
documents mention this police station as the Imperial Treasury police station
(Hazine-i Hümayun Karakolhanesi).584 This single storey building constructed with
imported brick is still present today and is used as a residence for the Chief Guard of
the Topkapı Museum (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Güvenlik Şefi Lojmanı) (Figure 168).
Figure 168. Police station below the Imperial Treasury (2016)
Another small police station located at the Osman Hamdi Bey Yokuşu, right before
the Darphane (Imperial Mint) gate of the palace is another interesting example of this
building type that still remains (Figure 169). The photographs from the nineteenth
century show the building with a columned portico and a triangular pediment, which
583 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari ve İstanbul’da İnşa Edilen Askeri
Yapılar,” 256. Aynur Çiftçi transcribed the inscription as such:
"Zinet-efzâ-yı makam-ı muallâ-yı hilâfet-i İslâmiyye ve erike-pirâ-yı saltanat-ı seniyye-i Osmâniyye
Es-sultân ibni's-sultâni's sultân el-gazi Abdülhamid Hân-ı sâni hazretleri
Taraf-ı eşreflerinden iş bu karakol-hâne-i müessesât-ı seniyye-i mülükânelerine ilâveten
İş bu üç yüz on sekiz sene-i hicriyyesinde binâ ve inşâ edilmiştir 1318"
584 BOA Y.PRK.ASK.258.16 (2.6.1324 /15.06.1908)
"Bağdat karakolhanesi (kolağası - yüzbaşı) / Demirkapı karakolhanesi (yüzbaşı) / Hazine-i Hümayun
karakolhanesi (2 mulazım-ı evvel) / Hamidiye karakolhanesi (1 mulazım-ı evvel) / Gülhane
hapishanesi karakolu (2 mulazım-ı sani) / Demirkapı karakolhanesi (mülazim-ı sani)
Topkapı Sarayı karakolhanelerinden bu gece nöbetçi kalacak ümera ve zabitanın esami ve mevkii
memuriyetleri 6. Fırka-i Hümayun Kumandanlığına dahi bildirildiği üzere..."
275
is absent today. This small neo-classical building was characterized by the depiction
of sun rays on its pediment, which was characteristic of the early Tanzimat. The
earlier photographs of the nearby Darphane kiosk, which was rebuilt by Mahmud II,
prove that the police station and the kiosk shared a common architectural language,
as both buildings had sunrays depicted on their pediments (Figure 23). Thus, it can
be argued that the police station was built during the renovations of Mahmud II in
the Imperial Mint (Figure 170).
However, as seen in a photograph from the late nineteenth century, on top of
its entrance door the monogram of Abdülhamid II and the title "Müze-i Hümayun
karakolhanesi" (Imperial Museum police station) can be seen. It is also interesting to
note that the lettering of the inscription matches the stylized kufi script of the
Imperial Museum's logo (Figure 171). It could be suggested that this building, with
its neo-classical architectural features, was erected before the reign of Abdülhamid
II, probably for the protection of the Imperial Mints and later restored and renamed
as the Imperial Museum police station after the establishment of the museum nearby.
Figure 169. Imperial Museum police station by the Darphane Gate of the palace
(İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
276
Figure 170. Imperial Museum police station, sunrays at its pediment, and the
inscription at the door (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
Figure 171. "Asar-ı Atika Müzesi" inscription at the entrance of the museum (2015)
/ The letterhead "Müze-i Hümayun" on an official document
This police station underlined the increasing value attributed to the archaeological
collections that were held in the Ottoman Imperial Museum. Together with the
museum, priceless royal collections were kept within the palace, and the palace
grounds were protected with a network of police stations erected at various parts of
the royal grounds. Parallel with the museumification of the Topkapı Palace and with
the increasing number of visitors, its protection became a concern for the Ottomans.
277
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, the palace, its gates, museums, and the royal
collections were kept under strict protection and surveillance thanks to the number of
police stations and palace corps protecting the palace grounds. According to the
research of Aynur Çiftçi a total of 17 military police stations were erected after 1826
and six of them were placed within the precincts of the Topkapı Palace. In contrast,
only one police station was built for the Dolmabahçe, two for the Yıldız Palace and
two for the Çırağan Palace.585 A map from the last year of Abdülhamid II's reign
shows the network of police stations within the city and the strategically located
military police stations at the tip of the Seraglio. Thus, the police stations were
utilized to control the modernizing Ottoman society and also to represent the
authority of the state and its invisible eye surveilling its citizens as guardians of the
regime (Figure 172).
Figure 172. The map of police stations in Istanbul by the end of Abdülhamid II's
reign (BOA Y.EE.64.6, 6.R 1327 / 27.4.1909)
585 Çiftçi, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Askeri Mimari,” 266.
278
4.3 Presenting the Occidental self: The Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun)
4.3.1 From St. Irene to the Tiled Pavilion: The separation of the arms and antiquities
collections
The foundation of the first Ottoman museum is believed to have been laid during the
reign of Abdülmecid with the establishment of double collection of antique weapons
and antiquities in 1846 in the atrium of the former church of St. Irene (Figure 173).
While the collection of antique arms became a point of attraction for European
visitors, the archeological collections did not attract much audience and was soon
forgotten. This small archeological collection was later renamed the Imperial
Museum (Müze-i Hümayun) during the time of Abdülaziz. The Ottoman arms and
armor continued to be displayed in the Armory, within the main body of the former
church. However, the visibility of the military supplies in the Armory created unrest
among military officials. Especially with the increasing number of archaeological
findings, the capacity of St. Irene became insufficient to hold both the armory and
the antiquities collections.586 Finally, in 1874 the decision was taken to move the
collections to a more convenient location within the palace grounds. The Tiled
Pavilion, located in the outer gardens of the palace, was already used by the military
and was assigned for the collections. Renovation of the historic pavilion was
initiated in 1875 and continued until 1880, interrupted by the dethronement of
Abdülaziz in 1876.587
586 Gürol Öngören, Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The Early Turkish Republic, 79
587 Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 34.
279
Figure 173. The antiquities displayed in the atrium of St. Irene (Abdülhamid II
Albums, Library of Congress, c.1890)
With the enthronement of Abdülhamid II, followed by war with Russia, the Armory
at St. Irene was closed to visits and used only for military purposes.588 After the war,
the process of moving the museum collections to the Tiled Pavilion was accelerated.
The distinction between the collection of antiquities and ancient arms was
confirmed: the old and new weapons were kept at St. Irene, but the antiquities
collection was transferred to the Tiled Pavilion.
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, the Armory was renamed the Arms
Museum (Esliha Müzesi) and reorganized accordingly. However, it was usually kept
closed and opened only for significant guests or important diplomatic visits.589 For
instance, the petition of the renowned German scholar Cornelius Gurlitt to visit the
588 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi.”
589 Ar.
280
armory at St. Irene was rejected, and the German embassy had to make a special
demand for an entry for Professor Gurlitt.590 Numerous pictures of the armorymuseum
that were taken for the Abdülhamid II Albums presented the condition of
the space and organization of the collections. An archival document from 1889
mentions that Abdullah Frères took pictures of the armory a couple years earlier to
prepare the four sets of albums. One of the albums was kept at the Imperial Library,
another was sent to America, and two were kept at the Tophane Artillery. The
photographers wanted to come back to the armory a second time to complete the
missing sections, but since they lacked the necessary permission, access to the
armory was declined.591 As seen in these photographs, the arms and armor at St.
Irene were displayed in a simple militaristic order, creating a rhythmic and
picturesque scene and organized in a semi-museum and semi-depot setting in
accordance with the visual display techniques of the era (Figure 174).
590 BOA BEO.3035.227561 (3 Ra 1325 / 16.4.1907)
"Dersaadet ve vilayat-ı şahanedeki mebani ile cevami ve mesacid-i şerifenin menazır-ı dahiliye ve
hariciyelerinin fotoğraf ve resimlerini almış olan Drest şehri Mekteb-i Sınayi Müdürü Profesör
Gurlit'in Topkapı Sarayı dahilindeki atik Silahhane'yi görmek üzere vuku bulan müracaatı isaf
olunmadığından müsaade olunmasının Almanya Sefareti'nden iltimas olunduğu."
591 BOA Y.MTV.56.34 (13 R 1309 / 15.11.1891)
" Fotoğrafcı Abdullah biraderler marifetiyle biri kütübhane-i hümayunda kalarak diğer biri
Amerika'ya irsal ve ikişer kıtası dahi Tophane'de hıfz olunmak üzre dört kıta fotoğraflarının
aldırılması . . . Maçka esliha anbarı ile Harbiye anbarının resimleri muma-ileyh Abdullah biraderler
marifetiyle alınmış ise de ol vakit alınan resimlerin şimdi def‘a-i saniye olarak bazı nevakısı ikmal
etmek üzere muma-ileyh biraderler tekrar anbar-ı mezkure müracaat eylemiş ise de def‘a-i saniye için
kendisine bir emr verilmemiş olduğundan müsâade etmediğini beyan ile..."
281
Figure 174. The Museum of Armory (Esliha Müzesi) at St. Irene during the
Hamidian era (Library of Congress, Abdülhamid II Albums, c.1890)
During the reign of Abdülhamid II a small military museum (Figure 175) was
established at the Yıldız Palace at the second floor of the Persian Kiosk (Acem
Köşkü) as well, and following this prototypical military museum, attempts were
made to establish a new and larger Military Museum at the Maçka arms depot.592
The project was approved by the sultan; the German military officer Gronakov and
the Architect Engineer Jasmund was appointed for this project.593 Anton Perpignani,
592 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the
Late Ottoman Empire, 185–188.
593 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 349.
282
Conservator Architect of the French Embassy, prepared an ambitious project for this
museum as well. An archival document titled "Esliha Müzesi Projesi Resimleridir /
Croquis d'un Musee d'Armes" and dated December 27, 1904 shows the architectural
drawing for this imperial project composed of an Imperial Pavilion, Exposition
Halls, Police and Guardian Towers, Entrance Vestibule, and a Public Toilette.594
Italian architect Raimondo d'Aronco also prepared projects for the Military Museum.
However, none of these projects were realized and the military collection remained
at St. Irene, away from the public gaze until the Second Constitutional era.
Figure 175. The Weapons Museum of Abdülhamid II at Yıldız Palace (İstanbul
Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
594 BOA PLK.P.1298 (27.12.1904)
283
Figure 176. Architectural drawings by Perpignani for the unrealized Military
Museum (BOA PLK.P.1298, 1904)
4.3.2 The birth of the Imperial Museum: The Archeological Museum, the School of
Fine Arts, and the collection of Islamic Arts
The relocation of the antiquities collection from St. Irene to the Tiled Pavilion is
generally accepted as a turning point in the history of museums in Turkey. The
antiquities collection was moved to this fifteenth century kiosk, and separated from
the collection of arms, armor, and Janissary costumes. This spatial split also
confirmed the formal and discursive separation between the royal collections and the
archeological collection. This relatively new collection of antiquities, which were
primarily brought together during the course of the nineteenth century, was detached
from the ancient military and royal collections, which had been collected by the
Ottoman dynasty throughout the centuries. Thus, the archeological museum was
established under the management of a museum director, which underlines the
independent character of the institution.
The Tiled Pavilion:
284
The reorganization of the Tiled Pavilion to house the collection of antiquities was
approved by Abdülhamid II. On April 1877, Kirkor Efendi was invited to the
Ministry of Education together with Montani Efendi, who was responsible for the
design of the Ottoman pavilions in the previous world exhibitions, to discuss the
establishment of the museum in the Tiled Pavilion.595 No documents could be found
explaining why the Tiled Pavilion was selected to house the antiquities collection,
however the ease of transfer, the security of the palace grounds, and defunct state of
the Tiled Pavilion that already belonged to the military must have played significant
role in the decision of the Ottoman authorities. One wonders whether the popularity
of the Tiled Pavilion, and its use as a showcase for Ottoman identity during the
universal exhibitions had an impact in the selection of the new venue for the Imperial
Museum.
After the decision was made, the transfer of the collection and preparation of
the Tiled Pavilion for display took a few years. An archival document dated 1878
states that the foreign visitors, who were previously granted entrance tickets from the
department of foreign affairs (Teşrifat-ı Hariciye), shall not be given tickets
anymore, as museum personnel was busy with the arrangement of the new space in
anticipation of the collection’s transfer. According to the same document, tickets
would be issued after the completion of the move by the Ministry of Education.596
595 BOA MF.MKT.47.122 (7 R 1294 / 21.4.1877)
"Altıncı Daire-yi Belediye riyaset-i aliyesine, Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde Çinili Köşk'de
tesis olunacak Müzehane hakkında bazı müzakerat icra edilmek üzre bu misillü şeylerde vukuf ve
malumatı haber verilen meclis-i ticaret aza-i sabıkasından İzzetli Kirkor Efendiye bil-istihab mah-ı
halin 9. Pazartesi günü nezaret-i aciziye dairesine teşrif -i aliyeleri..."
BOA MF.MKT.47.123 (7 R 1294 / 21.4.1877)
"Rasadhane memurlarından Mösyö Montani'ye, Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu dahilinde Çinili Köşk'de
tesis olunacak müzehane hakkında bazı müzakerat icra olunmak üzre mah-ı salikin dokuzuncu
pazartesi günü saat beş buçuk raddelerinde Maarif dairesine azimet eylemeleri"
596 BOA MF.MKT.55.71 (6 R 1294 / 20.4.1878)
"Müzeyi seyir ve temaşa arzusunda bulunan seyyahin-i ecnebiyeye şimdiye değin Teşrifat-ı Hariciye
canibinden duhuliye biletleri verilmekte ise de . . . müze eşyasının bu günlerde cephaneden Çinili
Köşke nakli münasebetiyle eşya-yı menkule henüz tanzim olunamadığından züvvarın burayı
285
During this period, the permits for visiting the Topkapı Palace and its royal
collections were still received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and this
bureaucratic shift emphasized the detachment of the museum from the administrative
system of the palace, underlining its institutional autonomy. In other words, the
antiquities museum was not shown to foreign visitors as a part of the palatial tour
and a separate procedure was needed to visit the Imperial Museum.597
Finally, on August 16, 1880 the Tiled Pavilion opened its doors as the
Imperial Museum. During his opening speech, the Minister of Education underscored
the concepts of progress and civilization.598 Münif Pasha also stated that many
archaeological findings from the Ottoman lands adorned European and American
museums, and with the opening of this museum Europeans would finally change
their opinion about the Ottomans. He ended his speech with a remark stating that the
Tiled Pavilion itself should be considered an antiquity from the era of Mehmed II,
and the building was purposefully selected for this task.599 However, this imperial
kiosk from the mid-fifteenth century had gone through severe architectural
modifications, which ruined its authentic architectural features during its conversion
into a museum. The original staircase was deformed and a new double staircase was
built in front of the ancient pavilion (Figure 177). Some of the original tiles were also
damaged; glazed tile bricks on the façade were whitewashed; the original door was
replaced; hearths were walled over; niches were filled out; and iron railings were
placed at its entrance gate600 (Figure 178).
temaşadan bir şey istifade edemeyeceklerinden başka müzeyi tanzimle meşgul memurları iştigal
edeceklerine binaen müzenin tanziminden sonra iktiza eden duhuliye biletleri nezaret-i kemteri
[maarif nezareti] canibinden verilmek üzere bundan sonra taraf-ı teşrifattan bilet verilmemesi.."
597 The procedure granting an entrance permit for the Topkapi Palace and the Imperial Treasury is
explained in detail in the following section, Chapter 5.4.
598 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 99.; Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archaeology, and the
Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire, 93–95.
599 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 241–42.
600 Gürol Öngören, “Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The Early Turkish Republic,” 79.
286
Figure 177. The Tiled Pavilion before its conversion into the Imperial Museum
(Kiosque des Yanissaires, Getty Archive, 1865-75) / Tiled Pavilion as Imperial
Museum (Sébah et Joaillier)
Figure 178. The new staircase added to the front of the Tiled Pavilion (D-DAI-IST-
9344) / Iron railings at the entrance of the Tiled Pavilion (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir
Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
According to Gerçek, the Tiled Pavilion as the Imperial Museum could be visited
every day with an entrance fee of 5 piasters and 2,5 piasters on Tuesdays, while
Wednesdays were reserved for women visitors.601 However, no documents could be
found confirming when and by whom the museum was being visited. Zeynep Çelik
portrays the profile of the visitors and the lack of interest towards the museum during
the early years of its inauguration, using travel accounts and newspaper articles of
601 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 99–100.
287
the time.602 The arrangement and accessibility of the collections in the Tiled Pavilion
still did not reach contemporary museum standards. The unscientific and rather
random classification of the Tiled Pavilion under the direction of Philip Anthon
Déthier became an issue of criticism.603 Century Illustrated Magazine also criticized
Déthier for keeping the museum inaccessible for scholars:604
Déthier was a good deal of a scholar, but he had no idea of the way in which
a museum should be managed. The collections were not made accessible, and
in his day to attempt to copy an inscription or to sketch a face was regarded in
the light of a crime.
Just a year after the inauguration of the new museum, on March 3, 1881, its director
Déthier passed away. Following Déthier's death in September 4, 1881, a member of
the museum committee and the son of the Grand Vizier Edhem Pasha, Osman Hamdi
Bey, was appointed as the first Ottoman-Muslim director of the Imperial Museum.605
Educated in the Paris Ecole des Beaux Arts, Osman Hamdi was an Ottoman
intellectual, painter, bureaucrat, and representative of the Ottoman elite, who had
close relations with Europe.606 Osman Hamdi invited French archaeologist Salomon
Reinach to Istanbul for classification and cataloging of the museum collection.
According to Reinach the antiquities in the Tiled Pavilion were in complete
disorder.607
French archaeologist André Joubin, who came to Istanbul in 1893 for the
reorganization of the collection in the Tiled Pavilion, also criticized the arrangement
of the collections and complained about its disorder, comparing the display of the
602 Çelik, About Antiquities.
603 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 242.
604 Peter, "An Art Impetus in Turkey", Century Illustrated Magazine , Feb 1893, XLV, 4, 546.
605 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 254.; Ürekli, Sanayi-i nefise mektebi’nin kuruluşu
ve türk eğitim tarihindeki yeri, 134.
606 For in depth information regarding Osman Hamdi Bey, see Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman
Hamdi; Rona, Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü.
607 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü, 444.
288
collection to a store in the Grand Bazaar.608 After the reorganization of Joubin, the
collections in the Tiled Pavilion were spatially classified according to their
geographical origins (Figure 179-Figure 180).609 The new arrangement marked the
beginning of a new era for the Ottoman museology, compared to the primitive
categorization and random display of antiquities in St. Irene. It could be stated that
the arrangement and classification of objects in the Tiled Pavilion under the direction
of Osman Hamdi Bey, reflected a consciousness of scientific taxonomy and was
major initiative to showcase the modernity and the progress of the Empire.
Figure 179. Display of antique pieces in the entrance gallery of the Tiled Pavilion
(Sébah et Joaillier; İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
608 André Joubin was a French archaeologist who came to Istanbul for an archaeological post and took
part in the reorganization of the Imperial Museum under the direction of Osman Hamdi between
1893-1894. Reports of André Joubin to the French ambassador about his post in Constantinople could
be found at, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, 25.3.1893 no.97-107 / 9.6.1893, no.110-
111
609 Şapolyo, Müzeler tarihi, 45–46; Gürol Öngören, “Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The
Early Turkish Republic,” 80; Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü, 154–55.
The two front rooms of the Tiled Pavilion were dedicated to archaeological findings from Palmyra
and the Himyarite Kingdom, in the central hall Greco-Roman antique pieces were displayed, one of
the back rooms was dedicated to antiquities from Cyprus and the other room held the objects from
Bronze age, while the cloisters were filled with Byzantine antiquities.
289
Figure 180. The Antiquities collection in the halls of the Tiled Pavilion (İstanbul
Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
The School of Fine Arts:
Right after his post as the museum director, Osman Hamdi was appointed as the
director of the newly found the School of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi) as
well. Taking French Ecole des Beaux Arts as a model,610 the School of Fine Arts
was officially established under the Ministry of Commerce (Ticaret Nezareti) on
January 1, 1882 with the aim of improving national art, culture, and heritage.611
Önder Küçükerman defines this school as a "new ehl-i hiref", a modern school to
replace the defunctioned palatial institution.612 The school of fine arts was composed
of three departments including painting, sculpture, and architecture.613 Also included
in its program was the establishment of a museum for fine arts, a national museum,
and a library within the purview of the school. The founding document of the School
of Fine Arts emphasized the concepts of national art, Turkishness and Ottomanness,
610 Kula Say, “Geç Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığı’nda Başlıca Beaux Arts Okulu Temsilcisi Olarak,
Alexandre Vallaury’nin Mimar ve Eğitimci Kariyerinin ve Mimari Tavrının Analizi,” 316.
611 Ürekli, Sanayi-i nefise mektebi’nin kuruluşu ve türk eğitim tarihindeki yeri, 103–6.
612 Ehl-i Hiref organization was traditionally placed in the first court of the Topkapı Palace, where
palace artisans were trained and produced numerous items for the Ottoman court. Küçükerman and
Konyalı, Sanayi ve tasarım yarışmasında, 378–80.
613 BOA İ.DH.67709_02 (10 S 1299 / 1.1.1882); Meclis-i Mahsusa iradeleri, no.2666 cited in Cezar,
Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 516. An earlier attempt for the foundation of a school for fine
arts and architecture was approved in 1877, but due to the war with Russia, the project was suspended.
290
but in reality the school adopted the European educational system.614 According to a
document dated January 1882, the construction of the school in the outer gardens of
the Topkapı Palace right next to the Tiled Pavilion was approved by the ministry.
According to the same document, the school would be constructed on a very
appropriate site (mevkii pek münasib ve muvafık bulunduğu), 100 yards away from
the Imperial Museum on a retaining wall (müzehanenin cihet-i cenubisinde yüz arşun
mesafede vaki müstakil ve müfrez bir sed üzerine).615 Thus, the location of the school
was intentionally chosen to be near the museum. Osman Hamdi, being the director of
both institutions must have had an impact on the construction of a new school
building in close proximity to the Tiled Pavilion (Figure 181 - Figure 182).
Figure 181. The spatial relation between the Tiled Pavilion, School of Fine Arts, and
the new buildings of the Imperial Museum (Istanbul Archaeology Museum Archive,
from Öngören, 355)
614 BOA İ.DH.67709_02 (10 S 1299 / 1.1.1882) cited in Cezar, 530–32.; Ürekli, Sanayi-i nefise
mektebi’nin kuruluşu ve türk eğitim tarihindeki yeri, 108–10.
"Bir memleketin hirfet ve sanatı kendi kuvveti ve hatta servetidir. Onlar olmadıkça o meleketin tarihi
ahlafa intikal edemez. Zira, bir millet ebniye ve asarıyla vucudunu isbat eder. Ve yine onlar ile
tarihini teşkil eyler."
615 BOA İ.DH.845.67871 (13 RA 1299 / 2.2.1882) cited in Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman
Hamdi, 533–34.
"İnşası beyan olunan ebniye müzehanenin cihet-i cenubisinde yüz arşun mesafede vaki müstakil ve
müfrez murabba bir sed üzerine tesadüf edeceği cihetle mevkii pek muvafık ve münasib olduğu bizzat
edilen muayeneden anlaşılmış olduğu gibi ebniyenin mesaha-i sathiye ve taksimatına dair tanzim
olunan haritası dahi merbuten takdim-i huzur-u ali-i cenab-ı vekaletpenahileri kılınmıştır."
291
Figure 182. The first wing of the Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi designed by Alexandre
Vallaury (Mimarlık Müzesi, MSGSÜ Archive)
The neo-classical school building was designed and constructed by Alexandre
Vallaury, a Levantine architect who had recently completed his education in Paris at
the Ecole des Beaux Arts. The collaboration of Vallaury and Osman Hamdi
continued in the following years; the young architect became one of the professors in
the architecture department and would be responsible for the design of the new
buildings for the Imperial Museum as well616 (Figure 183). The school building was
completed in 1883 and, following the opening ceremony held on March, 3, the first
Ottoman School of Fine Arts started its education with 20 students.617 Later, in 1886
the School of Fine Arts was also placed under the Ministry of Education, like the
Imperial Museum.618 Hence, spatial and institutional relations between the two
organizations under the directorate of Osman Hamdi was confirmed from the
institutional and financial aspects as well. In 1895 a new rectangular block housing
616 Kula Say, “Geç Dönem Osmanlı Mimarlığı’nda Başlıca Beaux Arts Okulu Temsilcisi Olarak,
Alexandre Vallaury’nin Mimar ve Eğitimci Kariyerinin ve Mimari Tavrının Analizi”; Özlü, “Pera’nın
Yersizyurtsuz Kahramanları: Vallouri Ailesi, Edouard Lebon, Alexandre Vallauri ve M. Vedad Tek”;
Özlü, “Alexandre Vallaury, İstanbul’a Damgasını Vuran Levanten Mimar.”
617 Ürekli, Sanayi-i nefise mektebi’nin kuruluşu ve türk eğitim tarihindeki yeri, 143.
618 Ürekli, 150.
292
three ateliers and an exhibition hall was constructed by Vallaury and established a
visual connection with the Imperial Museum building 619 (Figure 184).
Figure 183. Registration records of Alexandre Vallaury at the school of architecture
at Ecole de Beaux Arts (Archives de Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris)
Figure 184. Second wing of the School of Fine Arts (Ecole des Beaux-Arts de
Constantinople, Servet-i Fünun, 9 Teşrinievvel 1322, 1906)
619 Akpolat, “Fransız Kökenli Levanten Mimar Alexandre Vallaury,” 120.
293
According to a newspaper article published in 1898, the newly founded school was
in the position of competing and being superior to the similar schools in Europe.620
An article in the Century Illustrated Magazine announced the inauguration of the
museum of art and archaeology and the school of fine arts in the capital of the
Ottoman empire, and added that these developments "are not exactly in accordance
with our ideas of Turkish ignorance and prejudice."621 Similar to many foreign
journals of the era, the article praised Osman Hamdi for his archaeological works and
also for obtaining permission from the Sultan to establish a school of fine arts, which
was modeled after the Ecole des Beaux Arts (Figure 185). Apparently, following a
European model, a modern museum, library, and academy complex within the walls
of the imperial palace was realized.
Figure 185. A newspaper article promoting the School of Fine Arts (A Turkish
School of paintings, Old Seraglio, Stamboul, Constantinople Illustrated, Part I, 1886)
620 "Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebini Ziyaret", Servet, no.130, (5 C 1316 / 21.10.1898) cited in Cezar,
Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 562.
"Mülkümüzde bu sanatın ihtiyacat-ı zanmaneye göre terakki ve tekemmülü maksad-ı alisile bundan
bir zaman evvel tesis ve küşad buyurulan Sanayi-i nefise-i şahane Mektebi mahsusat-ı kalemisiyle
Avrupa'da bulunan bu kabil mekteplere tefevvuk etmek derecesindedir."
621 Peter, "An Art Impetus in Turkey", Century Illustrated Magazine, Feb 1893, XLV, 4, 546.
294
The New (Sarcophagi) Museum:
Osman Hamdi built his distinguished career and worldwide reputation as the director
of Imperial Museum and as the first Ottoman archaeologist, apart from being a
renowned painter and educator.622 Osman Hamdi took part in the implementation of
the 1884 bylaw of antiquities (Asar-ı Atika Nizamnamesi),623 which declared the
Ottomans as the sole owner and possessor of antiquities found within Ottoman
soil.624 This bylaw of antiquities not only aimed to protect Ottoman rights over
antiquities that existed within its territories, but also gave Osman Hamdi full control
over the archaeological missions conducted in the country by Europeans and
Americans (Figure 186). A newspaper article emphasized the role of Osman Hamdi
in governing the archaeological missions and critically portrayed his attitude towards
the preservation of antiquities in the Imperial Museum:625
(Hamdi) says he will never assist the Germans in getting a firman again (he
knows well that nobody can get a firman without his assistance) . . . "I am a
Turk, and I care for these things. I have been appointed director of the
museum at Constantinople, and as long as I live nothing more shall be
exported. You rich English, French, Americans, may excavate, but it shall be
for the embellishment of my museum", and like a dog with many bones, he
refuses to share what he cannot eat with the hungry archaeologists who
gathered around.
622 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü. Also see a contemporary account by John P. Peter, "An Art
Impetus in Turkey", Century Illustrated Magazine , Feb 1893, XLV, 4, p.546.
"But Hamdy bey is even better known to the world by his archaeological discoveries than by his
artistic achievements."
623 BOA İ.MMS.78.3401 (23.R 1301 / 21.2.1884) from Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman
Hamdi, 536.
624 According to this law, the archaeological excavations were bound to an imperial permit and all
findings automatically belonged to the Ottoman state and should be submitted to the Imperial
Museum. Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History
in the Late Ottoman Empire, 110–112.; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi.
625 Bent, "Hamdi Bey", Littell's Living Age, 1888; 179, 2319, 613.
295
Figure 186. Letters signed by Osman Hamdi as the museum director (Centre des
Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, 17.11.1869, no.240)
Osman Hamdi also took part in several archaeological excavations himself, including
expeditions to Nemrud in 1883, Palmyra in 1900, Boğazköy and to Alacahöyük in
1905.626 He gained worldwide recognition and fame after his archaeological
excavations in Saida resulted with his discovery of Sidon Necropolis in 1887.
Twenty-six sarcophagi discovered by Osman Hamdi belonging to the Hellenistic era
was a major discovery, and the artifacts were immediately brought to Istanbul.627 A
newspaper article published in 1888 praised Osman Hamdi as an exceptional
Ottoman and as a heroic figure but reflected the anxiety of the Europeans about the
future of the collection he formed.628 Nevertheless, to place and protect the collection
within the Tiled Pavilion was not possible and an urgent need for erecting a new
building to house the findings was crucial. An article in The Times praised Osman
626 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 311–20; Rona, Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi.
627 BOA İ.DH 1023.80670 (1887.03.10)
“Sayda civarında mermerden masnu’ antika bir sandık keşf olunduğu işar-ı mahalliden anlaşılmasına
mebni bunun serian Dersaadete celbiyle müze-i amireye vaz’ı...”Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve
Osman Hamdi, 257. "
628 Bent, "Hamdi Bey", 613.
"Nevertheless, contrary to her religion, her antecedent and her tastes, Turkey has at this juncture
produced an extraordinary man, who is an artist, a freethinker, and an archaeologist all in one. No man
in the empire except the sultan has more power than he has, and this power he uses to battle the efforts
of all the archaeological societies of Europe and America in the pursuit of research. . . . Furthermore,
his Excellency Hamdi Bey is a unique individual among his race, and a mortal to boot. What
guarantee is there at the end of Hamdi's career the treasure he has amassed in the Seraglio museum
will not be turned into lime or otherwise maltreated? Constantinople is certainly not the place for a
museum under present regime."
296
Hamdi for the new order of the museum, yet criticized the size of Tiled Pavilion as
the Imperial Museum:629
I have seen a few exceedingly fine specimens in the little museum close to
the Seraglio, which is now being put into excellent order by Hamdi Bey.
This, by the way, is the "Imperial Museum" of Constantinople, though it
could be put bodily inside the Elgin Room of the British Museum.
The same year, Abdülhamid II approved the construction of a new museum
building.630 An article from The Independent informed its readers about the progress
of the Imperial Museum under the direction of Osman Hamdi and announced that the
new museum building was being constructed in the Ottoman capital631 (Figure 187):
Not, however, until the present Director Hamdi Bey, assumed control did the
active life of the Museum begin. From all parts of the Empire, he has
collected antiquities of every description, many being of great importance to
science. So greatly has the collection increased that Chinili Kiosk is no longer
large enough to accommodate all the pieces. Hamdi Bey has therefore
obtained a settlement of £ 2,000 from the Sultan toward the erection of a new
building which is now in process of construction.
629 "The Treasury in the Seraglio", The Times, 27.12.1886.
630 According to correspondences dated July 1887, the museum building, which was initially
proposed to be of timber, would be constructed in masonry with an iron roof capable of carrying the
weight of the archaeological findings, and should be completed urgently due to the approaching
winter, BOA İ.MMS.93.3911_01 (24 Z 1304 / 14.8.1887)
"Geçende Sayda’da zuhur edip Dersaadet’e celp edilen asar-ı atikanın cesamet ve ağırlıkları cihetiyle
Müze-i Hümayuna ithali gayr-i kabil olduğundan bahisle asar-ı mezkurenin vaz’ ve muhafazası için
iki bin altın sarfıyla yeniden bir daire inşası lüzumuna . . . asar-ı mezkurenin müzeye ithal ve vaz’ı
gayr-ı kabil olduğundan bunların muhafazası için yeniden bir daire inşası iktiza eder ise de ifade-i
vakıa-i devletlerine nazaran yeniden yapılacak daire ahşap olarak inşa edileceği anlaşılmasına ve bu
makule ebniyenin ahşap olmak üzere inşası mahzurdan salim olamayacağına binaen evvel emirde
ebniye-i mezkurenin cevanib-i erbaası kargir ve sakafı demir olarak inşası..."
BOA İ.MMS.93.3911_01 (6 Z 1304 / 26.8.1887)
"Müze-i Hümayun karşısında melfuf resim mucibince altmış bir metre tulünde ve on üç metre arzında
müceddeden inşasına lüzum görünen bir binanın iki bin lira-yı Osmani ile vücuda geleceği keşif ve
tahmin olduğu . . . ve mevsim-i şita hulul etmezden evvel inşasına mübaşeret kılınması hususuna..."
631 J. Dyneley Prince, "Biblical Research: Archaeology in Turkey", The Independent, 6.12.1888, 16.
297
Figure 187. Construction of the First Museum Building (Öngören, 2012, 354)
The new museum building was constructed right across the Tiled Pavilion, in the
grounds of the Topkapı Palace. No documents could be found justifying the site
selection, which was away from the public gaze and access. The location of the
building within the gardens of the Topkapı Palace provided security for the museum
and its collection, but also limited its visibility and utilization as a tool for
propaganda. An article published at Servet-i Fünun from 1893 gave an interesting
detail about the construction process and claimed that the building was constructed
after the placement of the sarcophagi in the exhibition space.632 The photographs
from the Yıldız collection also show the transfer and placement of the sarcophagi in
the unfinished halls of the new museum building during the course of construction
(Figure 188 - Figure 189). Most probably, the new museum building was built across
the Tiled Pavilion due to practical reasons, rather than ideological motivations,
namely its proximity to the School of Fine Arts and because the transfer of the
sarcophagi collection and other fragile archeological pieces, which were already
632 "Müze-i Osmani", Servet-i Fünun, v. 3, no.54, 5.3.1893.
"Avrupalıların da teslim kerdesi olduğu üzre hakikat-i halde Osmanlı müzesi saye-i keseb-i ehemmiyet
etmiştir. Elyevm müzemiz iki binadan müteşekkildir. Bunun birisi Dersaadet'de Osmanlılar tarafından
ilk inşa olunan binalardan muaddevad bulunan Çinili Köşk diğeri ise onun karşısında ahiren inşa
edilen yeni ve muhib kısımdır . . . Müzenin yeni binası hakikat-ı halde heybet ve münazır nokta-i?
nazarından muhtevi olduğu asar-ı nefiseye yakışık alacak derecededir. Gazet de Bozar'ın bahsettiği
lahitler işte işbu yeni daire derununda mevcuddur, lahidler binanın inşasından evvel vaz olunmuş ve
sonra üzeri kapanıp kapıları yapılmış olduğundan..."
298
preserved in the site would be costly. Finally, the grounds of the Topkapı Palace,
surrounded by high walls and protected by numerous police stations ensured the
security of the invaluable collection.
Figure 188. The transfer of the sarcophagi to the new museum building before the
finalization of the construction (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümü)
Figure 189. The interior hall of the new museum (Sébah et Joaillier)
The new museum building was designed and constructed by Alexandre Vallaury.
The construction took four years and the building was inaugurated on June 13,
1891.633 This quite ambitious project was erected right across from the Tiled Pavilion
633 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi; Eldem, Osman Hamdi
Bey Sözlüğü.
299
and the entrances of the old and new museum buildings were consciously placed on
the same axis facing one another (Figure 190). Thus, with the construction of this
longitudinal building, the visual and spatial connection of the Tiled Pavilion with the
Topkapı Palace was interrupted. The neoclassical building had an elevated
monumental entrance emphasized with four colossal composite columns and a
pediment marked by the monogram of Abdülhamid II and an inscription in bronze:
"Asar-ı Atika Müzesi" (Figure 191). The interior was also decorated in neoclassical
style in line with the contemporary display techniques of the era. This illustrates how
the museum took Western museums as a model, and even competed with its
European counterparts. The museum furniture was ordered from England634 and the
museum offered a spacious and "civilized"635 visiting experience for ıts foreign
visitors. A year after the completion of the new building in 1892, a library,
photography studio, and a modeling studio were also established and the section for
Islamic Arts was later inaugurated.636
The expanding collection and the library, with its decorative aspects and
state-of the art furniture, emphasized the scientific and contemporary interest in art
history and archaeology.637 The configuration of the museum, academy, and library
within the same complex was similar to its European counterparts.638 Osman Hamdi
confirmed that this precious and rare collection of art and science would be in the
634 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed : Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the
Late Ottoman Empire, 160.
635 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals : Inside Public Art Museums.
636 BOA İ.MMS.123.5280 from Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 263–64.
"Müze nizamnamesinin altıncı maddesi iktizasınca Müze-i Hümayun'a merbut olarak kaffe-i edevatile
beraber bir fotoğraf ve modelhane inşası ..."
637 Servet-i Fünun, c.4, no 96 (31 Kanunievvel 1308), 278 cited in Cezar, 264.
638 Artun and Akman, Tarih sahneleri - Sanat müzeleri.
300
service of all savants, archaeologists, and artists who would conduct research on
Turkey639 (Figure 192).
Figure 190. The first building of the Imperial museum seen from the Tiled Pavilion
(2009)
Figure 191. The new building of Imperial Museum designed by Alexandre Vallaury
with the monogram of Abdülhamid II on the pediment (D-DAI-IST-9512, c.1890)
639 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, 4.12.1893, No.216. The letter included the list of ten
books sent to the museum.
"Cette belle collection d'ovrages de premiere ordre, an nombre desquels se trouvent des publication
scientifiques des plus precieuses, devenues rares et difficiles à rassember . . ."
301
Figure 192. The library of the Imperial Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler
Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
After the completion of the new museum building the sarcophagi collection and
other findings were placed in its halls. Both the new Imperial Museum and its
collections were promoted in Western academic circles, and the collection gained
international recognition and reputation after the publication of scientific books and
articles.640 The Ottoman press also covered the Imperial Museum and its director
Osman Hamdi frequently.641 The audience and visitors to the museum, however,
were not documented, but it is likely that the museum was not accessible to the
public, especially to Ottoman citizens. According to the catalogue for the newly
opened museum published in 1893, the museum was open especially for foreign
640 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü, 460.; Osman Hamdi and Théodore Reinach, Une nécropole
royale à Sidon, Fouilles de Hamdy Bey; Gazette de Beaux Art, Les Sarcophages de Sidon Au Musée
de Constantinople, 1892; Reinach, "Les Sarcophages de Sidon Au Musée de Constantinople".
641 "Asr-ı Hazret-i Abdülhamidhanide Terakkiyat-ı Fenniye, Müze-i Hümayun - Avrupa Matbuatı",
Servet-i Fünun, 19 Şubat 1892.
"Avrupalılar saye-i hazret-i Abdülhamid Han sanide memalik-i Osmaniyenin nasıl bir daire-i
terakkiye girmiş olduğunu ve hale-i ru'-i fünun ve terakkiyat bulunan arkeolojiye olan hidmetini büyük
bir takdir ile sahife-i matbuata geçiriyorlar, teslim ediyorlar ki tedkik-i tevarih ve asar-ı nefise için
şimdiye Londra, Roma, Paris müzeleri nasıl birer merkez-i hazain-i asar-ı atika ise İstanbul dahi öyle
olmuşdur."
302
researchers and scholars interested in conducting research because "the foreign
explorer ha[d] no other rights beyond those of photographing, making casts, and
taking copies."642 Çelik also confirms that the Imperial Museum was visited
exclusively by foreign visitors until the Second Constitutional era.643
In the following years antiquities and archaeological findings from various
parts of the empire continued to be sent to the Imperial Museum, and the collection
expanded, giving rise to the need for an additional building.644 In 1899 construction
of an additional wing for the museum was approved and inaugurated on the date of
Abdülhamid II's crowning anniversary. The construction took four years, and the
gardens and surrounding walls of the museum complex were also renewed.645 The
new wing opened to the public on November 7, 1903.646 Edwin A. Grosvenor, in his
two-volume travel account about Constantinople, dedicated a chapter to the Imperial
Museum, giving a detailed description and praising its development and Osman
Hamdi as its director:647
During the last fourteen years it has been in charge of his Excellency Hamdi
Bey, an Ottoman and a Mussulman, a student of the École des Beaux Arts at
Paris, and an artist of ability. When, under his energetic and enthusiastic
direction, the accumulating treasures overflowed the walls of Tchinili Kiosk,
the scholarly liberality of the present Sultan defrayed the cost of erecting the
second spacious building of the Museum.
Less than one year after the opening of the second wing, the construction for the
third wing of the museum commenced in September 1, 1904, again coinciding with
the crowning anniversary of Abdülhamid II. Apparently Abdülhamid II, content with
642 Peter, "An Art Impetus in Turkey", 546.
643 Çelik, About Antiquities.
644 Some local museums were also founded in Bursa, Konya, and Jerusalem during the Hamidian era
as well. But these local museums were used mostly as depots for keeping antiquities rather than
having a museal setting or display strategy.
645 BOA BEO.2109.158114 (6.8.1903)
"Müze-i Hümayun daire-i cedidesinin sed inşasında terakim eden toprak ve molozunun kaldırılması
ve bağçesinde kazmayı ve sed duvarlarıyla Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu su yollarinin icra-i tamiri
mesarefatina dair."
646 Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 268–69.
647 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 774.
303
the national and international recognition and success of the museum, supported its
development. Osman Hamdi, in his speech during the foundation ceremony,
compared the progress of the Ottoman museum with European museums and
emphasized its rapid development648 (Figure 193 - Figure 194). The third block,
which was designed again by Vallaury649 was completed in April 1907.650 Attached
to the first building from the north, the building sustained the same architectural
language and composed a U form, encircling the Tiled Pavilion.
Figure 193. The Imperial Museum praised in the Ottoman press (Servet-i Fünun,
c.32, s.813, 9 Teşrinievvel 1322 / 1906)
648 İkdam, no.3670, 20 Ağustos 1320 (2 Eylül 1904) cited in Cezar, 271.
"Müze-i Hümayunları bir sürat-i fevkalade ile terakki etmektedir. O dereceki Avrupa müzelerinin hiç
birinde ve hiç bir zamanda bu sürat ile terakki görülmemiştir."
649 The second wing of the Imperial Museum was also designed by Vallaury and constructed under the
direction of Philippe Bello. The third wing was designed by Alexandre Vallury without any fee and
constructed under the direction of architect Edhem Bey, the son of Osman Hamdi. Cezar, Sanatta
Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi, 273.
650 Servet-i Fünun, c.38, no 984 (1 Nisan 1327); Sabah, no. 6330, 5 Mayıs 1323 (8 Mayıs 1907)
cited in Cezar, 274.
304
Figure 194. The plan of the Imperial Museum encircling the Tiled Pavilion (Servet-i
Fünun 26, No.676, 25 Mart 1320 / 7.4.1904, from Çelik, 2016, 33)
Together with the School of Fine Arts, Archaeology Museum, library, exhibition
spaces, landscaping and surrounding walls this complex defined an introverted and
autonomous cultural island, detached from the Topkapı Palace (Figure 195). Even
though the Tiled Pavilion and the surrounding area (Kum Meydanı) were historically
separated from the inner courts of the Topkapı Palace, the area was a part of the
outer gardens of the palace. After the construction of the museum buildings, the
Tiled Pavilion, once having direct access to the Harem and to the first and second
courts, was completely detached from the imperial complex, loosing its spatial,
visual and even its symbolic and historical connection with the Topkapı Palace.
Neither did the Imperial Museum aim to have any kind of relation with the Topkapı
Palace, which must have been accepted as a representation of the archaic Ottoman
past. The museum-school campus, with its neoclassical architecture, modern
buildings, Beaux-Arts program, exhibition spaces, state-of-the-art display
technologies, infrastructure, rich library, and distinguished visitors, was positioned as
the Westernized face of the Ottoman Empire. Emulating the European model, under
305
the direction of a member of the Westernized-elite, Osman Hamdi,651 the
archaeology museum and fine arts school presented the modernization and
Westernization project of Abdülhamid II. For it was promoted in the domestic and
foreign press as a solid manifestation of Ottoman progress and modernity.
Figure 195. The spatial relationship of the Imperial Museum with the Topkapı
Palace (Harita Genel Komutanlığı Fotoğraf Arşivi, 1937)
The Collection of Islamic Arts:
The legislation issued by the Council of State (Şura-i Devlet) in 1889 stated the
intention of the Ottoman state for establishing six departments within the Imperial
Museum: The Greek, Roman and Byzantine Department; the Near Eastern
Department; the Islamic Arts Department; the Numismatics Department; the Natural
651 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü. Edhem Eldem emphasied the intense relationship of Osman
Hamdi with Europe, not only in his professional career but in his personal life as well.
306
History Department; and the Library. 652 Similar to that of other collections, the
foundation of the section for Islamic Arts was intended as a precaution against
looting and illegal transfer of objects to Western museums.653 However, only after
the construction of the new museum building in 1891, was the Islamic Arts section
able to come into realization. The first Islamic Arts section in the Imperial Museum
was established at the second floor of the new museum building.654
As understood from archival documents, the Islamic Arts collection of the
Imperial Museum was formed by bringing objects of value from various mosques,
convents, or shrines.655 The royal collections of the Topkapı Palace, however, were
not displayed as part of this collection. The collection was enriched by gathering
numerous items from various parts of the empire and prepared for display in the new
building of the Imperial Museum and opened for visits as of 1894.656 A photograph
652 Meclis-i mahsus iradeleri.4464 (13 N 1306) cited in Cezar, Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman
Hamdi, 547–51.
653 Odabaşıoğlu, “Emergence of Islamic Department in the Müze-i Hümayun,” 65–66.
"Müze-i Hümayûn müdiriyetinin derkenarında âsâr-ı nefise-i İslamiyyenin menafi'-i
hüsniye mukabelesinde bazı ? tarafından Avrupa müzelerine aşırılmasını men itmek maksadıyla
yirmi sene evvel cevami' ve türbelerdeki âsâr-ı kadime-i İslamiyyeden bazıları alınarak ve
haricden elde idilen âsâr dahi bunlara 'ilâve olunarak hâ'iz-i kıymet ve ehemmiyet bir müze
vücuda getirilmiş"
654 An archival document dated 1893, mentioned the costs of display windows, pulpit, and books for
the Islamic arts department. BOA MF.MKT.180.3 (3 Ağustos 1309 /15.08.1893)
“Müze-i Hümayun dairesinde küşadı mukarrer bulunan Sanayi-i Nefise-i İslamiye salesine vaz
olunacak asara mahsus olmak üzere imal ettirilecek camekan ve kürsü esmanı olarak sarfına
mezuniyet itası talep olunan otuz bin kuruşun idare-i müşarun-ileyha tahsisatının üç yüz yedi senesine
kadarki muhassesatı saye-i terakkiyat- vaye-i Hazret-i Padişahide üç yüz sekiz senesinde üç misline
iblağ edilmiş olduğu . . . bundan ziyadesinin adem-i müsaadesi cihetle itası kabil olamayacağından”
655 According to a document from 1893 three ancient carpets from the Sultanahmet Mosque and from
a mosque in İzmit were transferred to the Islamic Arts section of the Imperial Museum for display.
Odabaşıoğlu, “Emergence of Islamic Department in the Müze-i Hümayun,” 93, Document 9. (28 RA
311 / 9.10.1893)
“Cennet-mekan Sultan Ahmet Han hazretlcri Cami'-i şerifinde masnu’at-ı atika ve nefiseden olub
ancak isti'mâle gayr-i salih bir hale gelmiş olan üç 'aded seccadenin yerine üç 'aded cedid seccade
i'ta olunmak üzre Müze-i Hümayûn'da teşkil idilen Zayi’ Atika-i İslamiye Dairesi’nde teşhir kılınmak
üzre Müze-i Hümayûn müdiriyetinden iş’ar idildiğinden bahisle icra-yı icabı hususuna dair Evkâf-ı
Hümayfm Nezaret-i celilesinin tezkiresi…”
Odabaşıoğlu, 89., Document 4. (21 Ş 1312 / 17.4.1895)
"İzmid Sancağı'nda kain Kemaller Karyesi Cami'-i şerifinden celb ile Müze-i Hümayun'a terk edilen
iki aded seccadenin..."
656 BOA MF.MKT.215.42_05 (30.07.1894)
"Sanayi-i Atika-i İslamiye asarını teşhire mahsus olmak üzere Müze-i Hümayuna ilaveten teşkil
edilecek olan şube içün sarf-ı iktiza eden 20,700 guruş için...."
307
from the Islamic Arts collection proved that the display strategies for the objects of
Islamic Arts were not much different from that of the antiquities collection. Sample
objects were collected and displayed as representatives of certain typological
categories. In the hall, small objects were displayed in windows and cabinets and
larger objects were placed free-standing. Works of calligraphy and paintings were
hung on the walls while lamps were hung from the ceiling and carpets were laid on
the floor. In line with the exhibition techniques of modern museums, the objects on
display were separated from the visitors with a cord, which communicated to the
visitors their significance as objects of decorative art rather than their religious or
historic references (Figure 196). In fact, the display units, arrangement of the
exhibition hall, and the objects on display were similar to European counterparts. For
example, the Islamic Department founded in 1905 at Kaiser Friedrich Museum in
Berlin was not much different from the Islamic Collections displayed at the Ottoman
Imperial Museum (Figure 197). In other words, singular objects of certain artistic
and historical value were removed from their historical contexts and religious
settings and secularized by being displayed in a modern museal setting.
BOA MF.MKT.215.42_06 (30.07.1894)
"Nizamname-i Dahilinin ikinci maddesi hükmünce Müze-i Hümayun'un Sanayi-i Atika-i İslamiye asarı
içün dahi bir şube i mahsusa bulunacağına ve saye-i tevfik tüvaye-i hazreti padişahide mamülat ve
mensucat-ı kadime-i İslamiyeden şimdiye kadar cemine muvaffak olunan asar şube-i mezkureyi teşkile
müsait bir dereceye vasıl olduğına binaen hükm-ü nizamın heman ifası muhteza görülüp keşfiyat-ı
lazıme led-el icra melfufen arz ve takdimine cüret olunan müfredat pusulasında gösterildiği üzere
bunun için 20,700 guruş masrafa ihtiyaç-ı kati numayan olması ve Müze-i Hümayunun ezdiyat-ı
şöhret ve mergubiyeti ve saili mehamesinden olan şu teşkil hakkında caiz-i ali-yi nezaret
penehilerinden diriğ-i müsaede ve gayat buyurulacağı ise emsali delaletiyle sabit bulunmuş olmağla
mebaliğ-i mezburun sarfı için mezuniyet-i lazımenin ihsanı müstedadır."
BOA BEO.485.36342 (30.9.1894)
"Müze-i Hümayunda teşkil olunacak Sanayi-i İslamiye şubesi hakkında."
308
Figure 196. Display of the Islamic Arts collection on the second floor of the
Imperial Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
Figure 197. Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Islamic Department 1909/1910 (Jens
Kröger, 175)657
The bylaw of antiquities was renewed in 1906 and extended its scope to include
Islamic Arts as well. This legal modification indicated the rising awareness of the
Ottomans towards Islamic arts and could be interpreted as a response to the rising
657 I would like to thank to Irvin Cemil Schick for sending this book to me. Junod, Islamic Art and the
Museum.
309
interest of the West towards Islamic and Oriental arts.658 According to a document
from French Diplomatic Archives, the Sublime Porte informed European states about
the new regulations on antiquities.659
This Islamic Arts collection, composed of items collected from various pious
foundations and religious buildings, remained in the second floor of the Imperial
Museum until the completion of the third wing. After the completion of the last
block in 1907, the archaeological collections exhibited in the Tiled Pavilion were
transferred to the new building660 (Figure 198). The Tiled Pavilion was restored661
and dedicated to the display of Islamic Arts.662 With the placement of the Islamic
arts collection in the Tiled Pavilion,663 a relation between the objects on display and
their architectural venue was established (Figure 199). While the archaeological
objects were placed in the neoclassical museum building, the Islamic arts collection
was associated with the Tiled Pavilion, an ultimate representation of Islamic art itself
as stated by Halil Edhem:664
The Tiled Pavilion, the ancient and perhaps the most beautiful Ottoman
monument in Constantinople, is entirely dedicated to the Islamic Art and thus
forms one of the interesting collections of this kind.
658 The Islamic Collections opened in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts in 1890 from Gürol Öngören,
“Displaying Cultural Heritage, Defining Collective Identity: Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire
to The Early Turkish Republic,” 134.
659 Centre des Archives diplomatiques de Nantes, 26.8.1906, no.26.
"Les journeaux de Constantinople viennent de publier, sous la date 29 Safer 1324 / 10 Avril 1322 un
nouveau règlement soit appelé etre appliqué presque exclusivement aux sujets étrangers, le
Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman s'est dispensé de proposer une entente préalable avec missions
étrangeères à laquelle est subordonnée cependent sa mise en vigueur quand aux sujets étrangers."
660 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 126.
661 BEO.3169.237632 (19.10.1907) Çinili Köşkün masarif-i tamiriyesi
662 Gürol Öngören, “Museums from the Late Ottoman Empire to The Early Turkish Republic,” 132.
663 BOA MF.MKT.972.24 (8.1.1907) Müze-i Hümayun yeni dairesi teşhir için camekan ve kaidelerin
imali ve başka yere geçici konulan İslami eserlerin Çinili Köşke nakli.
664 Halil Edhem, Das osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel, 372.
"Der Tschinili-Köschk, das altese und vielleicht das schönste Monument des osmanischen Zeit in
konstantinopel, ist ganzlich der islamichen Kunst zugeteilt und bildet somit eine der interessenten
Sammlungen dieser Art."
310
This correlation between the objects on display and the venue of display was also
praised in the 1910 publication of Coufoupoulos' guidebook of Constantinople: 665
Chinili Kiosk, or China Pavilion, is a very important monument in the history
of Turkish architecture, of which it is the earliest example. It is used now as a
Museum, and it is well worth a visit. Holders of tickets to the Museum proper
are entitled to a free visit to this building as well. The objects in it are of pure
Muhammadan and Turkish art, and they mostly consist of objects of the
decorative art.
Figure 198. The antiquities collection in the Tiled Pavilion before it was dedicated
to the Islamic Arts collection (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümü)
Figure 199. The Islamic Arts collection in the Tiled Pavilion (Halil Edhem, Das
Osmanische Antikenmuseum in Kostantinopel, 1909)
665 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 119.
311
An article on the Imperial Museum published at İçtihad, reflects a striking difference
of perception, between archaeological collections in the new museum building
versus the Islamic collections in the Tiled Pavilion. According to this article, in the
wide and spacious halls of the "New Museum", each masterpiece was displayed to
communicate its intrinsic value and significance. On the contrary, the Islamic arts
collection in the Tiled Pavilion created an impression that the visitor was at the
private saloon of an art loving person from the intelligentsia (bakanlara bir müzeden
ziyade kibar halktan mütehabir ve sanata heveskar bir zatın husussi salonunda
bulunmakta oldukları hissini telkin eder).666 The non-linear or non-chronological
display of objects, displayed without any museal discourse or classification in the
halls of the Tiled Pavilion, and the lack of cords separating the audience from the
objects on display, suggests that the configuration of the Tiled Pavilion must have
created a sense of familiarity and identification with the collection. This
epistemological and museal distinction between the archaeological collections and
the Islamic arts collection became even more evident during the Second
Constitutional era and eventually the Islamic Arts collection was separated from the
archaeology museum and had its own museum with the foundation of Islamic Arts
Museum (Evkaf-ı İslamiyye Müzesi) at the Süleymaniye complex in 1918.667
666 İçtihat, 23, no 235, 4473-4474 (1.9.1927)
"Bu yeni müzede salonlar geniş ve ziyadardır. Zeki bir el her abideye her bir heykele her parçaya
layık oldugu mahali tahsis ve tayin etmiş, her salonda bir şaheser kendi kıymetini belli edecek şekilde
teşhir olunmuş olduğu için, enzarı celb etmektedir. Ehemmiyetli olan eser kendiliğinden göze
çarpıyor. Daha az mühim olan parçalar şeklen veya tarihen münasebatdar oldukları başlıca eserin
etrafında toplu bulunuyor. . . .
Bu küçük köşkün her bir kısmında küme küme nefais bulunmaktadırki bunlar bakanlara bir müzeden
ziyade kibar halktan mütehabir ve sanata heveskar bir zatın husussi salonunda bulunmakta oldukları
hissini telkin eder. Solgun rekli eski halılar, garip ve hoş şekillerde kadim musuki sazları, parlak tüylü
bir tavuskuşunun yandan görünmekte olduğu bir mermer çeşmenin cazip çini safhaları ve renkleri,
ipek gibi yumuşak mensucat, kalemkar işi fanuslar, çini ve fafuriler, bakır ibrikler, altın ve gümüş tel
kakılı silahlar, bütün bunlar latif ve ferah-bahş bir heyet teşkil etmektedir."
667 Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 39100; Eldem, “The Genesis
of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts.”; Öz, Ahmet Fethi Paşa ve müzeler.
312
4.3.3 A statement of civilization
Both the Imperial Museum and the School of Fine Arts represented the modern face
of the empire and were positioned as symbols of progress and civilization. Even
though the founding documents of the School of Fine Arts praised national art and
promised to rejuvenate forgotten Ottoman arts and crafts, both its educational
program, which featured instructors of non-Muslim, Levantine or European origin,
and the architectural style of its building strictly followed the French Beaux-Arts
tradition. The school educated a generation of young architects and artists that would
shape the cultural milieu of the late Ottoman empire and the Turkish Republic yet to
come.
The Imperial Museum, on the other hand, physically and symbolically
detached from its predecessor collections of ancient weapons and ancient costumes
at St. Irene, focused solely on archaeological objects. The Imperial Museum, even
though placed within its walls, was disconnected from the Topkapı Palace,
physically, administratively, and discursively. From its staff to its architectural
morphology, from the catalogue of the collections to its rich library, from its spatial
arrangement to display techniques, the Imperial Museum took Western institutions as
a model, and within a short period of time began to compete with the major museums
of Europe (Figure 200-Figure 201). As stated in The Independent, which praised
Osman Hamdi and positioned Imperial Museum as a world class museum:668
Hamdi Bey is a thorough artist, more in love, as he himself says, with his art
than antiques. . . . He is the first Turk who has devoted his life to science and
to art, and the progress which has been made during the last ten years is very
striking. Such a museum as this may in the future be equal to any in the
world.
668 Prince, "Biblical Research: Archaeology in Turkey", 16.
313
According to Edhem Eldem, the Imperial Museum was a project of modernity and
Westernization, and under the directorate of Osman Hamdi the institution became the
quintessence of modernity in a short period of time.669 Both Osman Hamdi and the
Imperial Museum were acknowledged with numerous medals, warrants and honorary
doctorates by prestigious scientific and archaeological institutions of Europe and
America.670 1902 edition of Coufoupoulos stated that:671
During the last fifteen years the Museum of Antiquities at Constantinople
has, as an institution, acquired a far more important character than it
previously possessed. Its present importance is due entirely to its able
director, His Excellency Hamdi Bey, and to his Imperial Majesty Sultan
Abdülhamid II, who, ever since the accession to throne, had done his utmost
to foster in his subjects a taste for the fine arts, both ancient and modern.
Figure 200. The New Museum across the Tiled Pavillion (Halil Edhem, Das
Osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel, 1909)
669 Eldem, Osman Hamdi Bey Sözlüğü, 396.
670 Eldem, 415–18.
671 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1902, 91.
314
Figure 201. Interior of the Imperial Museum and the state-of-the-art display units
(İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız Albümü)
The Ottoman press of the time also praised Osman Hamdi and Abdülhamid II for
their roles in the formation of the School of Fine Arts and Imperial Museum.
According to a 1906 article of Servet-i Fünun both institutions were symbols of
progress and acclaimed for the perfection of the museum in reaching the European
standards.672 While Servet-i Fünun was the primary source updating the Ottoman
audience about the works of Osman Hamdi and progress of the School of Fine Arts
and the Imperial Museum, other newspapers and journals, such as İkdam, Sabah,
Mekteb, Tedrisat Mecmuası, Şehbal, İctihad, Darülfünun Edebiyat Fakültesi
Mecmuası, Edebiyat-ı Umumiye Mecmuası, Malumat, Beyan-ül Hak also covered
news and articles on these institutions and Osman Hamdi.
672 Servet-i Fünun, no. 813, 9 Teşrinisani 1322 (22.11.1906)
"İcraat-ı saibe eseri olarak Müze-i Hümayun, Avrupa müzelerinin pek çoğuna reşk-aver olarak bir
derece-i mükemmeliyete isar olunmuş ve müze-i Hümayun devr-i terakkisi ve suret-i tesis ve ihdası,
derece-i ehemmiyeti o makalede izah edilmiş ve müzenin devair-i muhtelifesiyle ihtiva ettiği asar-ı
atikanın en mühimleri gösterilmişdir. Osman Hamdi . . . geceli gündüzlü sarf-ı mesai ederk gerek
Müze-i Hümayun ve gerek Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebinin teali ve terakkisini saye-i füyüzat-vaye-i hazreti
mülukanede temine muvaffak olmuşlardır."
315
Wendy Shaw argues that the Imperial Museum was a manifestation of the
Ottoman possession over antiquities, both challenging the Orientalist misconceptions
of the West by appropriating European notions of art, archeology, and museology.
According to Shaw, one of the targets of the museum was to educate Ottomans,
providing a sense of identity and affiliation with Western history and epistemology.
However, whether the museum was open to local visitors, or to what extend it was
visited is still an unanswered question. As of today, no visitor records have been
found documenting the number of visits or the identity of visitors to the Imperial
Museum. An article published in Şehbal pointed out that this small museum was
solely dedicated to archaeology, thus it was open only to the use of foreign visitors,
rather than the Ottomans. The article also claimed that even the enlightened and
intellectual sections of society were kept away from the museum.673 An archival
document dated 1890 mentioned the need for guides who knew Turkish, French, and
Greek, because the majority of the visitors coming to the museum were foreign
tourists and servants with foreign language abilities needed to be appointed.674
There are numerous Ottoman newspaper and journal articles praising the
progress of the museum and the works of Osman Hamdi, however most of these
articles do not include personal perceptions or memoirs of Ottomans visiting the
museum. The foreign travel accounts and the guidebooks of the era, however, give us
an idea about the perception of the Imperial Museum by European or American
tourists.
673 "Sanayi-i Nefise Müzeler ve Meşherler, Şehbal, 29.7.1913, 138.
"Gerçi memleketimizde - daha bunlardan bahs olunmadığı dönemde - Hamdi Bey merhumun himmet-i
bilindi ile vücuda gelen küçük bir müze var ise de, yalnız asar-ı atikaya münhasır bulunduğu için
bundan biz değil, ecanib istifade etmekde ve İstanbul ahalisinin münevver kısmı arasında bile pek çok
zevat mutebaid kalmakdadırlar."
674 BOA MF.MKT.118.66 (7 Z 1307 / 25.6.1890)
"Müzede mevzu mevki-i teşhir olan asar-ı atikayı ziyaret için gelen zevatın kısm-ı azamı ecnebi
seyyahlar olup her halde lisan-ı aşina bir hademenin istihdamına lüzum-ı kati..."
316
In 1884, M. de Blowitz stated that "Constantinople has this immense
advantage of not having a museum, or at least of having one so insignificant that you
are not being pushed too hard to visit it."675 On the contrary, The Times article from
1886 pitied the ruined status of Constantinople but praised the Imperial Museum by
Osman Hamdi while comparing it with the Imperial Treasury within the Topkapı
Palace, favoring the latter.676 Only after the discovery of the sarcophagi from Sidon
and after the construction of the new museum building did the Imperial Museum
start attracting the attention of Europeans.
For instance, during his city tour, M.W. Hoyt, in addition to the Imperial
Museum, visited the Janissary Museum, St. Sophia, the 1001 Cistern, and had a boat
tour. Not impressed with the museum collection except for the sarcophagus of
Alexander, he stated that: "At the Museum of Antiquities we saw the original tomb
of Alexander the Great, which has most beautiful and elaborate sculpture. Other than
this, "burst antiquities" expresses it all."677 1895 edition of Noah Brooks guidebook,
after giving a long description of the Imperial Treasury in the Seraglio, also
mentioned that the Imperial Museum "should be visited, if possible" for a small
admission fee. Praising the richness of the collection and the Sarcophagi of
Alexander, the guidebook recommended its readers to take guidance from the
custodian in exchange for a small gratuity.678 Published in 1903, Macmillian's Guide
to Eastern Mediterranean, also provided modest information on the museum and
listed the origins of the collection located in various halls of the museum.679 Edwin
A. Grosvenor dedicated the last chapter of his travel account to the Imperial Museum
and praised the advanced state of the Ottomans in comparison to other Muslim
675 De Blowitz, Une Course a Constantinople, 114.
676 The Times, 27.12.1886.
677 Hoyt, A cruise on the Mediterranean or Glimpses of the Old World, 77.
678 Brooks, The Mediterranean Trip, 129–30.
679 Macmillian's Guides Eastern Mediterranean, 169.
317
states, acclaiming the role of Abdülhamid II and his appreciation of antiquity.
Providing a detailed account of the objects in display, Grosvenor stated that: 680
The Museum has marvelously expanded during recent years. It comprises the
objects stored in the two buildings, and a vast number of coarser and less
destructible monuments which pack the extended area around. This area is
covered with columns: stelae, sarcophagi, statues, votive tablets, and an
immense variety of memorials of the past.
According to the 1910 edition of Coufoupoulos, the principal sights in
Constantinople included the Imperial Museum of Antiquities, the Church of St.
Irene, the Imperial Treasury, the Museum of Ancient Costumes in the Hippodrome,
and the Yıldız Palace of the recently dethroned Abdülhamid II. According to this
guidebook, the Imperial Museum of Antiquities was situated in the Old Seraglio
grounds, and was open every day except on Fridays.681 Isolated from the Topkapı
Palace, the museum was positioned as a center of fine arts, science, and archaeology
and opened its doors to foreign researchers and tourists, rather than to the Ottoman
population. The school-museum compound was supported by the state as a political
initiative as a manifestation of the Westernization and modernization of the Ottoman
Empire (Figure 202). The director of the museum with his education, background,
Westernized life style, language skills, and close relationship with Europe, was
promoted as the protagonist of the emergence of these modern institutions and even
glorified as a heroic figure. The Imperial Museum, as an autonomous entity reflected
the contrasting identities of the late Ottoman elites, which will be scrutinized in
detail in the following chapter.
680 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 776
681 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1902.
318
Figure 202. The cover of Servet-i Fünun after the death of Osman Hamdi (Servet-i
Fünun, 984, 4 Rebiülevvel 1328 / 14 Nisan 1910)
4.4 Performing the Oriental-self: The Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun)
“Padişah hazine ile dür, hazine ise reaya ile dür.
Reaya olmayınca hazine, hazine olmayınca kul olmaz
ve kul olmayınca Padişah olunmaz” (Mehmet Halife, h.1340, 38)
The December 8, 1885 issue of The Times published an article titled "The Sultan's
Art Treasury" by J.C. Robinson and asked "[W]here in the world could there be a
greater attraction for the art lover and the archaeologist than the Sultan's treasure
house at Constantinople?"682 As mentioned above, a year later, on December 12,
682 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885. I am grateful to prof. Dr. Edhem
Eldem for bringing thsi article to my attention.
319
1886, a correspondent referring to the same article compared the Imperial Museum at
Constantinople with the Imperial Treasury of the Sultan: "The great museum of
Constantinople, though it is not so styled, is of course, the Sultan's Treasury in the
Seraglio." To this he added a critical comment: "I need not attempt a detailed account
of the extraordinary treasures of precious stones and jewelled swords, daggers and
aigrettes, and figured brocades which I saw there– as well as the bad arrangement
and worse lighting enabled me to see anything" stating the low quality of the
display.683 The comparison and distinction between the Imperial Museum and the
Imperial Treasury, both located within the grounds of the Topkapı Palace, revealed
different display strategies of the Ottomans during the Hamidian era. However, I
argue that the Topkapı Palace and its royal collections were the major point of
attraction for the Europeans visiting the city, rather than the archeological collections
displayed at the Imperial Museum (Figure 203).
Figure 203. St. Irene, Imperial Museum and the Topkapı Palace (Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, 1918, D-DAI-IST-3929)
683 "The Treasury in the Seraglio", The Times, 27.12.1886.
320
4.4.1 The treasuries of the Topkapı Palace
Like all imperial and dynastic institutions, the Ottomans collected and kept objects of
economic, symbolic, religious, or institutional value, which varied from jewelry to
books, sacred relics to European paintings, weapons to coins, and gifts to clothing.
The Ottoman palace was the main venue for collecting, storing, preserving, and
sometimes displaying these objects of symbolic, financial, or memorial significance.
The word “hazine” came from the root “HZN" and the words hazin, mahzen, hazne,
hizane are derivatives of this root. According to the Arabic-English Lexicon,
"hazine" is related to the verbs “to reposite, to store, to put, to keep, to preserve, to
guard. “Hizane” means a small chamber within a large chamber; a place in which
things are reposited, stowed, laid up, kept, preserved, or guarded; a repository; a
magazine; a store-room. In the same dictionary “hizane-i kütüb” is translated as a
library, or a bookcase and “hizane-i silah” translated as an armory.684 According to
the Encyclopedia of Islam, khazine is defined as the place where the state's cash and
resources were kept.685 An entry in İslam Ansiklopedisi states that the word "hazine"
was commonly used in Islamic states and also in the Seljukid context as a place for
keeping money, clothing, armory, valuable stables, and jewelry. In the Ottoman
context it is defined as the place where cash, precious objects, and documents of the
state were being kept and preserved. 686 Mustafa Ali defined “hazine” as a place
where official and/or private money, jewels, and various other valuables were
kept.687 According to Ahmet Vefik, the word in popular usage gradually took the
form of khazne, and came to be used as a place for storing any kind of goods or for
684 Lane, “HZN”, Arabic-English Lexicon, 734.
685 "Khazine", Encyclopedia of Islam IV, 1183-1186.
686 Orhonlu, “Hazine” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., v.17, 131.
687 "Khazine", Encyclopedia of Islam IV, 1183-1186.
321
storing water.688 In Kamus-ı Osmani the definition of the word "hazine" is as a "very
strong and sturdy depot for putting and keeping money and goods".689
Pakalın stated that the Ottoman state owned two treasures: the Outer Treasury
(Hazine-i Birun) and the Inner Treasury (Hazine-i Enderun).690 The Outer Treasury
belonged to the state and the Inner Treasury was the personal possession of the
sultan. Late Ottoman sources refer to the Inner Treasury as Hazine-i Hümayun and to
the outer treasury as Hazine-i Amire. According to Pakalın, there were two types of
valuables in these treasuries, the objects of material and tangible value and objects of
intangible value, such as the sacred relics or swords of warrior sultans etc.691 There
existed several treasures within the Topkapı Palace that were differentiated from the
rest of the buildings with their architectural configurations, which reflected the
significance of their content. Most of these treasures were in the second and third
courts of the palace and manifested the imperial significance of the royal collections
through their architectural and decorative aspects.
The outer treasury (hazine-i birun / dış hazine) is located at the second court
of the palace, next to the Council Hall. The structure rests at the spatial intersection
of inner sections (harem and enderun) and outer sections (birun) of the palace. The
still extant outer treasury is a strong masonry structure defined with eight domes
sitting on octagonal drums, and its simple façade contrasts with the richly
ornamented and marble covered façade of the Council Hall (Figure 204). There are
several niches embedded in the ground, which were used for keeping gold and silver
688 Ibid.
689 Kamus-i Osmani, “Nukud ve emval konulup saklanacak muhkem, rasin ambar ve saire. Mecazen
her şeyin kesretle bulunduğu yere de ıtlak olunur.” cited in Pakalın, Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve
terimleri sözlüğü 1, 785.
690 During the institutional reforms of Mahmud II, the chief treasurer (hazinedar kethüdası) became
the head of the Enderun organization and was responsible from the internal functioning of the palace
and pages.
691 Pakalın, Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü 1, 789.
322
coins.692 This relatively large structure once had a wooden gallery inside, which is
shown in the Gurlitt Plan and also had large eaves projecting towards the second
court as depicted in D'Ohsson’s painting of the second court.
Figure 204. The Tower of Justice and the Outer Treasury after the renovations of
1967-68 (TSMA)
Contrary to orientalist preconceptions, the Ottoman state was based on a written
bureaucratic system, and the Ottomans were keen to keep and preserve the official
written documents of the state. These documents were treated as a kind of state
treasury and the term hazine-i evrak (imperial archives) referred to both the
documents and also to the place where the documents were kept693 (Figure 205).
These documents were placed next to the Council Hall until the nineteenth century
and after Tanzimat,694 a significant portion of the archival documents were moved to
the Sublime Porte following the construction of the new archive building (Hazine-i
692 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 87.
693 During the reign of Murad III (1574-1595), the treasury function of Yedikule came to an end, and
it was converted into a prison. The valuables and archives within Yedikule were gradually transferred
to the Topkapı Palace. See, Köseoğlu, Topkapı Sarayı İmparatorluk Hazinesi, 13–15.
694 Çetin, “Osmanlı Arşivlerinin Tarihçesi,” 63.; Akyıldız, Osmanlı bürokrasisi ve modernleşme, 142.
323
Evrak) by Italian architect Fossati.695 However the Defterhane archives stayed intact
and the private archive of the sultan and his family continued to be preserved in the
Topkapı Palace together with the Hazine-i Hümayun documents that were kept in the
basement floor of the Imperial Treasury until the Republican era, and created the
basis of today's Topkapı Palace Museum Archives.696
Figure 205. Defterhane Treasury and the state archives next to the Council Hall
(2016)
The Treasury of the Harnesses (Raht Hazinesi) is located at the second court of the
Topkapı Palace, next to the imperial stables (has ahırlar), where the most precious
saddles and harnesses, the ones made of precious metals and decorated with precious
695 Akyürek, Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek; Erkmen, Geç Osmanli Dünyasında Mimarlık ve Hafıza :
Arşiv, Jübile, Âbide; Özlü, “Tanzimat'ın Mimarları: Fossati Biraderler".
696 According to Ülkü Altındağ, these documents were found in the basement of the Imperial Treasury
during the renovations of 1914 and later transferred to the palace library in 1925 after the foundation
of the Republic. Later, the archival documents were found in the apartment of the Chief Black Ennuch
in the Harem and other documents found in various parts and depots of the palace were added to the
Hazine-i Hümayun Evrakı collection, composing the Archives of the Topkapı Palace Museum today.
Altındağ, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi,” 117.
324
stones were kept in.697 These valuable pieces were kept in the Treasury of the
Harnesses, which was architecturally differentiated from other buildings of the
imperial stables with its large dome and interior decoration, reflecting its imperial
significance (Figure 207). John Murray, in his travel guide dated 1840, mentioned
this treasury in the second court of the palace:698
Noone but Grand Signior himself enters this court on horseback, and
therefore the little stable is in this place, but there is not room for above thirty
horses: over-head they keep the harness, than which nothing can be richer in
jewels and embroidery.
However, this treasury lost its importance after the abandonment of the Topkapı
Palace and fell into ruin during the course of the nineteenth century.699 During the
Republican era, the Treasury of the Harnesses and the Imperial Stables were
renovated and opened for visits displaying the valuable saddles and harnesses700
(Figure 206).
Figure 206. Display of harnesses and stables in the Treasury of Harnesses
(Republican era, TSMA)
697 Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Develtinin Saray Teşkilâtı, 508.
698 Murray (publishers), Hand-Book for Travellers in the Ionian Islands, Greece, Turkey, Asia Minor,
and Constantinople, 158.
699 Bikkul, "Topkapı Sarayında Has Ahır", 118-131; Öz, "Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Onarımları", 6-74 in
Güzel Sanatlar 6, 1949.
700 Karahasan, “Topkapı Sarayı Cumhuriyet Dönemi Restorasyonları.”
325
Figure 207. Treasury of the Harnesses and the Imperial Stables (Öz, Güzel Sanatlar
6, 1949, 17)
Books, manuscripts, and illustrated albums were among the valuable objects that
were collected and preserved by the Ottoman sultans in the Topkapı Palace.701 The
initial place for storing, preserving, and sometimes displaying these items was the
Imperial Treasury located at the third court of the palace. Gülru Necipoğlu, based on
the treasury registers from 1496 and onwards demonstrates that that the Inner
Treasury was used for keeping books and manuscripts written in Arabic, Persian,
Turkish, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Italian, Jewish, and in Syriac.702 According to
Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, the treasury library was defined as hizane-i kütüb meaning
the "treasury of books" during the era of Mehmed II.703 Julian Raby summarizes the
aspects of architectural patronage of Mehmed II and attests that the library was an
integral part of the treasury in the Ottoman palace. 704
701 Erünsal, Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik, 96.
702 Erünsal, 97.; Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 135–37.
703 "Molla Lutfi was recommended to Mehmet II when the sultan was looking for a trustworthy
scholar for his hizâne-i kütüb (lit., “treasury of books)" in Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli, Künhü’l-Ahbâr,
Fatih Sultan Mehmed Devri: 1451-1481 v. 2, ed. M. Hüdai Şentürk (Ankara, 2003), 20, cited in
Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 136; Sezer, “The Architecture of Bibliophilia.”
704 Julian Raby provides details about the nature of Mehmed II's library. Tracking the sixteen Greek
manuscripts found in the "Saray" library, Raby states that these manuscripts were produced in the
326
Figure 208. Baghdad Kiosk's library section (Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of
Congress)
The books or manuscripts kept within the Imperial Treasury were used and circulated
among palace servants and pages.705 Each palace school (enderun ocağı) also had a
small library of its own where Qurans and other books and manuscripts were kept.706
There was also the library of the Sacred Relics (Emanet Hazinesi Kütüphanesi), the
Medine library, the libraries of Baghdad and Revan Kiosks, and Mehmed V and
Tiryal Hamım libraries in the Topkapı Palace707 (Figure 208).
palace during the era of Mehmed II, particularly between 1460 and 1480. Raby, “A Sultan of
Paradox.”; Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror’s Greek Scriptorium.”
705 Sezer, “The Architecture of Bibliophilia.”; Fetvacı, Picturing History at the Ottoman Court.
706 In total, 1,235 books from various departments and wards created the “Koğuşlar Kitaplığı” section
of the Topkapı Palace Library. Apart from the Imperial Treasury collection, there existed other
collections in the palace as well, such as the Revan Kiosk Library with 2083 books, the Baghdad
Kiosk Library with 415 books, the Emanat Hazinesi Library with Qurans and vakıfnames, the Medine
Library with 566 books, and the Mehmed V and Tiryal Hanım collections with 1130 manuscripts. All
these separate palace collections were brought together in the New Library (Enderun Camii) in the
second court of the Topkapı Palace after the foundation of the Republic and formed the Topkapı
Palace Library. Öğütmen, "Topkapı Sarayı’nda Kütüphaneler".
707 Baykal, "Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kitaplıkları" in Güzel Sanatlar 6, 1949, 75-90.
327
Figure 209. The Library of Ahmed III (1920’s, TSMA)
Only by the early-eighteenth century was a separate library building constructed in
the Topkapı Palace. The Library of Ahmed III was built in 1719 in the third court as
a free-standing pavilion (Figure 209). Silahdar Fındıklı Mehmed Ağa, in
Nusretname, gives a detailed description of the construction of the library and stated
that the valuable books from the Inner Treasury, from the treasury of the Privy
Chamber, and from some parts of the Harem were transferred to this new library.708
Three thousand books and manuscripts were transferred from the treasury to the
library and bound with the aim of serving the palace pages and the sultan himself.709
The structure with a central dome has three iwans and the building was
elaborately decorated, reflecting the elegant architectural vocabulary of the Tulip
Period and the importance given to the library. One of the iwans of the structure was
dedicated for the use by the sultan and extensively decorated (Figure 210). There are
several niches on the library walls for bookshelves, however recent restoration works
708 Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa, Nusretnâme, C.II, Sadeleştiren: İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, Milli
Eğitim Basımevi, İstanbul.1966, C.II, s.384-385.
709 Erünsal, Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik, 181.
328
suggest that these niches were not original, but were carved into the walls after the
construction of the building. Four lead filled holes in the middle of the main hall
proves that the hazine-i kütüb was located in the middle of the library as a freestanding
unit.710 The Imperial Library held an extensive collection of books and
manuscripts and attracted the attention of Europeans, who were interested in antique
Greek manuscripts. Starting with the nineteenth century some exclusive permits were
given to foreign scholars to conduct research in the Imperial Library.711
Figure 210. Interior of the Library of Ahmed III (Öz, "La Bibliothéque Du Palais De
Topkapı", La Turquie Kemaliste 45, 1941)
710 Yavuz Sezer provides in depth information regarding various libraries and book collections that
existed in the Topkapı Palace, and points out this type of book storage units. Sezer, “The Architecture
of Bibliophilia.”
711 Erünsal, Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik, 99. Foreign researchers could gain access
to the palace library only after the second half of the nineteenth century. For example, after the
Crimean war and with the help of Russian Ambassador, Constantin von Tischendorftu conducted
research at the palace library and found Kritoboulos' renowned work on Mehmed II. The king of
Hungary also sent a committee to conduct research at the Imperial Library.
329
Another significant structure in the third court of the palace was used for keeping and
preserving a special kind of treasury: the sacred relics. This building was constructed
as a Privy Chamber for Mehmed II. The royal structure was composed of four domed
units, located between the hanging gardens and the enderun section of the palace.
The Privy Chamber was used as the main residence of the Ottoman sultans until the
late-sixteenth century.712 The royal bedroom or the throne room was located at a
superior location overlooking the opening to the Marble Sofa and has a higher dome.
During the same period, Selim I brought sacred relics from his conquest of Egypt
and the Privy Chamber was renovated as a relic treasury,713 though it continued to
function as the location of daily activities of the sultans such as dining, reading,
entertainment, etc.714 During the late-sixteenth century, with the expansion of the
Harem and its reorganization under the Black Eunuchs, Ottoman sultans gradually
shifted their residence from the male section to the female section.715 The collection
of relics has expanded over the years and over time the collection began to be
referred to as the Treasury of the Privy Chamber (Has Oda Hazinesi) (Figure 211). A
document dated 1790 mentions the existence of jewelry, gold, silver, china
porcelains, glass utensils, together with the Qurans, manuscripts and plates kept in
the chamber of holy mantle.716
712 Necipoğlu, “The Formation of an Ottoman Imperial Tradition”, 401.
713 Yavuz Selim I brought the sacred relics, the symbols of the caliphate, from Egypt, but except for a
few precious items directly related to the prophet or the caliphs, these objects were kept in the Inner
Treasury.
714 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 150.
715 The Enderun of the Topkapı Palace was made up of three sections: male and female, plus the
walled-in garden. All three sections, as the residential area of the sultan and his family and his pages,
are often referred to as "Harem-i Hümayun".
716 BOA TS.MA.d.9 (1204 Z 29 / 31.8.1790) Hasoda hazinesinde mevcut mücevherler: Altın, gümüş,
fağfur ve billur evani, Hırka-i Şerif odasındaki Kur'anlar, bazı kitap ve levhalar, Enderun hazinesinden
hasodaya naklolunan mücevher esya ile Defter Emini Veliyüddin Efendi ve Selanik Mutasarrıfı
Ahmed Pasa muhallefatından satın alınan esyalar, I. Abdülhamid'in oğlu Sehzade Mehmed'in
vefatıyla hazineye gelen esya vesaire.
330
Figure 211. Galleries of the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the third court (TSMA)
The sacred relics were also circulated and displayed at various parts of the empire,
thus the sacred relics collection was constantly enriched, displayed, and circulated,
similar to a proto-museum.717 A very interesting document, dated 1911 is a printed
(matbu) text, which begins with a summary stating that: “From now on, it will not be
possible to send the sacred hair of the Prophet” (b’ad-ezin mu-yi mübarek irsali
mümkün olamayacağına dair). According to this document there are only 19 sacred
hairs left in the treasury of sacred relics (emanet-i celile-i hazinesi) (Figure 212).
However, a document dated 1914 proves that the distribution of the prophet’s hair to
the provinces continued. The circulation and display of sacred relics was a political
decision and the circulation of sacred relics within the provinces could be used as a
717 BOA A.MKT.MHM.24034 (1279 Ra 21 /18.9.1862) Yeni kisve-i serifin (Kabe örtüsü)
gönderilerek ait oldugu yere konuldugu, eskisinin de geçici olarak Ebu Eyüb el-Ensari'nin Türbesine
konulması ve ziyaret ettirildikten sonra Hırka-i Şerif dairesi'ne gönderilmesi.
BOA BEO.3575.268076 (26 CA 1327 / 2 Haziran 1325 / 15.06.1909)
“Ravza-i mutahhara-i hazret-i nebevi sitare-i atikasının dersa'adete getirilmek üzere Medine-i
münevvereden yola çıkarıldığı maruzat-ı vakia'dan malum-i ali olarak mezkur sitare-i şerifenin
dersaadete vusulünde doğruca hazret-i Halid türbe-i münifesine vaz'ıyla bir kaç ahali tarafından
ziyaret ediltikten sonra li ecl-ül hıfz Hırka-i Saadet daire-i fahiresine nakli…”
331
tool for legitimizing and also displaying imperial power in the late-Ottoman
context.718
Figure 212. The printed text from 1911 rejecting the demands for sacred hair
(DH.HMŞ.28.14 (26 R 1329 /13.04.1327)
As explained in the previous chapter, particularly after the Ottoman sultans moved
from the Topkapı Palace, visits to the sacred relics became a public spectacle and
were held as an official procession. The list of invitees, sultan’s route to the Topkapı
Palace, and the protocol were carefully organized before this ceremonial visit. Apart
from the Ottoman dynasty, this sacred chamber was a point of curiosity and wonder
for both Muslim and non-Muslim visitors. For example, in 1855, at the insistent
demand of the Austrian dignitary to enter the Chamber of Sacred Relics while
718 BOA DH.İD.33.60 (1 Ş 1330 / 14.07.1914)
“Zonguldak'ta daire-i hükümet karşısında kain yeni cami-i şerif minberine teberrüken ve teyemmüren
vaz' olunmak üzre lihye-i sa'adet ihsan ve ihdası hakkında mahalli meclis idaresinden bil-tanzim Bolu
mutasarafflığından tesyin olunan mazbata…”
332
visiting other parts of the Topkapı Palace was denied, the refusal created a smallscale
diplomatic scandal.719 According to another document dated 1858, the demand
of a Muslim Russian military officer from Crimea to visit the Chamber of Sacred
Relics was denied due to the fact that the holy chamber was solely open to the visit
of Harem members and only on special days.720
After the declaration of the Second Constitution the Chamber of Sacred
Relics was opened to visits for some Muslim notables apart from the month of
Ramadan.721 A document dated 1909 mentions that tickets were printed for those
invited to the ceremonial visits to Chamber of Sacred Relics during the fifteenth of
Ramadan.722 Still, even during the Second Constitutional era the holy chamber was
kept closed to the eyes of infidels until the collapse of the empire. For instance, the
permit was given to German scholar Cornelius Gurlitt to conduct research in all parts
of the Topkapı Palace excluded the Chamber of Sacred Relics and the palace
archives.723 Thus, it could be argued that the Chamber of Sacred Relics was
719 BOA HR.SYS.205.8 (19 S 1272 / 31.10.1855)
"Avusturya devleti askeri zabitanından beyzadenin Topkapı Saray-ı muallasını seyir-ü temaşa
eylemesini emr-i seniyyelerine imtisalen icrada kusur olunmadıysa da maiyetinde bulunan Serkiyan
Dokuvasil tazyikiyle Hırka-i Saadet odasına girilmesine ve sair mahallere bakılmasına ikdam ve
arzuyane muamele gösterilmesi bu dahi rey-i aliyelerine muhalif göründüğünden mani' olunmuş ve
bundan böyle misafir vukuunda lütfen ve ihsanen ve dirayetlice bendegandan terkin buyurulması
niyazı babında emrü ferman hazreti men lehul emrindir..."
720 BOA HR.MKT.270.91 (12 Ca 1275 / 31.12.1858)
"Kırım ahaliyi müslümandan ve Rusya ordusu asakiri zabitandan Ali Ağa bugün Dersaadet'e gelerek
çend nefer rüfekasıyla beraber Hırka-ı Saadet dairesini ziyaret arzusunda bulunmuş olub işbu daire-i
muhteremenin harem ve ahalisi ile eyyam-ı mahsusundan ma'ada günlerde ziyaret-i mümkün
olamayıp bunlar hasb-el mücibe bu babda pek ziyade izhar-ı arzu etmekte olduklarına mebni
takriben? müsa-id olan yerlerin mümaileyhe ziyaret ettirilmesi..."
721 BOA İ.HUS.176.56 (1327 / 1909) Trabzon mebuslarının Hırka-i Saadeti ve Hazine-i Hümayun'u
ziyaret etmelerine izin.
722 BOA BEO.3642.273091 (1327 N 13 / 28.9.1909)
"Hırka-i Serif ziyareti resminde hazır bulunmak üzere ramazan-ı şerifin onbeşinci günü Topkapı
Sarayı Hümayununa davet olunacak zevata verilmek için tab ettirilecek olan biletler esmanının
dahiliye tahsisatı meyanından bulunan masarif-i tabiye tertibinden tesviyesi."
723 BOA BEO.3741.280510 (19 R 1328 / 31.3.1910)
BOA İ.MBH.2.13 (19 R 1328 / 31.3.1910)
"Mösyö Kornelyus Gurlit [Cornelius Gurlitt] caniblerini Almanya sefaretinin iltiması vechle fen-i
mimari nokta-i nazarından icra-i tedkikat eylemek üzre emanat-ı mübarekenin mahfuz olduğu
mahallerle muharreratın bulunduğu devairden madaa Topkapu Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinin her
tarafını ziyaret etmesi..."
333
positioned as a royal treasury, where sacred collections were collected, kept,
preserved, and displayed to a certain audience only at certain times, particularly after
the palace was abandoned in the nineteenth century.
In fact, almost all the treasuries located in the third court kept their
significance and continued their historical function for housing and preserving the
royal collections throughout the nineteenth century. However, these treasuries
attracted the interest of foreign visitors and gradually opened their doors for touristic
visits and scholarly investigations. During the course of the nineteenth century the
royal collections also began to be displayed, forming the foundation of today's
Topkapı Palace Museum.
4.4.2 The Inner / Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Enderun / Hazine-i Hümayun)
The building known as the Fatih Kiosk or the Inner Treasury is located at the East
corner of the Enderun court and is composed of three rooms, a corner loggia, and
five basement chambers (Figure 213). Three separate entrance portals to the treasury
chambers are linked in the gallery hall opening to the third court. The portals of each
chamber carried a similar morphology, yet the entrance portal of the Divanhane
chamber was distinguished by its size and decorative aspects (Figure 214). The
Imperial Treasury was once attached to the imperial bath of Mehmed II and
composed the Marmara façade of the palace together with the imperial kitchens.
Today only one of the units–the disrobing chamber (camekan/soğukluk)–of this
imperial bath remains; the rest is believed to have been demolished during the
construction of the Seferli apartments in 1719.724
724 The remains of the Great Bath of Mehmed II was found underneath the Seferli Apartments during
the latest excavations held in the Topkapı Palace in 2016-2017.
334
Figure 213. Aerial view of the Topkapı Palace in 1918 and the location of the
Imperial Treasury (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-3929)
Figure 214. Entrance portals of the Treasury chambers and of Fatih's Bath (2016)
The earliest archival sources mentioning the "new treasury" (hazine-i cedid) in the
Ottoman archive is from 1476.725 This document proves that there has been a
treasury in the Topkapı Palace since the era of Mehmed II. Foreign sources such as
Promontorio, Angiolello, Menavino, and Spandugino also confirm the existence of a
725 TSA.D.9813. (h.881/ 1476) cited in Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power.
335
treasury in the third courtyard of the palace.726 Gülru Necipoğlu, based on a
document regarding the restoration of the palace’s waterworks after the earthquake
of 1509 verified that the imperial bath-treasury complex had existed since the
fifteenth century.727 The Fatih Kiosk or the Imperial Treasury reflect the eclectic
architectural taste of Mehmed II with elements borrowed from Byzantine and Italian
architecture, such as round arches, ionic voluted column capitals, checkered marble
floors, an extended balcony, and an impressive loggia overlooking the sea of
Marmara (Figure 215-Figure 216). Uğur Tanyeli, on the other hand, argues that the
treasury went through extensive repairs after the earthquake of 1766, and the voluted
column capitals and the extended balcony should be dated to the eighteenth
century.728
According to French traveller and gem merchant Tavernier, who visited the
palace during the seventeenth century, the ceiling of the colonnade was decorated
with ancient figural frescoes from the Byzantine era.729 Necipoğlu suggests that these
frescoes were not Byzantine remains, as was argued by Tavernier, but reflected the
diverse cultural taste of Mehmed II, providing visual clues about the eclectic
contents of the treasury. Most probably Mehmed II used this complex to store his
personal wealth and to keep and contemplate his extraordinary collection of
valuables, erotica, sacred relics, antique objects, paintings, Greek, Arabic, Persian,
Latin manuscripts, maps, albums, rare objects, and art works–including works of
Gentile Bellini and Costanzo da Ferrara.730 Ali Artun offers that the collection of
Mehmed II was not much different from the collections of the Renaissance princes,
726 Necipoğlu, 177.
727 Necipoglu, “"Virtual Archaeology’’ in Light of a New Document on the Topkapı Palace’s
Waterworks and Earliest Buildings, circa 1509.”
728 Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih Köşkü ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine
Gözlemler.”
729 Tavernier, Tunçdogan, and Sakaoglu, 17. yüzyilda Topkapi Sarayi, 86–87.
730 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 138.
336
similar to a studioli, kunstkammer, wunderkammer, schutzkammern etc., and
reflected the mentality of the early Renaissance era for creating and possessing a
microcosm.731
Figure 215. The Şahnişin or the extended balcony of the Inner Treasury (Ali Saim
Ülgen Arşivi, SALT Research) / Loggia of the Imperial Treasury (Turkish Cultural
Foundation, Nurhan Atasoy Archive)
Figure 216. The gallery of the Inner Treasury with rounded arches and ionic volute
column capitals (TSMA)
731 Artun and Akman, Tarih sahneleri - Sanat müzeleri, 105.
337
The inner treasury is composed of two levels. There are three chambers and a loggia
at the ground level, and five additional chambers in the basement. One can reach the
basement through hidden stairs located in the first and second chambers (Figure
217). Two large connected basement halls with barrel vaults can be reached from the
second chamber (Divanhane) by a narrow stair. The other three units, which are
much smaller and also covered with barrel vaults, can be reached from the first
domed chamber (Figure 218). The smallest chamber in the lower basement is
covered with a cross vault and is believed to be an ancient Byzantine Baptistery. The
clover shaped marble pool (vaftiz teknesi) of the baptistery remained in the basement
treasury (bodrum hazinesi) at least until the eighteenth century and was described as
a “mermer havuz” (marble pool) in the treasury register of 1716732 (Figure 219).
These basements, called bodrum hazinesi, bodrum-ı amire hazinesi, bodrum-i
ma'mure, are believed to have held chests of jewelry, silver, and gold money.733 The
narrow windows of the basement with double iron railings also support this idea.734
Similarly, the chambers on the ground level are believed to have held other valuable
items ranging from jewelry to thrones, clothing to fabrics, gifts to relics, books to
maps, and clocks to coins.
732 Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı Ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, 105. "Bodrum Hazinesinde
mermer havuz" 1716 (h.1128) Today the marble pool reflecting the four leafed plan of the baptistery
is believed to be located on the Tulip Garden in the 4th court.
733 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 177.
734 As of today we can observe that some of the basement windows of the treasury were enlarged into
a wider rectange, but it is clear that the original windows were culverts, narrow from the outside and
larger from inside, resembling military architecture.
338
Figure 217. Plan of the Imperial Treasury [1-Disrobing chamber of the Grand Bath]
2- Domed treasury room 3- Divanhane with the extended balcony (şahnişin) -
Loggia 4- Last room
Figure 218. Section of the Imperial Treasury and the first chamber of the Bath
According to Angiolello, a Venetian writer and historian from the late-fifteenth
century, several halls of the treasury housed a collection of items including jewels,
gold and silver objects, precious textiles, silk robes, and other valuables.735 An
inventory of the Inner Treasury from the time of Bayezid II (1496) states that various
objects of economic, symbolic, or intrinsic value were stored upstairs (bala-yı
hizane-i amire) including robes, caftans, swords, chessboards, incense burners, belts,
735 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 137.
339
sheets of paper, elephant tusks, rhinoceros horns, shark teeth, arrows, Korans in kufic
attributed to Ali, pillows, floor spreads, prayer carpets, bed sheets, books, table
spreads, shoes, and valuable carpets. Objects stored downstairs (zir-i hizane-i amire)
included ceramic wares of İznik and China, Korans kept in mother-of-pearl chests,
objects of silver and gold, bed sheets, belts, cushions, books and illustrations,
pitchers, metal cups, chandeliers, turbans, velvet, silk, brocade, and wool textiles,
sheets of paper, archival documents and historic calendars, astrolabes and
astronomical instruments, musical instruments, bows and arrows, chessboards,
backgammon sets, incense, lapis lazuli, rosary beads, carpets, and chests full of
miscellaneous objects.736 Another inventory register from 1505 also mentioned
chests full of manuscripts, maps, architectural plans, and revenues from imperial
gardens in addition to the aforementioned items. Other inventories dated 1520737 and
1564, alongside Tavernier’s accounts describing the architectural features and the
contents of the inner treasury, ascertained that it housed a variety of valuable objects
that had financial, symbolic, sentimental, intellectual, or religious value for the
Ottoman dynasty738 (Figure 220). It was the will of Selim I that the Inner Treasury be
locked with his seal until someone brought more fortune than himself. Thus a seal,
with an inscription "Sultan Selim Şah" in the middle and "tevekküli ala haliki"
around it, was used to seal and lock the treasury until the end of the empire.739
736 Öz, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi arşivi kilavuzu., faksimile 21, TSA. D.4; Necipoğlu, Architecture,
Ceremonial, and Power, 137.
737 BOA TS.MA.d.30002 (9 L 926 / 22.09.1520)
“Enderun Hazinesi'nde mevcut Kuran cüzleri, enamlar, puşide ve tirkeşler, kürk ve kaliçalar, Mekke
örtüleri ve seccadeler, perde ve sayebanlar, gümüş evani, ud, def, zurna, tanbur, ney, kemençe,
kalkan, kaşık, çeşitli gemler, saatler, tesbih, hançer, satranç ve II. Bayezid'in oğlu Sultan Ahmed'in bir
sandık içindeki elbise ve bazı eşyaları.”
738 Tavernier, Tunçdogan, and Sakaoglu, 17. yüzyilda Topkapi Sarayi, 86–96.
739 Yavuz Selim I is believed tohave stated that: "Benim altınla doldurduğum hazineyi bundan sonra
gelenlerden her kim mangır ile doldurursa hazine anın mührüyle mühürlensin ve illa benim mührümle
mühürlenmekte devam olunsun." Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Develtinin Saray Teşkilâtı, 319.
340
Figure 219. The Baptistery and the marble pool (2015) / Basement plan of the
Imperial Treasury
Figure 220. The Imperial Treasury Collection (INHA Archives, Courtesy of Edhem
Eldem)
341
Necipoğlu states that “the carefully preserved personal belongings of each sultan,
venerated by every subsequent ruler when he acceded to the throne, turned it into a
sort of family museum celebrating Ottoman dynastic continuity.”740 The original
composition and function of the Inner Treasury was modified over the centuries. Due
to an increasing number of items being kept in this treasury, especially during the
sixteenth century, the residential function of the Fatih Kiosk was eliminated and all
four units of the complex were used as treasury depots. Thus, it could be said that the
function of the Fatih Kiosk as the royal residence permanently ended after the
sixteenth century, and the whole complex was turned into a treasury/depot at the
service of the sultan. The Treasury-Bath complex of Mehmed II witnessed major
modifications after the sixteenth century. At an unknown date, fireplaces in the
rooms adjacent to the loggia were removed, probably to gain extra storage space in
the treasury. Over time, the windows of the rooms and the arches of the loggia were
walled, probably for security reasons and to gain extra storage space. Consequently,
the beautiful loggia of the Mehmed II, which overlooked the Sea of Marmara was
also converted into a treasury depot to store precious objects. During the early
eighteenth century, the grand bath of Mehmed II (büyük Enderun hamamı) was
demolished and on its place the Seferli apartments were constructed. Only the
disrobing chamber (camekan) of the grand bath was left intact (Figure 221 - Figure
222).
740 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 141.
342
Figure 221. The view of the Imperial Treasury from the sea and the walled arches of
the loggia (Late-nineteenth century, Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
Figure 222. Enderun Court and the location of the Imperial Treasury (Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey Map, 1911, TSMA)
Another modification to the inner treasury was the addition of the Ambassador's
Treasury (Elçi Hazinesi). A portion of the gallery space in front of the inner treasury
was walled and a new chamber was constructed in front of the divanhane section of
the treasury. The Ambassador's Treasury and the walled-off loggia were clearly
depicted in the Abdurrahman Şeref Bey plan depicting the Enderun court. The
precious gifts presented to the Ottoman court by foreign ambassadors were kept in
this treasury. Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi claimed that this section of the treasury was
343
constructed in h.1150 (1737/38).741 Tahsin Öz, Uğur Tanyeli, and Necdet Sakaoğlu
also suggest that the Ambassador's Treasury was built during the era of Mahmud I
(1730-1754) without presenting any evidences.742 The Ambassadors Treasury
remained intact until the Republican era and its walls were demolished during the
restorations of 1941-44 conducted by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi743 (Figure 223).
Figure 223. Demolition of the Ambassador’s Treasury during Ayverdi Restorations
(1941-44, TSMA)
The practice of Ottoman rulers visiting the treasury as part of a palace ritual also
continued until the nineteenth century. The ceremonial visit of Mahmud II to the
Imperial Treasury in 1817 accompanied by the Chief Treasurer, palace notables, and
Enderun pages was depicted in detail by Hızır İlyas and provides important
741 Ayverdi, Fâtih Devri Mimarisi, 721. However Ayverdi did not provide any details about this
archival document.
742 Öz, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Kılavuzu, 54.; Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki
Fatih Köşkü ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine Gözlemler”; Sakaoǧlu, Tarihi, mekanları, kitabeleri ve
anıları ile Saray-ı Hümayun.; Sakaoǧlu, 215.
743 In his book Ayverdi explains the restoration decision to convert the Fatih Kiosk into its original
phase and documented the demolition of the walls covering the gallery of the treasury. See, Ayverdi,
Fâtih Devri Mimarisi, 721. During these comprehensive restorations, the walls filling the arches of
the loggia were also removed to re-establish its original architectural composition and concrete domes
replaced the original timber domes of the treasury hall and the bath chamber, which created severe
discussions and was harshly criticized. See, Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih
Köşkü ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine Gözlemler.”
344
information regarding the architectural composition and ceremonial use of the
Imperial Treasury in the beginning of the nineteenth century744 (Appendix A.4):
The Sultan Mahmud the Just looked as he pleased at the matchless contents
of the Treasury stored in seven chambers. In particular, the Ottoman sultans’
portraits preserved in the first chamber were aligned with the throne on which
he reposed so that it appeared as if he was participating in a spiritual
gathering with them, and this occasioned prayers and praise. Then he chose to
contemplate at the Throne of Keykavus in the second chamber, drawing from
it an object lesson, together with other such valuable things in addition to
ornaments and decoration and bestowed upon the Treasury pages. In short,
other than the weapons and textiles preserved in all the chambers, he had
countless requests and freely looked at precious textiles and innumerable
objects. Near the end, it pleased him to order that the pages of the Privy
Chamber who were waiting outside for his imperial favor be called in, and
they too looked at the things in all the open cabinets as far as their eyes could
see...
The rituals of the sultanic visits established a basis for the ceremonies held during
touristic visits, which were formalized by the second half of the nineteenth century.
A strong sense of ceremonial and institutional continuity remained until the
Republican era. Contrary to the institutional alterations and architectural
modifications, the symbolic, patrimonial, and ceremonial meanings of the treasury
were sustained until the foundation of the Republic.745 Even after the abandonment
of the Topkapı Palace during the nineteenth century, the Inner Treasury kept its
function and continued to preserve the objects of value and dynastic importance. The
Inner Treasury was given the name Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun) during
this period and opened for visits, laying the foundations of the Topkapı Palace
Museum.
744 Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 143–44. See, Appendix A.4.
745 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power; Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki
Fatih Köşkü ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine Gözlemler.”
345
4.4.3 The Imperial Treasury collection
Even though, Tavernier wrote that the Ottoman treasury was like the Caspian Sea,
always being fed by many rivers but never let anything go out,746 many items were
circulated, added to the collection, and given away throughout the centuries. By the
nineteenth century, the Imperial Treasury turned into a treasury-depot where
thousands of objects —not necessarily of certain value— were accumulated, stored,
displayed, and visited. Thanks to the detailed treasury registers kept at the Ottoman
archives, it is possible to follow the circulation and accumulation of the treasury
collection.747 The treasury register (hazine defteri) dated 23 Ca 1294 (June 4, 1878),
from the reign of Abdülhamid II provides us with valuable information regarding the
content of the treasury and the display strategies of the Ottomans.748 Curators of the
Topkapı Palace Museum, Nedred Bayraktar and Selma Delibaş, transcribed and
analyzed 4,015 items listed in these registers and tracked the circulation of the
objects in the royal collections by comparing various treasury registers kept during
and after the Hamidian era.749
According to this treasury register of 1878, the items, their distinctive
qualities, and the number of the objects kept at the three chambers of the treasury, at
the galleries and basements of these chambers, and at the Baghdad Kiosk were listed.
The inventory not only gives us information on the content of the Imperial Treasury
collection, but also the location of each item on display. There were display
windows, pulpits, and cabinets in the three chambers of the treasury. Two cabinets
were placed on two sides of the entrance door within the gallery space. According to
746 Tavernier, Nouvelle relation de l’interieur du serail du grand seigneur.
747 Köseoğlu, Hazine.
748 BOA TS.MA.d.3018 cited in Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı
Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli Hazine defteri.
"Hazine-i Hümayun'da mahfuz bulunan bi’l-cümle eşyanın bir kıt'a defteridir
749 Bayraktar and Delibaş.
346
the treasury registers of the Hamidian period, the first chamber included 12 cabinets
displaying 1,453 items and 112 items were also displayed outside of the cabinets. In
the second chamber there were 20 cabinets displaying 1,378 items of various
numbers and around 500 items were placed outside the cabinets. As understood from
the registers, the basement of the second chamber was used as a depot for keeping
8,233 items such as tableware, pistols, and bayonets in sets of hundreds, and gold
and silver coins was kept in 21 chests. The collection in the third chamber was
counted as 317 items and 1,268 objects. The total of 854 objects were displayed in
the cabinets placed at either side of the entrance door and some valuables kept at the
Baghdad Kiosk were also listed.750
These records also mentioned the circulation of items within the royal
collections and indicate which objects were transferred to the Yıldız Palace or to
other imperial rooms within the Topkapı Palace such as the Privy Chamber, the
Circumcision Room, the Mecidiye Kiosk, or the Chamber of Sacred Relics.
Numerous objects that were sent to the Yıldız Palace were marked as “mabeyn-i
hümayun-i cenab-ı mülukaneye takdim olunmuştur” or “hak-pay-i şahaneye takdim
kılınmıştır” and sometimes the date of the transfer was also inscribed. Thus,
following the Russo-Ottoman war and after the abolishment of the parliament
Abdülhamid II declared his sole control and custody over the dynastic assets, which
included the royal and historically significant collections at the Topkapı Palace. In
fact, apart from the Imperial Treasury, that was also known as the Inner Treasury (İç
Hazine), there existed several other treasuries, collections, and valuables kept within
the Topkapı Palace such as the Outer Treasury (Hazine-i Birun), the Harness
Treasury (Hazine-i Raht), the Imperial Library (Hazine-i Kütüb), the Imperial
750 Bayraktar and Delibaş.
347
Archives (Hazine-i Evrak), the Imperial Armory (Hazine-i Esliha)751 and the Privy
Chamber Treasury (Emanet Hazinesi). Some of these treasures lost their significance
during the nineteenth century with the abandonment of the palace, however, some
collections remained in the palace until the end of the empire (Figure 224).
Figure 224. The ceremonial throne in front of Bab-üs Saade (Albert Kahn, Archives
de la Planete, A 36604, 1922)
4.4.4 Visits and visitors to the palace
As explained in the previous chapter, the Imperial Treasury has always been a point
of curiosity for the Europeans and started opening its doors to foreign travelers as
early as the reign of Abdülmecid. During this era, not only the Imperial Treasury but
also the palace grounds, including the Imperial Library, the Summer Palace of
Topkapusu, the Audience Hall, the Council Hall, and St. Irene could also be visited
with a royal permit. Thus, a certain practice of displaying the inner courts and outer
751 Pakalın, Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü 1, 787.
“Hazine-i Esliha: Şimdiki Askeri Müzeye bir aralık verilmiş olan addır. Ondan evvel “iç cebehane”
denilirdi. III. Sultan Ahmet devrinde bu tabir “dar-ül-esliha” şekline girmiş, daha sonraları “harbiye
ambarı” olmuştur.”
348
gardens of the Topkapı Palace was inaugurated during the Tanzimat era. During the
early years of Abdülaziz, the palace closed its doors for touristic visits, especially
after the Seraglio fire of 1863. However the palace grounds reopened for visits by the
late 1860's and became part of the touristic tours to the city. The second edition of
John Murray's travel guide also underlined the desolated state of the palace after the
fire of 1863:752
Seraglio is no longer used as the Sultan's palace and it is in a neglected and
desolate condition. Its principal entrance is the Bab-i Hamayoon, the farfamed
Sublime Porte. Much that was interesting in it was destroyed by the
fire of 1863, and only the Library, Throne Room, and several fine Kiosks, the
Mint, the Church of St. Irene and the Museum of Arms remain.
Dr. Anton Philip Déthier, a German historian and archeologist, who was appointed
as the director of the Imperial Museum in 1872, defined the current situation of the
palace as abandoned. For him, the Tiled Pavilion, St Irene, the Janissary Museum,
and the Imperial Mint were the actual places of interest within the Topkapı Palace.753
However, The New York Times article from 1874 included Seraglio among the major
touristic sites to be visited in Constantinople and did not mention the Imperial
Museum: "The principle objects of interest to be seen in Constantinople are the
Seraglio, or former palace of the Sultans, the Imperial Treasury, the tomb of
Mahmoud [II], the old walls, the mosques, fountains and bazaars."754 The practice of
visiting the palace grounds and its treasuries escalated during the reign of
Abdülhamid II and the tours became even more structured and choreographed. The
sultanic kiosks and the treasures of the palace were included in the palatial tour, the
Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun) was the highlight of these tours.
Thus, both the collection of antiquities displayed in the modern Imperial
Museum and the Imperial Treasury were positioned as touristic spectacles to be
752 Playfair and Murray, Handbook to the Mediterranean, 97.
753 Dethier, Le Bosphore et Constantinople.
754 "Objects of Interest in Constantinople", The New York Times, 24.5.1874, 3.
349
visited. However, as understood from the travel accounts of the era, even though the
museum was located within the precinct of the Topkapı Palace these two displays
were accepted as separate institutions. More often than not, the main focus of the
nineteenth century traveler was entering the palace grounds and visiting the Imperial
Treasury, which has been an oriental mystery to the foreign gaze, rather than visiting
the modern and Westernized museal setting of the Imperial Museum. Shaped by
orientalist preconceptions, late-nineteenth century travelers wanted to discover the
exotic and authentic secrets of the Ottoman capital and hoped to unveil the thick fog
of mystery covering the Seraglio. Even the name Seraglio is charged with orientalist
connotations and the term, synonymous with the exotic and erotic "harem",755 has
always been a point of curiosity and wonder for the Western imagination. The female
section of the Topkapı Palace, which was used by the families of the deposed sultans
until the Second Constitutional era, was kept closed to visitors during the Hamidian
era. Only after 1909, following its evacuation, did the doors of the Harem open to
selected researchers. However, during the Hamidian era, if not the Harem, the Birun
and Enderun sections of the Topkapı Palace received more and more visitors and
became a major tourist attraction of Istanbul.
Hundreds of petitions were found in the Ottoman Archives demanding a
permit to visit the palace grounds during the Hamidian era. On the other hand, in the
Topkapı Palace Museum Archives, permits given to the visitors were listed. As early
as 1878, one-and-a-half years after Abdülhamid II's enthronement and after the
Russo-Ottoman war ended, a permit was given to a Russian military officer and his
wife to visit the palace grounds and the Imperial Treasury.756 In the document that
755 Schick, The Erotic Margin.
756 TS.MA.E.239.3 (21.12.1878)
“Antet: Babıâli Nezaret-i Celile-i Hariciye
Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığına
350
was addressed to the Chamberlainship of the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun
Kethüdalığı) some of the text seemed to be filled in at a later date. The name and title
of the visitor, the locations permitted for the visit, and the date sections were written
in a different ink. This information was probably added later into a pre-written text.
In this case, it could be proposed that the permit decrees for the visits were
standardized and officially regulated as early as 1878. In the body of the document,
“the locations that are commonly being shown are to be displayed to the visitors
according to the customs” (“irâesi mu’tâd olan mahallerin usul ve emsali vechle
mûmâileyhe ru’yet ve temaşa ettirilmesi”) was written, emphasizing the repetitive
and customary nature of these visits as well. In fact, a series of similar documents
followed this decree, all of which were written in the same format with standardized
language and letterheads (Figure 225).
Figure 225. A standardized document dated 1878 granting a permit to visit the
Imperial Treasury and the Topkapı Palace (TS.MA.E.239.3)
Saadetli efendim hazretleri
“Rusya zabitanından bir miralay madamasıyla beraber Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunuyla İç Hazineyi
ru’yet ve temaşa etmek arzusunda bulunduğu ifade kılınmağla zikr olunan Saray-ı Hümayun ve
Hazinede irâesi mu’tâd olan mahallerin usul ve emsali vechle mûmâileyhe ru’yet ve temaşa ettirilmesi
hususuna himmet eylemeleri siyakında tezkire-i muhibbi terkim kılındı.
Fi 27 zilhicce 1295 / 9 Kanunuevvel 1294"
351
Hundreds of permit decrees were found in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives
regarding visits to the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun). According to these
532 documents dated from 1878 to1891 both the format and language of the petitions
were standardized, indicating the nationality, name, and the title of the visitor and his
companions, their points of interest within the palace, and the date of their intended
visit. The documents were mostly addressed to the Royal Chamberlainship of the
Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığı Canib-i Aliyesine) and sent from
Ser-kurena-yı hazret-i şehriyari (Chief of Mabeyn-i Hümayun).757 According to this
set of documents, visitors from various countries and backgrounds made petitions
primarily to visit only the Imperial Treasury and the permits emphasized that the
visit should be done according to custom (alelusul müşarünileyh hazretlerine hazinei
celile-i mezkûrenin seyr ve temaşa etdirilmesi).758 According to the cataloged
documents from the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives, the records between 1880-83
and 1892-99 are missing, which brings the question of whether or not the palace was
closed to visits during these years, or simply the registers of that period were
damaged or lost. I assume that, even though the petitions are missing, the visits
continued throughout the Hamidian era with an average of 65-70 visitors per year (
757 “Ser Kurena” means “Baş mabeynci” according to Pakalın, Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri
sözlüğü 1, 187.
758 TS.MA.E.239.41 (3 B 1302 / 18.4.1885)
“Antet: Serkurena-i Hazret-i Şehriyari
Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığı Cânib-i Âlisine
Saadetli Efendim
Prens Lui Napolyon hazretlerinin Hazine-i Hümayunu seyr ve temaşa etmelerine müsaade-i seniyye-i
hazret-i padişahinin erzân buyurulduğu teşrifat-ı umumiyye nazırı devletli Münir Paşa hazretleri
tarafından tebliğ kılınmış olmağla ale'l-usul müşarünileyh hazretlerine Hazine-i Celile-i mezkûrenin
seyr ve temaşa etdirilmesi babında emr ü irade efendimindir.
3 Receb 302 / 6 Nisan 301”
352
Figure 226).
Figure 226. Number of permits to visit the Topkapı Palace during the reign of
Abdülhamid II (1876 – 1909) (Data from TSMA)
While visitors came from 20 countries the majority of the visits were from England
(68 permits), America (64 permits), Russia (64 permits), France (61 permits), and
Germany (54 permits) (Figure 227). Among these 532 permits, the country of origin
of 111 visitors was not mentioned. There are nine documents permitting a grant for
353
Ottoman visitors, most of which also mention their foreign companions759 or the
petition owners were from various provinces, such as from Beirut or Syria.760 Two
documents also stated that the visitors of the sultan residing at the Yıldız Palace
would pay a visit to the Imperial Treasury761 (Figure 228). In a similar fashion,
another archival document stated that European statesmen coming to Istanbul for the
crowning anniversary of Abdülhamid II visited the Imperial Treasury.762 These
decrees present strict bureaucratic management of palatial visits and the
standardization of these tours even for the guests of the sultan.
759 TS.MA.E.239.137 (24 S 1303 / 2.12.1885)
"Reşid Bey tarafından tebliğ kılınan irade-i seniye-i cenab-ı mülükane iktizasınca ecnebi
misafirlerinin refakatinde yaver-i şahriyariden Fuad Bey olduğu halde bugün Hazine-i Hümayunu
seyr ve temaşa ettirilmesi beyanında irade ..."
760 TS.MA.E.242 (20 L 1306 / 19.6.1889)
761 TS.MA.E.242.53 (18 R 1309 / 21.11.1891)
"Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığı Canib-i Alisine
Saadetlü Efendim Hazretleri
Yıldız Saray-ı Hümayununda bulunan misaferat hazeratının bugün Hazine-i Hümayunu seyr ve
temaşa eylemelerine müsaade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahi erzan buyurulmuş olmağla müşarülileyhin
hazeratına ihtiramat-ı lazımenin has-ı ifası babında emr-ü irade..."
TS.MA.E.242.80 (27 N 1309 / 25.4.1892)
"Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığı Canib-i Alisine
Saadetlü Efendim Hazretleri
Mesarifat-ı hazret-i padişahi Prens Dusaki . . . ile zevcesi Prenses hazeratı ve maiyetinin yarınki
pazartesi günü Hazine-i Hümayunu seyr ve temaşa etmelerine müsaade-i seniyye-i hazret-i
padişahi..."
762 TS.MA.375.14 (23 Ca 1318 / 18.9.1900) II Abdülhamid’in cülusu için gelen Avrupalı devlet
ricalinin Hazine-i Hümayunu gezmeleri
354
Figure 227. Total number of permits given to visitors from various countries
between 1878 and 1891 (Data from TSMA)
Figure 228. The permit decree for Prince Louis Napoleon to visit the Imperial
Treasury (TS.MA.E 239.41, 18.04.1885)
Almost all foreign diplomats or statesmen visiting the Ottoman capital were given a
tour of the city, including the historic and touristic spots. Royal visitors and official
guests of the sultan were also taken to the Topkapı Palace during their formal visits.
355
German Emperor Wilhelm II, who visited Istanbul three times, was one of the most
celebrated royal guests of Abdülhamid II. During his first visit to Istanbul in 1889,
Emperor Wilhem II and Empress Augusta Victoria were greeted at the Dolmabahçe
Palace by Abdülhamid II and a ball was organized in their honor.763 A new pavilion,
Şale Kiosk, was constructed at the Yıldız Palace for the emperor to reside in, and the
royal guests visited various parts of Istanbul, including the Protestant Church at
Beyoğlu, military schools, the Hagia Sophia, and the Süleymaniye Mosque. The
Emperor also visited the Topkapı Palace, the Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun),
and the Academy of Fine Arts (Sanayi-i Nefise).764
Renovations and alterations were made in the Topkapı Palace before the visit
of the German Emperor. Renovation records of 1888/9 also confirmed that largescale
repairs and restoration works were held in the most visible and significant parts
of the Topkapı Palace in anticipation of the royal visit. According to these records,
the Mecidiye Kiosk and the surrounding Esvap Room, Üçüncüyeri Gate, Üçüncüyeri
Gardens, and the Tulip Gardens were renovated, together with the Imperial Treasury,
the Baghdad Pavilion, the Chamber of Sacred Relics and its surrounding areas, the
Audience Hall, the Circumcision Room, the Council Hall, the Imperial Stables, the
chambers of the Treasury pages and the apartments of the Zülüflü Baltacılar corps.
The walls of the palace and the murals on either side of the Gate of Felicity were also
restored the same year before the visit of the German Emperor.765 Furthermore,
according to Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, the infamous Fountain of the executioner
763 BOA Y.PRK.PT.5.114 (10 Ra 1307 / 4.11.1889)
Padişahın, Alman imparatoru ve imparatoriçesi adına sarayda ziyafet verdiği ve imparatoriçenin
Harem-i Hümayun'da eğlenceye katıldığı. İmparatorun Dersaadet'te bazı yerleri ziyaret ettiği.
Padişahla Alman imparatorunun hediyeleştiği ve imparatorun bazı saray erkanına nişanlar verdiği.
764 Şehsuvaroğlu, “Alman İmparatoru II. Wilhelm’in Yurdumuzu Ziyaretleri”, 27; Demirel,
Dolmabahçe ve Yıldız Saraylarında Son Ziyaretler, Son Ziyafetler, 33–35.
765 Most comprehensive renovations in the Topkapı Palace during the reign of Abdülhamid II took
place before the visit of German emperor Wilhelm II.
BOA TS.MA.d.5253 (1305 / 1888); TS.MA.d.474 (27.Ş.1306 / 28.4.1889)
356
(Cellat Çeşmesi) was removed from its original location and placed inside the
Imperial Gate.766 No archival document proves this argument, but Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey's story emphasizes the importance given to the visit of Wilhem II and
epitomizes Ottoman concern about their reputation in the eyes of the West (Figure
229).
The second royal visit of Wilhelm II took place in 1898, but he did not visit
the Topkapı Palace this time.767 His third and last visit was in 1917, after the fall of
Abdülhamid II. During his visit as a military ally of the Ottomans during the World
War I, in addition to inspecting military facilities, the emperor also visited the
Topkapı Palace and the newly founded Museum of Islamic Art (Evkaf Müzesi).768
He arrived at the Seraglio with imperial boats leaving from the Çırağan Palace. After
visiting the Baghdad Kiosk, he headed to the Mecidiye Kiosk, saluting the crowd
gathered in the palace gardens from its marble terrace. In the Mecidiye Kiosk,
tobacco, Turkish coffee, and tea were offered to the Emperor. Following this
customary ritual of hospitality, the tour of Wilhelm II ended with his visit to the
Imperial Treasury.769
Many royal visitors and statesmen were hosted in a similar manner in the
Topkapı Palace during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and the
tradition of opening the palace grounds to royal visitors and hosting them there
continued until the collapse of the empire. However, during the visits of the Persian
rulers to Istanbul, Nasir al-Din Shah in 1873 and Muzaffar al-Din Shah in 1900, they
766 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası,
1911. According to the belief the swords of the executioners were washed in the Cellat Çeşmesi,
following the bloody executions that took place in front of the palace gate.
767 Servet-i Fünun, c.16 s.397, 8 Teşrinievvel 134 / 20.10.1898.
768 “Kayser Hazretleri İstanbul’da”, Tanin, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
“İmparator Hazretlerinin Dünkü Ziyareti”, Sabah, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
“Kayser İkinci Wilhelm Hazretlerinin Şehrimizi Ziyaret ve Temaşası”, İkdam, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
769 Karacagil, "Alman İmparatoru İstanbul’da (1917)", 122.
357
were not taken to the Topkapı Palace to visit the Imperial Treasury or the Chamber
of Sacred Relics.770 Similarly, according to the research of Güllü Yıldız on the
memoirs of twenty Iranian pilgrims visiting the city from 1863-1913, none has
visited the Topkapı Palace.771 This reinforces the argument that the visits to the
Topkapı Palace carried political connotations and used as a diplomatic tool for
selected guests until during the reign of Abdülhamid II.772
Figure 229. Newspaper cover announcing Wilhelm II's second visit to Istanbul
(Servet-i Fünun, 20.10.1898)
770 I would like to thank to my friend and collague Başak Kilerci from the University of Oxford for
bringing this information to my attention and also for sharing these sources with me: Redhouse, The
Diary of H.M The shah of Persia during His Tour Through Europe in A.D. 1873; Kilerci, "Ottoman-
Qajar Realations Through Photography: Muzaffar al-Din Shah's Istanbul Visit (1900)";
771 Yıldız, "İran'lı hacıların gözüyle İstanbul'u temaşa". Eighteen out of twenty travel accounts
analyzed in this research are from the era of Abdülhamid II.
772 In the Ottoman archives three documents were fround from the reign of Abdülmecid and
Abdülaziz granting a permit for Iranian ambassadors to visit the Topkapı Palace and the Imperial
Treasury, but no similar documents could be found from the reign of Abdülhamid II. See;
A.AMD.1.38 (7 B 1261 / 12.7.1845); HR.MEKT.338.67 (26 ZA 1276 / 15.6.1860); BOA
İ.HR.190.10623 (10 B 1278 / 11.1.1862).
358
Apart from the documents at the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives, the Yıldız Evrakı
section of the Ottoman Archives also holds a number of petitions from and permits to
various foreign travelers to visit the Imperial Treasury. The form and language of
these petitions are also telling. For instance, in a number of documents, Western
travelers asked to visit both the Imperial Treasury and the palace, and the Imperial
Treasury was mentioned before the Imperial Palace.773 This hierarchical shift, despite
being a minor change, indicates that the main destination of the visit was the
treasury, rather than the palace. Some documents also revealed that visits to the
Dolmabahçe and Beylerbeyi Palaces took place as well.
Thus, not only the Topkapı Palace, but the Dolmabahçe Palace, which was
occasionally used for ceremonial purposes by Abdülhamid II and the Beylerbeyi
Palace, which was almost never used by the sultan, became venues for foreign
visits.774 Hence, these visits signified the somewhat desolated or abandoned
condition of these royal estates, which were associated with previous eras and
773 BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.2.38 (20 R 1305 / 31.05.1888)
"Ehibbasından bazı zevatın Hazine-i Hümayun ile saray-ı alileri ziyaret etmelerine müsaade-i
seniyye-i hilafetpenahilerinin şayan buyurulmasını İspanya general konsolosunun istirham eylediği"
BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.2.45 (1 M 1306 / 07.09.1888)
"Fransa muteberanından bazı zevatın Hazine-i Hümayun ile saray-ı aliyi ziyaret etmelerine müsaade"
BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.2.78 (30 Teşrinievvel 1305 / 11.11.1889)
"Almanya sefirinin Dersaadet'ten ayrılacağı ve Sefaret katiplerinden bazı zevaatın Hazine-i Hümayun
ile saray-ı alileri ziyaret etmelerine müsaade"
774 BOA Y.EE.108.29 (3 S 1307 / 29.9.1889) From Vincent Maillard to Agop Pasha "Mes amis, Sir
Charles et Lady Dilke arriveront ici ce soir... Est-ce-lu il vous serait possible de me permeurer la
permission de sa Majesté pour qu'ils puissant visiter avec Mademe Caillard et moi le Trésor et les
palais de Dolma-Bagtché et Beylerbey?"
BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.4.101 (5 Ş 1314 / 9.1.1897)
"Romanya sefirinin refakatindeki on kadar seyyah-ı ekabir ile beraber Hazine-i Hümayun ile
Dolmabahçe ve Beylerbeyi Sahilsaray-ı alilerini ziyaret eylemelerine müsaide..."
BOA Y.PRK.EŞA.31.116 (10 B 1316 / 24.11.1898)
Seyahatle İstanbul'da bulunan Baron Alfons Döroebild'in Hazine ile Dolmabahçe ve Beylerbeyi
Sarayları'nı ziyareti için Avusturya sefirinin ricada bulunması.
BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.5.76 (24 Z 1316 / 5.5.1899)
"Almanya muteberanından yirmi kadar zatın Hazine-i Hümayun ile Dolmabahçe ve Beylerbeyi
sahilsaray-ı alilerini ziyaret eylemelerine müsaide..."
BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.7.14 (30 Ra 1321 / 26.6.1903)
"Romanya sefiriyle zevcesi ve sefaret memurları ve rüfekasının Hazine-i Hümayun ile Dolmabahçe ve
Beylerbeyi sahilsaray-ı alilerini ziyaret eylemelerine müsaide..."
359
previous sultans. Not only tourists but also diplomatic envoys visited these
abandoned palaces. For example, the Japanese prince visited the Dolmabahçe and the
Beylerbeyi palaces before heading to the Topkapı Palace, he and his entourage were
offered tea in a monumental hall in the Topkapı Palace (hane-i abidemizde dahi çay
içerek).775 In a similar fashion, Madame de Blowitz, in her book published in 1884,
writes that on their first day in Istanbul they also saw the Dolmabahçe and the
Beylerbeyi Palaces, together with the Imperial Treasury of the Topkapı Palace.776
Şeker Ahmet Pasha accompanied their group to the treasury and according to her, the
Imperial Treasury was the only museum of interest within the city:777
General Ahmet Pasha introduces the Treasury to us, as the Sultan, as I have
already said and as we have seen with our eyes, the Sultan has a treasure.
When one travels through a capital . . . one must visit these monuments and
collections. Again, Constantinople has the immense advantage of not having
a museum, or at least of having one so insignificant, that one does not urge
you too much to visit it.
Edwin Grosvenor, by the end of the century compared the Topkapı Palace with the
Dolmabahçe and the Beylerbeyi Palaces and favored the later, finding the inner
Seraglio as a "sea of ostentation and caprice":778
High-wrought fancy imagines that all the achievements of Eastern art are
gathered here ; but one looks in vain or something impressive or stately.
There is here no Alhambra or Palace of Versailles or Kremlin. The Serai of
Dolma Baghtcheh or Beylerbey is more bewildering and entrancing than any
single structure which the Seraglio contains.
775 BOA Y.PRK.TŞF.7.121 (Z 1323 / 2.1906)
"Japon prensi hazretleri Dolmabahçe ve Beylerbeyi Saray-ı Hümayunlarını bad-el temaşa... Hazine-i
Hümayunla Topkapı Sarayı Hümayununu dahi ziyaret eyleyerek ve hane-i abidanemizde dahi çay
içerek ve otele avdet eylediği ..."
776 De Blowitz, Une Course a Constantinople, 112.
"... en effet, de nous faire les honneurs de sa capitale pendant le premier jour, et de nous faire visiter,
dès notre arrivée, Dolma-Bagchi, Beylerbey, le Vieux Sérail, ou plutôt la pointe du Vieux Sérail où se
trouve le Trésor..."
777 Ibid., 114.
"L'aimable général Ahmet-Pacha nous introduit dans le Trésor, car le Sultan, je vous l'affirme, nous
l'avons vu, de nos yeux vu, le Sultan a un trésor. Quand on parcourt une capitale, on a beau se roidir,
il faut visiter des monuments et des collections. Encore, Constantinople a cet avantage immense de ne
pas avoir du musée, ou du moins d'en avoir un tellement insignifiant, qu'on ne vous pousse pas trop à
le visiter."
778 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 726.
360
Demetrius Coufopoulos's guidebook explains the procedure for granting entrance to
the palace grounds and states that a single firman could grant access to the Topkapı,
Dolmabahçe, and Beylerbeyi Palaces as well: 779
Travelers wishing to visit the Treasury have to obtain an imperial Firman
(warrant) through the Embassy of the country to which they belong. No
charge is made for the Firman, but the gratuities to servants, boatmen, etc.,
amount, according to number, from £4 to £7, and are usually paid for
travelers by the dragoman, or by the Embassy Cavass, if one is sent. The
person to whom the Firman is issued has the right to invite as many other
visitors of his own nationality as the order is given for, and the expenses are
afterwards shared The imperial Firman giving access to the Old Seraglio also
gives access to Beylerbey (Asia) and Dolmah-Baghcheh (Europe) Palaces, to
which travelers proceed in the Sultan's caiques, if desired.
Hence, during the reign of Abdülhamid II, not only the Topkapı Palace, but other
imperial palaces, excluding the Yıldız Palace where the sultan himself resided and
the Çırağan Palace where the deposed sultan Murad was imprisoned, were shown to
visitors with a certain royal decree. The cost of these visits was quite high but could
be shared among the members of the visiting group. The Topkapı Palace, being the
oldest and most curious royal structure in Constantinople, was a major point of
attraction for travelers, and the palatial tour took its place in quite a number of travel
accounts.780
4.4.5 The palatial tour as a choreographed spectacle
During the era of Abdülhamid II, not only the procedure for getting into the Topkapı
Palace and the format of the petitions, but also the palatial tours became
standardized. Many travelers depicted this carefully choreographed spectacle in
detail in their memoirs and travel accounts. Similar to a guided museum tour, this
prominent visit was pre-arranged in order to display the grandeur and prosperity of
779 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1902, 86.
780 For this research I worked on approximately 150 travel accounts and undertook close
investigations on more than 100 of them, in which the Seraglio/Vieux Serail/ the Old Serai was
depicted. 35 of these accounts are from the reign of Abdülhamid II.
361
the Ottoman state for the eyes of the European visitors, creating an orientalist setting
to satisfy the Western gaze craving exotic and authentic experiences of the East.
Beginning with getting the "firman" and lasting up to entering the palace grounds,
the whole setting was organized to create a sense of royalty and privilege. Even
though any Western visitor with the necessary funds and connections could enter the
palace grounds, a feeling of exclusiveness was deliberately created as is seen in the
Ottoman archival documents and accounts of the era. In other words, the tourists
stepping into the imperial gate of the Topkapı Palace felt that they were accessing the
"well-protected domains" of the Ottoman ruler and the palatial tour somehow
mimicked the legendary audition ceremonials of diplomatic envoys as stated by The
Times author J.C. Robinson: "The Sultan's treasury is not, however, accessible to
mankind in general, on the contrary, permission to explore its recesses is a matter of
high favor requiring special diplomatic intercession and the issue of an Irade by the
Sovereign himself..."781 A response to this article again in The Times refuted this
claim by explaining the procedure for granting an entrance permit:
The permission to visit the Seraglio is not so difficult to obtain as Mr.
Robison seems to suppose. Many people have visited it before (. . .) It is a
favor which can only be obtained from the Sultan by the mediation of one's
ambassador, and the visitor for whom the irade is made out must be a person
of rank or a specialist in art or possess some other qualifications to excuse the
trouble he is giving both to the Embassy and to His Majesty.
More often than not, the visitors gathered as a group to share the costs of getting a
firman and also for bribing the palace officials as stated by Albert Millaud.782 The
1895 guidebook of Noah Brooks affirms that the chief point of interest of "Stamboul
is Sultan's Treasury, guarded with jealous care and shown with much form and
ceremony" and added, a group should pay $30 for a permission to enter.783
781 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885
782 Millaud, Voyages d'un fantaisiste. Yienne, le Danube, Constantinople, 273.
783 Brooks, The Mediterranean Trip, 128.
362
Visitors could access the palace grounds either from the land or from the sea,
and according to the travel accounts, some groups also entered from the Soğukçeşme
Gate and reached the first court of the palace passing by the Imperial Mints.784 The
second edition of Macmillian's Guides Eastern Mediterranean also mentions that the
entrance to the palace was from the Soğukçeşme Gate and informed its readers that
"the road to the left leads to Imperial Military School of Medicine and its Botanical
Garden, and Column of Theodosius. The road to the right reaches Imperial Ottoman
Museum and to the Court of the Janissaries".785 After the opening of the Gülhane
Park in 1913, access by tourists to the palace from the Soğukçeşme Gate became a
standard procedure as is stated by Daniel Eduard Lorenz, Karl Baedeker, and other
eye witnesses of the era.786 According to custom it was possible for almost anyone to
enter the first court of the palace, which was of semi-public in character, without any
kind of permit as depicted by Edwin Grosvenor:787
All the approaches are still guarded by a suspicious soldiery, but every person
is free to pass through the gates of the outer wall, and wander where he
pleases along its outer circuit. Nevertheless, if he lingers to gaze at the high
white walls which surround the inner enclosure, the sanctum sanctorum of the
sultans, or stands for a moment lost in revery, there breaks upon his ear the
harsh, insolent shout of some omnipresent sentinel, " Yasak! Yasak!"
Thus, only the visitors having an official permit could enter the inner courts of the
palace. These visitors were mostly attended by a dragoman, and were shown the
main attractions of the first court before heading towards the Middle Gate. Within
the first court, the Imperial Gate (Bab-ı Hümayun) and its violent story about the
display of heads in front it was surely mentioned, the Imperial Mint and St. Irene
784 Elliot, Diary of an idle woman in Constantinople, 213.
785 Macmillian's Guides Eastern Mediterranean,168.
786 Lorenz, The New Mediterranean Traveler, 146-147; Baedecker, Baedeker's Contantinople and
Asia Minor, 193-194.
787 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 707.
363
were also shown to the visitors, without granting an entrance to these "curious"
buildings.
As depicted in numerous travel accounts, visitors, who were able to obtain
the necessary permit to visit the palace were first greeted in front of the Middle Gate
by the Ottoman officials (Figure 230) and their entrance permits were controlled
before entering into the second court of the complex as explained by Coufopoulos:788
Travellers who obtain the permit have to go to Ortah Kapu, or Middle Gate,
where they are received by the Sultan's aide-de-camp sent to conduct them
over that part of the building shown to strangers. Ortah Kapu, which is
flanked by massive towers, is always guarded by soldiers and none can pass
the door without a permit.
Once the group entered the second court, the choreographed palace tour was
initiated; more or less the same itinerary was followed to show the most significant
and "exotic" parts of the Topkapı Palace to foreign gaze.
Figure 230. Postcard showing the greeting ceremony in front of the Middle Gate
(Author's collection)
788 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1902, 86.
364
After passing through the Middle Gate, visitors walked through the second court,
where the Imperial Kitchens, gardens, and galleries surrounding the courtyard was
pointed out. The group then paid a visit to the Council Hall and were given brief
information regarding the council meetings and audience ceremonies (Figure 231).
The caged window of the sultan (kafes-i müşebbek), where he could listen to the
council meetings without being seen, became a point of interest for most of the
visitors. Still, the Council Hall did not evoke the idea of greatness in its desolated
state, as emphasized by Grosvenor: "Khoubbey Alti conveys no idea of its former
immense importance."789 In fact, neither the second court nor its architectural
features seemed to attract much interest from the visitors, who were eager to visit the
Imperial Treasury and to visit the mysterious third court, the former house of the
Ottoman sultans, which was closed to foreign gaze for many centuries. Thus, the
second court was not depicted at all or just briefly mentioned in the travel accounts
of the era. The "abandoned and dilapidated" status of this court also became an issue
of critique.790 The main attraction of the second court was the renowned Bab-üs
Selam or the Gate of Felicity, which opened to the private quarters of the sultan
(Figure 232). Being a part of the "gate myth", this imperial portal, once guarded by
the white eunuchs, was depicted as an entrance to a world of mystery and fascination
as stated by Clara Erskime Clement: "This gate opened into the very home of the
Commander of the Faithful, and during four centuries was closed against all
Christians who did not come in the name of a sovereign or a nation."791
789 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 720–22.
790 Elliot, Diary of an idle woman in Constantinople, 211-235.
791 Erskime Clement, Constantinople, 181.
365
Figure 231. The Council Hall during the late nineteenth century (TSMA)
Figure 232. The Gate of Felicity (Albert Kahn Archives de la Planete, A 36612,
1922)
Right after the gate, penetrating to the third court of the palace, the Audience Hall
(Arz Odası) welcomed visitors. Most travelers of the era did not provide a
comprehensive depiction of the "Throne Room" except mentioning its historical
significance in reference to Western accounts depicting the pre-modern audience
ceremonies. They then proceeded towards the Imperial Library (Figure 233).
366
Standing right after the Audience Hall, the Library of Ahmed III was of certain
interest for the European visitors believing that the imperial collection housed
ancient Greek manuscripts that were looted by the Ottomans during the conquest of
Constantinople, as stated by Grosvenor:792
It is commonly believed in Europe, and even among the Greeks of
Constantinople, that somewhere in the Seraglio, and most likely in the
libraries or the Treasure House, are concealed many ancient and mediaeval
manuscripts Christian relics and works of Byzantine art.
However, unlike the previous periods, during the reign of Abdülhamid II the library
collection was not open for visitors to investigate. The visitors could only observe
the building and its interior briefly and were not able to spend much time inside the
edifice. Occasionally, special permits were given to foreign scholars to conduct
research in the Imperial Library; however, these permits were not related to the
touristic tours.793
The spatial and temporal composition of the palatial tour was pre-organized
to show the highlights of the Topkapı Palace to visitors. Under the guidance of the
palace officials, the visitors followed the prearranged route that culminated in a visit
to the Imperial Treasury. During the tour, while some visitors expressed their
admiration for the luxury, aesthetics, and pleasure they have witnessed in the
palace,794 some expressed their disappointment in the abandoned and desolated state
792 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 735.
793 BEO.1656.124196 (14 M1319) Peşte Darülfünunu azasından Doktor Rudolf nam zatın Topkapı
Sarayı Kütüphanesi'ni ziyaret etmesine müsaade olunmasına dair. (1319M-14)
BEO.2309.173134 (M 1322) Avusturya ve Macaristan Saray Kütüphanesi memurlarından Mösyö
Doktor Nikola Luis'in Dersaadet'te mevcut kütüphaneleri ve camii-i şerif kütüphanelerini ziyaret ile
bazı tedkikatta bulunacağı.
İ.HR.406.20 (4 R 1325) Tarihe müteallik tetkikatta bulunmak üzere Macaristan Hükümeti tarafından
Dersaadet'e gönderilen Lö Doktor Karoçık'ın Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi'ni ziyaretine müsaade
olunması. (1325R-15)
794 De Beauregar, Aux rives du Bosphore, 227.
"Vieux Serail etait a la fois un palais, une fortresse et un sanctuaire; c'etait une ville, dans une ville;
une magnifiqu citadelle habitee pas un prince etgardee par un armee,qui embrassait dans ses murs
une variete infinie d'edifices, de lieux de delices et de lieux d'horror...."
367
of the "Vieux Serail".795 According to Clara Erskime Clement, the light and airy
kiosks revealed the fascinating world of sultan and "an endless variety of precious
objects from all quarters of the globe afforded a rarer treat to the artistic eye than
could be enjoyed in many a celebrated museum," but she continued her observations
with sorrow and disappointment: "This is now replaced by simple desolation: kiosks,
towers, and lattices are crumbling and falling; gardens are neglected, vegetation is
yellow and dirty, and no one is left to regret the beauty that has departed." 796
Figure 233. The Audience Hall and the Library of Ahmed III (TSMA)
After the library, the group passed into the third court, and the palace school
(Enderun Mektebi), the Enderun Mosque, and the Chamber of Sacred Relics were
pointed out. It was emphasized that no infidel could step into this sacred chamber
where the mantle of Mohammad was kept. In a similar manner, the Harem continued
to be closed to the foreign gaze, as the women of the previous sultans continued to
795 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 726.
796 Erskime Clement, Constantinople, 185-189.
368
live there. Hence, both the Chamber of Sacred Relics and the Harem continued to be
an oriental mystery for foreign visitors. The group would then head towards the
fourth court of the palace, the area where the famous hanged gardens, marble
terraces, pools, jet fountains, and imperial kiosks were located. Visitors reached the
Imperial Sofa (Sofa-i Hümayun), the marble terrace with the marble pool, which was
surrounded by sultanic pavilions overlooking the Golden Horn (Figure 234).
Figure 234. Marble pool at the Imperial Sofa (TSMA)
As understood from their memoirs, from this point on, the perception of the visitors
began to change. Especially after visiting the Baghdad Pavilion, the majority of the
travelers stated their admiration and fascination for the architectural and decorative
superiority of this small, yet elegant kiosk (Figure 237). This seventeenth century
imperial kiosk was believed to represent the ultimate state of Ottoman decorative arts
369
and architecture and the spirit of the sultan,797 with its tiled façade, ornamented
copper fireplace, deliberate wood work, decorated dome, refined Arabic inscriptions,
oriental color scheme, and its prime location overlooking the Golden Horn, Pera, and
the hanging gardens of the Topkapı Palace as emphasized by R. C. Cervati:798
On the terrace of the Top Kapou, which rises above the point of the Serai, on
which there are several Kiosks, the most remarkable is the Baghdad Kiosk,
located in the corner of the garden, surrounded by a glazed gallery, where the
view is splendid.
Mrs. Max Müller reflected her admiration for the imperial kiosk and its decoration:
"brilliant as are the colors, they are so blended that there is nothing gaudy in the
general effect".799 This little kiosk, which was admired like a jewelry box as a
representative of classical Ottoman art and architecture, satisfied the foreign gaze
hoping to find an oriental fantasy in the "Vieux Serail du Grand Signior". The Times
article from 1886 compared the Imperial Treasury with the Baghdad Kiosk as "[t]he
most beautiful objects in the Seraglio is not anything in the Treasury, but the lovely
Baghdad Kiosk… the view from the verandah is more beautiful still."800 The marble
pooled terrace with breathtaking views, surrounded with the Baghdad Kiosk, the
Circumcision Room, the Iftariye Pavilion, and the Revan Kiosk created a scene that
has been an inspiration to many orientalist paintings, a mimesis of Western
imaginary (Figure 235 - Figure 236 - Figure 237).
797 Edmont About defined the Baghdad Kiosk as "C'est la seule fantaisie archéologique qui soit jamais
éclose dans l'esprit d'un sultan." About, De Pontoise a Stamboul, 89.
798 Cervati, Guide Horarire Général International pour le Voyageur en Orient - Constantinople, 117.
"Sur la terasse de Top Kapou qui s'avance au dessus de la pointe du Serai, sur laquelle il va plusieurs
Kiosks il ont le plus remarquable est le Baghdad Kiosk situé dans l'angle du jardin, entoura d'une
galerie vitrée, d'où la vue est splendide."
799 Max Müller, Letters from Constantinople, 27-28,
800 The Times, 27.12.2886.
370
Figure 235. Painting titled "The Harem On The Terrace" (Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1886)
Figure 236. The marble pool at Sofa-i Hümayun (2016)
371
Figure 237. Interior and exterior pictures of the Baghdad Kiosk (2016)
After visiting the Bagdad Kiosk and passing through the Tulip Gardens, the visitors
finally reached the Mecidiye Kiosk (Figure 238). They were asked to rest for a while
in this modern pavilion decorated in French style before proceeding to the Imperial
Treasury.801 Even though its Western architectural features and contemporary
decoration disappointed the European eye longing for oriental flavors, once the
visitors were invited to the terrace to have some fresh air, their disappointment was
replaced with astonishment. The visitors admired the view where Bosphorus meets
the Sea of Marmara, as expressed by A. De Gasparin with orientalist references:
"Aladdin has not dreamed of such a marvelous pavilion."802
801 Ethem, Topkapı Sarayı (Istanbul, Kanaat Kütüphanesi, 1931).
802 De Gasparin, A Constantinople, 167.
"Aladdin n'a point reve de pavillion si merveilleux"
372
Figure 238. Exterior and interior of the Mecidiye Kiosk (TSMA)
In 1884, a small-scale political scandal took place during the visit of the Austrian
crown prince Rudolph. According to Ottoman archival documents, when the crown
prince and his wife arrived the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk, it was recorded that
archduchess admired the beauty of the view, and as a response, the crown prince said
that "I assure you that, this very point will be your residence with the title Queen of
the Orient". According to the document, the King of Belgium and the father of the
archduchess, was upset about these comments and reproached her.803 In fact, this
anecdote proved that Ottomans reached their goal of enchanting and fascinating the
visitors when they encountered the sublime view from the terrace of the Mecidiye
Kiosk. A newspaper article published at Constantinople Illustrated, apart from
803 BOA Y.PRK.MK.4.81_02 (2 Z 1306 / 30.6.1889)
“Avusturya veliahdı . . . Rudolf’un bundan beş sene mukaddem zevcesiyle birlikte Dersaadet’e
azimetinde bera-yı temaşa Topkapı Saray-ı alisini gezdiği esnada zevcesi arşidüşesin balkondan
Boğaziçine doğru med-i nazar-ı hayret ederek “ sahihen dünyada bundan güzel bundan latif bir
mahal bulunamaz” demesine karşı Arşidük Rudolf dahi “ İşte bu nokta senin şark imparatoriçesi
sıfatıyla ikamet edeceğin mahal olduğunu şimdiden tebşir ederim” demiş idiğini . . . zaten Arşidüşes
Stefanya’nın Belçika kralının kerimesi olmasından naşi kendisine tebşir makamında mahremane
söylemiş olduğunu ve ahiren Mösyö Borgraf’ın mezuniyetle Brüksel’e avdetinde bu sözün Belçika
sarayı kralının dahi deveran ettiğini ifade eylemekle”
373
admiring the view, also praised the "oriental splendor and luxury" offered at this very
spot with certain nostalgia:804
The views from the Palace, kiosks, and terraces are perhaps the finest
combination of everything that is beautiful in fair land, and sea, and noble
buildings. One can imagine the oriental splendor and luxury of the Seraglio
before the revolt of the Janissaries, and subsequent hostile ravings of fanatics
gave succeeding Sultans a dislike to the palace. Nevertheless, though the
Sultan does not now reside in this lovely spot, the shadow of his hospitality
still remains, and coffee, rose-leaf preserve, and cigarettes are passed round
to the visitors after the fatigues of inspecting the sights of the old Serai.
As stated in the article, while waiting for the Chief Treasurer, the tourists were
offered sweets, sherbet, and coffee in the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk by elegantly
dressed palace servants, echoing the old tradition of hosting the diplomatic envoys
visiting the palace (Figure 239). Offering meals, coffee, and tobacco to the foreign
envoys during audience ceremonies has always been an integral part of the Ottoman
protocol, and this archaic tradition was mimicked by the palace servants during the
late-nineteenth century, this time not for diplomatic visitors but for the foreign
tourists. According to the memoirs of La Baronne Durand De Fontmagne, even
before the construction of the Mecidiye Kiosk, in 1856, foreign visitors were offered
a pompous meal in a tent erected at a favorite location of the sultan in the Topkapı
Palace.805 One wonders whether this tent had any relation with the Çadır (Tent)
Kiosk, which previously occupied the location of Mecidiye Kiosk. In either case, the
continuity of certain palatial traditions could be recognized, especially in the
performative acts that took place during touristic visits. In other words, the Topkapı
Palace, as a touristic venue was positioned as a stage for performing and mimicking
the glorious days of the Ottoman past and took its reference from history.
804 "The Sultan's Hospitality at the Old Serai", Constantinople Illustrated,1886.
805 de Fontmagne, Un se'jour l'ambassade de France a Constantinople, 49.
374
In opposition to the desolated and neglected state of many buildings in the
Topkapı Palace, special care was shown to the Mecidiye Kiosk and other parts of the
palace that were part of the touristic tour.806 Renovation records showed that the
Mecidiye Kiosk (Kasr-ı Cedid) went through intense renovations during the
Hamidian era, structural retrofits were conducted and new marbles were laid on its
terrace overlooking the sea.807
Figure 239. The Sultan’s Hospitality – European Visitors at the Old Serai
(Constantinople Illustrated, 1886)
806 BOA Y.MTV.10.31 (1300 /1882)
"Hırka-i Saadet daire-i şerif ve hazine-i Hümayun ebniyesi ile Kasr-ı Cedid dahilinde ve istirahat-ı
cenab-ı şehinşâhiye mahsus odanın..."
TS.MA.d.474 (27.Ş.1306/28.4.1889)
"Şeref-teallik buyrulan irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahi mukteza-yı celilece Topkapı Saray-ı
Hümayunu dahilinde vaki’ Hırka-i Saadet dairesiyle Camii şerif ve Hazine ve Harem-i Hümayun-ı
cenab-ı mülükane-i aliyye ve Bab’üs-Saade ve Has Oda ve devair-i sairede harap olan mahallerin
tamir ve termimatını mübeyyin bir kıt’a keşf-i evvel defteridir."
BOA HH.d.27808 (1311 / 1895)
TS.MA.d.9582 (28 Ş 1317 / 31.12.1899)
807 TS.MA.d.1138 (29 Ş 1299 / 13.9.1882) Repair of the Mecidiye Kiosk
"Ek 4: Tamirat masraf defteri: Topkapı Sarayı'ndaki Kasr-ı Cedid'in tamiri için sarfedilen malzeme
ve işçilik hakkında. Ek 6: Taşçı kalfası Abdülkadir mührü ile taahhüd senedi: Topkapı Sarayı içinde
Kasr-ı Cedid'in, deniz cihetindeki mermerliğe döşenecek mermerler."
TS.MA.d.5253 (1305 / 1888)
"Zikr olunan Kasr-ı Hümayun (Kasr-ı Cedid) tahtında tonoz kemerleri bazı mahalleri yarılmış
olduğundan bu halde bekası caiz olmayacağına mebni hasbel’l-icab üzere mermer döşemenin feshi
ve kasrı Hümayun derununda ahşap döşemeden icab eden mahallerinin kat’ıyla kasrı Hümayun
haricinden bahçeden bacalar hafr olunarak beher adedi seksen atik kıyyelik dört köşe demirden
uçları kıvrılarak yek diğerine geçme ve çifte kamalar ile sıkıştırılarak sülyan boyalı tahtani ve fevkani
on sıra hatıl keşidesiyle iki başlarına iki santimetre ve tahtında vapur kazanları . . . sacdan beher
metrede dört köşe vasatlarında delik açılarak tablalar vaz’ıyla beş metre uzunlupunda seksenlik lama
demiriyle yukarıdan aşağıya kadar . . . kılınçlar vaz’ıyla tahkimi."
375
The travel accounts of the era describe the Mecidiye Kiosk and this well-staged ritual
of "sweets, sherbet, and coffee offering" in their memoirs, which continued without
much alteration until the collapse of the empire808 (Figure 240). Amazed by the
richness of the golden trays and jeweled cups and by the number of diamonds
adorning them, Barnette Miller described the overall experience as: "Though the
chamber into which we were ushered and its furnishings were simple, the plate and
the elaborate ceremony of the service suggested an Arabian Night's entertainment."
Counting more than 30 diamonds on the coffee holders, Miller was told that these
jeweled items used for service were produced for Sultan Abdülmecid and brought
from the Imperial Treasury for very rare occasions.809 In a similar fashion, Georgina
Adelaide Müller depicted this spectacle in detail during her visit to the palace:810
We were early, and the keeper of the Treasury was not ready for us; we were
therefore taken at once to the Medjidiyeh kiosk, standing on a terrace with
flowers, from which we had a delightful view. . . . The kiosk is furnished in
French style, and when we had enjoyed the view to the utmost we returned to
one of the large rooms, and refreshments were offered us. A very sticky
sweatmeat or jelly was brought in a large glass vase and handed round. . . .
Cigarettes were then handed round, and lastly, a picturesque group of slaves
entered in white dresses, with turbans, carrying coffee-cups upon golden
trays. Those offered to gentlemen had golden holders, richly engraved; those
for the ladies had holders of filigree gold, thickly set with diamonds. Lastly
came the kahveji. Across his left arm shoulder hung a superb cloth of crimson
embroidered in gold, which was removed by another slave, and we
discovered in his hands a tall, slender coffee-pot of pure gold, from which he
proceeded to serve us. Were amused at the anxious care which the precious
cups were counted as we gave them back.
808 İşgal İstanbul’undan fotoğraflar.
809 Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, The Grand Seraglio of Stambul, 17.
"... conventional rose-leaf jam, coffee, and cigarettes like ordinary Turkish house, "but the salver, the
long slender spoons, and other accessories provided for the jam were of heavily chased gold, and the
extremely long cigarettes bore the gilded seal of Muhammad V. The coffee service was without
parallel, 8-9 kahveci, the first of whom had draped over his right arm, under the immense tray, a piece
of heavy crimson silk embroidered thickly with gold and with clusters of of myriad small pearls.
Behind him in single file followed others bearing an array of golden ewers and bowls, but before I had
time to observe these fırther my eyes were transfixed by the blaze of diamonds on the tray of the first
cofee cook. . . A very long and slender fork of three tines had been provided so that we might serve
ourselves with large pieces of rich creamy Turkish paste from a basket of golden filigree. This was
followed by sherbet served in richly chased golden goblets."
810 Müller, Letters from Constantinople, 26.
376
Figure 240. Coffee servers and visitors at the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk
(Istanbul 1919: Images d'Occupation)
Edwin Grosvenor witnessed this choreographed tour of the palace and wrote that he
enjoyed the beauties of the Mecidiye Kiosk, its spectacular view, and the special
treats offered by the Ottomans. Still, he described his visit with a certain degree of
disappointment, stating that only some parts of the Topkapı Palace specifically
designated for the Western gaze could be seen. According to Grosvenor:811
The Kiosk of Sultan Medjid is beautiful in itself. And surpassingly beautiful
in its situation. There the stranger becomes a guest. As he sips coffee of
aromatic fragrance, and tastes conserve of roses, and feasts his soul with the
entrancing view upon the sea and strait and distant hills, in the enjoyment of
the moment he half forgets his disappointment that, except the Throne Room,
Treasure House, Library, Kiosk of Baghdad, and this ethereal pavilion, all the
edifices of the inner Seraglio are closed to his feet and eyes.
As stated by many travel accounts, only certain buildings were open to visits during
the nineteenth century and shown to visitors following a certain route as explained
above (Figure 241). It is interesting to note that almost all the buildings that were
being shown during the palatial tour were either surrounded with railings or their
outer galleries were enclosed with windows. The photographs from the late
nineteenth century clearly showed that the galleries in front of the Council Hall
811 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 737-738.
377
(Figure 242) and the Imperial Treasury were bordered with railings. There were
railings outside of St. Irene as well, where some antique pieces were displayed. In a
similar fashion, the entrance vestibule of the Imperial Library, the galleries around
the marble pool at the Imperial Sofa, (Figure 243) and the galleries surrounding the
Revan and the Baghdad Kiosks (Figure 244) were enclosed with windows.
This technique had been practiced in the Topkapı Palace since the eighteenth
century, and perhaps even earlier, at other places of particular significance. A
document from 1731 mentioned the installation of windows between the columns
encircling the Revan Kiosk.812 Hence, the persistent use of railings and windows
surrounding certain edifices indicated the importance attributed to these buildings.
Still, it should also be noted that almost all of the aforementioned structures
functioned as palace treasuries for storing items of certain value. For instance, a
document from the Hamidian era mentioned that some archival documents were
temporarily stored in the area surrounded with railings in front of the Council Hall.813
Thus, in addition to being touristic showcases for visitors, these windows and metal
railings could also be interpreted as security measures, protecting the collections
from theft and illegal access and also shielding the edifices from certain climatic
conditions.
812 The galleries around the Council Hall in the second court were surrounded by ornamented railings
since the eighteenth century, as seen in the engravings of A.Ignace Melling. An archival document
from the early eighteenth century also states that the columns surrounding the Imperial Sofa were
closed with window frames as of 1731.
BOA TS.MA.d.10136.02_01 (3 Z 1143 / 9.6.1731)
"Ferman-ı ali üzere sarayı cedid-i amirede Sofa-yı Hümayunda mücededen bina olunan Taht-ı
Hümayun ve havuz-ı kebirin derunu tathir boyası tecdid olunup ve Revan Kasr-ı Hümayunu kurbunda
mermer sütun aralarına müceddeden çehar-çube [çerçeve] ve nim-zira cam ve cami-i atik mahaline
müceddeden havuz bina . . .
Yine Sofa-yı Hümayunda mermer sütunlar aralarına bina olunan çerçeveler ve nim-zira cam ve
havuz-ı kebir tamiratı"
813 BOA Y.PRK.SRN.1.87 (12.8.1883)
"Hitam-ı tamire kadar defter-i mezkure ile atik harbiye evrakı mahzen-i mezkur pişgahında demir
parmaklık ile mahfuz gezinti mahaline nakil ve hıfz ettirileceği..."
378
Figure 241. Hypothetical route of the palatial visits with various stops at some
significant landmarks during the reign of Abdülhamid II
Figure 242. Railings surrounding the Council Hall (TSMA)
Figure 243. Windows enclosing the entrance of Library of Ahmed III and the gallery
around the Marble Pool at the Imperial Sofa (TSMA)
379
Figure 244. Windows enclosing the galleries surrounding the Baghdad and the Revan
Kiosks (TSMA)
As explained above, an idea of exclusiveness was purposefully created for the
travelers visiting the Topkapı Palace, by treating them as distinctive guests of the
Sultan. The self-orientalizing spectacle that took place in the Mecidiye Kiosk was
designed to impress the foreign visitors by creating a sense imperial glory and
richness and it was carefully performed. During this performative act of hosting, the
imperial kiosk of Abdülmecid was used as stage; the spectacular view from the
palace was utilized as a background completing the scene; valuables from the
Imperial Treasury were reformulated as accessories; the palace itself acted as a
décor; the traditional royal ceremonies were reconfigured and adapted for the
spectacle; and the palace servants performed as actors. The overall performance
aimed to re-create a scene of long-lost imperial splendor in the abandoned palace.
This particular setting for Ottoman self-representation was staged to revive the glory
and prosperity of the Ottoman Empire for the European gaze and also to emphasize
the "longevity" of the dynastic genealogy. The ancientness of the dynasty and its
royal rituals gave prestige to the Ottomans, especially in comparison with other
Islamic states such as Iran and Egypt. Thus, the deeply rooted archaic palatial
traditions of the Ottoman empire were emphasized and elaborated in contrast with
the newly instituted dynasties of the nineteenth century.
380
This spectacle epitomized Ottoman "self-orientalization" and portrayed the
widening distance between their own past and the purposeful representation of that
past with Romantic tendencies.814 According to Ussama Makdisi, during the
nineteenth century "Ottomans recognized and responded to the power of Western
Orientalism by embracing the latter's underlying logic of time and progress, while
resisting its political and colonialist implications." He also argues that the Ottomans
were aware of the fact that "there were some essential differences that distinguished
them from the West."815 In this respect, the Topkapı Palace, representing the
traditional core of the Ottoman ruling system was deliberately re-formulated and represented
through an orientalist lens. While emphasizing the fundamental differences
between themselves and the West, the Ottomans also resisted the Orientalist
discourse of Western superiority by presenting the glorious history of the Ottoman
Empire, its rich history, rooted traditions, elegant art and architecture. In this respect,
while the new palaces built on the shores of the Bosphorus represented the modern
identity of the Ottoman empire and glorified the reforming rulers of the nineteenth
century, the Topkapı Palace, on the other hand, emphasized the distinctive features
of the Islamic empire and its rooted history.
4.4.6 A self-representative spectacle: Visiting the Imperial Treasury
Following this ceremonial treat at the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk, this exceptional
tour was complemented with a visit to the Imperial Treasury, which was located in
the third court of the palace.816 The most astonishing and anticipated part of the tour
was the visit to the Sultan's private treasury and it became another stage for
814 Bann, Romanticism and the Rise of History.
815 Makdisi, “Ottoman Orientalism,” 769.
816 According to some travel accounts, the order of the visits could vary. Sometimes Imperial Treasury
was visited before the Mecidiye Kiosk and the Baghdad Kiosk.
381
performative ceremony. The visitors were taken to the third court and in front of the
Imperial Treasury, they waited for the Chief Treasurer and the palace servants to
show up, and the treasury door was unlocked with a symbolic ceremony mimicking
the traditional treasure opening ritual (Figure 245). For instance, during the royal
visit of Mahmud II to the treasury (Teşrîf-i pâdişâh-ı rub'-ı meskûn be-temâşâ-yı
hazîne-i Enderûn-ı hümâyûn), the treasury pages lined up on either side of the
entrance gate of the Imperial Treasury, with apprentices on the right and highranking
pages on the left with their ceremonial outfits and accompanied the seal
breaking ceremony.817 In a similar manner, during the late-nineteenth century the
opening ceremony of the Imperial Treasury for foreign visitors mimicked this royal
tradition. Hence, while the palace servants stood on both sides of the treasury door, a
key in a velvet bag was handed to the Chief Treasurer and the seal was broken with a
royal formality, which was described by J.C. Robinson at The Times:818
A high official, the keeper of the Imperial Treasury, and a staff of no less
than 30 sub-officers and attendants, were assembled at the unlocking of the
door. This is in itself was a picturesque, formal ceremony, apparently of
prescriptive usage. The officers and attendants ranged themselves in two lines
facing each other and leading up the to the doorway, and a green velvet bag
containing the massive keys was passed along to the principal official, who in
a solemn manner took out the keys one by one, and apparently compared and
verified them in the presence of a couple of co-adjutors.
817 Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 143–44. İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri -
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Rehberi, 90.
818 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885.
382
Figure 245. Ceremony for the opening of the Imperial Treasury (TSMA)
After the doors were opened, the visitors could finally enter the first chamber of the
Imperial Treasury, which was referred as "Vezne-i Hümayun". The Chief Treasurer
and the treasury pages took their positions, bowing and scraping, within the treasury
chambers inspecting the visitors. After his visit to the Imperial Treasury in 1890,819
Pierre Loti also depicted the "compulsory entrance ceremony" in his memoirs.
According to Loti, twenty treasury pages were lined up on either side of the treasury
door, forming a corridor for the visitors to walk through. The visitors get in and out
of the dim chambers while the pages watch over them.820 Once entering the first
chamber of the Imperial Treasury, visitors were able to have a quick glance at the
819 TS.MA.E.241.46 (25 N 307 / 15.05.1890)
“Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdalığı Canib-i Aliyesine
Fransa edebiyatı meşhuresinden Mösyö Piyer Loti nam zat ile refikasının yarınki perşembe günü
Hazine-i Hümayunu seyr ve temaşa etmesine müsade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahanede erzan
buyurulduğu teşrifat-ı umumiye nazırı devletlu Münir Paşa hazretleri tarafından tebliğ buyurulmuş
olmağla ale'l-usul Hazine-i Celile-i mezkurenin seyr ve temaşa ettirilmesi babında emr ü irade
efendim hazretlerinindir.”
820 Loti, İstanbul, 51.
"Hazinenin beyaz sakallı bekçisi, kocaman anahtarlarıyla bize kapıyı açmaya hazırlanırken, yeminli
yirmi görevli girişin her iki yanında, sağda on, solda on kişi olmak üzere bir koridor oluşturmak için
çıkıp geldiler, bu mecburi bir törenmiş. Onların yaptığı iki sıranın arasından geçip gidiyoruz;
görevliler de bizi izlemeye devam ederken loş salonlara girip çıkıyoruz."
383
treasury collection under the surveillance of numerous palace officials, walking from
one hall to another (Figure 246). Edwin Grosvenor provides us with a detailed
account of the nature of the visit and the objects on display: 821
One still beholds quantities of precious stones, elaborate harness mounted in
gold, saddle-cloths wrought with pearls, marvelously fashioned clocks,
splendid porcelains, gold and silver chased arms and armour, cups encrusted
with diamonds, and a maze of objects of rare and perfect make to gratify
every wildly extravagant whim. Yet, when all is seen, the impression left
behind is one of blurred confusion and disappointment, rather than of
admiration and surprise. The most remarkable possession of the first is a
Persian throne of beaten gold, into which handfuls of rubies, emeralds, and
pearls have been wrought in mosaic. In the gallery, in glass cases on wooden
frames, are arranged in chronologic order the gala robes of each sultan from
Mohammed II to Mahmoud II. The fez and Cossack costume of the latter
contrasts strangely with the flowing, graceful attire of his predecessors.
Figure 246. Persian Throne in the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury (Author's
collection)
The entrance and visiting rituals of the Imperial Treasury and its dark and crowded
chambers with of thousands of items accumulated without any historical or artistic
categorization, reveal a conscious attempt by the Ottomans to creating an authentic
821 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 729-730.
384
ambiance. While the archaic palatial rituals were simulated for touristic purposes, the
display of the treasury collection also related to the original form and function of the
building. In other words, rather than creating a modern and neutral museum setting
for displaying the collection, a genuine and archaic atmosphere was recreated with
historical and royal references. Thus, the display strategy for the Imperial Treasury
was much different from that of the Imperial Museum, which embraced scientific
classification methods and exhibition techniques in line with its European
contemporaries (Figure 247).
Figure 247. Throne of Ahmed I displayed in the Imperial Treasury (Bayram
günlerine mahsus taht-ı ali, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
385
As understood from the travel accounts of the era, among the seven chambers of the
Imperial Treasury822 only three of them were open to visits during the reign of
Abdülhamid II. These three chambers must have been the domed treasury chamber,
the Divanhane chamber next to it, and the loggia, which opened into each other. The
Ambassador's Treasury, the fourth chamber of the treasury complex, and the
basements would have been reserved for storing valuables of the palace that were not
displayed to the visitors. For example the golden ceremonial throne, which was
known to be kept in the Imperial Treasury of the Topkapı Palace823 was neither listed
in the treasury registers nor shown in the pictures or depicted by any of the travellers
visiting the treasury. Apart from the three chambers that were open for visits and
exclusively designed for displaying objects, there must have been additional
chambers where objects that were not displayed or used during the court ceremonies
were kept (Figure 248). The treasury registers from 1878 also mention that some
items were kept in the fourth chamber of the treasury.824 The Gurlitt Map also shows
the distinction between the attached three chambers of the Imperial Treasury and the
fourth chamber together with the Ambassador’s Treasury825 (Figure 249).
822 Hafız Hızır İlyas confirmed the existence of seven chambers in the treasury during the reign of
Mahmud II. Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 143.
823 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 266. 30.5.1876: “Bâb-ı-Ser-askerl’de başlayıp
Dolmabahçe’de ikmâl edilmek suretiyle çok aceleye gelen biat merâsiminde Topkapu sarayındaki
tarihi tahtın getirtilmesi kabil olamadığı için, Sultan Murad’a ecdâdmın tahtına oturmak hiç nasib
olmamıştır”
The golden ceremonial throne was brought from the Topkapı Palace to the Dolmabahçe Palace for the
declaration of the First Constitution with the attendance of Abdülhamid II. Yılmaz, II. Abdülhamid,
284.
BOA Y.PRK.SGE.11.5 (1 Kanunisani 1323 / 14.1.1908)
“Muayede-i Hümayun meali-i meşhun resm-i celiline mahsus taht-ı ali-i Osmani . . . memurin-i saire
kullarının nezaret ve muhafazaları altında bugün Yıldız Saray-ı Hümayunlarından Topkapı Saray-ı
alisine nakil ve tamamen Hazine-i Hümayunlarına vaz ve idhar…”
824 Items No. 1563 and No. 4041 cited in Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli Hazine defteri, 90, 206.
"Duvar konsolu dördüncü hanede anbara vaz olundu / Hazine-i Hümayun dördüncü hane mevcud,
etc."
825 Tahsin Öz and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi suggest that Elçi Hazinesi, which was an additional chamber
constructed by closing the walls of the treasury gallery, was built during the reign of Mahmud I in the
early seventeenth century. Uğur Tanyeli on the other hand, claims that Elçi Hazinesi must have been
built after the 1766 earthquake. See, Öz, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Onarımları”; Ayverdi, Osmanlı
386
Figure 248. Circulation diagram for visiting the Imperial Treasury (detail from
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey map of 1911)
Figure 249. The distinction between the three chambers of the Imperial Treasury
that were open for visits and the fourth chamber used as a treasury depot (Gurlitt,
1912)
The collections displayed in these three chambers were depicted in detail by several
travelers and also listed in the treasury registers of the era.826 The first chamber was
the domed treasury room and the ceremonial entrance took place in front of it,
referring to its historical significance in the palace rituals.827 The Persian throne was
the most attentive piece displayed in the first hall and was located in the center of the
first chamber. It was displayed in an octagonal glass cabinet made of brass, which
Mimarisinde Fatih devri 3 1451-1481; Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih Köşkü
ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine Gözlemler.”
826 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri.
827 Tanyeli, “Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih Köşkü ve Tarihsel Evrimi Üzerine
Gözlemler.”
387
was designed to display this particular throne. According to the throne’s label "[It]
was captured during the war between Sultan Selim and Persian Shah İsmail in 1514
and sent over".828 It is quite interesting that the first and the most significant piece
displayed in the Imperial Treasury belonged to another culture and does not represent
Ottoman art. Rather, it was a manifestation of Ottoman military victories and
communicated the glory of the empire as a world power. The Persian throne was
listed as the first item in the treasury registers as well, and apart from its jeweled
decorative features, its non-Ottoman origin was also emphasized as "throne of
Keykavus (taht-ı Keykavus)".829 The photograph of the throne in the albums of
Abdülhamid II was labeled as the imperial throne brought from Iran (Acemistandan
ahz olunan) by Selim I.830 The Times author J.C. Robinson underlined the
foreignness of this throne as a war spoil:
On the whole, the first room is the richest in notable objects. The most
conspicuous, though by no means the most interesting, thing is a great throne
or divan of beaten gold, occupying the entire centre of the room, set with
pearls, rubies, and emeralds, thousands on thousands in number, covering the
entire surface in a geometrical mosaic pattern. This specimen of barbaric
magnificence was a spoil of war taken from one of the Shahs of Persia.
There were also wooden cabinets around the walls of the chamber encircling the
throne. According to the treasury registers, more than 1,500 objects registered under
1,342 categories were displayed within these 12 cabinets and 113 items were placed
outside of the cabinets in the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury.831 Treasury
registers give us a detailed list of the pieces displayed in each cabinet. There were
828 Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi, 36–37.
"Bu taht 1514 sensesinde Sultan Selim'in Acem Şahı İsmail'e karşı ettiği muharebede alınmış ve
gönderilmişdir."
829 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri, 19. "Altın mine üzerine inci ve yakut ve zümrüd ile müzeyyen taht-ı Keykavus maa
payesi ve incili minderi"
830 Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress. The caption of the photo: "Sultan Selim Han evvel
hazretleri tarafından Acemiztandan ahz olunan kıymetli taş üzerine altın işleme taht Topkapı Saray-ı
Hümayunu veznesinde diğer camekandan görünüşü"
831 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri.
388
objects used by the royal family, such as cups, plates, jugs, flasks, boxes, vases,
mirrors, pens, clocks, chess boards, fans, candlesticks etc., together with furniture
and textiles placed to create a sense of richness through accumulation. Arms and
armory, daggers, swords, and knifes, adorned with precious stones and decorated in
oriental motifs were exhibited as essential pieces of the treasury collection. The arms
and armor of Murad IV and the famous Kaşıkçı diamond were also shown in this
chamber.832 The renowned bronze statue of Abdülaziz on horseback was displayed
in the first chamber, "opposite the entrance, near a window"833, which was later sent
to the house of the Crown Prince Abdülmecid at Bağlarbaşı834 (Figure 250).
Figure 250. The statue of Abdülaziz placed at the house of the Crown Prince
Abdülmecid at Bağlarbaşı (TBMM Arşivi, Abdülmecid Efendi Bağlarbaşı Köşkü
Albümü, K-166) / Abdülaziz on horseback displayed at the painting gallery of the
Topkapı Palace Museum (from Öz, Güzel Sanatlar, 42)
832 Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi, 38. It should be noted that Mehmed Raif Bey
provided information reagrding the treasury items after the Second Constitution.
833 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 87.
834 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri, 85. "No. 1454 Mermerden oyma paye üzerine tunçtan mamul esb üzerinde
cennetmekan Sultan Abdülaziz han hazretlerinin resm-i mücessemleri; 30 Teşrin-i sani 332 tarihinde
serkurena tavfik Beyin emriyle şehzade Mecid Efendiye verilmiştir."
389
There were timber galleries (şirvan) in the first chamber of the treasury, which were
removed without any documentation during the Ayverdi restorations in 1940s. The
major attraction of the gallery floor was a mother-of-pearl throne belonging to
Ahmed I. As seen in the pictures from the photographic albums of Abdülhamid II,
windowed display cabinets were placed on two sides of the throne. Various clocks
were placed at a lower level, ancient arms could be seen in the background, and
china vases were placed on top of the cabinets. On the wall miniature portraits of
sultans and the renowned portrait of Abdülmecid were hung (Figure 251). According
to the treasury registers oil painting portraits of Mahmud II, Abdülmecid, French
emperor Bonaparte, and the Prussian emperor, together with paintings depicting
French war scenes and Ottoman landscapes were also displayed in the first
chamber.835 As seen in the photographs, while all display cabinets have the same
stylistic features, some were shorter or narrower than others (Figure 252). This
implies that cabinets were manufactured according to the size and shape of specific
collections or according to the spatial limitations of the chambers without
considering the overall visual unity.
835 Bayraktar and Delibaş, 89. No.1543-1561.
390
Figure 251. The gallery floor of the first chamber of the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i
Hümayunda mahfuz esliha ve çini küpler, Library of Congress)
Figure 252. The Imperial Treasury collection displayed in cabinets of different size
in the gallery of the first chamber (INHA Archives, Abdullah Freres, c.1890,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem)
In the second chamber, thousands of valuable pieces were also displayed within and
outside of the display cabinets. According to the treasury register of 1878,
391
approximately 1,378 items and more than 1,500 objects were displayed in 20
cabinets. Around 500 items, mostly composed of riffles, swords, pistols, clocks, and
paintings were also displayed outside these cabinets.836 The second chamber of the
treasury included a timber gallery, which has different balustrades than those of the
first chamber in terms of style and material. In the photos, some rifles are displayed
on the balustrades of the gallery. Apart from the portraits of the sultans, their
ceremonial robes were also displayed in the second chamber. These historic garments
of exquisite fabrics and traditional patterns were exhibited on faceless mannequins.
The collection attracted the utmost attention and was mentioned in almost all travel
accounts of the time (Figure 253 - Figure 254).
Figure 253. Chronological display of the costumes of the sultans in the second
chamber of the Imperial Treasury (INHA Archives, Abdullah Freres, c.1890,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem)
836 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri.
392
Figure 254. The costumes of the sultans on display in the second chamber of the
Imperial Treasury (Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda mahfuz Selatin-i Osmaniyenin
hilat-ı şahaneleri, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
These ceremonial robes, complete with turbans adorned with valuable aigrettes and
with jeweled daggers, were organized chronologically from Mehmed II to Mahmud
II. This chronological display also communicated the idea of dynastic continuity and
the longevity of the empire. The sudden transformation of these costumes to Western
style clothing emphasized the rapid modernization of the empire with the reforms of
Mahmud II. Mahmud II's costume was registered as "Cennetmekan Sultan Mahmud
han sani hazretlerinin Nizam-ı Cedid elbise-i alileri" in the treasury registers,
identifying his costumes with the modern military order.837 In fact, the simple
Western clothing of Mahmud II in contrast with the flamboyant costumes of previous
sultans with their rich textiles and gorgeous colors, and created disappointment for
the Western gaze. As stated in an article from The Times: "... poor Sultan Mahmoud's
left-off suit is no other than a very badly made modern field-marshal's uniform . . .
837 Bayraktar and Delibaş, 152. No. 2849.
393
contrast[s] with the ample caftans, flowing under-garments, and stately jeweled
turbans." The swords of great warrior sultans, such as Mehmed II, Bayezid I, Selim I,
Süleyman I, Selim II, Murad (IV?), and Mahmud were also displayed in the same
cabinets with the gala robes and placed behind the costumes.838 Some pictures from
the Abdülhamid II albums also mention the owners of particular items as belonging
to warrior sultans. For instance the armor and arms of Murad IV839 and swords of
Mehmed II, Beyazid I, Selim II840 celebrated the history of the Ottoman dynasty and
their victories (Figure 255).
Figure 255. Arms and armor of Murad IV (Sultan Murad Han rabi hazretlerinin zırh
ve eslihası, Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress) / Swords belonging to
warrior sultans (Vezne-i Hümayunda mahfuz Sultan Mehmed Han ve Sultan Selim
Han ve Bayezid Han hazretlerinin Konstantiniyye kılıçları, Abdülhamid II Albums,
Library of Congress)
838 Bayraktar and Delibaş, 152–54. No.2850-2881.
839 Caption of the photo from Abdülhamid II albums: "Sultan Murad Han rabi hazretlerinin zırh ve
eslihası"
840 Caption of the photo from Abdülhamid II albums: "Vezne-i Hümayunda mahfuz Sultan Mehmed
Han ve Sultan Selim han ve Bayezid Han hazretlerinin Konstantiniyye kılıçları."
394
Collections of ancient coins, even though listed under the inventory of the first
chamber, were placed in the center of the second chamber. For example, Edwin A.
Grosvenor cites a large glass case with rare gold coins in the second hall of the
treasury. Demetrius Coufopoulos, in A guide to Constantinople mentions that "[i]n
the centre of the room below is a glass case containing a fine collection of
Roman, Byzantine, Arabic, and Turkish coins."841 In a similar fashion, Mrs. Max
Müller states that in the center of the second chamber there existed "a round case
with bowls filled with every variety of silver and gold coins from very early
dates".842 These coins were not categorized according to their origins or dates, but
instead defined in terms of religious taxonomy or possession by a certain ruler. Most
coins were defined as "old Islamic silver coins" (Sim meskukat-ı atika-i İslamiyye) or
as "old Islamic and foreign coins" (İslam ve ecnebi meskukat-ı atikası). Some coins
were also defined with respect to the period of the sultans. For example, the coins
belonging to the periods of Sultan Ahmed, Abdülmecid (Sultan Ahmed ve Sultan
Abdülmecid han hazretlerinin kebir kıt'a sim meskukat-ı atikası), Selim (Sultan Selim
han hazretlerinin akçeleri), and Mahmud II (Sultan Mahmud han-ı sani haretlerinin
sim altmış parelik meskukat) were distinguished in the treasury registers.843
In a similar manner, apart from numerous valuable yet unidentified items
displayed in the treasury, items belonging to a particular sultan were specified. For
instance, ceremonial robes, monograms, swords, paintings, and imperial seals of the
sultans were tagged with the name of the specific ruler. Thus, an object on display
gained historical recognition only if it carried some sort of relation with a sultan or
an emperor. Neither the artistic or stylistic particularities of the objects on display,
841 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 88.
842 Müller, Letters from Constantinople, 30.
843 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri, 43–44. No. 471,473,478, 479.
395
nor their historical periodization were specified within the context of the treasury
collection.
The third chamber of the Imperial Treasury is the most mysterious and the
least known section of the display. We have little information regarding the third
chamber. Based on travellers' descriptions, one can assume that this chamber could
be the corner loggia.844 The treasury registers of 1878 provide ambiguous
information regarding the contents of the third chamber. While the contents of the
cabinet number forty in the third chamber (Üçüncü hanenin kırk numaralı dolab
derunu) and the number of items in the third cabinet (Üçüncü hanede mevcud
eşyanın mikdarı) were listed in the registers, no information was given regarding the
other cabinets in this chamber. It is also stated that cabinet number seven of the first
chamber was transferred to the third chamber with its contents (İşbu dolab içinde
olan eşya ile üçüncü haneye naklolundu) and the cabinet number thirteen of the
second chamber was transferred to the third chamber with its contents as well. Based
on this information it could be assumed that 1,268 objects classified under 317 items
were displayed in the third chamber. However, no picture or realistic depiction of
this room could be found thus far.
The travel accounts of the era are also far from comprehensive descriptions.
Edwin Grosvenor states that the "[t]hird room possess numerous objects of minor
interest".845 Giving a long and detailed description of the Imperial Treasury and its
contents J.C. Robinson did not provide any specific information regarding the third
chamber either:846
844 It is known that the open loggia or hayat of Mehmed II's pavilion was converted into a treasury
room after the sixteenth century and the arches overlooking the sea were walled. Thus, it is quite
likely that the loggia was reorganized to display the Imperial Treasury collection during the second
half of the nineteenth century.
845 Grosvenor, Constantinople, 732.
846 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885.
396
In the third chamber amid a vast accumulation of rare and costly things -
arms, crystals, china and miscellaneous objects of Oriental origin are
undoubtedly scores of specimens, which would furnish glowing and attractive
descriptions for a catalogue, but I fear I have already dwelt too long on works
the most notable characteristic of which are, after all, rather Oriental
splendour and magnificence than art or historic interest.
In addition to lack of artistic and historical significance, The Times author criticized
the display techniques of the treasury as well. According to him, the collection was
displayed under the dim light and without any order: "The glazed cases in all the
three rooms are filled with thousands of things of all kinds, distributed without any
order or system; in short, the most delightful confusion reigns everywhere."847 An
article published in Constantinople Illustrated depicts the treasury as "a barbaric
display of . . . things of greatest value, intrinsic and historical, mixed in an ignorant
and dirty fashion with a heap of modern riff-raff."848 In a similar fashion, some
visitors expressed their admiration mixed with discontent in their memoirs after
visiting the legendary Ottoman treasury, criticizing the disorganization of the
collection, poor lighting conditions, and mentioning their discomfort while trying to
observe the collection under the surveillance of palace officials (Figure 256).
847 Ibid.
848 Constantinople Illustrated, Part I, 1886.
397
Figure 256. Collections displayed in the Imperial Treasury (INHA Archives,
Courtesy of Edhem Eldem)
There were windowed display cabinets in the entrance gallery of the Imperial
Treasury, located on either of the entrance portal as well. These displays also took
their share from such critiques as well (Figure 257). These 494 objects, mostly
composed of rifles, pistols, swords, arms and armor, were displayed in the cabinets
located on the right side of the treasury entrance. On the left side of the entrance
portal 360 objects were also displayed in windowed cabinets.849 According to The
Times article dirt and dust covered this collection displayed in the gallery of the
treasury and "the glass was crusted with dirt and specimens could hardly be seen".850
Another article published in the New York Times complained about the same issue:851
The building in which the treasury is housed has a wide loggia or corridor in
front, and the back wall on either side of the central door is glazed in and
forms a case in which is arranged a vast collection or ancient arms and armor.
Unfortunately, the specimens are only imperfectly seen, for the glass is
crusted with dirt in the manner of old wine bottles, and it has probably never
been cleaned since it was put in place.
849 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri, 187–96.
850 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885.
851 "The Turk's Jewel House: Old Armor, a Throne of Gold, and Gems of Great Value", New York
Times, 25.12.2885.
398
Figure 257. Display cabinets on either side of the entrance portal of the Imperial
Treasury (Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Vezne-i Hümayununun görünüşü,
Abdülhamid II Albums, Library of Congress)
These complaints and disdain must have eventually reached the Ottoman authorities
and the pieces displayed at the treasury gallery were cleaned under an official order.
An archival document from 1898 (Appendix A.5) mentioned the unclean condition
of the cabinets and explained the cleaning procedure of the dusted weapons. The
document also emphasized that, “the dirtiness of the windows and the weapons on
display created a very ugly scene for the guests coming” and these valuables were
cleaned with care by the order of the Chief Treasurer without moving or touching
any of the items on display.852 The self-awareness under the critical eye of the
852 BOA Y.PRK.HH.30.37 (2 Z 1315 / 4.5.1898) I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Edhem Eldem for
bringing this document to my attention. See, Appendix A.5.
“Hazine kapısının haricindeki iki taraf camekanlar derununda bulunan silahlar tozlanmış ve camlar
kirlenmiş ve bu da gelen misafirlerin gözü önünde olarak o hal üzere durması çirkin bulunmuş
olduğundan ve zaten maruz camekanlardaki esliha ve edevat kıymettar olmamakla beraber bunların
lüzum görüldükçe temizlettirilmesi mukteza-yı irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahilerinden bulunup
bundan mukaddemleri de açılıp tathir edilmiş olduğundan bu gün dahi mezkur camek[an]lar Hazine-i
Hümayunları Kethüdası Bey kullarının emriyle emsali misüllü Beşinci Katip Rıza Bey ve Güğümbaşı
Muavini ve Seferli Koğuşu Nöbetçi Başısı Şakir Efendi ve daha beş on hademe efendi kulları
taraflarından açılarak süpürge ve tüylerle silahların üzerindeki tozlar alınmış ve camlar silinmiş ise
399
foreign visitors and the conscious act of self-representation was highly evident in the
late nineteenth century context. The Ottomans positioned and represented themselves
in response to the foreign gaze and its critical lens.
In fact, the Ottomans were eager to keep the treasury in good shape and made
necessary modifications in accordance with the display technologies of the era. An
archival document from 1901 reported the renovation of fifteen display units and
windows, and claimed that with the transfer of the treasury collection to these new
display units, the Imperial Treasury would be superior to the museums in foreign
countries in terms of its decoration and organization.853 Thus, Ottomans were aiming
to organize the Imperial Treasury as a museum and intended to establish a collection
that could compete with its European counterparts (Hazine-i Hümayunun üç haneden
ibaret aksamı memalik-i ecnebide mevcud mütearif müzehanelere faik bir suretde
tanzim ve tezyin kılınmış olduğu). Still, for many visitors, the Imperial Treasury
epitomized an oriental tale, a mystic cave where the treasury of the oriental despot
was being kept. For instance Susan E. Wallace compared the contents of the treasury
with Sinbad's valley or Aladdin's cave, re-producing the orientalist narrative:854
There are uncut gems in basins, emeralds large as a man's hand, scimiters
blazing like the magic sword of King Arthur, diamonds, diamonds
everywhere, thick as in Sindbad's valley and Aladdin's enchanted cavern.
There is such profusion of precious things that after awhile one begins to feel
they are imitations; surely such masses of inestimable value cannot belong to
one man or even to one Empire.
de silahlardan hiçbir tanesi yerinden oynatılmamış ve harice bir şey çıkarılmamış velhasıl muğayir-i
rıza-yı Hümayunları hiçbir hal vuku bulmamış olduğu...”
853 Y.PRK.ASK.167.54 (8 Şubat 1316 / 21.2.1901)
"Tophane-i Amirede imal edilen onbeş aded kebir maden dolaplar . . . Hazine-i Hümayun kethüdası
saadetlü Edhem Bey ve ketebe-i memurin-i saire kulları hazır oldukları halde Tophane-i Amireden
gönderilen memur ve marangozlar marifetiyle Hazine-i Hümayundan atik dolaplar çıkarılarak alel
usul müceddedleri yerlerine konulmuş ve iş bu dolaplarda mevcud eşya-i nefise ve nadire-i umum
Hazine-i Hümayun ketebesiyle memurini ve hademeleri kulları muvacehesinde alel usul Hazine
dahilinde atik dolaplardan cedid dolaplara nakil olunmuş ve Hazine-i Hümayunun üç haneden ibaret
aksamı memalik-i ecnebide mevcud mütearif müzehanelere faik bir suretde tanzim ve tezyin kılınmış
olduğu..."
854 Wallace, Along the Bosphorus, 57-58.
400
Similarly, Eugène Gallois praised the richness of the collection and depicted the
Imperial Treasury as "curious rather than beautiful" and compared its decor to "1001
nights."855 J.C. Robertson defined the three great square halls of the treasury en suite
with each other as an "enchanted open sesame cave from which there might
perchance be no exit. Very cave like and mysterious indeed."856
Apparently, the Imperial Treasury was not immune to orientalist
preconceptions and perhaps even reproducing this discourse consciously. Both the
items within the treasury; the way they were organized; the opening ritual; and
display strategies had direct references to an "authentic" past. Rather than adopting
modern and somewhat neutral display strategies that the Ottomans had already
implemented in the Imperial Museum; a different display strategy was implemented
in the Imperial Treasury, which emphasized the link between the space and the
objects on display. Differing from modern museums of the nineteenth century, where
objects on display were brought from various locations and categorized and
displayed to reflect a certain epistemology or ideology, the Imperial Treasury had
always been the locus for the objects on display. Thus, the historical bond between
the space and the items on display created a sense of sincerity and authenticity.
The aforementioned document from the Ottoman archives gives us an idea
about the internal mechanisms of display within the palace. This very interesting
document from 1898, declares that “in accordance with the orders, this Saturday the
Imperial Treasury was opened four times for the visits of foreign tourists. During
these visits, the Chief Treasurer and other officials were present and made sure that
855 Gallois, Une croisière dans le Levant, 55.
"Nous devions faire aussi la visite du Trésor des sultans au vieux sérail, où l'on est ébloui par tant de
richesses inutilisées (les pierres précieuses sont là entassées, au boisseau), et celle des Palais
Impériaux, plus curieux que beaux avec leurs longues façades, leurs suites d'appartements, de salons,
décorés souvent avec une profusion de luxe de mauvais aloi: en un certain il est des bains d'albâtre,
décor des « Mille et une nuits »".
856 Robinson, "The Sultan's Art Treasury", The Times, 8.12.1885.
401
no item was touched or removed from the treasury.” It is quite remarkable that the
Imperial Treasury was opened and closed or unsealed and sealed, four times just
within one day. This shows not only the popularity of the Imperial Treasury as a
touristic site, but also the standardization of the palatial tours as repeated spectacles
and as cyclic performances.857 (Appendix A.5) Thus, it could be stated that this
spectacle was performed by the Ottomans consciously to create an oriental setting,
mimicking the archaic palatial rituals. In other words, as a response to the orientalist
gaze, longing for the flavors of a mystic and exotic orient, the palace and the
Imperial Treasury were staged to recreate the past glory of the empire as
"manifestations of alterity and identity in the Ottoman domain" as stated by Ahmet
Ersoy.858
During the era of Abdülhamid II, paying a visit to the Topkapı Palace was no
longer a privilege, and as explained above, the Ottoman state institutionalized these
tours as a response to the demands of foreign visitors. Carefully staged tours of the
palace and well-organized palace officials aimed to make the palace visit an
unforgettable experience for tourists, as well as emphasizing and rejuvenating the
imperial role of the Topkapı Palace in the Ottoman dynastic tradition. In other words,
the Ottomans aimed to bridge the broken link between the past and the present,
between tradition and modernity with such pseudo-performances mimicking and
imitating the archaic imperial rituals.
In reference to Nietzsche's On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, it could
be stated that The Imperial Treasury and the Topkapı Palace were used to grasp the
past, where the treasury was utilized as an embodiment of antiquarian history and the
857 BOA Y.PRK.HH.30.37 (2 Z 1315 / 4.5.1898) See, Appendix A.5.
“Bugünkü Cumartesi günü dört defa Hazine-i Hümayunları açılarak seyyahin-i ecnebiyeye ziyaret
ettirilmiş ve Hazine-i Hümayunları huzuru lazım gelen kethüda bey ile sair zabitan ve hademe
efendiler kulları hazır ve mevcut bulundukları halde açılıp kapatılmış..."
858 Ersoy, Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary, 10.
402
palace itself epitomized the monumental history.859According to Nietzsche
"antiquarian history" is derived from the urge to preserve the past and admiration for
it. For Nietzsche, this method of grasping the past is more noble but still falls into the
trap of distorting the past. Antiquarians, having more respect towards the past than
for the present, know how to preserve life but not how to generate life. This method
of telling history exemplifies the nineteenth century craze for collecting, preserving,
and displaying the objects of the past. Objects, once collected, preserved, and
displayed operated in service of history and were mummified. "Monumental
history", on the other hand, refers to the monumentalization of the past as a reference
for inspiration and motivation for coming generations. In other words, existing
edifices were monumentalized or new monuments were erected to put the scattered
past in order. Monuments are tools for making a totalizing, single, homogeneous
manifestation out of the diversity and heterogeneity of the past. For Nietzsche, it is
not possible to repeat the past by monumentalizing it, each representation of the past
is destined to be distorted, altered re-interpretations of it. In this context, the
"museumification" of the Topkapı Palace reflected the emerging modern historical
consciousness of the Ottomans during the nineteenth century and their urge to
represent their own past. The objects, which had been collected and preserved in the
palace for many centuries, were organized and displayed to represent the past glory
and dynastic longevity of the empire.
4.4.8 Photographic representations of the royal collections
The Topkapı Palace grounds and its collections were also represented in the
renowned photographic albums of Abdülhamid II. These albums presented not only
859 Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of History.
403
carefully displayed weapons, guns, shields, and armor within these display cabinets,
but the collections of the treasury together with other parts of the palace in their
museal settings. In these albums various buildings, kiosks, museums, halls, gardens
of the Topkapı Palace were presented as architectural and historical edifices,
emphasizing their historical, decorative, and architectural significance. However,
there was almost no sign of life within the palace in the majority of the photographs,
even in the pictures depicting the Harem, which was still in use during the time of
Abdülhamid II. Pavilions, halls, courts, and corridors of the Harem–emphasizing the
çini tiles, “arabesque” ornaments, and decorative elements within–were presented as
showcases for imperial architecture, and as pinnacles of traditional Ottoman art and
architecture. In a similar manner, palace gardens, galleries, domes, pavilions, their
interiors, and decorative elements were photographed in a sterile museum setting.
Some palace officials, black eunuchs, and soldiers were also shown in a limited
number of pictures, posing in their ceremonial roles or guarding the entrances of
some kiosks, complementing the museal ambiance.
Some of the pictures represented buildings that were already in the palatial
tour: the monumental entrance gates of the palace, the Council Hall and the Tower of
Justice, the Audience Hall, the Library of Ahmed III, the Baghdad Kiosk, the Revan
Kiosk, the Sofa Kiosk, the Tiled Pavilion, and the Imperial Treasury were
photographed and their names were mostly mentioned in the captions. The Chamber
of Sacred Relics was not represented except for a picture showing its galleries from a
distance. Particular attention was paid to the Arms Museum (St. Irene) and to the
Imperial Treasury. Numerous pictures from these venues were taken, showing the
collections and their interiors and emphasized the “imperial” codification of these
404
venues. Numerous photos from the Imperial Treasury, showing the entrance ritual,
its galleries, and its collections, reflected the significance of this treasury-museum.
According to an archival document dated 1889, the photographer Abdullah
was assigned to take pictures of the antiquities and old objects kept within the
Imperial Treasury.860 In 1891, Abdullah Frères was appointed again to take pictures
of the Imperial Museum and the antiquities within imperial schools as well.861
Another archival document mentioned that Abdullah Frères took pictures of the
armory with an imperial order to prepare an album to be sent to America in 1891.862
St. Irene, even though it was closed for visits, was labeled as “the Arms Museum”
(Esliha Müzesi) in these picture captions. Evidently, photography was used as a tool
for documenting and presenting the empire and to manifest its new and modern face,
emphasizing its inherent differences from and similarities with the West (Figure 258
- Figure 259). In this context, Ottomans adopted and utilized numerous visual,
museal, and performative representational techniques to position the Topkapı Palace
as a royal place of wonder and astonishment, underlining its undeniable bonds with
imperial Ottoman past. The palace, as an ultimate representation of "Ottomanness"
was labeled the authentic and unique source of dynastic and glorious past.
860 TS.MA.E.595.113 (14 S 1307 / 10.10.1889)
"Hazine-i Hümayunda bulunan antika nev'inden bazı şeylerle eski atikanın fotoğrafı Abdullah Efendi
tarafından fotoğrafla resimlerinin alınmasına müsade-i cenab-ı hilafetpenahi şayan buyurulmuş..."
861 BOA MF.MKT.128.4 (4 N1308 / 12.4.1891)
"Mekteb-i Mülkiye ve Mekteb-i Sultaniyenin içinde bulunan asar-ı atika ile Müzehanenin fotoğrafçı
Abdullah biraderler marifetiyle dört kıta olarak resminin aldırılması irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i
padişahi iktiza-i celilesinden olup fakat evvelce alınmış mevcut fotoğrafı var ise şimdi tekrar
alınmasına lüzum olmadığı gibi, fotoğraf camlarının dahi hüsn-i muhafazası iradat-ı seniyyeden
bulunmuş olmağla mümaileyhin vürudunda kendisi için lazım gelen muavenet ve teshilatın icrasıyla
alınacak resimlerin camlarıyla beraber hemen nezaret-i aciziye edası hususuna himmet
buyurulması.."
862 BOA Y.MTV.56.34 (13 R 1309 / 15.11.1891)
" Fot oğraf cı Abdull ah Bi raderl er marif eti yl e bi ri küt übhane-i hümayunda kalarak diğer biri
Amerika'ya irsal ve ikişer kıtası dahi Tophane'de hıfz olunmak üzre dört kıta fotoğraflarının
aldırılması . . . Maçka esliha anbarı ile Harbiye anbarının resimleri muma-ileyh Abdullah Biraderler
marifetiyle alınmış ise..."
These pictures are now kept at the United States Library of Congress.
405
Figure 258. Pictures from the Harem of the Topkapı Palace (Albums of Abdülhamid
II, Library of Congress)
Figure 259. Pictures from the Revan Kiosk and the Audience Hall (Albums of
Abdülhamid II, Library of Congress)
To sum up, during the long-reign of Abdülhamid II, the past was utilized and
reproduced through various medium to confirm the legitimacy, visibility, and control
of this authoritative ruler. Imperial and dynastic rituals and ceremonials were
reinvented and positioned as urban spectacles; and royal collections were attributed
new meanings and displayed in various forms. During the nineteenth century the
Topkapı Palace–even though it has lost its function as the seat of the Ottoman rulers–
was positioned as the locus of legitimization and approval especially during the
critical moments of power exchange. In this context two parallel yet diverse museal
institutions flourished in the palace grounds: The Imperial Museum and the Imperial
Treasury. The move of the archeological collections to the Tiled Pavilion and
406
development of the Imperial Museum with new buildings emulating the Western
model under the direction of Osman Hamdi is interpreted as a strong manifesto of
modernization and Westernization of the empire. On the other hand, the inner
sections of the Topkapı Palace and the Imperial Treasury were shown to foreign
visitors following a certain route and with a standardized tour. Certain kind of
exclusiveness and imperial aura was consciously created during the performative
display of the royal collections to foreign visitors. Not only this self-Orientalist
spectacle, but also the display strategies of the Ottomans were comparatively
analyzed within the scope of this chapter.
407
CHAPTER 5
THE SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD
5.1. From dynasty to nation: De-imperializing the palace; de-functioning the sultan
5.1.1 The fall of Abdülhamid II and the rise of the Young Turks
The long reign of Abdülhamid II came to an end with the political and military
intervention of the Young Turk Movement. Opposing the authoritarian regime of
Abdülhamid II, the members of the Young Turk movement were gathered under
numerous groups and committees. One of them, the Committee of Union and
Progress (CUP), mostly composed of students, bureaucrats, and military officers, had
a program of constitutionalism and aimed to depose Abdülhamid II in favor of a
more liberal sultan who would support the constitutional regime and representative
government. These opposing groups were organized and institutionalized especially
in the Balkans, Egypt, and Europe, and became most effective in the political and
intellectual arena. Eventually, after a sequence of events initiated in the Balkans and
series of mass meetings that took place in various cities of the empire, the CUP
managed to force Abdülhamid II to restore the parliament on July 23, 1908.863
Declaration of the constitutional monarchy was joyfully welcomed by waves of mass
demonstrations unprecedented in size and number within the empire. People on the
streets were celebrating the long-awaited freedom, chanting "liberty, equality,
fraternity, justice" (hürriyet, müsavat, uhuvvet, adalet). On December 17, 1908 the
new parliament was established with an opening speech by Abdülhamid II at the
building of the Darülfünun that was facing the Hagia Sophia, located right across
863 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2005, 255–67.
408
from the Imperial Gate of the Topkapı Palace. However, within four months a
military uprising broke out following the assassination of journalist Hasan Fehmi.
Known as the 31 March incident, this Islamist revolt aimed to restore the Sharia and
return control of the state back to Abdülhamid II . To suppress the uprising and
secure the control of the government, the Operation Army (Hareket Ordusu) was
mobilized from Thessaloniki to Istanbul. After the National Public Assembly
(Meclis-i Umumi-i Milli) was gathered under the protection of this army, the uprising
was oppressed and Abdülahmid II was finally deposed on April 27, 1909. The sultan,
who ruled the country with an iron fist for 33 years, was exiled to Thessaloniki with
his immediate family and servants.864
This was a major turning point in the history of the empire, transforming the
political and ideological grounds of the Ottoman state. The traditional center of
power had been concentrated in the hand of the sultan now shifted to the parliament
and to the military. The CUP, holding full control of the Ottoman parliament and the
military after the 31 Mart incident, began to enforce their ideologies centered around
Ottomanism, Islamism, Turkism, and Westernism.865 As a reaction against the oneman
rule of Abdülhamid II, the members of the CUP aimed to diminish the power
and authority of the sultanate while using its prestige and dynastic traditions as tools
for legitimizing their rule. Thus, during the Second Constitutional era, while the
symbolic existence and ceremonial role of the sultanate was promoted, the Sultan’s
actual legislative power and political influence were restrained.
Crown prince Reşad ascended the throne on April 27, 1909 with the
declaration of the Ottoman National Public Assembly, which also gave him the name
864 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2005; Orhan, Abdülhamit
Gerçeği; Akşin, Türkiye tarihi; Fesch and Üyepazarcı, Abdülhamid’in Son Günlerinde İstanbul =
Constantinople Au Derniers Jours d’Abdul-Hamid.
865 Akşin, Türkiye tarihi, v.4, 45-49; Zürcher and Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 193.
409
Mehmed as the second conqueror of Istanbul. Counter to tradition the accession
ceremony of Mehmed V Reşad was conducted at the Ministry of War rather than the
Topkapı Palace, which emphasized the military backdrop to his accession.866 In his
memoirs Tahsin Öz writes that, standing in front of Hagia Sophia, he saw Mehmed
Reşad and Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Pasha in a carriage heading towards the Ministry of
War.867 The decree of Mehmed V Reşad was read in parliament and was also
addressed to the army in the drill field at the Ministry of War. These symbolic
changes in the accession protocol represented the dominance of the military and the
parliament over the palace. To ensure his legitimization in the eyes of the public, the
enthronement of Mehmed V Reşad was also announced in the Topkapı Palace. A
postcard dated April 28, 1909, shows the proclamation of the new sultan in the
Topkapı Palace, in front of the Middle Gate. The Imperial Band (Mızıka-yı
Hümayun) processed in the first court of the Topkapı Palace and announced the
accession of the new sultan, even though he failed to attend the ceremony (Figure
260).
Figure 260. Declaration of the sultanate of Mehmed V in front of Bab-ı Selam of the
Topkapı Palace April 28, 1909 (Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection)
866 Abdurrahman Şeref, Kodaman, and Ünal, Son vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi tarihi, 31–
32.; Cevdet Küçük, "Mehmed V", in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., v.28,418-422.
867 Öz, Hayatım, 6.
410
Figure 261. Mehmed Reşad’s visit to the Sacred Relics on the day of the Sword
Girding May 10, 1909 (Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection)
The sword girding ceremony of Mehmed V Reşad took place on May 10, 1909,
thirteen days after his enthronement at the Minister of War. This official ceremony
took place with the participation of Ottoman dignitaries, princes, diplomatic envoys,
military officials, and members of the ministry council, and had a military order. The
new sultan went to Eyüp with the imperial yacht and came back via Edirnekapı and
Divanyolu, visiting the tomb of Mehmed II on his way back. The sultan returned to
the Topkapı Palace and, paid a customary visit to the Chamber of Sacred Relics as
well. A commission of deputies and ministers accompanied the new sultan during his
procession and other deputies were also invited to attend the ceremony at the
Topkapı Palace, to be present at the imperial kiosk there.868 A postcard depicted
Mehmed V Reşad in the third court of the palace heading towards the Chamber of
Sacred Relics with his entourage (Figure 261). In fact, the whole spectacle was
photographed and printed as an album titled “Album de la Cérémonie de l’investiture
868 Abdurrahman Şeref, Kodaman, and Ünal, Son vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi tarihi, 186.
411
du Sabre et de l’Avenement au Throne de S.M.I. Le Sultan Mehmed V”869 (Figure
262). The album, printed and circulated for propaganda purposes, gives an idea of
the nature of the procession and shows the wide public interest. Considering that
Mehmed V Reşad was brought to power by a military coup, his legitimacy in the
eyes of Ottoman dignitaries, foreign powers and particularly on his subjects had to be
confirmed. Following a very strong and controversial figure like Abdülhamid II, the
image of the new sultan was extremely important in shaping his position in the
public sphere. Given that Mehmed V Reşad was selected and brought to power by
the National Public Assembly, the legitimization of the new sultan is also verified the
legitimization of the coup, the parliament, and the CUP as well.
Figure 262. Mehmed Reşad in the first court of the Topkapı Palace in the imperial
carriage during the Sword Girding ceremony / Military processions during the Sword
Girding ceremony (Album de la Cérémonie de l’investiture du Sabre et de
l’Avenement au Throne de S.M.I. Le Sultan Mehmed V, 1909)
869 Album de la Cérémonie de l’investiture du Sabre et de l’Avenement au Throne de S.M.I. Le Sultan
Mehmed V , Constantinople, Librairie Militaire – I. Hilmi, Libraire-éditeur, 1909. I would like to
thank my friend and colleague Güven Erten for bringing this album to my attention.
412
The dynastic narrative of the Topkapı Palace, as the genuine manifestation of the
Ottoman’s victorious military past, was utilized again during the declaration of
World War I. The official ceremony for the declaration of the holy war was held at
November 11, 1914 in the Topkapı Palace. A group of statesmen, including the
sultan, the şeyhülislam, ministers, and a delegation from the Ottoman parliament
gathered in front of the Chamber of Sacred Relics, where the religious decree
regarding the Ottoman state's involvement in the war was read. The ceremony
continued with a short speech by the sultan. The role of the Topkapı Palace was
emphasized once again during the public demonstrations held on November 14.
According to the "pre-planned" program of the demonstration held in front of the
Fatih Mosque, the crowd would stop by the Topkapı Palace to show their respect to
the sultan, who was going to visit the Chamber of Sacred Relics. Thus, the dynastic,
nationalist, and religious memory of the Topkapı Palace was promoted and utilized
to justify Ottoman's involvement in the Great War.870 It was not the first or the last
time that the Ottomans turned to the glorious past of the empire and to the religious
symbolism of the Topkapı Palace during critical times.
Alongside the ancient customs and rituals, "invented traditions" were also
used to legitimize the Young Turk revolution and the CUP government. Monuments,
flags, banners, medallions, postcards, and processions commemorating the
declaration of the Second Constitution adorned various parts of Istanbul and the
empire. Young Turk leaders were presented as national heroes for liberty and justice,
and July 23 was celebrated as a national day. A monument to the declaration of the
constitution "Abide-i Hürriyet" (the liberty monument) was erected at newly
developing Northern part of the city, and a ceremonial gate was constructed for the
870 Beşikçi, The Ottoman Mobilization of Manpower in the First World War, 63–66.
413
opening ceremony of the monument at Hürriyet-i Ebeddiye Tepesi, which could be
translated as "the hill of eternal liberty".871 This gate resembled the Middle Gate
(Bab-üs Selam) of the Topkapı Palace (Figure 263). This was indicative of the
Young Turks’ symbolic use of the signs and symbols of historical, religious, military
and dynastic past to legitimize their rule. Historical and dynastic references were
used as pastiche, imitations detached from their original historical and spatial
contexts, and employed to reinforce the Young Turk revolution and the CUP regime.
Figure 263. The cover of Şehbal magazine showing the ceremonial gate erected for
the celebrations of the first year anniversary of the declaration of the Second
Constitution (Şehbal no.9, 1 Ağustos 1325 / 14.8.1909)
871 Erkmen, Geç Osmanli Dünyasında Mimarlık ve Hafıza : Arşiv, Jübile, Âbide, 251.
414
5.1.2 Control over dynastic possessions: Treasures in motion
Immediately after the dethronement of Abdülhamid II the Yıldız Palace, which was
associated with the Hamidian regime and positioned as the core of his personal and
political life, was occupied by the Operation Army872 (Figure 264). During the first
days of the occupation Bulgarian militants looted the Yıldız Palace and valuable
objects, jewelry, and furniture are believed to have been plundered.873 With the
intervention of the parliament, a commission was established for the clearance of the
Yıldız Palace to secure the documentation, classification, and distribution of various
items, valuables, assets, and documents.874 Discussions took place in the Chamber of
Deputies regarding the destiny of the documents and valuables found in the Yıldız
Palace. While some deputies argued that these should be returned to the nation or
appropriated by the parliament; others advocated that the personal possessions of the
sultan belonged to the Ottoman dynasty and cannot be appropriated by parliament.875
According to the records of the Chamber of Deputies on 3 Mayıs 1325 (16.5.1909),
Biga deputy Arif İsmet Bey proposed six sanctions regarding the assets of the
sultanate:876
1- All the wealth, assets, valuables, bank notes, historical goods, properties of
the deposed sultan should be cataloged and managed.
872 For a more detailed discussion of the architectural configuration of the Yıldız Palace and its role in
the politics of Abdülhamid II see, Özlü, “Merkezin Merkezi: Sultan II. Abdülhamid Döneminde Yıldız
Sarayı”, 2-13.
873 Candemir, Yildiz’da kaos ve tasfiye, 30.
874 Kutluoğlu and Candemir, Bir cihan devletinin tasfiyesi, 20–23.
875 Candemir, Yildiz’da kaos ve tasfiye, 36.
876 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 1, Cilt 3, İçtima senesi 1, 72. İnikad (3 Mayıs 1325 /
16.5.1909), TBMM Kitaplığı, 417.
"Biga Mebusu Arif Hikmet Bey'in Hakanı Mahlu'un şimdiye kadar iktisap edilen ve bundan
sonra da iktisap edilecek alan bilumum emval, emlak ve zikıymet ve tarihi eşyanın
alalmüfredat bir katalogunun tanzim ve bunlarm sureti tasarrufu hakkında bir kanun layihası
ihzarı hususunun Makamı Sadarete iblağı hakkındaki takriri."
415
2- The relics and collections at the Topkapı Palace should be registered and
preserved. (Topkapı Sarayındaki emanat ve mevcudatın dahi sebti defter
edilerek temini muhafazası)
3- The preservation and management of palaces in and around Istanbul.
4- The situation of the harem women and eunuchs within these palaces.
5- The situation of the deposed sultan and his sons.
6- Arrangement of a palace for the new sultan, its furnishing and required
personnel.
Hence, the possessions of Abdülhamid II, books, furniture, goods, and textiles found
in the Yıldız Palace were either left to the municipality (şehremaneti) and to the
Ministry of Education or transferred to other palaces or to the Imperial Museum.877 It
is also emphasized that the items taken from the Imperial Treasury had to be
returned.878 Still, the renowned jewelry collection of Abdülhamid II's Harem was
also appropriated and auctioned in Europe.
Apart from money, jewelry, bonds, and the personal belongings of
Abdülhamid II, the items found in the Yıldız Palace were mainly distributed to the
Imperial Museum, the Imperial Treasury, and the Ministry of Education. Some of the
arms and armor at the Yıldız Palace armory (Yıldız Silahhanesi) and books from the
Yıldız Palace library were also transferred to St. Irene, which was reorganized as the
877 BOA DH.MKT.2884.94 (20 B 1327 / 20.7.1909)
"Yıldız’da bulunan Şale Kasrıyla merasim ve Mabeyin Dairelerinden ve Saray ve Hazine-i Hümayun-ı
Mülûkane ile kendilerine aidiyetini ispat eden eşhas ve devaire verilecek eşyadan maada mefruşat ve
eşya ve mebani ve sairenin Şehremanetine terki hakkında . . . her biri vaktiyle mefruş ve mamur iken
devr-i sabıkta eşyasından kıymettar olanları Yıldız’a kaldırılmış ve kısm-ı mütebakisi metruk
bırakılarak harap olmuş olan diğer saray ve kasr-ı alilerin gerek alınan eşyasının iadesi gerek
muhtaç olduğu tefrişatın ikmali dahi lazımeden ve Yıldız’da tarih ve müzeye hizmeti olanlardan
maada kabil-i nakli..."
878 BOA İ.HUS.176.1327CA.23 (12.07.1909)
"Hakan-ı sabık tarafından Hazine-i Hümayundan Yıldız’a aldırılmış olan eşyanın enva ve miktarını
mübeyyin Hazine-i müşarun ileyha kethüdalığından tanzim ve irsal kılınan iki kıta defterden . . .
doğrudan doğruya Hazine-i Hümayuna iadesi ciheti..."
416
Military Museum at that time.879 Classification and documentation of thousands of
objects, documents, furniture, and personal belongings of the deposed sultan took
almost a year as stated by Halit Ziya Uaşklıgil.880 According to clearance registers
(tasfiye komisyonu defteri) more than half of the collection (3,256 pieces) was sent to
the Imperial Museum, 37% of the items (1,804 pieces) were transferred to the
Imperial Treasury, and around 9% of the collection was sent to the Ministry of
Education (Maarif Nezareti).881 The Yıldız collection was categorized under seven
segments: Coins, medallions, seals / Memorials, sculptures, models of monuments,
paintings / Armory / Objects of use and miscellaneous objects / Technical devices,
machines, collections (stuffed animals, shells, floral and geological collections).882
The books in the Yıldız Library were also classified by Abdurrahman Şeref Bey and
a select part of the collection was sent to the Imperial Museum.883 Some pieces were
distributed to schools and to people claiming ownership, but the majority of the
books were sent to the Ministry of Education.884 The sacred relics kept at the Yıldız
Library were also sent back to the Chamber of Sacred Relics in the Topkapı
Palace.885
879 BOA BEO.3780.283438 (07 B1328 / 15.7.1910)
Yıldız Kütüphanesi'nde korunmakta olan dört sandık eski eserin Askeri Müze'ye teslimi.
880 Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 309–10.
881 Kutluoğlu and Candemir, Bir cihan devletinin tasfiyesi, 28.
882 BOA İ.MBH.2.54 (1.6.1910) Yıldız'da bulunan dolapların üst kat camekanları içine koyulmus
kuşlar ve hayvan koleksiyonlarının mezkur camekanlarla beraber mekatibe nakilleri ve dolapların
hazineye iadesi.
883 BOA İ.HUS.176.53 / BEO.3570.267726 / İ.HUS.176.1327CA.56 (6.6.1909)
"Saray-ı Hümayun-ı Mülükanede mevcut Mönitör koleksiyonlarının Müze-i Hümayuna yahut Maarif
Nezaretince tensip edilecek bir kütüphane-i umumiye nakli..."
884 Candemir, Yildiz’da kaos ve tasfiye, 143–70.
885 Candemir, 9.
417
Figure 264. Invasion of the Yıldız Palace (Gertrude Bell Archive, Newcastle
University, 1909)
In his memoirs Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil claims that hundreds of valuable objects were
transferred from the treasures of the Topkapı Palace to the Yıldız Palace and with the
help of the treasury registers, it was possible to return almost all of these treasures to
their original locations.886 In the treasury registers (hazine defterileri) every item
taken from the Imperial Treasury and placed in the Yıldız Palace was carefully
registered indicating the date and place of transfer as such: "... sene ... tarihinde
886 Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 157–58.
418
Mabeyn-i Hümayun cenab-ı mülukaneye takdim olunmuştur".887 Thus, 1,804 treasury
items, which were located at various parts of the Yıldız Palace and most particularly
kept at the Yıldız Museum, were transferred to the Imperial Treasury in the Topkapı
Palace (Figure 265).
Figure 265. The Yıldız Museum (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı, Yıldız
Albümleri)
Not only the personal possessions of the deposed sultan and treasury items, but also
the women from Abdülhamid II’s harem were sent to the Topkapı Palace. According
to an archival document from 1909 a commission was established to secure the
transfer of the harem women from the Yıldız Palace to the Topkapı Palace and to
confirm that these women were given away to their guardians or families.888 Penzer
887 Bayraktar and Delibaş, Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli
Hazine defteri.
888 BOA ZB.377.34 (14.5.1325 / 27.05.1909)
"Yıldız'dan Topkapı Sarayına gönderilen cariyeler hakkında olunacak muamele Bab-ı Aliden bilistizan
Dahiliye Nezaret-i celilesinden alınan tezkire-i aliye ve melfufu suretleri leffen takdim kılınan
419
states that 370 women and 127 eunuchs were moved from Yıldız to the Topkapı
Palace in 31 carriages.889 Tahsin Öz, in his memoirs wrote that, after the fall of
Abdülhamid II, while the canon balls were fired to announce the enthronement of the
new sultan, the windows of the Harem at the Topkapı Palace were opened and the
heads of women were seen. He was surprised to see them as he had worked in the
Imperial Museum for years and was not aware that women were still living in the
Harem of the Topkapı Palace.890 Thus, the harem of Abdülhamid II and the old
harem ladies in the Topkapı Palace were unified after many decades, before the final
dissemination of the harem. Announcements were published in the newspapers to
call for the families of these women and the government telegraphed to various
Circassian villages in Anatolia, "notifying them that every family which happened to
have any female members in the ex-Sultan’s Harem was at liberty to take them
home...”891 The harem of Abdülhamid II was re-collected at the Topkapı Palace and
"one of the strangest ceremonies that ever took place even there" was performed,
where the Harem ladies met with their families that they had left years ago.
However, Penzer also states that "this old palace of the early Sultans had fallen into
such a state of disrepair that it was found to be unsuitable for them and they were
sent back again to Yıldız." 892 According to İrvin Cemil Schick, after the
dissemination of the harem, some of the women who were not lucky enough to find
their families went to Europe and had to display themselves to sustain their living893
(Figure 266). According to the records of the Chamber of Deputies, a salary was
bu cariyelerin evliya ve mutaalikatı taraflarından vuku bulacak müracaatın tetkikiyle ber-mucibi emr
ve tebliğ icab-ı icra kılınmak üzre Hazine-i Hümayun kethudası Edhem ve Şehremaneti sicil müdürü
ve Daniş Bey ile nezaret-i aliyelerinden memur edilecek bir zatdan mürekkeb bir komisyon teşkili
tensib olunarak yarından itibaren Topkapı Sarayında ictima edilmesi..."
889 Penzer and Şahin, Harem.
890 Öz, Hayatım, 6.
891 Francis McCullagh, The Fall of Abd-ul-Hamid, London, 1910, 276-278 cited in Penzer and Şahin,
Harem.
892 Penzer and Şahin, 20.
893 Schick and Anadol, Çerkes güzeli, 129–30.
420
assigned to 181 members of the harem, 96 of them belonging to the personal harem
of Abdülhamid II.894
Figure 266. Harem women and black eunuchs exposing themselves in Europe after
the dissemination of the harem of Abdülhamid II (Roget-Viollet collection, Getty
Images from Irvin Cemil Schick, Çerkes Güzeli, 130)
Following the fall of Abdülhamid II, not only the dynastic possessions at the Yıldız
Palace, but the treasures in the Topkapı Palace were also counted and cataloged. As
understood from the archival documents of the era, a detailed inventory of all the
royal collections and archival documents was taken. The collections at the Imperial
Treasury were counted and compared with the previous registers, and items brought
894 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 2, Cilt 2, İçtima senesi 1, 26. İnikad (21 Haziran 1328 /
4.7.1912), 62.
"Tebeddülü Saltanat zamanmda, tebeddülü Saltanat günü Hakan-ı sabıkın cariyeleri, tabii, Topkapı
Sarayına naklolunduğu zaman, oradaki Efendiler Sultanlar hazeratının cariyeleri de onlara
iltihak etmişler . . . Şunu da arz edeceğim ki, verdiğimiz maaşatın esamisi ceman 181 kişiden
ibarettir. 181 kişiden 85'i, Sultanlar ve Efendilerin cariyeleridir, 96'sı da Hakan-ı sabıkın
cariyeleridir. Bu Efendiler ve Sultanların cariyelerine verilen maaşın miktarı da 13.950 kuruştur."
421
the from the Yıldız Palace were recorded.895 The Imperial Library collection was
also classified and cataloged. Ahmet Zeki Bey, chief secretary of the Egyptian
council of ministers (Mısır Hidivliği Meclis-i Nuzzar Başkatibi) classified the rare
books written in Arabic, Persian or Turkish.896 The Imperial Library collection of the
Topkapı Palace, which had been a point of curiosity and wonder for European
scholars for many centuries, was finally catalogued by the early twentieth century.
The archival documents and manuscripts not only of military and official
significance, but also of historical and literary value were also classified and
circulated. For instance, the lyrics belonging to Mevlana C. Rumi in the archives of
the Topkapı Palace were given to the Imperial Museum.897 It is quite notable that
these documents and manuscripts were either transferred to the Imperial Museum,
military, or to the Ottoman archives at the Sublime Porte rather than being kept in the
treasuries of the Topkapı Palace. This indicated that the valuables at the Topkapı
Palace were counted, registered, and classified after the Young Turk revolution and
transferred elsewhere. Thus, the CUP declared control over the tangible and
intangible possessions of the Ottoman dynasty.
The CUP was also concerned about the Ottoman archival documents kept at
the Council Hall and at various places within the Topkapı Palace. In May 1909,
Halep deputy Nafi Pasha pointed out the poor condition of the Kubbealtı and the
need for the preservation and transfer of the archival documents kept within.898 A
895 BOA İ.HUS.176.1327CA.58 (9.6.1909) Hazine-i Hümayun defterlerinin kontrolü ve Yıldız’dan
geri getirilmesi.
896 BOA BEO.3627.272008 (1.Ş.1327 / 18.8.1909) Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu'nda bulunan bir takım
kıymetli eserlerin özellikle Türkçe, Farsça ve Arabça kütüb-i nefisenin birer kataloğunu tanzim ve
tertip edecek olan Mısır Hidivliği Meclis-i Nuzzar Başkatibi Ahmed Zeki Bey'e yardımcı olunması.
897 BOA BEO.3552.266372 (29 R 1327 / 20.5.1909) Topkapı’da Babıali evrak mahzeninde bulunan
Mevlana C. Rumi’ye ait gazellerin Müze-i Hümayun’da muhafaza edilmesi.
898 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 1, Cilt 3, İçtima senesi 1, 73. İnikad (4 Mayıs 1325 /
17.5.1909), 484.
"Halep mebusu Nafi Paşanın; Topkapı Sarayındaki Hazine-i Evrak dairesinde mahfuz tarihi evrakı
muhimmenin çürümesine mani olmak üzere rutubetten hali kargir bir binaya nakli ve hüsnü
422
document from May 1909, emphasizes that a commission established by the Sublime
Porte should investigate the ancient archival documents (evrak-ı kadime-i resmiyye)
kept in the Imperial Library and in other archives of the Topkapı Palace.
For instance, among the archival documents held at the Topkapı Palace,
documents pertaining to the military history of the Ottoman empire (Tarih-i Askeri-i
Osmaniyece de fevkalade haiz-i ehemmiyet ve istifade) were distinguished,
catalogued and transferred to the military.899 With the rising historical and national
consciousness the archive as the embodiment of the nation's memory came into
prominence. The Council of Ottoman History (Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni) was
rendered responsible for the classification of the archival material, allocating
hundreds of carts and personnel for this task.900 A commission under the direction of
state chronicler Abdurrahman Şeref Bey was established for cataloging the ancient
documents kept in old bags and chests at various vaults and archives of the palace.901
Numerous discussions at the Chamber of Deputies were recorded regarding the
importance of ancient documents and the need for their preservation.902 Especially
the ancient documents and valuables kept at the imperial archives (hazine-i evrak)
next to the Council Hall were investigated and registered.903 Şehbal magazine
muhafazaszna dair takriri."
899 BOA BEO.3605.270337 (8 B 1327 / 26.7.1909)
“Tarih-i Osmani için Bab-ı Alice teşkil kılınan komisyonun Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunuyla
kütüphanelerinde ve sair evrak mahzenlerinde evrak-ı kadime-i resmiyyeyi taharri ettikleri mesmu
olup evrak-ı mezkure arasında Tarih-i Askeri-i Osmaniyece de fevkalade haiz-i ehemmiyet ve istifade
vesaik ve delailini mevcut bulunacağı varid-i hatır olduğundan onların evrak-ı saire meyanından
tefrik edilerek ayrıca tasnifiyle mezkur komisyonun nazar-ı istifadesinden geçtikten sonra cihet-i
askeriyeye devr ve teslimi...”
900 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 1, Cilt 5, İçtima senesi 2, 95. İnikad (10 Mayıs 1326 /
23.5.1910), 398-400.
901 BOA BEO.3572.267875 (20 CA 1327/ 9.06.1909)
“Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu evrak mahzeninde büyük ve küçük köhne sandık torbalar derunundaki
evrak-ı atika-ı mühimmenin tefrik ve tasnifine . . . komisyon reisi ayandan vak’anüvis atufetli
Abdurrahman Efendi Hazretleri tarafından varid olan..."
902 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 1, Cilt 7, İçtima senesi 3, 104. İnikad (9 Mayıs 1327 /
22.5.1911), 46.
903 BOA İ.HUS.176.1327CA.39 (10 CA 1327 / 30.5.1909)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Kubbealtı civarında ve diğer odalarda mevcut olup tozdan ve
423
published a photo showing the stacks of ancient documents in the Council Hall. The
caption of the photo emphasized the poor condition of the archival documents and
stated that these piles would be classified by the Council of the Ottoman History904
(Figure 267).
Figure 267. The ancient documents at the Council Hall to be cataloged (Şehbal v.27,
p.49, 15 Eylül 1326 / 28.9.1910)
During the Second Constitutional period, as nationalist ideologies gained strength,
the Ottoman past was instrumentalized to promote nationalistic and patriotic feelings
rutubetten harap olan eşyanın suret-i istimalleri bilahare kararlaştırılmak üzere şimdiden sebt-i
defter edilmesi"
BOA BEO.3578.268328 (2 C 1327 / 21.6.1909) Topkapı Kubbealtı nam mahalde asar-ı kadime
meyanında zuhur eden defatir ve evrakın tefriki.
904 Şehbal v.27, 49 (15 Eylül 1326 / 28.9.1910). The caption of the picture is transcribed as:
"Kubbealtı Divaninda selatine mahsus cumba (Yerde görülen darmadağın evrak 'Tarih-i Osmani
Encümeni' tarafından tedkik edildiğinde olan vesaikdir).
Loge imperiale dans la chambre du conseil des ministres, d'ou les anciens Sultans assistaient a leur
gre aux deliberations de leurs Vizirs"
424
of the Muslim population. As a state ideology, official history was disseminated to
wider circles through education, publications, museums, and monuments. The idea of
the historical monument and national heritage was introduced and elaborated. Right
after the revolution in November 1909, Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni (the Council of the
Ottoman History) was founded to indoctrinate a national consciousness in the people,
to promote patriotism, and to write a "perfect Ottoman history" in accordance with
scientific criteria. The council aimed to publish historical books and a bi-monthly
periodical, both sponsored by the privy purse of Sultan Mehmed V Reşad. The first
chair of the committee was the state chronicler Abdurrahman Şeref Bey and the first
issue of its journal was published on April 14, 1910.905
To sum up, after the Young Turk revolution, the dynastic possessions of the
sultanate and treasuries at imperial palaces were reconfigured. Following a detailed
inventory of the treasury items, which included books, manuscripts, archival
documents, arms, weapons, sacred relics, royal collections, antiquities, collectibles,
jewelry, and other valuables, etc., they were relocated to different institutions or
repositioned within the palace. In line with the museumification of the imperial
palaces, these royal collections were decontextualized and utilized as representations
of a newly emerging national history and collective past.
5.2 Museumification of the Topkapı Palace
5.2.1 Back to the nation: The Imperial Treasury as a museum
Two weeks after his accession and four days after the sword girding ceremony,
Mehmed V Reşad visited the Imperial Treasury at the Topkapı Palace with his
905 Abdülkadir Özcan, "Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni", Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., v.40,
83.
425
entourage. Deputies and senators of the Ottoman parliament, the viziers, three sons
of the sultan, Gazi Ahmed Muhtar Pasha, Ahmed Rıza Bey, and palace officials
attended this royal visit. The royal cortege sailed from the Dolmabahçe Palace with
imperial boats to the Seraglio and entered the palace grounds from the Soğukçeşme
gate passing through the Imperial Museum and Hazinehane (Darbhane?) Kiosk and
passed through the Middle Gate. The sultan was greeted by the president of the
Ottoman parliament and high-ranking military officers by the Gate of Felicity, in
front of the Audience Hall. After resting at the Baghdad Kiosk, the sultan and his
entourage visited the Imperial Treasury and inspected each item one by one and
received information on the collection from the Enderun pages. After this traditional
and highly symbolic visit, the sultan reposed at the Baghdad Kiosk and the royal tour
ended with his return to the Dolmabahçe Palace. Depicting this royal visit, chronicler
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, emphasized that the doors of the Imperial Treasury was
closed to all except for esteemed foreign visitors at the request of their embassies.
Among locals it was not possible for the viziers or for the Ottomans notables to enter
the Imperial Treasury. Only those with personal connections to the palace pages
could merge into the foreign groups during their visit to the treasury.906 This
procedure, as I will try to present in this chapter, came to an end during the Second
Constitutional period and the doors of the Imperial Treasury finally opened for
Ottoman audiences as well.
A few months after the fall of Abdülhamid II and enthronement of Mehmed
V Reşad, the Young Turks, who had full control of the state organ, made an attempt
to "nationalize" the royal collections at the Topkapı Palace and to make the treasury
accessible to Ottomans. As explained in the previous section, the classification,
906 Abdurrahman Şeref, Kodaman, and Ünal, Son vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi tarihi, 142–
43.
426
cataloging, and registration of the Imperial Treasury collection by a governmental
commission, rather than by the traditional palatial institutions —such as the Chief
Treasurer and the treasury pages— was a first step in the detachment of the treasury
from the sole control of the sultan. As early as June 1909, documents were found
ordering the classification and registration of the treasury collection one-by-one by
the commission.907 A more detailed document from August 9, 1909 declares the
official decision to begin the "museumification" of the Imperial Treasury and gives
details about the procedure. This document designates the Director of the Imperial
Museum, Osman Hamdi Bey, as the director of the commission that would be
responsible from the classification of the collection. According to this document, the
items should be numbered, registered, and classified by their dates, qualifications,
artistic, and historic values.908 (Appendix A.6) A similar document from August 18,
1909 repeats the same information but designates the state chronicler Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey and the major of Istanbul Halil Edhem, who was the brother of Osman
Hamdi, as the head of the commission. The document, much like the previous one,
gives details about the museumification process of the Imperial Treasury: 909
(Appendix A.7)
The Imperial Treasury collection could be classified into three categories:
The pieces, which have more historical value than economic value; pieces
907 BOA İ.HUS.176.1327CA.61 (20 Ca 1327 / 9.6.1909)
"Hazine-i Hümayunda mahfuz asar-ı nefise ve eşya-yı seminenin Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu
tensikatına memur komisyonca intihab olunacak ehl-i hibre marifetiyle ve komisyonun taht-ı
nezaretinde olarak defter mevcuduyla yegan yegan tatbik olunması hakkında komisyon-ı mezkur..."
908 BOA İ.HUS.178.33 (22 B 1327 / 09.08.1909) cited in Rona, Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi, 212.
See, Appendix A.6 for the original document and its full transciption.
"Yerli ve ecnebi birçok züvvar tarafından ziyaret edilmekte olan Hazine-i mezkurenin hususi bir müze
haline ifrağ idilecek yolda tanzimi . . . Müze-i Hümayun müdürü Hamdi Bey hazretlerinin taht-ı
riyasetinde..."
909 BOA MV.132.50 (1 Ş 1327 /18.8.1909) See, Appendix A.7.
“Ber-mantuk-ı irade-i seniyye-i mülükane Hazine-i Hümayunun hususi bir Müze haline ifrağıyla . . .
Vakanüvis Abdurrahman ve Şehremini Halil Bey Efendilerden ve tensip edilecek erbab-ı ihtisas ve
malumattan mürekkeben bir komisyon teşkili . . . Hazine-i Hümayun dairesinin heyet-i hazırası eşyayı
mevcudenin bir tarz-ı nüvin ve dil-nişinde tasnif ve teşhirine müsait vüsati haiz olmamasını ve
evvelce ser mimar-ı hazret-i şehriyari Vedad Bey tarafından keşf-i icra...”
427
having artistic value; and pieces having material value. Placed next to these,
there also were some worthless pieces, and altogether these objects could
occupy and adorn a space twice as large as the existing treasury halls.
However, these pieces were not yet categorized and organized properly, and
the Imperial Treasury, which has already been visited by some foreign
visitors, had to be converted into a special museum. According to the wish of
the Sultan, a commission shall be organized to categorize, organize, and to
place the pieces according to their historical, artistic, or economic value. A
catalogue with numbers would show which items of no tangible or intangible
value were excluded from the collection and the pieces that were used during
the royal ceremonies or for the personal use of the sultan. A commission led
by Abdurrahman Şeref and the mayor Halil Edhem under the direction of the
Ministry of Education should be established. Based on the previous
proposition of architect Vedad Bey, the necessary modifications shall be
implemented to make the treasury new and pleasant as soon as possible.
The aforementioned documents clearly indicate the intention of the Ottoman
government to convert the Imperial Treasury into a "modern museum", where the
collections were sorted, classified, labeled, and registered by an autonomous
committee that was independent from the Enderun organization of the Topkapı
Palace. Thus, it could be said that the treasury, traditionally an integral part of the
palatial administration, was detached from the palace and was repositioned as a
museum under the control and direction of the government. In fact, right after the
revolution the Enderun organization itself was abolished with a decree dated July 1,
1909, and palatial administration was reorganized in line with the ideology of the
CUP.910 Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil mentions that Enderun was overcrowded with many
unqualified students and personnel during the previous eras. During its restructuring
after the revolution, the number of the Enderun students and Seferli pages were
substantially reduced, leaving only the directors of the palace and the pages of the
sacred relics intact.911 The Young Turk government also aimed to break the
traditional bonds of the Ottoman dynasty with the palace and prevented the sultan
from exercising control and possession over the valuables of the Topkapı Palace. As
910 Taşdan, Türkiye’de Mülki idare Akademisi, 25-36
911 Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 105.
428
explained above the ancient documents, archival material, and the library collection,
as well as the treasury items were systematically catalogued and reconfigured.
Changing the internal mechanisms of collecting, displaying the treasury items, and
converting them into a modern collection with a catalogue, museumified and
nationalized the private treasury of the Ottoman sultans. The Imperial Treasury,
rather than being the personal possession of the Ottoman ruler, was now part of the
national heritage.
An archival document dated August 13, 1909 states that the commission for
the deduction of the Enderun (Enderun-ı hümayuna tenkisat komisyonu) was
established.912 On the advice of this commission a decree was issued stating that the
Imperial Treasury at the Topkapı Palace shall be open to visits on Sundays and
Tuesdays. To visit the treasury both the foreign and domestic visitors had to be
granted a certificate of qualification. Thus, the Imperial Treasury, which had been
closed to the Ottomans, would finally be open to local visitors. However, the
document emphasizes that this certificate (mezuniyet varakası) would not be given to
just anyone, but only to people who could appreciate the historic significance and
importance of the collection (her sınıf halka mezuniyet virilmeyub hazine-i
hümayunun muhtevi olduğu eşyanın ehemmiyet ve kıymet-i tarihiyesini takdir
edebilecek kimselerin kabule arzu idildiği). To confirm the security of the collection
and to control the expected high demand for visits, the collection would be open only
two days of the week, from noon to afternoon, and only 60 certificates would be
granted each day. The names and titles of the visitors and their time of visit would be
written on the certificates. The document also explains that this precaution was
912 BOA DH.MKT.2901.3 (26 B 1327 / 13.8.1909) The draft of the same document could be found
under BOA BOA.3619.271364 (27 Temmuz 1325 / 9.8.1909) See Appendix A.8 for the original
document and its transcription.
429
necessary to prevent second parties and travel agencies from selling these
certificates, thus only the person who made the petition and granted a certificate
could visit the treasury on that particular date. The petitions of the Ottoman
bureaucrats should be made from their offices and other local visitors could make an
official appeal to visit the treasury through the municipality. Foreign visitors could
make their petitions through their embassies. The document also states that a total of
3,000 entrance certificates, the total number of yearly entrances, would be printed
and submitted to the Divan-ı Hümayun. (Appendix A.8)
With this decree, the Imperial Treasury, which has already been visited by
foreign visitors, was officially converted into a museum that was open for foreign
and local visitors. Thus, the ongoing museumification of the treasury collection was
formalized and completed. The 1910 publication of Coufopoulos' A guide to
Constantinople mentions the changes in the procedure for being granted an entrance
to the Topkapı Palace during the Second Constitutional era:913
The Treasury, or the Crown Jewels, is open on Sundays and Tuesdays from 6
to 9 o'clock, Turkish time. Visitors wishing to visit the Treasury have to get,
at least one day before the above said days, a letter from their respective
Embassies to the officials in the Foreign Office, whence another letter,
written in Turkish, will be given to them to the officials of the Treasury. The
issuing of the permit is free of charge. And no gratuities are given to the
innumerable attendants who closely surround visitors while they are in the
Treasury proper.
These documents clearly inform us that the official status and institutional structure
of the Imperial Treasury and the Topkapı Palace were dramatically transformed.
Even though the palace and the treasury had already opened their doors to foreign
visitors as a part of a tour since the mid-nineteenth century, the Topkapı Palace,
together with the other imperial palaces, has always been considered as essential
possession of the Ottoman dynasty. During the museumification of the Topkapı
913 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 86.
430
Palace new sections and kiosks were also reorganized and opened for visits.
According to an archival document from the Archives of the National Palaces (Milli
Saraylar Arşivi), the Seferli Apartments were repaired and organized as a museum as
well.914 An inscription dated 1916-17, located on the entrance portal to the Seferli
Room, mentions that the halls were renovated and allocated to the Imperial Treasury
by the order of Mehmed V Reşad.915 According to photographs of the time, Chinese
porcelains and the çini collections of the palace were displayed in the Seferli
apartments (Figure 268). Baedecker also mentions that "a selection of ancient
Chinese porcelain (4-5,000 pieces, previously locked away in the cellars) is exhibited
in the 8th room."916 Charles Diehl praised the richness and beauty of the collection as
well.917 The 1915 edition of Mamboury's guidebook mentions that in the Seferli
apartments, whose entrance gallery was of Byzantine columns, displayed a rich
collection of Chinese porcelains.918 Apart from the Seferli apartments, another
imperial kiosk located between the Baghdad and the Mecidiye Kiosks was included
in the touristic tours as well. The Sofalı Kiosk, also known as the Kara Mustafa
Pasha Kiosk, was reorganized, repaired, and opened for touristic visits during this
period. A picture from 1911 shows female members of the Red Cross sitting inside
the Sofalı Kiosk (Figure 269). Thus, it could be said that this timber kiosk from the
eighteenth century, was not only opened for visits but also took its part in the
touristic spectacle experienced by the visitors.
914 Milli Saraylar Arşivi, Belge no: 1134 – 1135 (h.1332 / 1913/14) Topkapı Sarayı, müze haline
getirilecek olan Seferli Koğuşu'nun onarımı - Topkapı Sarayı, Hazine’de Elçi Hazinesi onarımı, cited
in Feryal İyez and Vahide Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan Belgeler Doğrultusunda
Topkapı Sarayı Onarımları.
915 Inscription on the portal of Seferli Apartments. h. 1335 (1916/17)
"Enderun Seferlileri Koğuşu olan bu daire emirü'l-mü'minin es-Sultan el-Gazi
Mehmed Reşad Han hazretlerinin emr-ü ferman-ı mülükaneleriyle ta'mir ve Hazine-i Hümayuna ilhak
edilmiştir."
916 Baedeker, Baedeker’s Constantinople and Asia Minor, 196.
917 Diehl, Constantinople, 124.
918 Mamboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 470.
431
Figure 268. Seferli Apartments and the display of the porcelain collection (TSMA)
Following the Young Turk revolution, while the authority of the sultan diminished,
the royal palaces were also de-imperialized. The puissance of the sultanate was
reduced and the "puppet sultan" Mehmed V Reşad was positioned to legitimize the
acts of the CUP government.919 The "Museumification" of the Imperial Treasury is a
clear indication of this transformation. Even though the Topkapı Palace and the
Imperial Treasury were positioned as a museum in practice and were visited with
certain choreography during the reign of Abdülhamid II. Naming the Imperial
Treasury a "museum" and disengaging the collection from the Ottoman dynasty was
a highly symbolic political act.
919 Somel, The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire, cv.
432
Figure 269. Members of the Red Cross in the Sofalı Kiosk during their visit to the
Topkapı Palace (Getty Archive, 1910)
According to Theodor W. Adorno, there is a conceptual relationship between the
words 'museum' and 'mausoleum', both of which designate the process of death
rather than life and the past rather than the present. Once the object or place is
museumified, it loses its connection with the present and by extension with life. It is
only appreciated due to its representational value and its links with the past, a past
that is mostly idealized and detached from its context. Adorno's article titled "The
Valéry Proust Museum" emphasized that the museum is the mausoleum of the
objects on display, in other words, once something is museumified, we declare and
accept its death and commemorate the past it represents:920
The German word, "museal" [museum-like], has unpleasant overtones. It
describes objects to which the observer no longer has a vital relationship and
which are in the process of dying. They owe their preservation more to
historical respect than to the needs of the present. Museum and mausoleum
are connected by more than phonetic association. They testify to the
neutralization of culture.
Adorno's theory is also valid for the Topkapı Palace. After its official
museumification, the complex was detached from its imperial context and became a
920 Adorno, Prisms, 175.
433
representation of the glorious national history and a symbolic statement declaring the
demise of the dynastic past.
5.2.2 A destination for mass tourism
A year after the museumification decree was issued, another archival document,
dated November 1910, states that a reasonable entrance fee has to be taken from
foreign and domestic visitors for the benefit of the nation (iane-i milliye menfatine
olarak alınacak münasib miktarda bir duhuliye).921 The document also mentions that
these entrance fees would be used for the benefit of the Ottoman Navy National
Support Association (Donanma-i Osmani Muavenet-i Milliye Cemiyeti), emphasizing
the national and military priorities of the Young Turk government. Once it was a
royal privilege for foreign diplomats and selected high-ranking foreigners to enter
the inner courts of the palace and to visit the Imperial Treasury of the sultan. After
the Young Turk revolution, while the treasury was gradually converted into a
modern museum, the palace grounds became accessible to almost anyone who could
afford the entrance fee.
As understood from archival documents, the decision to open the Imperial
Treasury to foreign and domestic visitors on Sundays and Tuesdays was executed
immediately. Apart from individual documents granting entrance certificates to
numerous visitors from various foreign countries, two visiting registers (ziyaret
defteri) found in the Ottoman archives provide a more complete picture regarding the
nature of the foreign and domestic visits. The first register (BOA A.D.378) records
the petitions of foreign travelers to visit the Imperial Treasury between February 4
921 BOA DH.MTV.29.11 (6 Za 1328/ 09.11.1910)
"Topkapı Sarayında bulunan Hazine-i Hümayun iane-i milliye menfatine olarak alınacak münasib
miktarda bir duhuliye mukabilinde yerli ve ecnebi zevat ve ahali tarafından temaşasına müsade
buyrulması hakkında istidasına dair Donanma-i Osmani Muavenet-i Milliye Cemiyetinden alınan
tezkere leffen takdim kılındı ifa-yı muktezası menut-ı rey-i sami-i fehimaneleridir."
434
and May 27 of 1911.922 There are 359 petitions sent from numerous foreign
embassies to the Imperial Directorate of Ceremonies in the Sublime Porte (Bab-ı Ali
Teşrifat Müdüriyet-i Canib-i Aliyesi / Grande Maitrise des Ceremonies) (Figure
270). These petitions were written either in French or in Ottoman Turkish with a
certain standardized format by each embassy. The names of the visitors, their titles
and counties of origin, as well as their requested date of visit were mentioned within
the text. For example, the petitions from the German Embassy are written in this
format:
Sefaret Devlet-i Almanya
1) Mösyö (Name / Title)
2) Madam (Name / Title)
3) Madmazel (Name / Title)
4) ...
Almanya devleti tebasından balada isim ve günleri mahsud (name) zat
önümüzdeki (Salı / Pazar) günü Hazine-i Hümayuna ziyaret arzusunda
olduklarından lazımgelen müsaidenin itası canib-i sefaretten iltimas ve takrir
olunur.
(Day / Month) 329 – (Day / Month) 327
The format of the British Embassy:
British Embassy Constantinople
Şehr-i (Month) ruminin (Day) (Salı / Pazar) günü Hazine-i Hümayunu ziyaret
etmek arzusunda bulunan zevatın esamesidir.
Mister (Name)
Misis (Name)
Miss (Name)
The petition format of the Austrian Embassy is as such:
Avusturya ve Macaristan Devletinin Dersaadet Sefareti
Avusturya devleti tebasından Mösyö (name) yarınki (Salı / Pazar) günü
Topkapı Sarayındaki Hazine-i Hümayunu ziyaret edeceğinden iktiza-i
müsaadesinden ihas hususuna himmen celile-i ihsaneleri iltiması olunur.
(Day / Month) 911
922 BOA A.d.378 (4.2.1911- 27.6.1911)
435
The petitions of the Russian Embassy written in French are as followed:
Ambassade Imperiale de Russie - (Day / Month 1911)
(Name) d’obtenir l’autorisation de visiter le Palais Imperial et le Tresor de
Topkapou (Dimanche / Mardi) le (Date).
Le Premier Drogman
The American Embassy wrote petitions for visiting the Imperial Treasury in French
as:
Consulat General des Etats-Unis d'Amerique
Constantinople
(Day / Month) 1911
Le Consulat General des Etats-Unis d'Amerique
A l'honneur de prier l'Honorable Grande Maitrise des Cérémonies de vouloir
bien délivrer le permis nécessaire pour visiter le Trésor Impérial à (Name),
qui desirent s'y rendre (Mardi / Dimanche) prochain (Date), et profite de
l'occasion pour presenter l'assurance de sa consideration la plus distinguée.
Figure 270. Petitions to visit the Imperial Treasury by foreign visitors (BOA
A.d.378)
436
One petition could grant entrance certificates for numerous people if their names
were indicated in the same document. Most of the petitions listed several visitors
ranging from five to twenty-five. Occasionally, there were some appeals demanding
permits for groups of a hundred or more. According to the register no A.D.378, there
were 2,210 visitors to the Imperial Treasury in approximately 4 months, between
February 4 and May 27, 1911. Based on the individual records, 25% of these visitors
were women, 37% were men, and 38% were unidentified. Among the 1,375 visitors,
whose gender was identified, there were 41% female and 59% male visitors to the
Imperial Treasury. In fact, we can see the reflection of this large number of female
foreign visitors in the travel accounts of the era, written by female authors.
Figure 271. The Austrian Emperor and his wife Zita in the 4th Court of the Topkapı
Palace (TSMA, 1918)
The register also provides detailed information regarding the nationality of the
visitors. Among 359 petitions, the American embassy made the largest number of
appeals with 70 petitions, Germany followed as second with 57 petitions. Austria437
Hungary made 51 petitions, France 33, Britain 32, Belgium 32, Italy 12, and
Romania had 11 petitions as seen in the graph below (Figure 272). The number of
visitors also reflected the increasing cultural and political interaction between the
Ottoman empire, Germany, and Austria-Hungary compared with its former allies
France and Britain. This data also shows a growing interest of American tourists in
the "Orient", as they made the highest number of petitions to visit the Imperial
Treasury. Overseas tourism flourished during this period and a petition from
Argentina, another from Colombia, five from Norway, and another five from Sweden
are also present in the registers.
Figure 272. Number of petitions for visiting the Imperial Treasury according to their
country of origin (A.d.378 February 4 - May 27, 1911)
438
Another register with the code A.d.379 at the Ottoman archives recorded the
petitions for domestic visitors from February 25 to June 4, 1911.923 Within
approximately ten weeks there were 145 petitions for 1,305 visitors. The petitions
were written in Ottoman Turkish except for 12 petitions written in French. Among
these 1,305 visitors 10.4% were women, 82% were men, and 7.5% was not
identified. Among these visitors 7% were non-Ottoman and the rest were Ottoman
residents. The visitors were mostly from Istanbul but there were petitions from
various parts of the empire, such as Beirut, Salonika, İzmir, Trabzon, Harput etc.
Among Ottoman subjects the majority of the visitors were Muslim, but there are
numerous non-Muslim visitors as well. For example, nuns from Kumkapı Asposyon
Church made a petition on May 25, 1911924 and frères and priests from the Kumkapı
French School asked for an entrance certificate to visit the Imperial Treasury on May
13, 1911.925 There are also several individual petitions by non-Muslim citizens.
Among foreigners, especially Europeans working for international firms based in
Ottoman cities, such as the Orient Express, Ottoman Bank, Public Debt
Administration, and directors of several other foreign companies made petitions to
visit the Imperial Treasury.
A great majority of the visitors recorded in the register, around 93%, were
Ottoman subjects. The doors of the Imperial Treasury, which had been closed to the
Ottoman gaze for many centuries, opened to local visitors after the Young Turk
revolution. Apparently, there was a great deal of interest from various sectors of
society to visit the hidden treasures of the Ottoman dynasty. Ottoman bureaucrats
and students comprised the majority of the visitors. 45% of Ottomans petitions were
sent from the schools of the empire, such as the military school, the medical school,
923 BOA A.d.379 (25.2.1911 - 4.6.1911)
924 BOA A.d.379 No.122
925 BOA A.d.379 No. 96
439
the university (darülfünün), the civil service school (mülkiye), etc. In total, there
were eleven petitions demanding entrance certificates for 551 students of various
degrees. Students were visiting the Imperial Treasury in large groups and stepping in
the most sacred parts of the Topkapı Palace. The rest of the Ottoman visitors were
from various professions, state officials being the largest group. The palace, which
was once a sacred and mysterious place, the locus of the Ottoman sultan, became a
site to be visited and experienced for Ottomans from all ages and all professions.
Figure 273. Petitions for visiting the Imperial Treasury by domestic visitors (BOA
A.D.379)
According to these two registers mentioned above (BOA A.D.378 - A.D.379), the
total number of foreign and domestic visitors during the period from February to
June 1911 was 3,505. Given that visits occurred only on Sundays and Tuesdays there
440
were approximately 125 visitors coming to the Imperial Treasury on its visiting days.
Knowing that the maximum number of visitors was limited to 60, we can assume
that the tour was performed at least twice per day. Perhaps the ceremonial tour could
have been performed more than twice for large groups. For instance, a petition dated
April 11, 1911 by the Austrian-Hungary embassy demands certificates for 80
Hungarians.926 The Romanian embassy asked for petitions to grant entrance for 300
people on April 15927 and on April 20928 and for 60 people on April 29, 1911.929 In
the Ottoman archives there are numerous documents responding to such demands for
large groups. For example, as a response to the petition requesting visits for 500
Romanians, it was stated that the current condition of the treasury was not capable of
accepting a group of several hundreds and the possible congestion (izdiham) would
create hardship for the treasury officials.930 Visitors could only be accepted into the
treasury in small parties.931 Another similar document states that 250 German visitors
could only be accepted into the Imperial Treasury if they were divided into five
groups composed of 50 visitors.932 A document from February 1911 explains the
926 BOA A.d.378. No.127
927 BOA A.d.378. No.135
928 BOA A.d.378. No.97
929 BOA A.d.378. No. 79
930 BOA İ.MBH.3.9_001 (21 B 1328 / 29.7.1910)
"Romanya tebası muteberanından 500 Müslim ve Müslimeden mürekkeben bera-i seyahat-ı
Dersaadet'e gelecek olan heyet-i ilmiyenin temmuzun 19. Pazartesi günü Hazine-i Hümayunu
ziyaretleri . . . Avrupadan gelen seyyahinin Hazine-i müşarünileyhayı ziyaretleri mutad ise de Hazinei
Hümayun'un şekl-i hazırı böyle yüzlerce züvverdan müteşekkil bir kafilenin müçtemian kabulüne
müsait olmadığı gibi hasıl olacak izdiham Hazine-i memurin ve müstahdeminin emr-i merzutiyet
hususundaki takdiratı da işgal edeceği..."
931 BOA İ.MBH.3.9_002 (25 B 1328 / 2.8.1910)
"Heyet-i mezkürenin Hazine-i Hümayunu kısım kısım ziyaret etmeleri ve takidata itina edilmesi
zımnında emniyet-i umumiye müdürü Galib beyefendiye vesaya-ı lazıme ifa olunduğu gibi Hazine-i
Hümayun Kethüdalığına tezkire-i samiye yazılması ve ba-tezkire-i hususuiye cevaben arz-ı malumat
edilmiştir."
932 BOA İ.MBH.50.40 (19 Ra 1329 / 20.3.1911)
"Mabeyn-i Hümayun-ı Mülükane Baş Kitabeti
19 Rebiulevvel Sene 329 tarih ve 5 numaralı tezkere-i hususiye-i Sadaret- penahilerine cevaptır.
Cleveland namındaki vapurla Martın onuncu Perşembe günü Dersaadet’e muvasalat edecek olan iki
yüz elli Alman sipahinin ber vec-i istizan ellişer kişiden mürekkep beş kafileye tefrik olunarak o
suretle Hazine-i Hümayunu ziyaretleri hususuna müsaade-i cenab-ı Padişahi şayan buyurulmuş ve
Hazine-i müşarun ileyha kethüdalığına tebligat-ı lazime..."
441
procedure in detail stating that 600 American travelers would arrive in Istanbul and
visit the Imperial Treasury. The response states that considering the number of the
group, their acceptance into the treasury as one group would violate its order, thus
the group should be divided into as small parties as possible and visit the treasury
one after another (mümkün olacağı kadar küçük müfrezelere bil taksim takım takım
ziyaretleri).933
Series of documents listed in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives show that
between 1909 and late 1911 thousands of local visitors had access to the Imperial
Treasury. According to 1,314 documents catalogued in the Topkapı Palace archives
8,391 local visitors granted a certificate.934 9% of the visitors were female, 55% were
male and 37% were unidentified. According to the names of the visitors, 36.2% of
them either belonged to the non-Muslim subjects of the empire or were of foreign
origin and 63.8% of the local visitors were Muslim Ottomans or Egyptians. The
documents clearly prove that there was a great interest among both Ottomans and
foreign tourists to visit the Topkapı Palace, which became one of the major touristic
destinations of the period. A graphic representation of archival documents found in
the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives granting an entrance permits to the Imperial
Treasury from 1878 to 1912 clearly represents the incremental increase in the
number of visits to the Topkapı Palace, especially after 1909935 (Figure 274).
933 BOA BEO.3860.289487 (22 S1329 / 22.02.1911)
"Arabik Vapuruyla Dersaadete gelecek Amerikalı 600 seyyahın Şubatın yirmiyedinci pazartesi günü
Hazine-i Hümayun ziyaretleri makrun-ı müsade-i seniyye-i hazreti padişahi olarak Hazine-i müşarün
ileyha kethüdalığına tebliğ-i keyfiyet edilmiş olub ve ancak seyyahın adedine nazaran bunların
cümleten hazine dahiline kabulleri -emr?- enziyat ve intizamı ihlal ideceği cihetle mümkün olacağı
kadar küçük müfrezelere bil taksim takım takım ziyaretleri esbabının istikmali şeref sudur buyrulan
irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i hilafet penahi icab alisinin bulunacağı Mabeyn-i Hümayun-ı Mülükane Baş
Kitabeti aliyesinden cevaben inba ve Hazine-i müşarün ileyha kethüdalığına tebligat icra kılınmağla
icabının itasına himmet."
934 TS.MA.376.1 – TS.MA.379.802 (8.5.1909 - 4.12.1911)
935 Data on some years are missing in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives. I presume these petition
records were either lost, damaged, or not yet cataloged.
442
Figure 274. Number of petitions to visit the Imperial Treasury per year (1878-1911)
TSMA
5.2.3 Foreign and local visitors of the palace
Travel accounts of the post-1909 period confirm that both the palatial tours and the
visits to the Imperial Treasury were conducted following a certain procedure (Figure
275). Similar to the palatial tours of the Hamidian era, the doors of the Imperial
Treasury were unlocked and unsealed with a ceremony in the presence of the Chief
Treasurer.936 The 1910 publication of A guide to Constantinople by Demetrius
Coufopoulos also mentioned that the "visitors are first conducted to the Treasury
proper, the iron gate of which is solemnly opened in their presence by the
Treasurer."937 The wife of the French ambassador and founding member of the
Société des Amis de Stamboul (İstanbul Muhipleri Cemiyeti), Madame Gabrielle
Bompard de Blignières, in her memoirs also referred to the opening ceremony of the
treasury and described the coffee ceremony at the Mecidiye Kiosk with amazement:
936 Diehl, Constantinople, 122.
937 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 87.
443
"Ce café de la Pointe du Sérail, que ne donnerai-je pas pour m'en délecter encore,
apres quelque exploration merveilleuse!"
Figure 275. Tourists in front of the Imperial Gate (Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, D-DAI-IST-4628)
The ceremonial hosting of tourists continued until the end of the empire. German
emperor Wilhelm II, during his third visit to Istanbul in 1917, also paid a visit to the
Topkapı Palace. The tour of the emperor was widely covered in the newspapers of
the era and promoted to reinforce the German-Ottoman alliance during the hardest
days of World War I.938 The Ottoman ambassador to Germany and palace officers
greeted the emperor, who arrived at the Seraglio with the imperial boat. The emperor
headed to the Mecidiye Kiosk and greeted the people from its terrace. Spending two
hours in the palace, the emperor visited the Baghdad Kiosk, the Harem and the
Imperial Treasury (Figure 276). He was offered coffee, tea, and tobacco during his
938 “Kayser Hazretleri İstanbul’da”, Tanin, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
“İmparator Hazretlerinin Dünkü Ziyareti”, Sabah, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
“Kayser İkinci Wilhelm Hazretlerinin Şehrimizi Ziyaret ve Temaşası”, İkdam, 17 Teşrinievvel 1917.
444
tour in accordance with the visiting ritual.939 A year later the Austrian Emperor and
King of Hungary Charles I and his wife Zita visited the Ottoman empire between 19
and 22 May, 1918. The royal couple also included the Topkapı Palace in their tour,
and visited the Baghdad Kiosk, the Mecidiye Kiosk, the Harem apartments and the
Imperial Treasury. They were offered refreshments in the Mecidiye Kiosk after their
tour as well and returned back with the imperial boats.940 A standardized ceremonial
setting for both of these royal visits was evident in the two pictures taken at the same
spot from the same angle (Figure 277).
Figure 276. Kaiser Wilhelm II visiting the old Seraglio in Constantinople, 15
October 1917 (Imperial War Museums Archive)
939 Karacagil, "Alman İmparatoru İstanbul’da (1917)", 122.
940 Özçelik, "Avusturya-Macaristan İmparatoru'nun 1918 İstanbul Ziyareti'nin Türk Basınına
Yansımaları", 51-63.
445
Figure 277. The visit of the Austrian Emperor and Empress to the Topkapı Palace
(1918)
The official tours continued after the Great War and the palace became a popular
destination for the occupation forces as well. The photo album of a French officer
from 1919 shows the French officers and their accompaniment sipping coffee at the
terrace of Mecidiye Kiosk during their tour of the Topkapı Palace. A single
photograph of the coffee server, as a major "attraction" of the palatial tour, is also
present in the album confirming that the same picturesque ceremony of hosting highranking
visitors continued even under the occupation of Istanbul. Thus, it could be
stated that, contrary to the efforts of the CUP to demystify the Topkapı Palace and to
detach it from its imperial traditions by converting it into a museum that was open to
almost everybody, the ceremonial practices rooted in the institutional structure of the
imperial palace continued. This "continuity" of certain palatial ceremonies could be
traced into the museumification period of the Topkapı Palace, and in fact merged
into its museal rituals.
After the doors of the Topkapı Palace opened to local visitors, accounts of
Ottoman visitors depicting the palace grounds begin to appear. The book of
446
Mehmed Raif Bey written in 1914941, titled Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu ve Parkının
Tarihi is one of the earlier accounts written about the architecture and history of the
palace.942 The book not only includes the pre-Ottoman and Byzantine history of the
area, but also provides information about the various collections, such as the Military
Museum, the Imperial Museum, and the Imperial Treasury collections, all held
within the precincts of the palace. Mehmed Raif Bey indicated that an imperial
certificate was needed to enter the palace grounds, but it was only given to the gentry
of foreign or local populations. He described the palatial tour that began from the
Middle Gate, proceeded towards the second court by visiting the Council Hall,
continued with the visits to the Gate of Felicity, the Audience Hall, the Imperial
Library, and the Imperial Treasury. Even though, Mehmed Raif misinformed the
reader about the location and the exterior decoration of the Imperial Treasury
(probably confusing it with the Chamber of Sacred Relics), he provided detailed
information regarding the entrance ceremony and the collections displayed inside the
treasury chambers. After the certificates were controlled once again at the entrance
gate of the treasury, the Chef Treasurer said a short prayer according to palace
custom and broke the seal. The treasury pages entered the treasury before the visitors
and took their positions, and the visitors could only proceed after submitting their
sticks and umbrellas to the officers.943
As an Ottoman military official, the perception of Mehmed Raif was quite
different from that of foreign visitors, as he evaluated the objects in their historical
context. In his book, Mehmed Raif provided historical (mostly misleading)
941 There is conflicting information regarding the publication date of this book. On its cover, the date
of publication was inscribed as 1332 but no information was given whether the year was hicri or rumi.
The editors, H. Ahmet Arslantürk and Adem Korkmaz give the publication date of the book as 1916.
See, Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi. I took the date imprinted on Mehmet Raif Bey's
foreword (Mukaddime), 11 Nisan 330 (24.4.1914) as the date of the book.
942 Mehmet Raif, Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu ve Parkının Tarihi.
943 Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi, 36–39.
447
information about the origins of the objects and also defined the items, swords, and
arms owned by specific sultans. He also favored the throne of Ahmed I to the Perisan
throne displayed in the first chamber. Very much impressed with the richness of the
objects, their display, the prosperity of the treasury, and the historical significance of
the items, he provides information on the number and size of precious stones
adorning the objects. Mehmed Raif also mentions the non-Ottoman and Byzantine
objects as well as the Christian relics displayed in the treasury, implying the Ottoman
victories and conquests over the Christian world.
As stated by the author after visiting the Imperial Treasury and other spots
within the palace the guests were taken to a recreation room (tenefüs odası). He
described this recreation room as a balcony with a beautiful view of the Bosphorus,
the Golden Horn, the Sea of Marmara, the Prince’s Islands, Scutari and the Asian
side of the city. Sweets, cigars, and coffee were offered in antique cups adorned with
jewels. This balcony can not be any other place than the terrace of the Mecidiye
Kiosk, it is a wonder why the author did not mention the name of the kiosk or
provide any information regarding its quite distinctive architectural features.944
Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil, on the other hand, criticized the unorganized and
overcrowded situation of the Imperial Treasury. According to him, the insignificant
and worthless items kept at the treasury shadowed the valuable and precious pieces
and created a sense of wonder rather than admiration.945 He also emphasized the
beauty and elegance of the Mecidiye Kiosk and its magnificent view. Uşaklıgil
mentioned that he always enjoyed spending hours in this pleasant spot every time he
944 Mehmed Raif Bey, 38–40.
945 Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 105.
448
came to the Topkapı Palace and reached some kind of "nirvana" there while
watching the sea at the terrace.946
Even though few personal memoirs were published by the Ottomans
depicting their visit to the Imperial Treasury there appeared a number of newspaper
articles providing information on the various parts or kiosks of the Topkapı Palace.
For instance, in 1918 a female visitor to the Harem of the Topkapı palace wrote
about her first hand experiences and impressions in Edebiyat-ı Umumiye
Mecmuası.947 Emine Semiye Hanım did not provide any holistic or realistic
descriptions of the palace, but depicted specific locations within the Harem. She was
keen on telling mysterious stories and legends, even reproduced "orientalist"
preconceptions about the palace, providing misleading information about its history.
Semiye Hanım did not visit the Imperial Treasury and the depiction of her visit was
much different from her European counterparts. Rather than providing architectural
or ceremonial details, she mentioned legendary figures from the Ottoman past,
including mother queens, caged princes, and murdered sultans. Following her
superficial and misleading article on the palace, Nihad Ali wrote a corrective piece
the same year on the same magazine, to give more specific and accurate information
regarding the history and architecture of the palace.948
Apart from these more personal accounts, there were also historic surveys
about the Topkapı Palace published in the Ottoman media, presenting the emerging
interest of the public towards the historic palace. Mahmud Refik949 and Ahmet Refik
published a series of articles on the Baghdad Kisok, İncili Kiosk, Council Hall,
946 Uşaklıgil, 106.
947 Emine Semiye Hanım, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununu Ziyaret", Edebiyat-ı Umumiye Mecmuası
,18-49, 5 Kanunievvel 1918 / 5.12.1918.
948 Ali Nihad Bey, "Topkapı Sarayı Hakkında", Edebiyat-ı Umumiye Mecmuası, c.3, s.2, 4
Cemazeyilevvel 1336 /16.2.1918.
949 Mahmud Refik, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda Sofa = Mustafa Paşa Köşkü", Tarih-i Osmani
Encümeni Mecmuası, c.46, s.8, 1 Teşrinievvel 1333 / 1.10.1917.
449
Kiosk of Bayezid and the Yalı Kiosk, informing the population about these historic
edifices, some of which did not exist.950 Ottoman state chronicler Abdurrahman
Şeref Bey also published a number of articles at the Journal of the Ottoman History
Association (Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası) on the Topkapı Palace, providing
detailed historical and architectural information on the palace including the
Harem.951
The eight articles by Abdurrahman Şeref Bey on the Topkapı Palace were
published at the Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası (TOEM). The first article was
published at December 1910 (Kanunievvel 1326) in the fifth issue of the journal with
the title "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu, Birinci Makale: Müştemilat-ı Hariciyesi
Beyanındadır" (Figure 278). The second article titled "Daire-i Harimi Beyanındadır"
was published at the 6th and the 7th issue of the journal in February 1911 and April
1911 (Şubat 1326 - Nisan 1327). The third article featuring the Harem section of the
palace was titled "Harem-i Hümayun Dairesi" and published at the 8th, 9th, 10th,
11th, and the 12th issues of the journal from June 1911 to February 1912 (Haziran -
Şubat 1327).952 These articles by Abdurrahman Şeref were the first to investigate the
Topkapı Palace from an "objective and scientific" perspective, providing in depth
historical and architectural information based on methodological use of archival
documents. The series of eight articles provide us detailed information regarding the
history of the palace and its contemporary spatial and institutional configuration in
the early twentieth century. They also give us clues as to how the Ottomans
950 Ahmet Refik, "Topkapı Sarayında: Bağdad Köşkü", Yeni Mecmua, c.1, s.15, 159-161.
Ahmet Refik, "Topkapı Sarayında: İncili Köşk", Milli Mecmua, c.4, s.74, 281-282.
Ahmet Refik, "Topkapı Sarayından: Kubbealtı", Hayat, c.1.sayı2, 16-18.
Ahmet Refik, "Topkapı Sarayı: Bayezid Köşkü", Güneş, c.1, s.1, 8.
Ahmet Refik, "Topkapı Sarayı: Yalı Köşkü", Güneş, c.1, s.2, 19
951 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, v.
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 1 Kanunievvel 1326 - 1 Şubat, 1327 (14.4.1910 - 14.2.1912).
952 Abdurrahman Şeref, "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu", Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, v. 5-6-7-
8-9-10-11-12, 1 Kanunievvel 1326 - 1 Şubat, 1327 (14.4.1910 - 14.2.1912).
450
perceived the Topkapı Palace, as a historic monument to be studied and documented
and as a site of cultural heritage revealing the customs and rituals of their ancestors.
The site map of the Topkapı Palace published in the 6th issue of the journal (Figure
279) and the map of the third court also attributed to Abdurrahman Şeref, provide us
valuable information regarding the physical and architectural composition of the
royal complex.
Figure 278. The first article by Abdurrahman Şeref: "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu"
published at Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, v. 5 (1 Kanunievvel 1326 /
14.4.1910)
451
Figure 279. Site plan of the Sur-i Sultani by Abdurrahman Şeref Bey (TOEM, v.6, 1
Şubat 1326 / 14.2.1911)
Thus, the palace that was mentioned in the newspapers as a venue for royal
ceremonies or imperial visits during the previous periods, became an object of
historical and architectural interest by itself after the declaration of the Second
Constitution. The history of the palace, its role in the Ottoman court rituals, the
significant kiosks and pavilions within the royal complex, their inscriptions and even
non-existing kiosks became the subject of numerous newspaper articles. These
articles, while providing information regarding the history of the Ottoman dynasty,
stimulated nationalist tendencies within the reading population, positioning the
palace as national heritage. The articles must have aroused public interest in the
Topkapı Palace as well. Not only the historical, artistic, and architectural features of
the palace, but also the collections of the Imperial Museum and the recently reopened
Military Museum were featured in the newspapers of the era (Figure 280).
452
Figure 280. A page from Şehbal magazine featuring the Topkapı Palace (Şehbal
v.27, 49, 15 Eylül 1326 / 28.9.1910)
5.3 Young Turk ideology: Nationalization and militarization of the landscape
Arms Museum953
- Teacher: Where did we go all go yesterday?
- Student: We went to see the old arms sir.
( . . .)
- These arms belonged to whom...
- These were the weapons used by our ancestors during the war.
- Were there just the weapons used by our ancestors, were there arms
belonging to any others?
- Yes sir. There were arms belonging to the enemy as well.
- Do you know how come the arms of the enemy remained in our hands?
953 İhsan, "Silah Müzesi", Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye Mecmuası, 1:4 (15.5.1326 / 28.5.1910), 143-152.
See Appendix A.10 for the article and its transcription.
453
- We had war with them and we defeated the enemy. They escaped and their
arms remain in our hands.
- Well done boy. Why do we keep these arms belonging to the enemy?
- Sir, they kept these to draw a lesson. As we look at these weapons, we can
understand how our ancestors worked, progressed, how they defeated the
enemy and took their arms, so we try to be glorious just like them.
- Well, what the old generation did is a lesson for us. Do you know where
they are kept?
- Yes sir, it is called a museum house.
- Well done boy, it is called a museum house, a museum. You better learn it
as a museum. (İhsan, Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye Mecmuası, 1326)
5.3.1 The Reconfiguration of St. Irene and the first court
Another immediate act of the CUP government after the declaration of the Second
Constitution, was to reopen St. Irene and to reestablish the Arms Museum. In 1908 a
decree was issued under the name of Abdülhamid II ordering the foundation of a
modern military museum. While building a new building for the military museum
was the original intention, the commission later decided to convert St. Irene into a
museum. The Byzantine edifice was already organized and named as the Arms
Museum (Esliha Müzesi) during the Hamidian era, even though it was closed for
public visits. After the declaration of the Second Constitution the building and its
collections were reconfigured to establish a renewed and modernised arms
museum.954 For this purpose, the ancient arms and armors from various cities and
castles of the empire were collected at St. Irene.955 After the fall of Abdülhamid II in
1909 the Minister of War Mahmut Şevket Paşa, following his visits to the military
museums in Berlin and in Paris, commanded Ahmet Muhtar Pasha to establish a
modern military museum. Erkan-ı Harbiye Feriki Ahmet Muhtar Pasha was assigned
as the director of Military Arms Museum (Esliha-i Askeriye Müzesi) on November
954 "Askeri Müze" in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, c.1, 350-351; Tahir Nejat Eralp, “Askeri
Müze”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, 1604-1606.
955 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 36–37.
454
21, 1909.956 Under the direction of Ahmet Muhtar Pasha, the museum was
reorganized with great efforts and later renamed the Ottoman Military Museum
(Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani). The arms and amours from the Yıldız Museum, Maçka
arms depot, and from various parts of the empire were transferred to St. Irene and the
edifice opened its doors to public.
Sources reveal conflicting dates regarding the opening date of the Military
Museum. According to Ferruh Gerçek, Wendy Shaw, and Bilge Ar the Military
Museum was inaugurated on 1910,957 Wendy Shaw, in her later article published at
Muqarnas, gives the opening date of the Military Museum as 1913.958 The son of the
Museum director Ahmet Muhtar Pasha, Sermet Muhtar Alus, in his directory for the
Military Museum did not provide an exact opening date for the Military Museum,
but stated that after the declaration of the Second Constitution, in 1908, a new phase
in the life of St. Irene has started.959
In fact, the 1909 publication of Guide Horarire by R.C. Cervati mentions that
an Arms Museum (Musée d'Armes) was opened in the place of the old armory at St.
Irene and the museum was open to visits daily from 10.00am to 3.00pm. According
to the guidebook, there were some antique Byzantine remains outside the building
and the monument of Porphyrius remained in the inner court. However, Cervati did
not mention the interior of the former church or the arms collection exhibited within.
According to the same guidebook, the Janissary Museum could still be visited at the
956 BOA BEO.3665.274856 (7 Za 1327 / 8 Teşrinisani 1325 / 21.11.1909)
"Açıkta bulunan Erkan-ı Harbiye Feriki Ahmed Muhtar Paşa hazretlerinin rütbe-i haliyesiyle Esliha-i
Askeriye Müzesi müdüriyetine tayini hususunda..."
957 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 37–38; Shaw,
Possessors and Possessed, 189; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 350; Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve
Yakın Çevresi,” 261.
958 Shaw, "Museums and Narratives of Display From the Late Ottoman Empire to the Turkish
Republic", 253-279.
959 Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail, 36.
455
Sultan Ahmet Square.960 Thus, we can conclude that St. Irene opened its doors to
visitors after the Young Turk revolution, but the reconfiguration of its interior space
and the arrangement of the military collection was not yet completed by then. The
1910 publication of Coufopoulos also stated that the armory began to be used as a
museum of ancient arms and this guidebook provided information regarding the arms
collection displayed within the former church. This guidebook, however, did not
mention the antique remains displayed inside or outside of St. Irene, but named some
of the most significant items within the arms collection, such as the sword of
Mehmed II and Sacanderbey (Alexander?), an armlet of Tamerlane, keys of
conquered cities, Circassian helmets, large quantities of chain-mail, banners, and
flags.961 Karl Baedeker's 1914 publication, on the other hand, mentioned both the
military collections and the Janissary mannequins displayed within the church and
the antiquities displayed at the adjacent courtyard:962
[The church] contains 100 life size figures clothed in the former costumes of
Turkish dignitaries and particularly the Janissaries. In the NW, an arcaded
court with kettle drums, early Christian relief, large sarcophagi, head of
Medusa, base of silver statue of another Eudoxia.
Apparently, the organization of the museum and establishment of the collection
continued for several years, and St. Irene was finally renamed as the Ottoman
Military Museum (Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani) and became one of the major sites of the
city attracting both domestic and foreign visitors (Figure 281). The area surrounding
St. Irene, including the first court of the Topkapı Palace was also redesigned,
communicating the new function of the building. The sarcophagi in front of St. Irene
were transferred to the Imperial Museum in 1916963 and a number of canons of
960 Cervati, Guide Horarire Général International pour le Voyageur en Orient - Constantinople, 102-
103.
961 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 68–69.
962 Baedeker, Baedeker’s Constantinople and Asia Minor, 194.
963 Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, 26.
456
various sizes were placed outside the building. The first court and the area around the
police station were also landscaped, leveled, and paved. Groups of canons were also
placed at various parts of the garden, indicating the military function and
significance of the first court that housed the Military Museum and the military
police station (Askeri Karakolhane) (Figure 282).
Figure 281. St. Irene as the Military Museum (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
D-DAI-IST-10086)
Figure 282. The Military Museum and the first court of the Topkapı Palace
(Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-IST-9853, c.1910's)
457
5.3.2 Militarization of the palace grounds
After the fall of Abdülhamid II with the military intervention of the Young Turks the
army attained significant influence over the parliament and the sultanate. With the
increasing dominance of the military over the government, the impact and prestige of
the Ottoman army was promoted. The military character of the Topkapı Palace was
also emphasized with the foundation of the Military Museum and active use of the
military zones within the palace. As military service was made compulsory for all
Ottoman men, including the non-Muslim populations,964 the military police station
(Askeri Karakolhane) next to St. Irene became an active spot for military
recruitments and family visits to soldiers. The building was marked as "Fatih Redif
Tabour" in the German insurance maps of 1913-14965 (Figure 283). Especially during
the Balkan Wars, and even before the war, the first court of the Topkapı Palace
gained military significance. The April 1910 publication of an Ottoman journal,
Resimli Kitab, published photos showing the first court of the Topkapı Palace. The
area was occupied with military tents and the area in front of the police station was
packed with people who were willing to see the newly recruited soldiers.966 As
understood from the publication, the military tents were erected in the first court of
the palace and the Topkapı Palace was defined as the "Eski Saray / Eski-sérail" (old
palace). After the Young Turk revolution the imperial character of the Topkapı
Palace was rendered insignificant and even the Ottoman sources adopted the foreign
terminology of the "vieux sérail" (Figure 284).
964 Zürcher and Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 154.
965 Dağdelen, Alman Mavileri.
966 Ressimli Kitab, Cilt.3 No.18, Mart 1326 (April 1910), 483. The caption of the picture: "İstanbul’da
ilk defa olarak taht-ı silaha alınan efrad-ı askeriyeyi temaşa itmek üzere ahz-ı asker dairesi önünde
ictima eden muttefirciyan / Foule assistant au recrutement des Constantinopolitains a Eski Serail"
458
Figure 283. The military police station (Askeri Karakol) next to St. Irene shown as
"Fatih Redif Tabour" (Alman Mavileri, 1913-14)
Figure 284. The first court of the Topkapı Palace published at Resimli Kitab No:18
Cilt:3 (Mart 1326 / April 1910, 483-484)
Again in April 1910 the cover of Servet-i Fünun featured the tents in the first court of
the Topkapı Palace and included a detailed report about the recruitments taking place
in Istanbul for the upcoming war. Apparently this article both glorified the new
459
recruits and promoted the power of the military forces in the eyes of the Ottoman
public. The cover of the issue states that both Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers were
recruited and placed in the tents within the Topkapı Palace.967 Thus, the first court of
the palace adopted a military character, while keeping its public character during the
Second Constitutional era. Another significant building located in the first court next
to St. Irene was also considered for the police forces as early as 1909. According to a
document sent to the Ministry of Interiors, the conversion of the building known as
Hazine-i Hassa Building (Hünkar Köşkü / Darphane Köşkü) to a Police College was
requested. It was also stated that the building was not in good condition but its walls
on four sides remained intact and the building could be repaired for an expense of
150 liras.968 The proposal was brought forward again in 1921 stating that the
apartment of the Royal Treasury (Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahane dairesi) shall be left to
the Directorate General of Security (Emniyet-i Umumiye Müdüriyeti) for its
conversion it to a Police College.969 Even though the project was never realized, it
shows the attempts to assign the area to the armed forces. In this context, the first
court of the Topkapı Palace adopted a military yet popular function. The Military
Museum became an especially popular spot for the Ottomans, particularly for the
families of the soldiers to visit and to spend time within. In other words, the Military
967 Servet-i Fünun, c.38, 4 Mart 1326 (17.3.1910), 980. The caption of the picture:
"Tezahürat-ı mübeccele-i meşrutiyetimizden, İstanbul'da ahz-ı askeri, Topkapı dahilinde İstanbul yeni
askerlerine kurulan çadırlar ve neferat-ı cedidenin vürudu / Le recrutement des soldats muslumans et
non muslumans de Constantinople, Les tentes miltaires devant le Vieux-Serail"
968 BOA ZB.331.35 (9 Mart 1325 / 22.03.1909)
"Küşad-ı mukarrer olan polis mektebi için şimdiye kadar münasib bir mahal bulunamayıp Topkapı
Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde darbhane-i amire ittisalinde kain atik Hazine-i Hassa ebniyesinin polis
mektebi ittihazına elverişli olduğu *anlaşılmasıyla mahal-i mezkurun icra ettirilen keşf ve
muayenesinde bazı mahalleri harab olmuş ise de etraf-ı erbasının bölmeleri sağlam olup hal-i
hazırına* ve yüz elli lira sarfıyla tamir olunduğu takdirde isti'mal olunabileceği..."
969 BOA BEO.4699.352381_ 01 (20 Ra 1341 / 10.11.1921)
"Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu dış avlusunda kain eski Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahane Dairesi Polis Mektebi
ithaz olunmak ve tamirat-ı mukteziyesi de Emniyet-i Umumiye Müdüriyetince icra edilmek üzre..."
460
Museum benefited from the public popularity of the first court to promote the
nationalist and militarist ideologies of the Young Turk government.970
Figure 285. The Cover of Servet-i Fünun showing the military tents at the Topkapı
Palace (4 Mart 1326 / 17.3.1910)
The outer gardens of the palace, on the other hand, which already housed
ammunition depots and military police stations, were intensively used by the military
especially during the Balkan wars (1912-13). This devastating war turned out to be
greatly traumatic for the Ottoman empire, changing its geographical and
demographic structure. Due to massive migrations of the Muslim populations of the
lost Balkan territories, refugee tents were erected at various parts of the empire and
970 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed, 195.
461
its capital.971 The outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace also housed numerous tents.972
Photographs of the era show military tents erected at the Seraglio point, next to the
Seraglio police station (Figure 286). During the Balkan wars and World War I,
various parts of the palace were used for military purposes or appropriated by the
armed forces.
Figure 286. The tents placed at the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace during the
Balkan Wars (Selman Sarıhan Collection)
For example, an archival document from January 1911 states that the imperial
boathouse next to the Yalı Kiosk would be demolished and its location appropriated
by the military. Thus, according to the document, the ancient boats of Mehmed IV
and other imperial boats of historical and artistic value kept within the imperial
boathouse should be transferred to the Imperial Museum.973 However, the Imperial
971 Zürcher and Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 166.
972 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi”; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi.
973 BOA MF.MKT.1165.60_01 (30 Kanunievvel 1326 / 14.1.1911)
"Kayıkhanenin köhne olduğundan ve sevahil-i mezkurede Harbiye Nezareti celilesi tarafından bir
takım mebani vücuda getirilmek üzere bu sırada ameliyet-ı inşaiyeye mübaşeret olunduğundan
bahisle mezkur kadırganın sağ ve teleften vikayesi Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni riyasetinden ba-tezkire
bildirilmiştir. Teşhire şayan atika-i Osmaniyeden olan mezkur kadırganın Müze-i Hümayun idaresi
bütçesinden ve nısf diğerinin Hazine-i Hassa bütçesinden tesviyesi lüzumu..."
462
Museum was not suitable for housing such large pieces974 and eventually the
imperial boats were transported to the Marine Museum (Deniz Müzesi) within the
Arsenal at the Golden Horn.975 A picture of the imperial boathouse in ruins was
published in Şehbal magazine with the caption "The imperial boat of Sultan Mehmed
and the kiosk on top in the boathouse (Sultan Mehmed Kadırgasının arka kısmıyla
üstündeki köşkün daha kayıkhanesinde iken görünüşü)", perhaps to legitimize the
expropriation of the boathouse by the armed forces (Figure 287).
Figure 287. The imperial boats in the boathouse of the Topkapı Palace (Şehbal - 47)
974 BOA MF.MKT.1165.60_05 (27 Kanunisani 1326 / 14.1.1911)
"Sultan Mehmed Han-ı Rabi zamanına aid ve Yalı Köşkü sahilindeki saltanat kayıkhanesinde mevcud
olan kadırgaların Müze-i Hümayun'a nakli hususuna . . . mezkur kadırganın Müze-i Hümayuna nakli
gayri kabil olmasına mebni şimdilik bulunduğu mahalda muhafazası lüzumu"
975 Naval Museum (Deniz Müzesi) was founded during the reign of Abdülhamid II in 1897 and in
1919 the imperial boats were sent to the museum from the Topkapı Palace. See, Gerçek, Türk
müzeciligi, 355; Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 37. ; Celep,
"Deniz Müzesinin tanıtılması".
463
During the Balkan wars due to vast military loss and huge number of wounded
soldiers many public buildings were converted into hospitals as well. The School of
Fine Arts and the Imperial Museum were also converted into military hospitals
during the war976 (Figure 288). The Red Crescent used the first court of the Topkapı
Palace as well, and numerous tents were erected for the care and recovery of the sick
and wounded. According to Lieutenant Baker, an eye witness of the era, there were
long queues in the first court and many patients and their relatives were resting in
front of the newly founded Military Museum.977 As understood from the archival
documents, the Alay Kiosk was also allocated for the Red Crescent. A commission
was formed for the restoration of the kiosk, which had historic and architectural
significance, under the direction of the military commander and including prominent
members, such as the director of Imperial Museum Halil Bey, director of the Privy
Purse, The Chief Treasurer of the place (Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası),
representative of the director of the Red Crescent, and the chief architect Vedad
Bey.978
Thus, beginning with the Tripoli and Balkan Wars and continuing with World
War I, the Ottoman empire went through a continuous state of warfare during the
Second Constitutional period. In addition to the military background of the CUP,
internal and external struggles and battles reinforced the power and authority of the
armed forces. Under this state of emergency, many public buildings and areas were
976 Hazerfen, "Bir Çavuşun Balkan Harbi Anıları - I", 151.
977 Baker, 1913, 57 cited in Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 264.
978 BOA İ.MBH.11.34 (24 S 1331 / 2.2.1913) Alay Köşkü’nün Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyetine Tahsisi
BOA BEO.4139.310413 (26 S1331 / 4.2.1913)
“Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu müştemilatından olan Alay Köşkünün haiz olduğu kıymet-i tarihiye ve
mimariyeye halel getirmemek şartıyla Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyetince tamir ettirilerek makam-ı saltanata
mahsus odadan maada aksamının muvakkaten cemiyet-i mezkûra heyet-i idaresine tahsis . . . nezaret
etmek üzere Serferik-i Hazret-i Şehriyari Beyefendi hazretlerinin taht-ı riyasetinde zat-ı valalarıyla
ferik-i sani-i cenab-ı Padişahi Mehmet Tevfik Beyefendi ve Müze-i Hümayun Müdürü Halil Beyefendi
ve Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahane Müdür-i Umumisi Hafız Feyzi Efendi ve Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası
Refik Beyefendi hazaratıyla Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Reis-i Vekili Doktor Besim Ömer ve Sermimar-ı
Hazret-i Şehriyari Vedat Beyefendilerden mürekkep bir komisyon teşkili...”
464
confiscated by the army or converted into temporary military zones, including the
gardens, courtyards, kiosks, and buildings of the Topkapı Palace.
Figure 288. Turkish soldiers in front of the School of Finer Arts being used as a
hospital during the Balkan Wars (Gallica, 1912)
In a similar fashion, a postcard from 1917 shows a group of high-ranking military
officers in the Sofalı Kisok of the Topkapı Palace. It is not clear whether these
officers were having a meeting the Sofalı Kiosk or visiting the historic edifice
(Figure 289). The Topkapı Palace was kept open for certain visits and meetings
during World War I, however most of the cultural and artistic activities within the
empire were interrupted. Museums were closed and their staff recruited for military
service. Ferruh Gerçek claims that Archeology Museum was also closed and the
museum director Halil Bey moved his apartment to the basement of the museum to
guard the collections during the time of the Great War.979 The visits to the Topkapı
Palace continued, but the Imperial Treasury was closed, as the treasury collection
979 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 331.
465
was sent to Konya for security reasons.980 Charles Diehl declared that "pendant la
guerre, la Tresor avait quitte le vieux serail pour etre transporte d'abord a Brousse,
puis a Konya."981 Ernest Mamboury also mentioned in 1925 that the Imperial
Treasury was closed for visits since the Great War.982 However, the Military
Museum was kept open and many activities and spectacles were organized both
inside the museum and in the first court of the Topkapı Palace promoting the army
and patriotic sentiments of the Ottomans.
Figure 289. Soldiers in the Sofalı Kiosk during World War I (April 1917, Pera
Mezat Collection)
5.3.3 A patriotic spectacle: The Military Museum
The development and progress of the Military Museum continued after its
inauguration in 1908 until 1916. Apart from the reorganization of the existing
collections, new items were also added to the museum collection. For instance, an
980 Öz, Hayatım, 13; Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 57.
981 Diehl, Constantinople, 123.
982 Mamboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 471.
466
archival document from November 1911 states that the collection of the Janissary
Museum (Yeniçeri Kıyafethanesi) occupying the hall of the School of Arts and Crafts
(Mekteb-i Sanayi-i Nefise) at Sultanahmet should be transferred to the Military
Museum (Saray içindeki Askeri Müzeye nakli).983 The second edition of Karl
Baedeker's guidebook of Constantinople states that the Military Museum was
established at 1911 and the Janissary collection was incorporated within the museum
in 1912.984 Ernest Mamboury, on the other hand, mentioned that the Janissary
collection was integrated with the Military Museum around 1914.985 The move of the
Janissary costumes to St. Irene after a couple of decades must have increased the
public interest in the Military Museum and completed its collection by referencing
the military history of the empire. One of the photographic albums986 of the Crown
Prince Abdülmecid depicts the Military Museum and the album clearly shows the
display of the Janissary collection at the galleries of St. Irene.
The realistic mannequins with their Janissary costumes and ancient arms and
accessories were displayed on wooden platforms and surrounded by various objects
such as paintings, flags, carpets, and even animal skins (Figure 290). According to
Mamboury, the mannequins were displayed at the galleries of St. Irene and there
were 143 types of soldiers depicted in 31 sets as groups of 5-6-7 or 8. The first
mannequin labeled as No.1 was the figurine of Osman Han Gazi, the founder of the
Ottoman dynasty. Almost all Ottoman posts, ancient and recent, from the Black
Eunuchs to the Bostancı corps, from the Grand Amiral to the Muezzin, and from the
983 BOA BEO.3959.296907_05 (24 Teşrinievvel 1327 / 6.11.1911)
"Harbiye Nezaret-i Celilesine, . . . Bir salonu işgal eden ve Mekteb-i Sanayiye merbut olarak idare
edilen Yeniçeri Kıyafethanesinin ne Mekteb-i Sanayi ne de nezarete bir münasebeti olmayacağından
bahis ile mezkur kıyafethanenin taliki hasebiyle Saray içindeki Askeri Müzeye nakli lüzumuna dair..."
984 Baedeker, Baedeker’s Constantinople and Asia Minor, 194.
985 Mamboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 445.
986 I would like to thank to my dear friend and colleague Gizem Tongo Overfield Shaw for bringing
these albums to my attention.
467
Defterdar Emini to palace dwarfs were presented in the collection.987 The
mannequins were mostly presented in action, depicted while sitting, standing,
walking, talking to each other, carrying stuff, or playing an instrument. Apart from
the costumes, the ranks of the mannequins were also expressed with their ages, facial
expressions, bodily gestures, and the length and color of their beards and mustaches.
A realistic, almost theatrical representation of the past was purposefully created and
displayed in the aisles of the former church of St. Irene (Figure 291).
As seen in the photographic albums there was another collection displaying
the costumes of the modern military officials (Figure 292). These mannequins,
however, were lacking a face or a body and they were not placed on a platform nor
were they performing any kind of action. The display resembled more of a clotheshanger,
rather than mannequins. The difference between the display techniques of
the ancient and contemporary military costumes is striking. While the ancient
costumes belonging to the Janissaries, representing the glory of a distant past, were
displayed in a realistic fashion; the contemporary military outfits were organized to
inform the visitor and to create a sense of belonging. The massive composition of
anonymous and faceless mannequins and their repetitive uniforms, mimicking the
idea of the modern army, also differs from the unique representation of each
Janissary officer with a significant role, costume, and character.988
987 Mamboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 446–50.
988 In the albums there are several Janissary costumes displayed on two-diemnsional mannequins as
well, but in contrast with the displays of modern military outfits, faces were drawn on these Janissary
figures.
468
Figure 290. The Janissary mannequins displayed in the Military Museum (TBMM
Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260)
Figure 291. Janissary mannequins in the Military Museum (Atatürk Kitaplığı,
Postcards Collection)
Figure 292. Display of modern military costumes in the Military Museum (TBMM
Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260)
469
According to another archival document dated 1910, two sets of Janissary costumes,
which were previously produced for a theater show representing the Prut victory of
Baltacı Mehmed Pasha, and their foot and head wear, arms, and other equipment,
were kept at the basements of the Topkapı Palace. There were also numerous arms,
such as bows and arrows, belonging to Janissaries in the basement of the Imperial
Treasury. These ancient arms were to be repaired and transferred to the Military
Museum, without damaging the Imperial Treasury collection, together with the
aforementioned costumes.989 Perhaps, the live Janissary models that were staging the
ancient military traditions, wore those theater costumes. An Ottoman military band
(mehter takımı) with historic costumes was also performing as a part of the Military
Museum attractions (Figure 293). This theatrical replica of the historic Ottoman band
was established in 1914. Additionally, target practice was also held at a shooting
range and an organ played national songs and military marches in exchange for one
kuruş.990 These spectacles, apart from attracting public attention, created a sense of
historical mindedness and promoted national feelings of the Ottoman visitors. Both
the Janissary army and the Ottoman band, which were abolished by Mahmud II for
the establishment of a modern army, were resurrected and glorified by the successors
of this modern army and promenaded in the first court of the Topkapı Palace,
performing a public spectacle991 (Figure 294). According to the 1925 edition of
Mamboury, numerous transfers damaged the janissary costumes and the costumes
989 BOA İ.MBH.3.1328Ş-005 (15.8.1910)
“Viyana muhasarasını ve Baltacı Mehmet Paşanın Prut muzafferiyetini temsil eylemek üzre
mukaddema bi't-tertib mevki’ temaşaya vaz idilmiş tiyaro piyeslerine mutealik olarak suret-i
mahsusada imal ittirildiği ve elyevm Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayun hücratının birinde metruk bulunduğu
istihbar kılınan iki Yeniçeri elbise kolleksiyonu ve bunlara ait baş ve ayak kisveleri ile esliha ve
techizat-ı muhtelifenin ve bir de Hazine-i Hümayun bodrum katında mevcud olduğu anlaşılan
yeniçerilere aid ok ve yay vesaire gibi esliha-i kadimenin tamirleri icra ve noksanları ikmal ile
Esliha-i Askeriye Müzesine vaz’ı ... Hazine-i Hümayun koleksiyonuna halel gelmemek üzre bermuceb-
i istizan icrai icabı...”
990 Ar, “Osmanlı Döneminde Aya İrini ve Yakın Çevresi,” 266.
991 "Askeri Müze", Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, c.1, 350-351.
470
were repaired several times. Thus, a troop of real soldiers were organized and
accompanied with the mehter band during ceremonies, national days, charity
openings, making people recall the old times.992 The live Janissary models and the
Ottoman military band were resurrecting and staging the past, creating a pseudo link
with the victorious military history of the empire. Both attractions, as parodies of the
Ottoman identity, became the leitmotif of touristic attractions throughout the
Republican era.
Figure 293. Ottoman military band performing in front of the Military Museum
(From Ar, 2013, 266)
Figure 294. Models with Janissary costumes in front of the Middle Gate of the
Topkapı Palace (TBMM Archives, Askeri Müze, 11-1260)
992 Mamboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 445.
"Tous ces transferts avaient abimé les mannequins qui furent restaurés et réequipes. On profita de
cette occasion pour organizes un veritable detachment d'anciens soldats habilles avec des costumes
du temps, detachement qui fut accompagne d'une ancienne musique dite Mehterhane, dans chacque
ceremonie, fete nationale ou oeuvre de bienfaisance, on fait une exhibition de ce detachement, pour
permettre au peuple d'evoquer les temps de jadis."
471
The display of the Military Museum was much different from the previous
organization of the Armory Museum established during the Hamidian era.
The monotonous and uniform organization of the arms and other military objects in
the main atrium of the building was completely changed, and more attractive and
more vivid display strategies were employed by the Young Turk government, who
were eager to promote the prestige of the military forces in the eyes of the public.
The new organization of the Military Museum reflected the military glory and
victorious past of the Ottoman empire and aimed to enhance nationalist ideologies.
The parallel row of arms occupying the nave of St. Irene was replaced with crowded
exhibits of arms and various other objects displayed on tables and in windowed
cabinets organized in three aisles. There were two sidewalks on two sides of the
central aisle to facilitate the circulation within the museum (Figure 295).
The museum was organized to attract the attention of visitors and to promote
their nationalist feelings, creating a sense of a triumphant and glorious past.
Hundreds of canons, canon balls, flags, portraits, ancient weapons, new and ancient
military costumes, armors, shields, cups, swords, sultan's monograms, banners,
carpets, textiles, lamps, helmets, chains, bows and arrows, and numerous other items
were placed and accumulated all around the halls of St. Irene to communicate
richness and grandeur. The arms were organized to create geometric compositions—
a display strategy that was already implemented in the previous Arms Museum
(Esliha Müzesi) and the Imperial Treasury during the reign of Abdülhamid II. The
richness of the collection was emphasized with the accumulation of similar objects,
rather than selecting and displaying a representative piece from each category
(Figure 296). It could be said that this was the main display strategy of the Ottomans
472
implemented in the Imperial Treasury and the Çini collection as well, except for the
Imperial Museum, which employed representative display techniques emulating the
European museal exhibitions. Foreign to the Western eye, the display strategy of the
Military Museum became a subject of criticism. For instance, Ernest Mamboury
criticized the accumulation of objects on display in the Military Museum:993
Today the museum is of great wealth; unfortunately there is a little too much
stuff on top of each other; among real historical pieces of art, pieces of little
value cluttering the windows. Also it is impossible to make a practical guide
of the museum showing the display cases and numbered objects...
Figure 295. The nave of St. Irene towards the apsis (Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, D-DAI-IST-10087)
993 Mamboury, 451.
"Aujourd'hui le musée est d'une grande richesse; il y a malhereusement un peu trop de choses
entasées les unes sur les autres; parmi de véritables pièces historiques d'art, se glissent des pièces de
peu de valeur qui encombrent les vitrines. Aussi est-il impossible de faire un guide pratique du
muusée avec des vitrines et des objects numérotés..."
473
Figure 296. Compositions created by ancient arms (TBMM Archives, Askeri Müze,
11-1260)
Apart from the performances of the live Janissary models and of the Ottoman
military band, another major attraction of the Military Museum was the
establishment of a movie theater. Especially during World War I, war movies were
shown to stimulate the patriotic feelings of the audience. After the Young Turk
revolution, museums started taking part in the political scene and the military
museum was explicitly utilized for the propaganda of the militaristic and nationalist
ideologies of the CUP government. The cinema was open to both men and women,
where men sat in the front rows and women were designated to sit in the back rows
with railings separating them.994 The screening and performances at the Military
Museum were advertised in the newspapers with the aim of attracting a larger
audience995 (Figure 297). The advertisements provided information regarding the
994 I would like to thank to my friend and colleague Özde Çeliktemel Thomen for pointing this source
to my attention: Mustafa Gökmen, Başlangıcından 1950'ye kadar Türk Sinema Tarihi ve Eski Türk
Sinemaları, İstanbul: Denetim Ajans, 1989, 17.
995 I would like to thank to my friend and colleague Gizem Tongo Overfield Shaw for sharing these
advertisements with me:
474
daily program, time of screenings, and origin of the movies and invited Ottoman
audience to the cinema.
Figure 297. Advertisements of film screenings at the Military Museum (Tasvir-i
Efkar 22.4.1917 / 14.6.1917)
In 1910 Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye Mecmuası (The Journal of Primary Education) covered
the recently opened Arms Museum (Silah Müzesi) as an exemplary lecture (ders
numunesi) in its fourth episode (Figure 298). The piece was composed of a nine-page
dialogue between an instructor and his student after their excursion to the Arms
Museum. The instructor asks questions about the museum, its collections and the
origins of the collection. The student provides information about the items displayed
and explains the objective of this museum. The nationalist and patrimonial discourse
was evident in the dialogue, aiming to educate young Ottoman students with a
consciousness of military and national history. The dialogue between the instructor
and the student epitomized the ideology of the Young Turk government, promoting
"Müze-i Askeri Sineması", Tasvir-i Efkar, 22.4.1917.
"Müze-i Askeri Sineması", Tasvir-i Efkar, 14.6.1917.
475
the idea of a glorious past of the Ottomans, their victories against the enemy, and
drew a lesson from the triumphant history of the nation.996 (Appendix A.10)
Figure 298. Educational Magazine featuring the Arms Museum (Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye
Mecmuası, 1:4, 15 Mayıs 1326 / 28.5.1910)
Another full-page advertisement from 1917997 provides information regarding the
collection of the Military Museum and other attractions such as the cinema, target
practice, and the military band performances. The advertisement at the Harb
Mecmuası started by defining the exact location of the Military Museum at the court
of the Imperial Palace of Topkapı. In the second line, it was announced that the
Janissary Museum, which was once at Sultan Ahmet Square, was unified with the
Military Museum. Apparently, the Janissary collection was among the most
celebrated attractions of the city and was used to promote the Military Museum. The
996 İhsan, "Silah Müzesi", Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye Mecmuası, 1:4 (15.5.1326 / 28.5.1910), 143-152.
997 Harb Mecmuası, 1:4, 15 Mayıs 1326 (28.5.1910). See, Appendix A.11 for the advertisement and
its transcription.
476
main body of the text describes the contents of the collection. Together with the
arms, armors, and various souvenirs of celebrated ancestors and warrior sultans; new
and ancient war spoils, canons, rifles, flags, banners, and all sorts of armory were
displayed in the museum. The paintings, depicting the war scenes and sultan's
portraits alongside new and ancient military costumes were also essential pieces of
the collection. The advertisement promoted the patriotic and nationalist feelings of
its audience, stating that Ottomans should draw a lesson from the glorious history of
the nation by visiting the Military Museum and seeing the reminiscent of their heroic
fathers. (Osmanlılar bu müessese-i cedide-i milliyemizin ziyaretine şitab buyurarak
orada kahraman babalarının asar-ı celadet ve şevketinden ibret almalıdır.) The
advertisement not only promoted the Military Museum but the military history of the
empire and glorified its past victories, conquests, and war spoils (Appendix A.11)
(Figure 299). Evidently, Harb Mecmuası was published during World War I and its
content was deliberatly selected for motivating the people and to keep their morale
high.
As for the visitors of the Military Museum, we don't have much information
regarding their number, nationality, or identity. Not many Ottoman accounts or
memoirs could be found depicting the newly founded Military Museum.
Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, in his article dated 1910, mentioned that St. Irene, which
was used as an armory and weapons magazine, was converted into a military
museum.998 Mehmed Raif Bey also stressed that the former church of St. Irene was
closed for visits during the previous periods. He described the nature of the
collection being displayed in the Military Museum and emphasized their historical
significance in the Ottoman realm. The swords of Mehmed II and İskerder Bey, the
998 Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, ''Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu'', Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, v.5,
(h.1326 / 1910), 276.
477
keys of conquered cities, ancient items belonging to the Janissary army, the turban of
Alemdar (Mustafa Pasha), precious blades belonging to Sultan Gavri and Selahaddin
Eyyübi, powder flask of Sokullu Mehmed Pasha, swords of Ottoman sultans, the
chain placed between the two shores of the Golden Horn, and various gifts from
foreign countries, etc. were listed by Mehmed Raif Efendi as the most significant
pieces of the collection.999
Figure 299. Advertisement of the Military Museum (Harb Mecmuası, Şaban 1335 –
Mayıs 1917)
The foreign visitors, on the other hand, were not much impressed by the museum or
by its collection. After his visit to the Military Museum, Robert Hichens, in his travel
account stated that, St Irene "used by Turks as an armoury and museum, contains
999 Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi, 32–33.
478
many spoils well arranged, but everything is displayed ugly or beautiful, strange
population of puppets fatally Madame Tussauds."1000 The most attractive collection
of the museum, the Janissary mannequins, was perceived as strange puppets and was
compared to the popular British exhibition, designed primarily for education and
entertainment of the people. Most of the guidebooks and travel accounts emphasized
the Byzantine origin of St. Irene and gave details about the architectural history of
the edifice and emphasized that the church was never converted into a mosque and
thus was well-preserved as an antique edifice.1001 The guidebook of Coufopoulos
briefly mentions the St. Irene under the "Principal Sights in Constantinople" as a
museum to visit1002 and gives detailed information about the edifice under the section
''Byzantine churches and monasteries of Istanbul''. It proposed that the conversion of
this sacred Byzantine church into an armory and a military museum was a
manifestation and constant reminder of the Ottoman conquest of the city:1003
It is, however, curious to note that this building, which was once the scene
of this Christian union, has now been chosen, as if by the irony of fate, as
a museum of objects of strife, and is crowded with ancient arms and
armour, modern weapons, and trophies.
The Military Museum also glorified the new regime of the empire that was based on
the military power of the CUP. After the fall of Abdülhamid II with the military
intervention of the Young Turks, the power and prestige of the army was promoted
using various methods. The presence of the army and the military officers during
royal processions and ceremonials, the publication of military journals and articles,
the use of military signs, symbols, banners, and flags at public spaces, and the
1000 Hichens, The Near East. Dalmatia, Greece and Constantinople, 244.
1001 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 68.; Baedeker, Baedeker’s Constantinople and
Asia Minor, 164.
1002 Coufopoulos, A Guide to Constantinople, 1910, 46.
1003 Coufopoulos, 69.
479
foundation of the Military Museum were all strategies for increasing the visibility
and the prestige of the Ottoman military.
Figure 300. The first court of the Topkapı Palace (Milli Saraylar, Abdülmecid Efendi
Archive)
As demonstrated above, the Military Museum, as a former Byzantine church located
at the first court of the Topkapı Palace, was related with the victorious military
history of the empire and was a reminder for the conquest of the city. The venue of
the museum, Topkapı Palace, positioned it as a historic site and made a spatial and
temporal link between the imperial past and the modern present of the Ottoman
empire. The Janissary collection was brought to the Military Museum, invoking the
military history of the state and these mannequins were resurrected with live models,
mimicking the traditions of a long-gone past. The performance of the ancient
Ottoman band (mehter takımı) also awakened public interest in the museum. The
band itself, with its costumes, instruments, music, and performance, was a modern
spectacle representing the pre-modern self of the empire. Film screenings, while
480
attracting a wide public audience, also stimulated the nationalistic feelings of crowds
(Figure 300). In fact, the Military Museum promoted the nationalist and patriotic
ideologies of the CUP and communicated the military propaganda of the state
especially during the times of successive wars. The Topkapı Palace in this context
was positioned as a historic venue and an actual embodiment of the glorious past that
was being presented. Thus the palace was perceived both as a antiquarian venue
bridging the golden-age of the empire with its present; as a historic monument
reminding the Mehmed II's conquest of the city; and as a military site housing
military hospitals, tents, police station, recruitment offices, and a polygon. The
spatial and temporal liminality of the place as a public space, historic site, military
zone, touristic attraction, national monument, and an educative institution was
shaping the multi-faceted and complex character of the palace.
5.4 From imperial gardens to the public park: The making of the Gülhane Park
My head is in the spumous clouds, there is a sea within and outside of me,
I am a walnut tree in Gülhane Park,
A knotted and shredded old walnut.
Neither you are aware of this, nor the police.
I am a walnut tree in Gulhane Park.
My leaves quiver like fish in water,
My leaves are as crisp and clean as a silk handkerchief.
Just pick them, my rose, and wipe the tears from your eyes.
My leaves are my hands, I have one hundred thousand.
With one hundred thousand hands, I touch you, Istanbul.
My leaves are my eyes, I look with surprise.
With one hundred thousand eyes, I watch you, Istanbul.
They beat like one hundred thousand hearts, my leaves beat.
I am a walnut tree in Gülhane Park.
Neither you are aware of this, nor the police.
Nazım Hikmet Ran1004
1004 Ran, Üç Şiir : Yaşamaya Dair, Ceviz Ağacı, Masalların Masalı.
"Ceviz Ağacı
481
5.4.1 A new park in the Old Town
After the Young Turk revolution not only the sultan himself but also his imperial
possessions started being controlled and manipulated by the CUP government. Both
the Yıldız Palace and the Topkapı Palace were museumified and opened for visits.
The imperial palace of Yıldız was confiscated and the royal collections within were
also counted, registered, and transferred to other palaces and public institutions by
commissions appointed by the parliament. The status of the Topkapı Palace has also
changed during this period, and the palace grounds, its collections, employees, and
its internal mechanisms were modified. The palace was de-imperialized, the royal
collections, library and archives were reconfigured, cataloged and some items were
circulated. The Imperial Treasury was also reorganized as a museum for domestic
and foreign visitors. The Harem was also transformed, evacuated, and opened for the
visit of selected guests. Only a few old Eunuchs remained in the Harem responsible
for its care. It could be stated that the imperial palace of the Topkapı and its
collections were detached from the Ottoman dynasty, they were museumified and
nationalized during the Second Constitutional era.
The Topkapı Palace also gained a military character as a response to the
militaristic background of the CUP government. The outer gardens of the Topkapı
Başım köpük köpük bulut, içim dışım deniz,
ben bir ceviz ağacıyım Gülhane Parkı'nda,
budak budak, şerham şerham ihtiyar bir ceviz.
Ne sen bunun farkındasın, ne polis farkında.
Ben bir ceviz ağacıyım Gülhane Parkı'nda.
Yapraklarım suda balık gibi kıvıl kıvıl.
Yapraklarım ipek mendil gibi tiril tiril,
koparıver, gözlerinin, gülüm, yaşını sil.
Yapraklarım ellerimdir, tam yüz bin elim var.
Yüz bin elle dokunurum sana, İstanbul'a.
Yapraklarım gözlerimdir, şaşarak bakarım.
Yüz bin gözle seyrederim seni, İstanbul'u.
Yüz bin yürek gibi çarpar, çarpar yapraklarım.
Ben bir ceviz ağacıyım Gülhane Parkı'nda.
Ne sen bunun farkındasın, ne polis farkında.
Nazım Hikmet
482
Palace were already used by numerous military facilities, including the Military
Medical School, the Military Hospital, ammunition depots, barracks, military police
stations, and drill fields. During the Second Constitutional era, as explained in the
previous section, the first court of the palace was also positioned as a semi-military
zone that was open for public visits. The armory at St. Irene was reconfigured as the
Military Museum, several activities and attractions were organized in relation to the
museum. Additionally, the military police station (askeri karakol) in the first court
was used for the recruitment of new soldiers. Military tents were erected in the first
court to shelter these new recruits. During the Tripoli and Balkan wars, the first court
and the outer gardens of the palace were also used for housing the sick and wounded.
The Imperial Museum and the School of Fine Arts were temporarily converted into
hospitals during this devastating period of war. In other words, the military character
of the Topkapı Palace became more visible and more institutionalized during this
period.
Figure 301. The map of the Gülhane gardens after its conversion into a public park
(Alman Mavileri, 1913-14)
483
Another major transformation that took place during this era was the opening of a
public park within the palace grounds. The imperial gardens of Gülhane surrounding
the inner courts of the Topkapı Palace was converted into a public park under the
direction of Dr. Cemil Topuzlu, the mayor of the city (Figure 301). The project was
proposed in 1911 and planned to be implemented in three phases. This was a major
turning point in the history of the Topkapı Palace and a manifestation of a key
modernization project, both for the empire and for the city of Istanbul. In fact, public
parks were one of the leitmotifs of modernity and contemporary urban life during the
nineteenth century. Following the French model, the idea of the parks and gardens
spread all over Europe and became accepted as a symbol of modern society.1005
Public parks started to appear in Istanbul during the 1860's emulating this European
life-style.1006 The first municipality of the city, the Sixth District of Pera,
implemented several infrastructure projects for the modernization of the Galata and
Pera regions. The first public park in Istanbul was constructed at Taksim on the spot
of the Christian cemetery (Figure 302). Following the Taksim Garden, which opened
in 1869, the municipality designed another garden again in Pera, at Tepebaşı.1007
There was an entrance fee for both the Taksim Garden and the Tepebaşı Garden,
which were mostly frequented by the foreign and Levantine population of Istanbul
and reflected the Europeanized face of the city, with beer gardens, cafes, orchestras,
and pleasure resorts1008 (Figure 303).
1005 Girouard, Cities and people, 181.
1006 Boyar and Fleet, A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul, 246.
1007 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, 69–70.
1008 Boyar and Fleet, A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul, 246.
484
Figure 302. The Taksim Gardens
Figure 303. The Tepebaşı Garden in Pera (Musée Albert-Kahn, Archives de la
Planète, A2287)
A public garden within the Historic Peninsula, targeting mainly the Muslim
community of the city, could only be realized after a couple of decades. The private
physician of Sultan Mehmed V Reşad, Cemil Pasha (Topuzlu), was appointed as the
mayor of Istanbul and he was a great advocate of the public park. After organizing
the Sultan Ahmet Square, he aimed to open a public park for the people of Istanbul.
Seeing the poor condition of the Gülhane gardens at the Topkapı Palace, he asked
sultan Mehmed V Reşad's permission to convert the royal gardens into a public park,
485
where people could promenade and get fresh air. The Sultan responded that the land
belonged to the Privy Purse / Sultan's Treasury (Hazine-i Hassa), and if he gave
away this land there would be many others demanding properties from him.
However, after getting the support of prominent figures of the CUP, particularly of
the commander in chief Cemal Pasha and the Minister of Interior Affairs Talat
Pasha, the mayor managed to convince the sultan to donate the Gülhane gardens for
the establishment of a public park.1009 The sultan accepted the project with the
condition that the park would not be used for any commercial purposes and should
serve only for the benefit of the nation. Apparently, the sultan still exercised control
over the imperial properties, but he remained under the influence of the CUP leaders
and had to accept their offer for the park.
The project was a clear manifestation of the modernization and progress of
the empire and reflected the ideology of the CUP government. The conversion of the
imperial gardens of the sultan (hassbağçe), formerly accepted as his private property,
into a public park carried also strong political connotations. Properties of the Sultan's
Treasury (Hazine-i Hassa) were appropriated for the benefit of the citizens and the
public park represented another step in the nationalization of the Topkapı Palace.
The project was also utilized to legitimize the new sultan and the Young Turk
government (Figure 304).
1009 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 152–53.
486
Figure 304. 1914 Ayverdi Map of the Seraglio showing the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı Haritalar Koleksiyonu)
In fact, even before the attempts of Cemil Pasha in 1910, the director of the Imperial
Museum Halil Bey, submitted a petition regarding the protection of the palace and
the conversion of the outer gardens into a park. He complained that the palace
grounds were left unprotected after the revolution and especially the Bab-ı Hümayun
and Soğukçeşme gates of the palace were in poor condition. Additionally, the
railings of the museum were stolen and, as the outer gardens of the palace were
rented out as vegetable gardens, ancient trees were removed by the gardeners to
prevent their shadows. For the protection and rehabilitation of the area, it was
requested that the security forces in and around the palace were to be intensified and
the outer gardens were to be organized as a garden. (işbu bostanların da ba'dema
icara verilmeyerek bahçe haline kalb ve ifrağları icab ettiği) 1010 The declaration of
1010 BOA MF.MKT.1149.67 (1328 Ra 07 / 19.03.1910)
"Soğukçeşme kapısıyla Bab-ı Hümayun civarı da adeta bir mezbele halini aldığı gibi Müze-i
Hümayuna aid bahçelerin parmaklıkları koparılıp çalınmakta ve ağaçlar kat' edilmektedir. . . . Pek
az bedel icar mükabilinde kiraya verilmekte olan sur dahili bostanlarındaki asır dide ağaçların
lahana ve pırasa yetiştirmeğe gölgeleri mani' olduğu cihetle bunların ve vahşiyane bir suretle kat'
487
Halil Bey proved that the Gülhane gardens of the palace were in poor condition and
some precautions for rejuvenation of the area were already being discussed during
the early years of the Young Turk rule.
5.4.2 Construction and confiscation
With the approval of the Young Turk leaders and the sultan, the project was initiated
on October 16, 1912 with a decree stating that:1011
The current status of the Seraglio Point does not suit its historical significance
or its premium location, thus the area from Soğukçeşme to the ammunition
barracks should be cleared from various buildings and would be arranged as a
park by the municipality.
A folder in the Ottoman archives (DH.İD.153.10), which includes 109 documents,
provides detailed information regarding the construction phases and bureaucratic
procedure during the making of the Gülhane Park from 1912 to 1914.1012 The earliest
documents in this folder regarding the construction of the park starts from October
22, 1912 and it was a copy of the aforementioned decree sent from the Sublime Port
informing the Ministry of Interior about the permission given by the Sultan and the
directorate of Hazine-i Hassa to convert the area into a park.1013 The rest of the
documents in the folder prove that one of the major problems during the
establishment of the park was the demolishment of various structures that already
edilmeleri ale'l-ekser meşhud olduğundan işbu bostanların da ba'dema icara verilmeyerek bahçe
haline kalb ve ifrağları icab ettiği maruzdur."
1011 Ergin and Galitekin, İstanbul şehreminleri, 2007, 537–38.
" Sarayburnu mevki’inin hâl-ı hâzırı orasının ehemmiyet-i tarihiyye ve mahalliyesiyle mütenasib
olmamasından dolayı mevcud emâkin-i müteferrikanın daire-i aidesiyle bi’l-i’tilâf hedmiyle
Soğukçeşme’den silah depolarına kadar mevki’-i mezkûrun Şehremaneti’nce bir park sûretinde
tanzim ve tertibine müsaade-i seniyye-i hazret-i pâdişâhinin erzan buyurulması istizan olunduğuna
dair 2 Teşrin-i evvel 1328 tarihli ve 253 numerolu tezkere-i aliyyeleri lede’l-arz mûcibince irade-i
seniyye-i hazreti tacdâri şeref-müteallik buyurulmuş olmağla ol bâbda.” (3 Teşrinievvel 1328 /
16.10.1912)
1012 BOA DH.İD.153.10 (r.1328 - 1330 / 1912-1914)
1013 BOA DH.İD.153.10_001 (9 Teşrinievvel 1328 / 11 Z 1330 / 22.10.1912)
"Sarayburnu mevkiinin hal-i hazırı orasının ehemmiyet-i mevkiye ve tarihiyesi ile münasib
olmamasına binaen mevcud emakin-i müteferrikanın devair-i mütealikasıyla bila-ittilaf hedmi ile
Soğukçeşme'den silah depolarına kadar mevki-i mezkurun Şehremanetince bir park suretinde tanzimi"
488
existed in the area. Outer gardens of the palace housed several buildings and
facilities used by various institutions. Detailed correspondences appear in the folder
regarding the procedure, giving us information about the previous condition of the
palace gardens and its internal mechanisms of use. According to the archival
documents there were mainly four establishments used by different institutions
causing concern during the construction of the park: The military barracks at the tip
of the Seraglio, the buildings and depots used by the Red Crescent (Hilal-i Ahmer
Cemiyeti), the printing house used by Takvim-i Vekayi, the telegram building and the
telegram factory used by the Postal Services.
A series of correspondences between the Municipality (Şehremaneti), the
Ministry of Interior (Dahiliye Nezareti), the Sultan's Treasury (Hazine-i Hassa) and
the Ministry of War (Harbiye Nezareti) were documented regarding the
demolishment of the military barracks within the area. A document dated December
1912, was written from the Municipality to the Ministry of Interior and complained
that military barracks were being constructed at the tip of the Seraglio. The document
stated that the area belonged to the Sultan's Treasury and demanded that the
constructions should be interrupted immediately.1014 The response came from the
Ministry of War within four days and stated that due to the ongoing war, all the
barracks in Istanbul were occupied with wounded soldiers and animals, thus, it was
compulsory to build military barracks and to erect military tents at Seraglio, but the
barracks would be demolished right after the war.1015
1014 BOA DH.İD.153.10_05 (25 Z 1330 / 22 Teşrinisani 1328 / 5.12.1912)
"Bir kaç günden beri Sarayburnu civarını cihet-i askeriyece barakalar inşa ettirilmekte olduğuna ve
orası esasen Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahaneye aid bulunduguna nezareten . . . heman inşaat-i mezkurenin
men'i ve tatili lüzumuna Harbiye Nezareti vekaletine isarının müsaide buyurulması..."
1015 BOA DH.İD.153.10_08 (29 Z 1330 / 26 Teşrinisani 1328 / 9.12.1912)
"Sarayburnuna yapılan barakalar mevkiinde Seferirin munasebetiyle istanbuldaki kışlalar kamilen
asakir-i mecruhin ve hayvanat ile dolmuş olduğundan şu sırada saray içinden gerek baraka inşası ve
gerek çadırlar rekzi suretiyle istifade zaruridir hal-i sulhün avdetiyle mezkur parkın tanzimine
başlanacağı anda muvakkit barakalar yıkılacağından..."
489
The next day, another letter was sent to the Hazine-i Hassa stating that a park
was being established with the will of the Sultan at the most prominent and most
beautiful location of Istanbul. Due to the historical significance of the area, being
part of the imperial palace of Topkapı, the military barracks occupying this area
created a major obstacle for the establishment of the park and had to be removed
immediately.1016 In this document, the historic and imperial significance of the area
and its relation to the Topkapı Palace were emphasized. The will of the Sultan to
convert the land into a park was also mentioned to force the military evacuate the
Seraglio. The conflict also reveals the tension between various institutions of the
empire and the ongoing struggle between the Municipality and the military for the
use of royal properties. Eventually, the barracks remained and the Seraglio point was
reserved for military logistics (Sevkiyat-ı Askeriye) and depots (Figure 305 - Figure
306).
Figure 305. The Seraglio Point and the military zone next to the park area (Ayverdi
Maps, 1914, Atatürk Kitaplığı / Alman Mavileri 1913-14)
1016 BOA DH.İD.153.10_12 (30 Z 1330 / 26 Tesrinisani 1328 /10.12.1912)
"İstanbulun en güzel ve müstena bir mahal-i dilarası olmağla beraber Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu
gibi kıymet-i mahalliye ve tarihiyesiyle şöhretgir-i alem olan bir mevki-i aliye şeref mücaveratı
itibarıyle bir kat daha kesb-i itimat eden mahal-i mazkurun cabeca ağaçlar gars edilmek ve tarhlar
vücuda getirilmek suretiyle müsaraaten bir park haline ifrağı nezd-i mealivefir-i hazret-i padişahide
favkalade müstelzem olup halbuki zikr olunan barakaların orada bulunması bu maksad-i aliyenin
mevki-i fiile isaline bir mani-i kuvve teşkil edeceği..."
490
Figure 306. Military barracks at the Seraglio point (Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
According to the memoirs of Cemil Topuzlu, another problem he faced was the
demolishment of four military structures (askeri kışla) constructed by Abdülhamid
II, which were in front of the palace gate, guarding the palace.1017 This must have
been the Hamidiye police station built in front of the Üçüncüyeri gate of the Topkapı
Palace, which was composed of separate buildings connected with a decorated arch
(Figure 307). Topuzlu mentioned that his numerous attempts to demolish these
buildings were harshly rejected by the Ministry of War. The crisis could not be
solved by bureaucratic methods and the Ministry of War did not step back. However,
Cemil Pasha convinced the commander in chief Cemal Pasha, one of the leading
figures of the CUP, to demolish these structures. With his personal permission, the
police station and the ancient water depot underneath were finally removed1018
(Figure 308). A document dated December 1913, provided a detailed explanation
about the demolition and pointed out Cemal Pasha as responsible for the decision.1019
1017 The police stations erected during the time of Abdülhamid II in the Topkapı Palace were discussed
in detail in Chapter 5.
1018 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 152–58.
1019 BOA DH.İD.153.10_67 (24 M 1332 / 9 Kanunievvel / 23.12.1913). See, Appendix A.9.
"Mahal-i mezkurda vaki ahşab ve kargir bir kışlanın ref'iyle duvarlarının inşası için akdemce birinci
kolordu-yı Hümayun kumandanı vekili ve İstanbul muhafızı Cemal Beyefendi ile mehal-i mezkura
491
Considering the extreme conditions of the Balkan wars, the construction of the park
demonstrates the importance attributed to this project by the Young Turk
government. Perhaps, to erase the marks of Abdülhamid II from this prominent
location was also the intention of the CUP government (Appendix A.9).
Figure 307. Hamidiye police station (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kitaplığı,
Yıldız Albümü)
Figure 308. Antique remains found during the construction of the Gülhane Park
(Revue d'Orient 1913, cited in Tezcan, 1989, no. 183)
azimet olunduğu sırada mezkur mahzenin lüzumsuzluğundan bahisle setr ve amelesi mir-i
müşarünileyh tarafından beyan edilmiş olduğu işar kılındığı . . . mahal-i mezkura karip iki bab
karakolhanenin hedm ve ref'i için Cemal Beyefendinin vuku bulan beyanatının su haznesine de teşmili
hiç vechile muvafık olmayıp..."
492
As understood from the documents, another issue that the municipality dealt with
was the removal of the Red Crescent (Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti), an old telegram
building, a telegram factory, and the printing house from the Gülhane gardens and
their transfer to other more suitable locations. Especially after the move of the
Ottoman dynasty from the Topkapı Palace during the nineteenth century, the royal
grounds were positioned as a secure and controlled venue for implementing new
military facilities, the latest technologies, and communication tools. In this context,
the printing house for Takvim-i Vekayi, the official newspaper of the state was
located within the domains of the palace. A document dated September 8, 1913
states that the printing house was demolished and the printing equipment inside was
given to the state courts (şura-i devlet hakimleri).1020 In a similar fashion, the
municipality demanded the demolition of the old telegram building, which was
located outside the palace walls1021 and the telegram factory placed within the
gardens as well. Both structures were reclining on the walls of the palace and erected
as a sign of Ottoman modernization and as showcases of advanced technologies for
catching up with modern communication methods of the time. However, by the
early-twentieth century, it was not the printing house or the telegram factory that
represented modernity, but the public park (Figure 309). As explained by Zeynep
Çelik, urban planning and infrastructure, municipal works, transportation lines, and
public spaces were employed as the ultimate symbols of modernization and
requirements of progress.1022
1020 BOA DH.İD.153.10_18 (26 Ağustos 1329 / 8.9.1913)
1021 The telegram building was constructed between the Soğukçeşme Gate and the Alay Kiosk by the
Italian architect Fossati during the reign of Abdulmecid in 1855. More information is provided in
Chapter 2 regarding this building.
1022 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul.
493
Figure 309. The first phase of the Gülhane Park and the remaining telegram factory
within the park (Alman Mavileri Maps, 1913-1914)
During the construction of the park, the municipality proposed to move the telegram
factory to another location and to demolish it’s building. However, the cost of
constructing another building and the difficulty of transferring the valuable and
fragile equipment were also considered. The mayor Cemil Pasha personally wrote a
petition to the Ministry of Interiors and argued that the factory building had to be
demolished to secure the beauty and picturesque design of the park, which already
became popular among foreign tourists.1023 However, against all the efforts of the
mayor, telegram factory remained, as seen in the 1913-14 German maps.1024 Today
there exists a building known as telgrafhane within the Gülhane gardens1025 (Figure
310). Thus, we can conclude that, due to the high cost of the transfer, the telegram
factory remained intact. However, the telegram building located outside of the walls
1023 BOA DH.İD.153.10_25 (18 L 1331 / 20.9.1913)
"Takvim-i Vekai matbaasının ve harbiyeye ait bazı emkanın hedm ve ref'i lazımeden olarak keyfiyet . .
. telgrafhaneye ait makina dairesinin mahali ahara nakli hakkında posta tel nezaretine sebk eden
ancak makine dairesi alelade bir daire olmayıp Osmanlının bütün telgraf merkezlerine alet ve edevatı
nazikiye imal ve ihsarına mahsus oldugu gibi . . . fabrikanın orada ifası zaruridir."
1024 Dağdelen, Alman Mavileri.
1025 Gürkan, Gülhane Parkı İçindeki Yapılar ve Alay Köşkü, 45-46.
494
does not exist today. A document from January 1914 stated that the old telegram
building, which was being used by the state courts (şura-i devlet mahakimi) would be
demolished for the construction of the park1026 (Figure 311). In addition, the lands
given to the Red Crescent to built depots within the Gülhane gardens were also
confiscated by the municipality in exchange for a fee.1027
Figure 310. The measured drawings of the Telegram factory (from Özge Gürkan,
2005, 46)
1026 BOA DH.İD.153.10_71 (17 S 1332 / 2 Kanunisani 1329 / 15.1.1914)
Şura-i devlet mehakiminin Gülhane bahçesinde bulunan eski tegrafhane binasını kullandığı ve bu
binanın bir aya kadar yıkılarak, bahcenin park haline getirilecegi, Hüseyin efendinin Binbir direk’te
bulunan 13 odalı hanesinin bedeli karsılığı kiralanması.
1027 BOA DH.İD.153.10_15 (11 Kanunisani 1329 / 24.1.1914)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde Alay Köşkü civarinda Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyetince inşa edilecek
anbarların diğer mahalde inşası hakkında"
BOA DH.İD.153.10_54 (4 Teşrinisani 1329 /17.11.1913)
Topkapı Sarayı dahilinde Hilal-i Ahmere ait olan arsanın, bahçelerin park yapılmasına binaen 6000
liranın 3 taksitle Hilal-i Ahmere ödenmesi.
495
Figure 311. The telegram building reclining on the outer walls of the palace,
between the Alay Kiosk and Soğukçekme Gate
Thus, the numerous military and civil organizations that were occupying the Gülhane
gardens of the palace were removed, and many nineteenth century buildings were
demolished during the construction of the park. The tone and number of the official
correspondences prove that a bureaucratic and political struggle between various
civil, military, and dynastic institutions took place. The privilege of utilizing the
palace grounds became an issue of political struggle and provides us a snapshot of
the power structures and dominant ideologies within the empire. With the support of
the prominent members of the CUP government and by spending 6,000 golden liras
from the municipal budget, the mayor Cemil Pasha could realize his project to
establish a modern public park in Istanbul.
496
5.4.3 A never-ending dilemma: Preservation vs. progress
The mayor Cemil Pasha emphasized the historical value of the area and the imperial
significance of the Topkapı Palace in his formal letters and petitions.1028 He claimed
that the most prominent location of the city with a stunning view, surrounding the
imperial palace had to be reorganized as a beautiful park in accordance with the
historical value of the Topkapı Palace. However, during the construction of the park
the mayor faced a number of critiques, especially about the conservation of the
historic landscape and the preservation of the ancient remains within the site.
In his memoirs, Cemil Topuzlu confessed that he had to root out four ancient
trees to open the central pathway in the park. This created unrest within the
community and critical articles were published in the media. Instead of responding to
these critiques Cemil Pasha locked the gates of the area and sped up his work, cutting
down the tress, and removing the old vegetable gardens. In exchange, he imported
20,000 tress and plants from Europe and had them planted in the park1029 (Figure
312). A graduate of Galatasaray High School and having a degree from the Military
Medical School Dr. Cemil Pasha had also continued his education in France. He was
a keen advocate of modernization and like many of his contemporaries believed that
Westernization was the sole route for progress. As a leading figure in the field of
modern medicine, he brought many medical improvements to the country; innovated
some himself; took part in the institutionalization of medical schools in the empire;
and worked as an educator and an operator in the field. As the mayor of Istanbul,
1028 BOA DH.İD.153.10_12 (26 Teşrinisani 1328 /9.12.1912)
"İstanbulun en güzel ve müstena bir mahal-i dilarası olmağla beraber Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu
gibi kıymet-i mahalliye ve tarihiyesiyle şöhretgir-i alem olan bir mevki-i aliye şeref mücaveratı
itibarıyle bir kat daha kesb-i itimat eden mahal-i mazkurun cabeca ağaçlar gars edilmek ve tarhlar
vücuda getirilmek suretiyle müsaraaten bir park haline ifrağı nezd-i meal-i vefir-i hazret-i padişahide
favkalade müstelzem olup..."
1029 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 154.
497
rather than preserving the historic landscape of the city, he focused on renewing and
modernizing the cityscape.1030
Figure 312. Landscape design of the Gülhane Park with imported tress from Europe
(Atatürk Kitaplığı Postcards Collection)
During the establishment of the Gülhane Park, Cemil Pasha had to deal with many
critiques from various circles. Working at one of the most significant and historical
spots of the city and converting this area into a modern public garden was a great
challenge for the modernizing mayor. One of the major discussions revolved around
the entrance gate. After the completion of the first phase of the project, the mayor
intended to open a grand and magnificent entrance (parka mahsus muhteşem bir
antre) to the park by removing the palace walls between two towers. He incorrectly
claimed that the towers were built by Mehmed II and the walls were of Byzantine
1030 Açıkgöz, “On the Uses and Meanings of Architectural Preservation in Early Republican Istanbul
(1923-1950).”
498
origin.1031 He officially demanded the demolition the palace walls to enlarge the
ancient Soğukçeşme gate. According to his petition to the Ministry of Interior, the
Soğukçeşme gate was too small and insufficient for the entrance and exit of visitors
especially on Fridays and Sundays. The gate also presented an ugly scene (şekl-i
hazırı da sakil bir manzara) and should be enlarged to 15 meters by demolition of
the walls in between the two antique towers1032 (Figure 313). However, the
government and the Grand Vizier Sait Halim Pasha harshly objected to the
demolition, emphasizing the historical and symbolic importance of the palace walls
as antiquities to be preserved. A document from November 1913, strongly objected
to the demolition of the historic walls of the Topkapı Palace and blamed the mayor
for violating the bylaw of antiquities (asar-ı atika ve muhafaza-i abidat
nizamnameleri ahkamına mugayir olarak). The document requested the restoration
of the walls built by Mehmed II to its original state.1033 Insisting on his project Cemil
Pasha resigned, however his resignation was also refused and the case grew even
larger with the intervention of the Council of Ministers (Meclis-i Vükela).1034
Eventually, the original gate was preserved and two additional entrances were
opened on either side of the Soğukçeşme gate (Figure 314). A flamboyant circular
1031 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 155.
1032 BOA DH.İD.153.10_51 (26 Teşrinievvel 1329 / 8.11.1913)
"Alemdar caddesinden Gülhane bahçesine girilecek kapının dar olmasından dolayı Cuma ve Pazar
günleri bahçeye gelen mütenezzihin düçar-ı müşkilat olmakda bulunduğu gibi şekl-i hazırı da sakil bir
manzara irae eymekte olduğuna ve bu kapının cihet-i yesarında mevcud olub asar-ı atikadan bulunan
iki burca dokunulmamak şartıyla bunların arasındaki duvara onbeş metre vüsatinde hedm ve şimdiki
kapı dahilindeki parmaklık oraya nakil olunduğu halde bahçeye pek muvafık ve müsaid bir medhal
yapılmış olacağından ona göre icab-ı icra kılınmak üzre mezkur duvarın olvechle hedmiyle kapu
olarak inşasına müsade buyurulması istirham olunur olbabda... Şehremini Cemil"
1033 BOA DH.İD.153.10_49 (1 M 1331 / 17 Teşrinisani 1329 / 30.11.1913)
"Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han hazretlerinin inşa-kerdesi olup ehemmiyet-i mahsusa-i tarihiyeyi haiz olan
Soğukçeşme kapısıyla saray surunda mezkur kapının iki cihetine tesadüf eden duvar kıtalarının Asar-ı
Atika ve Muhafaza-i Abidat Nizamnameleri ahkamına mugayir olarak şehremaneti tarafından kısmen
hedm ve tahrib olunmasından dolayı Asar-i Atika Nizamnamesinin 8. Maddesi mucibince hedm
olunan kısımların hal-i asliyesine irca-i hususunun..."
1034 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 155.
499
iron railing was placed inside the park to secure the protection of the gardens
especially during the night1035 (Figure 315).
Figure 313. Enlargement of the Soğukçeşme gate and demolition of the Sur-i Sultani
walls of the Topkapı Palace (Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
Figure 314. Entrance to the Gülhane Park during 1920's seen from the Alemdar
Street
1035 BOA DH.İD.153.10_ 91 (11 Teşrinievvel 1330 / 24.10.1914)
"Soğukçeşmenin kadim ve tarihi kapısının tarafeyninde açılmasına müsaade buyurulan medhallere de
kanad talik edilmeyerek bunların suret-i daimede açık bulundurulması yüzünden kapıcıların ifa-i
vazife eylemeleri mümkün olamadığından . . . ve Soğukçeşme kapısı medhallerine de kanad talik
edilerek kapıların geceleri açık bulundurulmaması lüzumu..."
500
Figure 315. Soğukçeşme Gate and iron railings seen from the park side (Atatürk
Kitaplığı)
This case regarding the entrance gate to the Gülhane Park epitomized the rising
interest in the protection of the historical sites and antiquities within the Ottoman
empire. The consciousness surrounding the preservation of historic monuments and
the idea of national heritage evolved especially during the early twentieth century.
As a reaction to the radical modernization of the empire and to the rapid
transformation of the physical and historical landscape of the city, a sensitivity to
conserving the historical values appeared. After a generation of Tanzimat reformers
following Westernization as the sole model for progress, a historically-minded elite
embracing nationalist ideologies appeared during the Second Constitutional era. In
fact, this historical mindedness and the consciousness surrounding the preservation
of historical remains were reflections of modernity during the turn of the century.
501
The making of the Gülhane Park provides us a fruitful testing ground for
observing conflicting ideologies of the era. The tension between transformation and
continuity, renovation and restoration, modernization and conservatism became
evident during this ambitious project. The idea of a public park, as a strong
manifestation of modernization and Westernization was implemented at one of the
most ancient and historically significant locations of the city. Thus, the conflicting
ideologies of the late Ottoman era unveiled during the transformation of the imperial
gardens of the Topkapı Palace into a public park.
Figure 316. The second phase of the Gülhane Park showing the Byzantine remains as
"Sahrindj" (Alman Mavileri, 1914)
The first phase of the Gülhane Park, which included the area between the
Soğukçeşme gate, the Imperial Museum and the Western walls of the palace, was
completed on September 1913. While the first part opened to public, the
implementation of the second phase at the tip of the peninsula continued until 1914
502
(Figure 316). During the excavations that took place during the construction of the
second phase of the park, another bureaucratic crisis erupted. As the terraces and
retaining walls of the landscape were being leveled, a historic cistern from the era of
Ahmed III was mistakenly demolished and filled with land. Both the removal of the
historic retaining walls and the demolishment of the cistern created rage within some
circles. Cemil Topuzlu, in his memoirs mentioned that the wife of the French
ambassador Madame Bompard visited him and complained that he was ruining the
antiquities within the gardens of the palace.1036 As one of the founders of la Sociéte
des Amis de Stamboul (İstanbul Muhipleri Cemiyeti), Madame Bompard was an
influential figure in the intellectual and diplomatic circles of Istanbul and had regular
meetings with society that includes the chief of the Council of State Said Halim
Pasha, the director of the Imperial Museum Halil Bey, and the heir apparent
Abdülmecid.1037 She must have had influence over the government to demand the
control of the Imperial Museum on the ongoing construction of the park. The archive
folder (DH.İD.153.10) covers numerous correspondences regarding the demolished
cistern1038 and the preservation of the antiquities found during the excavations. A
letter from the Ministry of the Interior declared that due to a complaint it was
understood that the antiquities were damaged during the construction of the Gülhane
Park and Aziz Bey from the Imperial Museum should attend the ongoing excavations
for the preservation of the findings.1039 Thus, the government decided to control and
1036 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 155.
1037 Bompard and Kuneralp, Une Ambassadrice de France à Constantinople, 27–32.
1038 BOA DH.İD.153.10_ 88 (10 Mayıs 1330 / 23.5.1914)
"Sarayburunundaki parkın ikinci kısmındaki su hazinesinin neye müsteniden hedm ve
kanalizasyonunun sed ve imla olunduğuna dair..."
DH.İD.153.10_71 (13 M 1332 / 30 Teşrinisani 1329 / 13.12.1913)
"Sarayburnu parkında zuhur eden mahsenin Birinci Kolordu-yı Hümayunu vekili Cemil bey efendinin
muvaffakiyetleri üzerine setr edilmiş olduğuna dair."
1039 Kara, “Cemil [Topuzlu] Paşa’nın Belediye Başkanlıkları ve İstanbul’daki Imar Faaliyetleri,” 73.
503
regulate the ongoing work and to make sure that the archeological findings would be
submitted to the museum.1040
An unexpected incident saved the reputation of Cemil Pasha and positioned
him as a savior of antiquities. During the excavations of the retaining walls antique
Byzantine remains were discovered. The discovery of these pre-Ottoman edifices
was received with excitement in various circles and the excavations were approved.
Topuzlu claimed that during the construction of the park the remains of a Byzantine
church and a cistern with ten columns were found, the remains were cleaned and
restored; an old fountain was placed next to it. A signboard stating that the
restoration was held by the municipality was also located at a visible spot. According
to Wulzinger, the cistern had 12 columns, preserved its original architectural
composition and carried the load of a previous Byzantine church.1041 These
archeological findings legitimized the excavation work conducted by the
municipality and provided prestige for the mayor Cemil Pasha (Figure 318- Figure
319).
During the second phase of the project by late 1913, another ancient remain
was unearthed around the Goth Column. According to sources some of the findings
belonged to the Byzantine era and some remained from the early Ottoman period.1042
The remains must have been found during the demolition of the Hamidiye police
station and the water depot underneath (Figure 307 - Figure 308). Newspapers of the
era covered these findings and received the archeological discovery with enthusiasm,
1040 BOA DH.İD.153.10_80 (13 Şubat 1329 / 26.2.1914)
"Şehremanet-i aliyesine,
Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu parkında ameliyyat-ı turabiye icrası sırasında zuhur eden bazı asar-ı
atika ve nefisenin tahrib edilmekte olduğu ihbarat-ı vakıadan anlaşılmış ve bunların hüsn-i
muhafazasındaki lüzum ve ehemmiyet derkar bulunmuş olduğu cihetle asar-ı mezkurenin tahribden
vikayesi zımnında ameliyata nezaret etmek üzere Müze-i Hümayundan bir memurun izramı lüzumu..."
1041 Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, 226–27.
1042 Tezcan, 152–55.
504
but failed to mention the demolition of the police station. M. Ziya wrote an article at
Tanin providing detailed description of the findings1043 (Figure 317). The December
1913 issue of Şehbal magazine covered these antique findings and included a picture
of the columns with a caption that was promoting the project and the excavations:1044
As a result of the excavations held during the construction of the Gülhane
Park, many antiquities were found at various locations from the era of ancient
Ottomans and Byzantines. We present here the picture one of the valuable
antiquities from the Byzantine era.
Figure 317. The Byzantine remains found during the excavation of the Gülhane Park
(Şehbal, No.87, 282, 1 Kanunievvel 1329 / 14.12.1913)
Postcards of the era also presented and promoted the antique remains during and
after the construction of the park. For instance, a postcard showed the discovery of
the antique remains during the construction of the park. This postcard was numbered
as "No. 2" and included a text stating the picture was taken in "the Gülhane Park
1043 Ziya, "İstanbul ve Boğaziçi I." Tanin, v.460, no.1 cited in Tezcan, 153–54.e
1044 Şehbal, No.87, 282 (1 Kanunievvel 1329, 282 / 14.12.1913)
"Gülhane parkının hafriyatı esnasında meydana çıkarılan asar-ı atikanın heyet-i mecmuası
Gülhane Parkının ameliyat-ı hafriyesi müteaddid mahallerde eski Bizans ile kadim Osmanlılardan
kalma bir çok asar-ı atikanın meydana çıkarılmasına sebep olmuşdur. Kıymetleri ve ehemmiyetleri
derecat-ı mütefavitede bulunan bu asar-ı atikadan Bizanslara ait bazı mebatinin heyet-i mecmuasını
burada gösteriyoruz."
I would like to thank to my friend and colleague İlke Tandoğdu for bringing this source to my
attention.
505
during the discovery of the Byzantine cistern" (Bizans devrine ait mahzenin ortaya
çıkarılması esnasında) (Figure 318). Another postcard labeled "No:3" depicts the
completed phase of the project and is captioned as: the current state of the cistern
from the Byzantine era (Bizans devrine ait mahzenin hal-i hazırı) (Figure 319). The
Byzantine origin of the findings were emphasized both in the newspaper articles and
on the postcards. The antiquities were used to promote and legitimize the
excavations taking place in the park and positioned the area almost as an
archeological site.
Figure 318. Postcard no.2 showing the discovery of the Byzantine cistern (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
Figure 319. A postcard no.3 showing the Byzantine cistern after the restoration work
(Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
506
Located right next to the Imperial Museum, the park also retained visual and
symbolic relations with the museum. A picture from 1917 shows the use of antique
pieces as decorative elements in the landscape (Figure 320). The new modern park of
the city derived its originality from its historical site. Mehmed Raif Bey, in his book
titled Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu ve Parkının Tarihi, provided a brief depiction of
the Gülhane gardens. He emphasized that after entering the park from the
Soğukçeşme gate, one soon came across large antique cisterns from Byzantine
era.1045 The Byzantine remains were restored and positioned as picturesque
antiquities completing the "European" ambiance of the Gülhane Park (Figure 320).
Ernest Mamboury also emphasized that old trees, shadowed pathways, and antique
remains created the illusion of a great European park:1046
The trees and shaded paths give the walker the illusion of a large European
park. In this park, many Byzantine remains emerge from the ground: it is a
cistern in which one can go down; it is the Column of the Goths and the ruins
of the Theater of Minor; it is the Byzantine walls of the Acropolis which
unite, with the Seraglio itself, the past to the present.
While the ancient cistern and its red brick architecture contrasted with the stonewalls
of the Topkapı Palace, the park became a favorable venue for Istanbulites where the
old and new, ancient and modern, Byzantine and Ottoman, imperial and national,
antique and contemporary met.
1045 Mehmed Raif Bey, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresi, 30.
1046 Maboury, Constantinople, Guide Touristique, 473.
"Des arbes séculaires, des chemins ombragés donnent au promeneur l'illusion d'un grand parc
européen. Dans ce parc, de nombreux restes byzantins émergent du sol: c'est un cisterne mise à sec
et dans la quelle on peut descendre; c'est la Colonne des Goths et les ruines dessoubassements du
Théatron Minor; ce sont les souténements byzantinsde l'Acropole, qui unissent, avec le Sérail luimeme,
le passé au present."
507
Figure 320. Gülhane Park in 1917 and the use of antique pieces as decorative
elements (Selman Sarıhan Collection, 1917)
5.4.4 The Park as the emblem of modernity
After two years of financial and bureaucratic struggle, the first phase of the Gülhane
Park was completed in September 1913. According to archival documents, an
opening ceremony for the first phase of the park took place on September 11, 1913,
Thursday at 3.30 pm. A tea party was organized for the opening and apart from the
high-ranking bureaucrats and state officials; personnel of the foreign ambassadors
were also invited for the occasion.1047 Together with the Ottoman dignitaries and
ministers, crown prince Yusuf İzzeddin attended the ceremony as the representative
of the Sultan.1048 The opening speech of Cemil Pasha emphasized his consciousness
1047 BOA DH.UMVM.90.62 (1331 L 05 / 25 Ağustos 1329 / 07.09.1913) Dahiliye Nezaret-i
Celilesine
BOA ŞD.851.5 (6 L 1331 / 8.09.1913) Şura-yı Devlet Riyaset-i Celilesine
"Gülhane bahçesi birinci kısmının şehr-i hal-i ruminin yirmidokuzuncu perşembe günü icra-i resm-i
küşadı mukarrer olub . . . ba'de'z-zuhr tam saat üçbuçukta mezkur bahçeyi teşrif buyurmalarını rica
ve niyaz eyler ve resm-i mezkurda ve muta'akkiben itası musammem olan çay ziyafetinde bulunmak
üzre bi’l-cümle süfera ve maiyet memurlarıyla müessesat-i maliye ve hayriye müdürlerinin dahi davet
edilmiş olduğu ve ma'iyet-i devletlerindeki erkan-ı nezaretden arzu buyurulan zevata i'ta buyurulmak
üzre beş aded davetiye varakasının leffen takdim kılındığını arz eylerim. Şehremini Cemil"
1048 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 156.
508
of public health and modernization of the urban landscape and mentioned that the
previous state of the area was devastated:1049
From this day on, all citizens of Istanbul from all classes will benefit from the
fresh air, trees and flowers that are among the most important needs of the
society. Newborn babies will promenade in their tiny strollers with their clean
nannies and rest under the shadows of the ancient tress. As I open the first
phase of this beautiful garden, which is established just for these reasons
mentioned, I ask the people of the city to preserve it as it is.
On the day of the opening men and women visited the park and promenaded within.
Enver Pasha, known for his conservatism, disapproved of the situation and banned
women from entering the park together with men. A month later, a formal letter was
sent from the Ministry of Religious Affairs (Şeyhülilamlık) to the municipality,
prohibiting Muslim women from entering the park on Sundays1050 (Figure 321)
Later, in 1914, the park was designated for female students and other women on
Tuesdays, and the entrance of men to the park on these days was forbidden.1051
1049 Ergin and Galitekin, İstanbul şehreminleri, 2007, 538–39.
"Topkapu Saray-ı Hümayunu gibi tarihi ve siyasi ehemmiyeti haiz bir mevki'-i alinin bu kısmının
bundan evvelkii hali mezbeleden başka bir şey değil idi. Buradan bu yakışıksızlığın izalesiyle bir
bağçe haline getirilmesini hak-i pay-ı Hümayun cenab-ı padişahiden isti'da ettim. . . .
Artık bu günden i’tibaren şehrimizin her sınıf ahalisi buraya girüb beşerin en mühim gıda-yı hayatı
olan hava ziyadan ve eşcâr ve ezhârdan istifade edecekler, nevzâd-ı vatan mini mini arabalarıyla
temiz dadılarıyla burada seyr ve tenezzüh ve şu asır-dide ağaçlar sâye-i ruh-nüvâzında ârâm
eyleyeceklerdir. İşte ancak bu maksadın husûlü içün vücuda getirilmiş olan bu güzel bağçenin birinci
kısmının resm-i küşâdını icra eder ve bundan böyle hüsn-i muhafaza olunmasını da ahali-i kiramdan
rica eylerim.”
1050 BOA DH.İD.153.10_39 (3 Teşrinievvel 329 / 16.10.1913)
"Şehremanet-i Aliyesine
Saray içindeki bahçenin umuma küşade bulundurulması hissiyat-ı İslamiyeyi rencide edecek halatın
cereyanına bais olmakta bulunduğu gibi atiyen daha mühim mehaziri de da calib olacağı meczum
olduğundan nisvan-ı İslamiyenin hiç olmazsa Pazar günleri olsun mahalli mezkura duhulden men
olunmaları..."
BOA DH.İD.153.10_ 38 (1 Teşrinievvel 329 / 14.10.1913)
"Bab-ı fetva daire-i meşihat-ı İslamiye Tahrirat kalemi"
1051 BOA MF.MKT.1198.18 (27 B 1332 / 21.6.1914)
"Hala bahçe ve tenezzüh mahalleri olmayan inas mekatibi talebatının tenezzüh ve muhafaza-i
sıhhatlerine medar olmak üzere Gühane Parkı bundan böyle Salı günleri mekatib-i mezbure
talebatının tenezzüh ve muhareseleriyle? hariçten gelecek hanım ve kızlara tahsis olunarak yevm-i
mezburda mezkur parka erkeklerin duhulü men’ edilmiş…”
509
Figure 321. Ottoman men and women promenading in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
Apparently, the park, as a public space for Ottomans, was accepted as a threat to the
religious values and traditional social structure of the society. Emulating the
European model and offering a new type of socialization for the citizens of Istanbul,
the park was certainly challenging the traditional Ottoman lifestyle. The first park of
the Historic Peninsula, following its predecessors at Pera almost after 40 years, was a
clear manifestation of Ottoman modernization and Westernization. Shaped by the
hands of progressive Ottomans, Cemil Pasha and Cemal Pasha, this urban project not
only transformed the habits of leisure and recreation of late-Ottoman society but also
challenged the traditional imperial character of the Topkapı Palace. The outer
gardens of the palace, which was once used for the pleasure of the sultan and his
pages, became a public venue for Ottoman citizens to socialize, to enjoy the nature,
and to take some fresh air. The imperial gardens once strictly guarded by Bostancı
corps and forbidden to all except for the royal family, was transformed into a public
space for all Istanbulites to enter and enjoy.
510
The park diverged from traditional Ottoman recreational spots, picnic areas
(mesire yeri) and vegetable gardens (bostan) in its landscape design as well. The
park was designed by the head gardener of the Dolmabahçe Palace, Monsieur
Deruan. According to his project, around 20,000 tress and plants were imported from
Europe. The park followed the British landscape tradition with curvy paths, water
elements, asymmetrical design, and natural features. The railway’s overpass bridge
was extended and artificial rocks were also featured within the park. Following
European norms, a section was dedicated to children, and a puppet theatre and a sand
pool were also established for them to play.1052
The park retained a visual, contextual, and physical relation with the Imperial
Museum as well (Figure 322). Both institutions were positioned as symbols of
modernity and Westernization and located side-by-side within the gardens of the
Topkapı Palace. The access to the Imperial Museum was also from the Soğukçeşme
gate, thus the visitors coming for the Imperial Museum would also encounter the
park and vice-versa. In fact, the visits to the Imperial Treasury and the inner palace
also commenced from the Soğukçeşme gate, probably to show the foreign visitors
this new park, which represented the modern face of the Ottoman state. Visitors and
guidebooks of the era, while depicting the Topkapı Palace mentioned the conversion
of the palace gardens into a public park as well.1053
1052 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 157.
1053 Baedeker, Baedeker’s Constantinople and Asia Minor, 193.; Dwight, Constantinople Old and
New, 258.
511
Figure 322. The Gülhane Park and the Imperial Museum (Nilay Özlü Collection)
As mentioned before, antiquities were also integrated into the design of the park and
positioned as points of attraction within the circulation path of the garden. Both the
Byzantine remains found during the construction of the park and the Goth Column
located in front of the Üçüncüyeri gate of the palace were emphasized as significant
landmarks, creating a visual and temporal link between the pre-Ottoman past and the
Ottoman present of the city. While the cistern was unearthed and brought to the
surface, it was positioned as a major landmark within the park.
Another of the antique remains, the Goth Column from the Roman era, was
also considered a significant element in the landscape design of the park. The area
surrounding the Goth Column was cleared and the Hamidiye police station located
right next to the antique column was demolished (Figure 323 - Figure 324). The
cypress tress around the column were removed, the antique edifice was circled and
the surrounding plants were rearranged to emphasize the antique Roman edifice. In
the new configuration of the park, the Goth column was displayed centrally almost in
a museal setting, a masterpiece to be observed and contemplated (Figure 325).
512
Figure 323. The area surrounding Goth Column before the erection of the Hamidiye
police station (Abdullah Frères, c.1890)
Figure 324. The Goth Column and the Hamidiye police station before the
establishment of the Gülhane Park (source: Anonymous)
Figure 325. The Goth Column and the landscape design of the Gülhane Park (2017)
513
A modern pavilion was also constructed within the park and concerts were organized
twice a week. Sundays Ertuğrul Musikası (music band) and Fridays Darülaceze
Musikası gave concerts to the public.1054 The pavilion with its circular design and
light structure emulated the French model (Figure 326). In 1916, one of Germany's
premier orchestras, the Meiningen Court Orchestra, gave a public concert in the park
of the Topkapı Palace and this was followed by other concerts during World War
I.1055 Thus the park not only provided an area for refreshment but was also used for
propaganda purposes. The gardens offered a new life style for the Ottomans and
housed new kinds of recreational and philanthropic activities as well.
In 1915, during the second year of World War I, the National Defense
League (Müdafaa-i Milliye Cemiyeti) offered to construct a panorama museum in the
Gülhane Park.1056 The proposed panorama would be 30 meters in diameter and
depict the Gallipoli war with the aim of enhancing the patriotic feelings of the nation
and to generate income for the children of martyrs (Figure 327). Gülhane Park was
purposefully selected for its prominent location (güzel bir mevki) and would be
suitable for the establishment of this decent institution (nezih bir müessese) due to its
proximity to the Topkapı Palace and to other museums. It was emphasized that the
project would be of no harm either for the palace or for the park and could be
removed later, if requested.1057 However, the proposal was denied, because the size
of the project was considered too large for the park. The mayor of the time, İsmet
Bey, declared that even though he appreciated and supported the proposal, the
Gülhane Park would not be appropriate for such a project. It would be absolutely
1054 Ergin and Galitekin, İstanbul şehreminleri, 2007, 477.
1055 Öztuncay et al., Propaganda and war, 60. I am grateful to Gizem Tongo Owerfield Shaw for
sharing this source with me.
1056 Ürekli, Osmanlı’nın Çanakkale 1915 Panorama Tarih Müzesi Projesi, 25.
1057 BOA DH.UMVM.96.52_01 (18 Temmuz 1331 / 31.7.1915) cited in Ürekli, Osmanlı’nın
Çanakkale 1915 Panorama Tarih Müzesi Projesi.
514
unacceptable to cut down the historic tress for the construction of the panorama
museum, as each of these ancient trees was considered a natural monument (abide-i
tabi'i) of the park. He also added the historic garden of the Topkapı Palace was given
to the people for their leisure and recreation and it was the decree of the Sultan not to
allow the establishment of any other institution within the gardens. 1058
Figure 326. Pavilion in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
Figure 327. The proposed project for the Gallipoli Panorama (1915, from Ürekli,
2012, 4)
1058 BOA DH.UMVM.96.52_02 (4 Ağustos 1331 / 17.8.1915) cited in Ürekli, 30.
515
After World War I, similar attempts to organize exhibitions and shows in the
Gülhane Park for the benefit of the children of the martyrs and war veterans were
made. For example, in 1921, the Association for the Protection of Children (Himayei
Etfal Cemiyeti) proposed to establish an exhibition entitled "Turkish City" (Türk
Şehri) in the Gülhane Park, to generate income for the children of the martyrs
(Figure 328). The Minister of the Interior made an exception for the association and
accepted their proposal. The exhibition would take place every year during the
month of July and would last three days.1059 Similar proposals were submitted the
same year to organize philanthropic events for the benefit of the martyrs, children,
and Muslim refugees. For instance, documents from August 1921 made appeals to
organize plays (müsamere) in the Gülhane Park to generate support for the Muslim
refugees, for the destitute of İzmir, and for the Şişli language school.1060 However,
another document from the same year stated that the organization of exhibitions,
plays, and shows by associations other than the Red Crescent would not be
allowed.1061
1059 BOA ŞD.56.4_19 (16 Z 1339 / 8.11.1911)
"Üç gün devam etmek üzre her sene Temmuz ayında Gülhane Parkında Türk Şehri ünvanıyla bir nevi
sergi küşadı hakkının imtiyaz suretinde cemiyet-i mezkureye tahsis ve itası..."
1060 BOA DH.İ.UM.11.6 (8.8.1921/03 Z 1339)
Müslüman muhacirlerin ihtiyaçları için Gülhane Parkı’nda müsamere icrası.
BOA DH.İ.UM.11.6 (27 Ş 1338)
İzmir mazlumları eytâm ve aramili menfaatine Gülhane Parkı'nda icrâ olunan müsâmere hâsılâtı
hakkında.
BOA DH.İ.UM.11.6 (10 L 1338)
Şişli Lisan Mektebi menfaatine Gülhane Parkı'nda umûmi bir müsamere yapılması.
1061 BOA MF.MKT.1243.6 (6.8.1921 / 1 Z 1339)
Gülhane Parkı’nda Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti dışındaki mektep ve müessesatın müsamere
düzenlemesine izin verilmemesi.
516
Figure 328. The petition of the Red Crescent to establish the Turkish City
exposition within the park (ŞD.56.4_19 , 16 Z 1339 / 8.11.1911)
During the Second Constitutional era the Gülhane Park became a popular destination
for the citizens of Istanbul and was frequented by its Muslim and non-Muslim
population. Especially during and after the war, the park was used as a venue for
enhancing the nationalist and patriotic feelings of the Ottomans and also to
communicate the message that the park was a present for the people of Istanbul to let
them have some fresh air and benefit from the beauty of its prime location. This
populist ideology was promoted with various attractions and shows organized within
the park, such as concerts, puppet shows, and exhibitions. Evidently, the first park of
the Historic Peninsula, emulating the European model, became a venue
disseminating and promoting the modern life style. The concert pavilions, walking
paths, botanical gardens, archeological findings, artificial pools, flowerbeds, benches
517
and street lightings placed under the shadow of the Topkapı Palace, created a modern
yet romantic setting. Postcards showing the park in perfect harmony and order,
where Ottoman men and women were promenading peacefully and enjoying the
natural and archeological beauties of the Gülhane gardens, were published and
circulated. In these postcards, the gardens were properly cleaned and watered; and
the scene depicted the modern face of the empire in a picturesque setting (Figure
329). With the efforts of the modernist mayor Cemil Pasha and with the support of
one of the forerunners of the CUP, Cemal Pasha, the Gülhane Park became one of
the most significant attraction points of the city and a major urban planning project
that was promoting the progressive and modernist ideology of the CUP government.
Figure 329. The postcard showing the Ottomans in the Gülhane Park (Atatürk
Kitaplığı, Postcards Collection)
518
Due to the outbreak of World War I, the project was left unfinished. The final phase
of the project, covering the area from Seraglio to the Ahırkapı lighthouse, was never
realized. During the Republican era, French urban planner Henri Prost, proposed to
complete the last phase of the park. He came to Turkey for the urban planning of
Istanbul and his master plan, submitted in 1937, was improved and implemented in
the following 15 years. He was dismissed from his post by the Demokrat Party
government in 1950.1062 The map signed by Prost on 28.12.1950 proposed the
landscape planning of the Marmara side of the Gülhane gardens and the completion
of the third phase of the project as an "Archeological Park" (Figure 330). With the
integration of this area into the Gülhane Park, the project proposed the confiscation
of the military zone and the demolition of the four military depots, keeping the
Gülhane Hospital intact. According to the project, the Gülhane Park would be
connected to the Topkapı Palace Museum and the historical link between the palace
and its outer gardens would be reestablished. An archery range, skating rink,
polygon, birdhouse, rose garden and an area for the Ottoman military band were
proposed in the project. However, the proposal was never implemented, and the
four-fold structure of the palace that was formulated during the nineteenth century,
including the Topkapı Palace Museum, the Archeology Museum, the Gülhane Park,
and the Military zones, has been sustained until today.
1062 Akpınar, “İstanbul’u (Yeniden) İnşa Etmek: 1937 Henri Prost Planı”, 107-124.
519
Figure 330. Project proposal by Henri Prost for the last phase of Gülhane Park
(Atatürk Kitaplığı, Maps Collection, 1950)
5.5 The Invention of the historic monument and the national heritage
5.5.1 From renovation to restoration: The palace as a historic monument
After the fall of Abdülhamid II and the enthronement of Mehmed V Reşad, together
with other imperial palaces, the Topkapı Palace went through a comprehensive
renovation process. As discussed in the previous chapters, renovation of the Topkapı
Palace after the change of sultanate was not uncommon in the Ottoman tradition.
However, not being used as an imperial residence for almost a century and accepted
520
as historical patrimony, the Topkapı Palace and its renovations embraced a political
meaning, especially after the declaration of the Second Constitution. One-and-a-half
months after Mehmed V Reşad's accession, in June 1909, a commission was formed
for the renovation of the imperial palaces under the direction of the accountant of the
Ministry of Education. The commission included members such as the architect
Vedad Bey and Esaduryan, engineer Ahmed Efendi, and tax examiner Neşet Bey as
well.1063 The Archive of the National Palaces also included correspondences
regarding the construction work and renovations held by Department of Imperial
Buildings (Ebniye-i Seniyye) at the Topkapı Palace during 1909.1064 However, a
couple months after the start of the work, in October 1909, a telegram was sent
stating that the repairs in the Harem of the Topkapı Palace were rather slow and the
number of painters had to be increased. Meetings should be held with the chief
architect (Sermimar) Vedad Bey and the renovation work had to be finalized within
15 days.1065
Nevertheless, as understood from the archival documents, in August 1911
with the order of the Council of Ministers, the scope of the repairs were expanded
and comprehensive renovations were conducted in the Enderun and Harem sections
of the palace. 1066 The renovation registers provide detailed information regarding the
1063 BOA İ.MBH.5.62 (7 Haz 1325 / 20.06.1909)
“7 Haziran Sene 325 tarihli tezkere-i samiye üzerine Saray-ı Hümayun-ı Mülükanenin lüzumu
tahakkuk eden tamiratının icrası zımnında el yevm divan-ı muhasebat azasından mülga Maarif
Muhasebecisi Rıfat Bey Efendi’nin taht-ı riyasetlerinde Mimar Vedad Bey ve Esaduryan ve Mühendis
Ahmed Efendilerle vergi mümeyyizliğinden mütekaid Neşet Bey’den mürekkep bir komisyon teşkil
kılınmış...”
1064 Milli Saraylar Arşivi Defter No: 3713 (h.1327 / 1909) Topkapı Sarayı Ebniye-i Seniyyece yapılan
inşaat ve onarmalarla ilgili yazışmalar cited in İyez and Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan
Belgeler Doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı Onarımları.
1065 BOA BEO.3649.273658 (2.L.1327 / 17.10.1909)
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu tamiratı pek ağır gittiği alel’-husus Harem dairesinin telvinatında
çalışan boyacı ustalarının miktarı pek az bulunduğu ve bunların adetlerinin tezyidi için müteahhidine
tebligat . . . [ve] Saray-ı Hümayuna azimet ve Ser Mimarıyla müzakere olunarak tamirat ve telvinatın
nihayete on beş gün zarfında ikmal esbabının…"
1066 BOA BEO.3936.295150_01 (16 Ağustos 1327 / 29.08.1911)
"Maliye Nezareti ve Divan-ı Muhasebat-ı Riyaset-i Celilesine,
521
construction work that took place in the Enderun section, including: the Mecidiye,
Kara Mustafa Paşa, Baghdad, and Revan Kiosks, the Marble Sofa, the Imperial
Treasury, the apartment of the Chief Treasurer, palace hospital, pharmacy,
apartments of the White Eunuchs, Audience Hall, the Tower of Justice, Council Hall,
apartments of the Baltacı Corps, Kitchens, the Middle Gate and its two towers. In the
Harem, apart from its roofs, windows, and walls, the apartments of Selim III, Mother
Queen, and the Kiosk of Osman III were renovated. According to the document these
works should be concluded urgently.1067
While the construction work at the Dolmabahce and Topkapı Palaces
continued under the control of the director of renovations of the imperial palaces
(saray-ı hümayunlar tamirat müdürü) Hüsnü Bey and the chief architect Vedad Bey,
a corruption scandal broke out. According to an accusation dated April 1911, they
embezzled sources and abused their positions, thus an investigation was started
regarding their spending and the cost of the renovation work. Thus, the commission
responsible for the renovation of the Topkapı Palace was to be dismissed and the
posts of Hüsnü Bey and Vedad Bey were to be suspended until the investigation
came to a conclusion.1068 Chief architect Vedad Bey, responded these accusations
Meclis-i Vükelada okunan 16 Ağustos 1327 tarihli ve 3375/65 numaralı tezkire-i asafanelerinde ileri
sürülen sebeplere nazaran Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu dairelerinden bazı kısımların acilen tamire
muhtaç olduğu tamiratın gerekli olan keşfini emaneten icrasıyla, bedeli keşf-i evvelden 288 bin 563
kuruş 65 santimden daha az masrafla vücuda getirilmesine ve rahatına sarf-ı mesali olunması
zınnında Nezaret-i celilelerine izin ve divan-ı muhasebat riyaseti aliyyesine malumat verilmesi bi'ttezkir
gerekeni yerine getirmekle mucibince icabının icrasına himmet."
1067 BOA BEO.3936.295150 (16 Ağustos 1327 / 29.08.1911)
Milli Saraylar Arşivi Defter No: 996/31 – 1001 – 1050 / Belge no: 572 – 984 – 1096 – 1130 – 1131 –
1132 – 1226 - 464 (h.1330 / 1911-12) Mecidiye Köşkü, Hırka-i Saadet Dairesi, Hazine-i Hümayun
Dairesi, III. Ahmet Kütüphanesi, Arz Odası, Hekimbaşı Odası, Mustafa Paşa Kasrı, Orta Kapı,
Hazine Koğuşu, Ağalar dairesi, cited in İyez and Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan Belgeler
Doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı Onarımları.
1068 BOA İ.MBH.5.62 (25 R 1329 / 25.4.1911)
“Maru’l-arz komisyonu terkip eden zevata muhassas maaşat ve ücüratın miktar-ı senevisi epeyce bir
yekün teşkil eylemekle beraber muamelat-ı tamiriyenin de yolunda cereyan etmemekte olmasından
dolayı komisyonun lağvıyla tamirat-ı mebhuseye doğrudan doğruya hazinece vaz-ı yed olunması . . .
komisyon ilga ve yerine diğer memurlar tayin olunsa bile hal-i hazırın tebdili başlanılan işlerin tehir
etmemesi mucib olacağından eldeki para ile ibtidar edilen tamiratın ikmalinden sonra üç yüz yirmi
522
with a 12-page long letter and claimed that Directorate of Public Works (Maliye
Nezareti Emlak-i Emiriye İdaresi) was responsible for the malfunctioning that took
place during the renovations as they have changed the codes for renovating the
imperial palaces at least five-six times since the accession of Mehmed V Reşad.1069
Vedad Bey also attached a list of 32 reports he previously submitted to various
offices from May 22 to December 24, 1912 regarding the problems taking place
during the renovations he carried out at the Topkapı Palace1070 (Figure 331). His
detailed report must have convinced the authorities, as he continued to work as the
chief architect responsible for the renovations of the imperial palaces. A register
book composed of 176 pages and more than a thousand records presented the list of
each work item completed by Vedad Bey for the renovation of the Dolmabahçe and
Topkapı Palaces during 1912 and 19131071 (Figure 332). Vedad Bey worked as the
Chief Architect from April 1909 until he resigned from this post on May 7, 1914.
However, he continued working for the imperial buildings as the architect of Emlak-ı
Hakani afterwards.1072
yedi senesine ait tamirat bütçesinin suret-i sarf ve istimali hakkında bir çare düşünülmesi . . . ancak
Saray-ı Hümayunların tamiratında yolsuz ve hilaf-ı usul sarfiyat ve muamelat vukua getirildiği . . . Şu
hale göre senevi kırk bin lirayı mütecaviz olan tahsisatın böyle usulsüz ve yolsuz bir suretle devam-ı
tesviyesinde hazine katiyyen mazur olduğundan gerek muma- ileyh Vedad ve Hüsnü Beylerin ve gerek
işte alakadar olan komisyon azasının vazifeleri devam ettikçe tahkikatın hüsn-i neticeye isali mümkün
olamayacağı anlaşıldığından bunların hemen memuriyetlerine hitam verilerek…”
1069 BOA MB.1062.97_01 (23 Kanunievvel 1328 / 5.1.1913)
"Şöyle ki cülus-ı hümayundan beri Saray-ı Hümayunların tamiratının usul-i idaresi Maliye Nezareti
Emlak-ı Emiriye İdaresi tarafından beş altı defa değiştirildi. Bu kadar az bir müddet zarfında
kendilerinin tensib etdikleri usul-i idareye beş altı defa değiştirmek mecburiyetinde bulunmaları ba
ittihaz ettikleri usulün gayr-i muvafık olmasından yahud idareyi tevdi ettikleri zevatın hüsn-i idare
edememesinden mütehassıl olması iktiza edeceği tabiidir. Cereyan-ı ahval bu iki sebebin dahi mevcud
olduğunu göstermektedir. Acaba neden Maliye Nezaret-i Celilesi dört seneden beri Saray-ı
Hümayunları muvafık-ı fen ve idare ve istirahat-i hümayunu temin edecek bir surette tamirat idaresini
teşkil etmeğe muvafık olamamaktadır."
1070 BOA MB.1062.97_12.
"Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda 1328 senesinde icra edilen tamirat hakkında muhtelif makamlara
takdim ettiğim raporların tarihleridir: 9 Mayıs 1328 - 11 Kanunievvel 1328)
1071 BOA HH.d.29698 (14.3.1913/5R1331)
The list of works done by Vedad Bey during the renovations of the Beşiktas Palace and the Topkapı
Palace in 1912 and 1913.
1072 Batur, M. Vedad Tek Kimliğinin İzinde Bir Mimar, 147.
523
Figure 331. The first and last pages of Vedad Bey's response letter (MB.1062.97.3)
Figure 332. The first page of the list of works done by Vedad Bey in r.1328 /1912-
13 (BOA HH.d.29698_05)
The repairs and renovations in the Topkapı Palace continued longer than it was
initially planned, perhaps because of the 1912 earthquake which caused damage at
various parts of the Topkapı Palace including the Imperial Treasury, the
Ambassador's Treasury, the Alay Kiosk, the Harem, apartments of the Privy pages,
apartments of the White and Black Eunuchs, the Baghdad Kiosk, the Seferli
524
apartments, and the Outer Treasury.1073 According to the Archive of the National
Palaces, renovations took place during 1912-13 in the Privy Chamber, the Chamber
of Sacred Relics, and in the Circumcision Chamber.1074 During 1914 and 1915
additional renovations, constructions, and also demolitions took place especially in
and around the Chamber of Sacred Relics and the Imperial Treasury. The
government was concerned about the restoration and preservation of palaces, which
were in a deplorable state and discussed the budget reserved for the renovation
works.1075 According to a renovation register dating 1914, the restorations were held
again by the public works (Ebniye-i Seniyye-i inşaat ve tamiratina mahsus keşif
defteridir) and the Privy Chamber, the Chamber of Sacred Relics, the Circumcision
Chamber, The Revan Kiosk and their domes, roofs, walls, windows, columns, and
galleries were repaired.1076 The guardrooms in front of the Circumcision Chamber
and the Revan Kiosk were also demolished and their rubble was removed.1077 The
renovations of the Chamber of Sacred Relics continued during 1915 as well and was
signed by The Chief Architect Ekrem.1078 It is known that the post of Vedad Bey as
the chief architect of the palace came to an end as of 1914.1079
1073 Karahasan, “Topkapı Sarayı Cumhuriyet Dönemi Restorasyonları,” 46–47.
1074 Milli Saraylar Arşivi defter no: 1320 – 1907/9 (h.1331 / 1912-13) Hırka-i Saadet, Has Oda, Sarık
Odası, Sünnet Odasının onarım keşfi; Milli Saraylar Arşivi Belge no: 784 (h.1331 / 1912-13)
Topkapı Onarımları ve bina yıkımları; cited in İyez and Gezgör, Milli Saraylar Arşivinde Yer Alan
Belgeler Doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı Onarımları.
1075 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre 3, Cilt 2, İçtima senesi 1, 28. İnikad (25 Haziran 1330/
8.7.1914), TBMM Kitaplığı, 64.
1076 BOA HH.d.27096 (19 C 1332 / 15.6.1914)
Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu Hırka-i Saadet ve teferruatı ilave keşifnamesi
1077 BOA HH.d.27096 (19 C 1332 / 15.6.1914)
"- Sünnet Odası gezintisinin nihayetinde lüzumsuz nöbet odasının etraf duvarlarıyla tavanın hedmiyle
molozlarının üç yüz metre mesafeye nakli.
- Sarık Odası pişgahında bulunan lüzumsuz nöbet odasının hedmiyle enkazının ref ve nakli"
1078 BOA HH.d 27275 (5 Z 1333/ 14.9.1915)
Topkapı Sarayı Hümayunu Hırka-i Saadet teferruatı İlave Keşfi
1079 Batur, M. Vedad Tek Kimliğinin İzinde Bir Mimar, 147.
525
Figure 333. The stalactite cornice applied to the gallery of the Imperial Treasury
(TSMA)
Figure 334. Iron railings on the arches of the loggia after the renovation (Tahsin Öz,
Saray Onarımları, 54) / Stalactite cornices of the loggia (Encümen Arsivi, c.1944)
526
Figure 335. The loggia with railings used for the display of treasury collection
(TSMA, Republican era)
Again in 1914, the Imperial Treasury went thorough an intensive renovation and
renewal process.1080 It is believed that the stalactite cornices and decorative details
were added to the galleries and chambers of the treasury during this period1081
(Figure 333). The double arches in the loggia that were previously walled were also
opened and secured with iron railings (Figure 334). The loggia, after the opening of
the walls is still used for displaying the treasury collection (Figure 335). The window
frames covering the galleries of the Baghdad Kiosk were also removed during these
restoration works. These practical additions to the edifice, which were believed to
ruin its historic authenticity and architectural integrity, were eliminated. Thus, an
attempt for restoring the significant parts of the palace into their "authentic" state was
undertaken, as an indication of the increasing consciousness for preservation and
conservation of the historic patrimony of the Topkapı Palace (Figure 336).
1080 BOA HH.d.26519 (22 B 1332/ 16.6.1914)
"Mahal-i İnşaat: Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu dahilinde vaki Hazine-i Hümayun dairesinin muhtac-ı
tamir olan kurşunlarıyla aksam-ı sairesinin keşf-i evvel defteridir."
1081 Öz, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Onarımları,” 49.
527
Figure 336. The loggia of the Imperial Treasury before and after the 1915
renovations (Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
By the Second Constitutional era the rising consciousness of the Ottoman historic
patrimony became a part of the nationalist narrative. The Topkapı Palace was
accepted as a historic monument and attempts to restore the edifice were made. Alois
Riegl in his definition of the cult of monuments distinguished the age value,
historical value, deliberate commemorative value, and use value of these
monuments. Rather than the "use value" and the "age value" of the monument, the
"historical value" of the Topkapı Palace was emphasized. According to Riegl the
historical edifice has lost its connection with the present and new sets of meanings
and significance were assigned to them by the modern viewers:1082
We call historical all things that once were and are no longer. . . . Everything
that once was can never be again, and that everything that once was forms an
irreplaceable and inextricable link in a chain of development. Or, in other
words: everything that succeeds was conditioned by what came before and
1082 Riegl, The Modern Cult of Monuments, 70.
528
would not have occurred in the manner in which it did if not for those
precedents.
To emphasize or appreciate the historical value of a monument, the decaying impact
of time and nature had to be erased from the edifice. Accepting the monuments as a
historical document, restorations had to be done to preserve its most genuine state.
For Riegl, historic knowledge, which becomes an aesthetic source, is required to
appreciate the historic value of the monument.1083 The Topkapı Palace epitomized
the modern understanding of an art-historical monument in the late Ottoman sociopolitical
context and historical information regarding its architectural and decorative
features, together with its dynastic past and the events that took place within the
complex began to be studied and published. Within this framework—different from
the previous periods—rather than renovating an imperial residence, restoration and
preservation of the historic monument was the goal.
5.5.2 Conservation of the national heritage
Altı asırdan fazla pür şa’şaa bir hayat-ı siyasiye yaşamış olan Osmanlı heyeti
muazzamasının tarihin şahid olduğu azametini istihsal için ist'imal eylediği
vesait elbette bi-nihaye bir kudret-i ilmiye ve medeniyenin mahsulü olacağına
göre, bu iktidar ile husule gelmiş olan asarında bir çok metrukat ve
mahfuzatı olacağında şübhe yoktur. Osmanlı vatanı, bidayet-i akvamedden
beri cihan temeddünün saha-i inkişafı olmak hasebiyle sine-i asarında edvarı
muhtelife-i tarihine aid kim bilir neler saklamaktadır. Daha evvelki
devirlerin asar-ı kadimesinden ele geçenlerini kıymetlerine layık bir ihtimam
ile saklamak, temeddünün kıymet şinaslık bahsine aid bir fasl-ı celil olan ilmi
asar-ı atika nokta-i nazarından bir borç olduğu ve bu hususda edilecek
dikkat ve itinalar liyakat-ı medeniyemizin berahininden bulunduğu aşikar ise
de, bunlara malik olmak beka ve inkişaf vadisindeki mesai nokta-i
nazarından asar-ı hususiyemiz derecesinde kuvetli ve makbul olamaz.
(Asar-ı Atika Encümen Raporu,1917)
On October 1917, a report was published and submitted to the government by the
Council for the Preservation of Old Monuments, which was founded by the Council
1083 Riegl, 75.
529
of Ministers (Meclis-i Vükela kararıyla müteşekkil Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika Encümen
Dairesi), regarding the renovations at the Topkapı Palace.1084 This 12-page report
started with an introduction, continued with a brief argument for the importance of
conservation and protection of the national monuments, and ended with a detailed
critique of the recent renovations held at the Topkapı Palace. The introduction
(mukaddime) started with the idea that each nation had to protect its "antiquities and
national monuments" (her millet asar-ı nefise ve abidat-ı milliyesini masuniyetini
temin için) and bequeath them to the next generations as solid symbols of
"civilization" (asar-ı medeniyetin mütehaccir birer timsali). According to the text, as
the Ottomans were lacking the national and civilized consciousness for preservation
of national heritage, the commission was founded to prevent intrusion and damage to
all national antiquities including the Old Palace (ba’dema tecavüzat ve tahribatın
önüne geçmek maksadıyla Atik Saray-ı Hümayun dahi dahil olduğu halde bi’l-cümle
asar-ı atika ve milliye hakkında). The report was submitted to the Ottoman
government in accordance with the bylaw declaring the foundation of the Permanent
Council for the Preservation of Old Monuments (Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika Encümen-i
Daimiyesi) 1085 (Figure 337).
1084 Meclis-i vükela kararıyla müteşekkil Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika Encümen Dairesi, "Topkapı Saray-ı
Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Seniyyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz
İttiği Rapor Suretidir", 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917. See, Appendix A.12.
1085 Hereafter the Council for the Conservation of Antiquities (Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika Encümen
Daimiyesi) will be referred as "the Council".
530
Figure 337. The report submitted to the Council for the Preservation of Old
Monuments regarding the latest renovations held at the Topkapı Palace (Topkapı
Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Senniyenin
Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir, 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917)
This report was submitted to the government regarding the preservation of the
Topkapı Palace and criticized the mistakes made during the recent renovations, thus
can be understood as a pioneer in the field of conservation. Before getting into the
details of this report, it would be better to give a concise summary of the evolution of
the idea of conservation in the late Ottoman context. The first bylaw of antiquities
was issued in 1869 and in 1874 the second bylaw was enacted, which were initial
attempts for the management of the antiquities and antique sites discovered within
the empire, mostly by European archeologists.1086 During the reign of Abdülhamid
II, with the efforts of Osman Hamdi Bey, an updated version of the bylaw of
antiquities was issued in 1884, and gave the Ottoman government full control over
1086 Bahrani, Çelik, and Eldem, Scramble for the Past : A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman
Empire, 1753-1914; Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi; Madran, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Otuz Yılında Koruma
Alanının Örgütlenmesi (1920-1950).”
531
all sorts of movable and immovable antiquities found below and above the earth.
Wendy Shaw interprets this development as a proto-nationalist attempt against
Western forces to enforce Ottoman possession over the vast lands of the empire and
to emphasize the use of antiquities as a diplomatic tool against European powers.1087
However, until the end of the reign of Abdülhamid II, Islamic art and Ottoman past
were not considered as antiquities to be preserved, collected, and displayed.1088 In
1906, the antiquities law was modified to include the Islamic arts and considered all
historical buildings of the empire to be preserved.1089 Eventually, during the Second
Constitutional Period in 1914, on the fifth anniversary of Mehmed V Reşad's
enthronement, the Museum of Pious Foundations or the Museum of Islamic
Endowments (Evkaf Müzesi) was established within the Süleymaniye Complex. The
museum held an eclectic collection of Islamic arts and Ottoman and pre-Ottoman
crafts.1090
Together with a rising interest in Islamic arts and in the Ottoman past, the
concept of the architectural monument was redefıned and the government took
initiative over the preservation of old buildings. In 1912 the Regulation for the
Preservation of Monuments (Muhafaza-i Abidat Nizamnamesi) was issued. Based on
the previous bylaw of antiquities, this decree redefined the monuments and
antiquities, extended their scope as "places and works from any period", and
enforced the preservation of city walls, monuments, and sites of historical
importance.1091 This law was composed of eight articles and formed the basis of
1087 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed.
1088 The foundation of Islamic Arts section in the Imperial Museum was discussed in Chapter 6.
1089 Altınyıldız, “The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of Preservation.”
1090 For an in-depth discussion on the Museum of Pious Foundations (Evkaf Müzesi) on April 27, 1914
see, Şahin, Kutluay, and Çelen, Türk ve İslam Eserleri Müzesi 100 yıl önce, 100 yıl sonra; Eldem,
“The Genesis of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts.”
1091 Madran, “Cumhuriyetin İlk Otuz Yılında Koruma Alanının Örgütlenmesi (1920-1950)”;
Altınyıldız, “The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of Preservation.,” 286.
532
modern conservation approach, remaining intact throughout the Republican
period.1092 Finally in May 1917, the Permanent Council of Old Monuments (Asar-ı
Atika Encümeni Daimisi) was established as a governmental agency to decide which
buildings were to be preserved and which ones to be demolished and also to inspect
the restorations of the monuments. In fact, the foundation of the Council marked the
"modern" consciousness for the preservation and conservation of antiquities and
monuments that would shape the republican experience of architectural preservation.
The Council would control the restorations of the monuments and held power to
authorize the restoration work or their demolition.1093
As mentioned before, one of the earliest reports of the Council was submitted
regarding the Topkapı Palace. The report provided a brief underlining the
significance and importance of the 450-year-old Topkapı Palace in the history of the
empire and explained the rationale behind its preservation. The need for preserving
monuments and heritage as unique representatives of the national past, of the
Ottoman spirit, and of its ancestors, was emphasized. By the early-twentieth century,
the palace, once accepted as the imperial residence of the Ottoman dynasty, became
a historic monument and a memorial site to be preserved, its imperial legacy was
appropriated into national heritage. As clearly stated in the report, the imperial
complex was positioned as a rare representative of Ottoman art and architecture and
as a pure symbol of Ottomanness. This unique and rare representative of Ottoman art
and architecture, composed of artifacts of different styles from various centuries, had
to be completely preserved, even up to a single nail. According to the report, other
ancient vernacular examples of Ottoman architecture were not well preserved and
1092 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 133.
1093 Açıkgöz, “On the Uses and Meanings of Architectural Preservation in Early Republican Istanbul
(1923-1950).”
533
disappeared within time, thus, the Topkapı Palace was accepted as a distinctive
remain of the historic patrimony and national identity.
The imperial palace was recognized as a lieux de memoire rather than an
imperial residence.1094 In this context, the renovations and repairs took place between
1910 and 1915 were harshly criticized stating that rather than careful conservation of
the edifice, these renovations were conducted as if the palace would be used as a
residence and updated its architectural features and appliances according to the latest
fashion. Thus, the recent renovations ruined the historical value and beauty of this
artifact.1095 (Appendix A.12)
The report made a detailed critique of the recent renovations and listed the
errors made under 26 articles. The list is quite interesting as it gives us an idea about
the priorities of the Ottomans in terms of preservation and their selective norms for
representing their past. The repost also provides information regarding the 1910-15
restorations and the scope of work being done during the Second Constitutional era.
Conserving the authenticity of the spaces and decorative elements was the primary
concern of the Council that surely accepted the imperial complex as a historic
monument and as a heritage site. Françoise Choay argues that the concept of a
monument is a modern construction and a product of memory and identity. For her, a
monument could be defined as “any artifact erected by a community of individuals,
events, sacrifices, practices or beliefs . . . to recall the past while bringing it to life as
1094 Nora. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”, 7-24.
1095 "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Seniyyenin
Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir", 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917, p.5. See
Appendix A.12.
"Saray-ı Aliyenin maksad-ı tesisi bir ikametgah olmaktan ibaret iken, zamanın tecdidi bu mahali o
vaziyetten uzaklaştırarak elyavm Osmanlılığın i’sar-ı kadimedeki teccelliyatının nadir bir timsali
olmak mahiyetinde bırakmış . . . bu asrın hatta tek bir çivisine varıncaya kadar muhafazası lazım gelir
iken, bahs olunan ta’mirat süresinde bu cihetler asla nazar-ı dikkate alınmayıp ikametgah olacak imiş
gibi heryerde zaman-ı hazrın ihtiyacına göre bir eser tanzim göstermek suretiyle hareket edildiği
görülmüştür. . . Bunun neticesi olarak ta’mir diye yapılan herşey tagyir ve tahribe sebeb olmuş ve
a’sırların ihzar eylediği a’tikayata a’id güzellikler bir takım tecdidat ile imha olunmuştur."
534
if it were present.” 1096 In this context, the lost glory of the empire was recalled and
the past was brought into life with the romantic ideal for “living and staging” the
past, to visually reconstruct the broken link between the past and the present.1097
Hence, the Topkapı Palace, its historic kiosks, ancient apartments, and decorative
elements were redefined and repositioned as items to be carefully preserved, in line
with the modern conservation theory.
The report of the Council listed the mistakes and defects made during the
recent renovations. Almost all of the 26 articles complained about the damaged
authenticity of the spaces. For example some articles stated that the arches of the
gallery of the second court were raised 40 cm above their original level; the metal
piece on the dome of the Alay Kiosk was replaced with a pike; the spheres hanging
from the ceiling of the Council Hall were removed and one of them was damaged;
the whitewashed domes of the Chamber of Sacred Relics were painted mimicking
the çini patterns, four of the marble fountains at the Harem pool were broken during
renovations and a marble balustrades brought from the Çırağan Palace were
assembled there; two lanterns were assembled on two sides of the gate of the Has
Oda damaged the çini tiles on the walls (Figure 338). It is known that the Imperial
Treasury went through an intense renovation process and the walled arches of the
loggia were cleared. However, the Council found the iron railings placed at these
arches quite inappropriate (Figure 339).
Another set of criticism was about the removal of traditional materials,
decorative, or historic elements from various corners of the palace. For example the
removal and loss of çini tiles from their original locations was mentioned several
times, and the same critique was also valid for the bricks and the hexagonal
1096 Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument, 6.
1097 Bann, Romanticism and the Rise of History.
535
terracotta tiles removed from their original location. In fact the removal of original
çini tiles from the Enderun Mosque, from the apartments and baths of the Black
Eunuchs, from the Ocaklı Sofa, and from the Harem kitchen became a serious
concern for the Council, believing that çini tiles and decorative elements were
integral for the authenticity of spaces. The removal of window grids, floor tiles,
wooden stairs, and authentic iron doors from various parts of the Harem was also
criticized. The displacement of ancient weapons from the walls of the Revan and
Baghdad Kiosks were also listed among the mistakes. One interesting example was
the removal of the face skin of one of the rebellious eunuchs from the apartments of
the Baltacıs. This face skin was placed there as a lesson for the palace folks and its
elimination was harshly criticized by the Council. Thus it could be stated that the
Council was not only interested in architectural and decorative features of the palace
but also paid attention to the elements of intangible heritage and to preservatıon of
palace rituals.
Figure 338. The lanterns assembled at the entrance of the Chamber of Sacred Relics
(Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
536
Figure 339. Kubbealtı before the renovations / The railings placed at the arches of
the loggia of the Imperial Treasury after the renovations (TSMA)
The report also mentioned more comprehensive failures during the restoration
process. For example, windows were opened in the Outer Treasury that is located at
the second court of the palace, next to the Council Hall. The Council for the
Conservation of Antiquities rightfully criticized this modification, as the original
function and character of the building was not suitable for having windows at the
ground floor. As the Outer Treasury was not used for storing tax money or other
valuables anymore, the renovation team must have intended to give a new function to
the building (Figure 340). Another important aspect stated in the Council's report
was the demolishment of the Meşkhane (Old Council Hall / Eski Divanhane), which
was located at the corner of the second court between the gate of Felicity and the
Outer Treasury. The report states that this building, remaining from the reign of
Selim I, was located behind the palace mosque and was used for musical practices of
the pages. According to the report this ancient structure was demolished solely due to
aesthetic reasons had to be preserved due to its historical value1098 (Figure 341).
1098 "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Seniyyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine
Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir", 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917.
537
Figure 340. The Outer Treasury with windows opened at the ground level after the
1910-15 renovations (TSMA)
Figure 341. Watercolor painting of Bab-üs Saade and the Old Divanhane at the
corner (Necipoğlu, 2007, 112) / The place of the Old Divanhane after its
demolishment (Milli Saraylar Arşivi, K 267-2)
Another aesthetic manipulation was conducted at the third court, in front of the
Kuşhane gate of the Harem. As seen in the pre-1915 photographs, the area was
closed with walls and buildings of poor quality, creating an inappropriate scene in
the third court of the palace (Figure 342). These later additions were demolished and
"5- Bab-üs Saade ittisalinde cami derununda yapılmış ve kadimen a’cemi oğlanların musiki bazi lu’bbiyat meşkhanesi
olarak isti’mal edilmekte bulunmuş olan Sultan Selim-i Salis devrine ait bir bina, nazara hoş gelmediğinden dolayı
hedm edilmiş ve bu suretle binanın mebni aleyhi olan maksadın tedkikine medar olacak asar imha olunmuştur."
538
a new Kuşhane building was erected (Figure 343). Even though there are no
documents declaring its architect, the Kuşhane building could be attributed to Vedad
Bey with its architectural features resembling the First National Style. The Council
harshly criticized the novel style of this building with its balcony and plastered
façade and stated that the architectural and historical significance of the area was
ruined, as it was not restored in accordance to its authentic configuration.1099
Figure 342. Kuşhane Gate of the Harem before the renovations
Figure 343. The new Kuşhane building after the renovations (2106)
1099 "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Seniyyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine
Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir", 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917.
"6- Bab-üs Saade dahilindeki Arz Odası meydanına nazır bulunan, ve Kuşhane denilen mevki’in harabiyesi derkar
olub, bunun şekl-i kadime göre ta’miri muktezi iken, bu hususta hiç i’tina olunmayarak çimento sıva ile balkonlu bir
cebhe yapılıp oranın ahenin mimariyesi ihlal edilmiştir."
539
The restoration of the Topkapı Palace and the critical intervention of the Council
marked the institutionalization of a new understanding and consciousness regarding
the protection of Ottoman architectural patrimony. With nationalist tendencies, the
architectural monuments of the Ottoman and Seljuk past were accepted as
reminiscent of national identity and public memory. Assertion of the Topkapı Palace
as a historic monument and a site of national heritage was in fact a political act for
the utilization of the past as defined by Nietzsche.1100 The preservation of the
monuments was also accepted as an emblem of "modernity and civilization" in the
late Ottoman context as well. The report of the Council was finalized with these
words emphasizing the uniqueness of the Topkapı Palace to be preserved and
researched:1101
We are submitting this report to ensure that this awesome building that is a
unique piece of art and an edifice worthy of serious research and
investigation, shall be preserved and restored with the merits of the highest
civilization in accordance with the principles declared here.
The palace was positioned as a historic document to be studied, which reveals the
dynastic traditions, royal ceremonies, and ancient rituals of the Ottoman nation. It
must be investigated as solid evidence stating the evolution of the national
architecture and decorative styles within centuries. Not only the museums and royal
collections within the royal precinct, but the Topkapı Palace itself, its imperial site
and gardens, kiosks and pavilions from various periods, apartments of the Harem and
the Enderun, and their decorative characteristics were accepted as historical
patrimony that needs to be investigated, documented, preserved, and protected. In
this context, in resonance with the ideas of Pierre Nora, the grounds of the Topkapı
1100 Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of History.
1101 "Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i Seniyyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine
Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir", 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10. Ekim.1917.
"Şu suretle ihzar olunacak esaslar ile memleketin yegane bir asar-ı bedi’-i ve erbab tetkikin cidden takdir ve tebcilini
calib olan bu hayret aver binanın terakkiyat-ı medeniyyeye layık surette muhafazası ve tamiri kabil olabileceği
mülahaza kılınarak iş bu mazbata-ı acizanemiz takdim kılınmıştır."
540
Palace evolved into lieux de mémoire. As an outcome of a modern awareness of the
rupture between the past and the present, lieux de mémoire was defined as an
instrument for bridging the distance between memory and history1102:
Our interest in lieux de mémoire where memory crystallizes and secretes
itself has occurred at a particular historical moment, a turning point where
consciousness of a break with the past is bound up with the sense that
memory has been torn—but torn in such a way as to pose the problem of the
embodiment of memory in certain sites where a sense of historical continuity
persists.
5.5.3 Re-institutionalization of the Topkapı Palace
Not only preservation of the Topkapı Palace as a heritage site, but also its protection
and management became a concern during the Second Constitutional period.
Detached from the sole control and protection of the sultanate, the palatial complex,
with its museums, royal collections, inner courts, and outer gardens went through an
ambiguous period. With the abolishment of the enderun system after the Young Turk
revolution the palace grounds were left unprotected and its inner mechanisms of
control and security became defunct. The institutional transformation and unclear
official status of the royal palaces created a security gap and obscurity in the
management of the royal precinct.
In 1910 Halil Bey made a petition complaining that after the declaration of
the constitution the palace grounds were not well protected and were left vulnerable
to theft and illegal trespassing. Comparing the Topkapı Palace with the Palais de
Louvre, he demanded that the palace grounds and the Imperial Museum should be
better guarded. His appeal stated that there should be guards at the outer gates of the
palace like the previous eras and these gates should be closed at 2pm. The police
station next to the museum should be equipped with soldiers, there should be guards
1102 Nora, “Between memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”.
541
stationed day and night at the museum court as well. Halil Bey also added that the
pathways within the palace, especially the ones being used by the visitors should be
repaired and the outer gardens, which were in bad condition should be organized as a
park.1103 His claim seemed to have impact on the CUP government, who were eager
to protect the palace and to position it as a site of patrimony and national pride.
Within a week a decree was issued responding to the demands of Halil Bey regarding
the protection of the palace grounds. His appeals were accepted and the security of
the palace grounds was reinforced.1104 Additional precautions were taken regarding
the protection of the Imperial Treasury, Imperial Mints, museums, and palace
grounds as well.1105
As stated in the previous section, parallel with the militarization of the palace
grounds, its opening to public access continued during the Second Constitutional era.
Thus the palace grounds, with the establishment of the Gülhane park, the promotion
of the Military Museum, and with the opening of the Imperial Treasury and the inner
courts of the palace to domestic visitors, became accessible to a wide range of the
population. In this new socio-political context, the palace grounds became a touristic
and recreational zone to be enjoyed, a heritage site to be visited, and a monument to
1103 BOA MF.MKT.1149.67 (7 Ra 1328 / 19.03.1910)
"Zaten memalik-i mütemeddine müzelerinin kaffesinde emr-i inzibata fevkalade itina edilmekde
olduğu ve hatta Luvr müzesi havlularında karakollar bulundurulduğu gibi bazı müzelerin dahiline
bile asker ikame edilmekte olmasıyla bu cihet kemal-i ehemmiyetle nazar-ı dikkate alınmaya şayan
olduğundan mevad-ı atiyenin bil-itina dikkat ve icrası hususunun iktiza eyliyenlere emr ü tebliğini
hassaten istirham eylerim Evvela: kemafis-sabık saray suru kapılarına la-akal ikişer kapıcının
ikamesi; Saniyen: saat ikide kapıların kapanması; Salisen: Müze-i Hümayun karakoluna mikdar-ı kafi
asker veya jandarma ikamesi; Rabien: Müze-i Hümayun havlularında gece ve gündüz nöbetçi
beklettirilmesi; Hamisen: memerr-i ecanib dahi olan saray dahili yollarının seri'en inşa ve tamiri;
Sadisen: pek az bedel-i icar mükabilinde kiraya verilmekte olan sur dahili . . . bostanların da
ba'dema icara verilmeyerek bahçe haline kalb ve ifrağları icab ettiği maruzdur."
1104 BOA BEO.3723.279151 (1328 / 26.3.1910) Topkapıya ikişer kapıcı ve saat iki'de kapıların
kapatılması, Müze Karakoluna asker veya jandarma konulması ve müze avlusunda gece gündüz
nöbetçi konulması.
1105 BOA MF.MKT.1152.27 (29.R.1328 / 10.5.1910) Topkapı ve çevresinin korunması, Tıbbiye-yi
Askeriyeye ait bazı binaların Darülfünun ve Maarif’e devri.
BOA BEO.3796.284636 (24.8.1910) Topkapıda bulunana Hazine, Daphane ve Müze dairelerinin
muhafazası için tedbirlere dair.
542
commemorate the past. The control and management of this rather complex
historical, military, and recreational site were restructured during the Second
Constitutional era.
In September 1916 a decree was published in the official newspaper Takvim-i
Vekai about the protection and control of the Topkapı Palace. According to this
regulation, the management of the palace was reorganized and the preservation of the
palace grounds was secured. The regulation titled "Topkapı Sarayının Suret-i
Muhafazası Hakkında Nizamname" was signed by the Sultan on 5 Eylül 1332
(18.9.1916) and included eight articles1106 (Figure 344):
1- The Topkapı Palace, from the land side, covers the area defined by the
railway line adjacent to Demirkapı plus the area surrounded with ancient
walls from Demirkapı to Soğukçesme, Bab-ı Hümayun and Otluk Kapı
reaching the shoreline. The shoreline starts from the Otluk Kapı district,
reaches the Sepeçiler Kiosk and ends again at the railway station. The
properties belonging the palace and located beyond this area will be defined
later. No one can use the properties within the precincts of the palace,
construct or expand any kind of structures within this area. To expand and to
make additions to already existing buildings are bound to the permission of
the Sultan.
2- Traditionally, the Chamberlainship of the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i
Hümayun Kethüdalığı) is responsible for the management of the palace. The
tradition of keeping guards at the palace gates will continue. Inner gates,
including the Middle Gate, the Third Gate, and the Perde Gate open and close
with the order of the Chief Treasurer. According to tradition, the palace
guards are responsible from the opening and closing of the outer gates, such
as the Bab-ı Hümayun, Demir Kapı, Soğukçesme and the Otluk Kapı.
3- With the permission of the Sultan, the municipality could continue
converting certain parts of the palace into a park. The park shall not generate
any financial profit. During landscaping, the architectural features of the
ancient walls and doors shall not be destroyed, antique findings and stones
should not be intervened by the municipality. A proper entrance fee should be
taken.
4- It is forbidden to establish casinos, recreational facilities, and retail spots
within the palace, except for the sale of water.
1106 "Topkapı Sarayının Suret-i Muhafazası hakkında Nizamname", Takvim-i Vekai, No. 2655, (10
Eylül 1332 / 23.9.1916)
543
5- Only Hazine-i Hassa (Sultan's Treasury) could benefit from the lands,
buildings, and extensions of the palace.
6- The plan of the buildings that are located within the palace and currently
assigned to other institutions, will be drawn. Among those, the buildings that
are suitable for demolition will later be demolished one-by-one.
7- These regulations are valid after the publication of the decree.
8 - The council of ministers is responsible from the implementation of these
regulations.
Figure 344. The regulation for the protection and control of the Topkapı Palace
(Topkapı Sarayının Suret-i Muhafazası Hakkında Nizamname, Takvim-i Vekai No.
2655, 10 Eylul 1332 / 23.9.1916)
These regulations repeated the already known facts and ensured the implementation
of previously accepted practices regarding the use and protection of the palace
grounds. However, this decree is important to show us the institutional
transformation of the Topkapı Palace and the changes in its internal mechanisms of
control under the Young Turk rule. While the decree was signed by the sultan
himself, the council of ministers was responsible for the implementation of the
regulations and protection of the palace grounds. This decree defined the exact area
544
of the palace and explicitly communicates the desire of the government to clean the
site from various institutions, such as the governmental offices, military facilities,
transportation hubs, depots, vegetable gardens, schools, factories, hospitals etc. Thus,
the government aimed to cleanse the Topkapı Palace of various parasitical
establishments occupying the palace grounds throughout the nineteenth century and
aimed to regenerate the lost integrity of Sur-i Sultani as a historic site and a national
monument. The Topkapı Palace was detached from its traditional dynastic roots and
its imperial legacy was instrumentalized to promote the nationalist ideologies of the
Young Turk regime.
The ideological movements centered around Ottomanism, pan-Turkism, and
pan-Islamism shaped the social, cultural, and political milieu of the empire during
the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. After the Balkan Wars,
Ottomanism lost ground as an ideology and left its place to pan-Turkism and Turkish
nationalism, which became the official ideology of the CUP government. The sociocultural
organization of the CUP, the Türk Ocağı (Turkish Hearths) became active all
around the empire and published its magazine Türk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland)
promoting a nationalist ideology. Shaped with the ideas of Yusuf Akçura, Namık
Kemal, and Ziya Gökalp, Turkish nationalism took root in Ottoman society and
became the dominant ideology especially during World War I.1107 The Ottoman past
was reconfigured through a nationalist lens and official nationalist history was
disseminated by the state.1108
In fact, the CUP included an article regarding the establishment of national
museums to its political program in 1917. Article 43 of the program offers the
foundation of the General Directorate of National Monuments (Asar-ı Milliye
1107 Zürcher and Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 193–200.
1108 Bozdoğan and Kasaba, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey.
545
Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi) for the preservation and protection of national monuments
and historical texts and for the establishment of a national museum, an
ethnographical museum, a national archive, a national library, national monuments
museum, and national archeology museum.1109 The law was drafted in November 21,
1917 and announced the foundation of the General Directorate of National
Monuments. The first article stated that the directorate was responsible for the
management of all the museums within the empire, the School of Fine Arts, fine arts
exhibitions, national archives, the national library, and the Council for the
Preservation of Old Monuments. A copy of the decree was printed by the Imperial
Museum, emphasizing its central role of in the management and configuration of all
museums within the empire1110 (Figure 345). Especially during World War I,
nationalist ideology gained strength and became significant in the cultural arena. In
this respect, a central role was attributed to museums, archives, and libraries for the
education of the public and for the promotion of national sentiments. Young Turks
aimed to establish various national museums or rendered existing ones as national. In
this context, the Topkapı Palace, as the ultimate representation of a glorious and
national past, was positioned as a part of national heritage, and the preservation of
this historic patrimony was strongly advocated for and promoted. The dynastic
heritage of the Ottoman empire was nationalized, museumified, and promoted.
1109 Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 217, 319.
"Osmanlı İttihad ve Terakki Cem’iyyeti Program ve Nizamnamesi, Madde 43, 1917 – Milli Müze,
Etnografi (Kavmiyyat) Müzesi, Milli hazine-i Evrak, Milli Kütübhane-i vesa’ik ve Milli Asar-ı Atika
Müzesi ve Muhafaza-i Abidat mü’esseselerini teşkil ve idare etmek ve kıymet-i milliyye ve tarihiyyesi
olan kütüb ve asar ve masnu’atın harice ihracını men’ eylemek üzere Asar-ı Milliyye-i Müdiriyyet-i
‘Umumiyesi teşkil olunacaktır."
1110 BOA MF.MKT.1230.46 (17 Z 1335 / 4.10.1917)
"Madde 1: Memalik-i Osmaniyede bi’l-cümle asar-ı atika, asar-ı İslamiye, asar-ı milliye, etnografya,
sanayi-i nefise ve alçı kalıblar müzeleriyle sanayi-i nefise mekteblerini ve sanayi-i nefise sergilerini ve
Muhafaza-i Asar-ı Atika Encümen Dairesini ve milli hazine-i evrakı ve milli kütübhaneyi idare etmek
ve Maarif Nezaretine merbut bulunmak üzre bir Asar-ı Milliye Müdüriyet Umumiyesi teşkil
olunmuştur."
546
Figure 345. Responsibilities of the General Directorate of National Monuments
(BOA MF.MKT.1230.46, 17 Z 1335 / 4.10.1917)
547
CHAPTER 6
THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE AND THE RISE OF THE NATION STATE
6.1 The end of the War; the end of the CUP
World War I turned out to be a great disaster for the Ottoman empire and, despite the
aggressive propaganda of the state, the CUP and its leaders lost their popularity and
credibility in the eyes of public by the last year of the war. The Ottoman population
was struggling with epidemics, famine, death, poverty, and ethno-religious conflicts.
The cities of the empire, particularly the capital, were full of Muslim refugees,
fleeing from the lost territories. 1918 marked the last and hardest year of the war that
would led to the collapse of the Ottoman empire; and the same year, both the
dethroned sultan Abdülhamid II and the reigning Sultan Mehmed V Reşad lost their
lives.
The deposed sultan Abdulhamid II died on February 10, 1918. His body was
brought from Beylerbeyi Palace –where he was kept under custody– to the Topkapı
Palace. The government was worried that the funeral would create unrest and allow
the people of Istanbul to show their displeasure with the CUP, who was held
responsible for the catastrophes of World War I. However, upon Mehmed V Reşad’s
wish, the Minister of War Enver Pasha decided to perform a proper imperial
ceremony for Abdülhamid II in the Topkapı Palace.1111 The washing and shrouding
ceremony, which took place in the Chamber of Sacred Relics, was described in detail
by Ahmet Refik.1112 According to Refik’s account, apart from Ottoman dignitaries
there were also foreigners and German officials attending the ceremony. Following
1111 Ziya Şakir, Sultan Hamid’in Son Günleri, 266; Reşad Ekrem Koçu. Osmanlı Padişahları,
(İstanbul: 1960), 431-432 cited in Yanatma, “The Deaths and Funeral Ceremonies of Ottoman
Sultans,” 60.
1112 Ahmet Refik “Sultan Abdülhamid Saninin Na’şı Önünde”.
548
the prayer the coffin, which was decorated with an imperial jeweled belt and the fez
of Abdulhamid II, was carried towards the first court of the Topkapı Palace (Figure
346 - Figure 347). The first court was filled with carts and automobiles of the crowd
attending the ceremony and the Imperial Band greeted the cortege in front of the
Military Museum and the coffin was carried to the tomb of Mahmud II with a
military procession (cenaze alayı) through Divan Yolu. According to eyewitness
accounts, there was an unexpected crowd watching and accompanying the funeral
with sincere grief.1113 The crown Prince Vahideddin Efendi also attended this
“exceptionally great ceremony”.1114
Figure 346. The funeral of Sultan Abdülhamid II in the first court of the Topkapı
Palace (Courtesy of Edhem Eldem)
1113 Ibid., 97-98; Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 348–439. Abdülhamit Kırmızı,
“Sultan II. Abdülhamid İmparatorluğun Son Nefesi” cited in Yılmaz, II. Abdülhamid, 43.
1114 Ali Vâsib Efendi. Bir Şehzâdenin Hâtırâtı-Vatan ve Menfâda Gördüklerim ve İşittiklerim, 77-78
cited in Yanatma, “The Deaths and Funeral Ceremonies of Ottoman Sultans,” 71.
549
Figure 347. The funeral of Sultan Abdülhamid II in the first court of the Topkapı
Palace (from Cangül)1115
Within six months Sultan Mehmed V Reşad also lost his life on July 3, 1918 at the
age of 74. Even though he was the last sultan who died while he was still in power
his ceremony was quite simple, modest, and held away from the crowd. The modesty
of Mehmed V Reşad's funeral contrasted with the large attendance and public grief
shown at the funeral of Abdülhamid II, was considered a sign of discontent towards
the ongoing regime.1116 On July 4, 1918 the body of Sultan Reşad was carried from
Dolmabahçe to the Topkapı Palace by a steamboat and placed in the Chamber of
Sacred Relics for washing and shrouding. In the meantime the accession ceremony
of the new Sultan Vahideddin took place in front of the Gate of Felicity. Later the
coffin of the sultan was carried with a military procession to Sirkeci and transferred
1115 Cangül, "Topkapı Sarayı'ndaki Hünkâr Köşkü", http://www.istanbulium.net/2014/01/topkapisarayindaki-
hunkar-kosku.html (reached 25.7.2017).
1116 Georgeon, Sultan Abdülhamid, 502.
550
by an imperial yacht to his tomb in Eyüp.1117 The procession from Topkapı Palace to
Eyüp was filmed, recording the attendance of Turkish and foreign officials.1118
After the death of Mehmed V Reşad in 1918, heir apparent Mehmed
Vahideddin ascended to throne at the age of 57. Similar to Mehmed V Reşad,
Vahideddin was also selected and appointed by the government in accordance with
the constitution. Therefore, contrary to Ottoman traditions no cülus ceremony took
place in the Chamber of Sacred Relics, but the sultan paid a symbolic visit to the
sacred rooms and prayed there.1119 However, an official biat ceremony took place in
the Topkapı Palace and the heir apparent, the crown princes, khedive of Egypt,
sheikh ul-Islam, the Senate, the Deputy Assembly, sons-in-law, sirs, high-ranking
infantry and navy officers, members of the senate and deputy assemblies, the
members of the CUP General Center, notables, spiritual leaders, the governor of
Istanbul, the mayor, various state officials, the presidents and governors of official
associations, directors in charge of finance and public works, and owners of Ottoman
orders were invited to the ceremony.1120 Following his accession Mehmed VI
Vahideddin visited the body of Mehmed V Reşad and contrary to tradition, he
1117 The mausoleum of Mehmed V Reşad was designed by renowned Ottoman architect Kemaleddin
Bey, who is known for his neoclassical Ottoman architectural style. This tomb is the only sultanic
mausoleum that took place outside the city walls of Istanbul. See, Yavuz, İmparatorluktan
Cumhuriyete Mimar Kemalettin 1870-1927; Girardelli, “Re-Thinking Architect Kemalettin.”; İsmail
Orman “Mehmed Reşad Türbesi”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, cilt 2, p.518-19.
1118 Turkish Military Forces (TSK) released a film showing the funerary procession of Sultan Mehmed
V Reşad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaQk4Ep2KnE (reached 22.10.2016)
1119 Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, 32.
1120 BOA A.TŞF.281.36_02 (24 N 1336 / 3.8.1918) cited in Yanatma, p.78:
“Hâkan-ı sâbık Sultan Mehmed Reşad Han-ı Hamis Hazretlerinin irtihal-i dâr-ı cinân eylemelerine
mübni bi’l-irs ve’l-istihkak taht-ı âli-baht-ı osmaniye cülus-ı hümayunları şeref vuku’ bulunan şevketli
padişahımız Sultan Mehmed Hân-ı Sâdis Efendimiz Hazretlerine bey’at-ı resm-i âlisinin bugünkü
Perşembe günü vasati saat onda Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu’nda icrası mukarrer bulunmağla
veliahd-ı saltanat ve bi’l-cümle şehzâdegân hazeratı ve zât-ı sami-i vekalet-penah Hidiv Mısır Paşa,
zât-ı valâ-yı mesihat-penâh, meclis-i â’yan ve meb’usan reisleri, vükela-yı fehâm, Damad-ı Hazret-i
Şehriyâri Paşa ve beyefendiler hazerâtı, ümera-yı berriye ve bahriyye-i askeriye, meclis-i âyan ve
mebusan â’zâ-yı kirâmı, İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti Merkez-i Umûmisi âzâsı ve rical-i ilmiye ve
rü’esa-yı ruhâniye devâir-i müsteşarları, İstanbul vali vekili ve şehremini vekili ve bil umum
memûrin-i devlet, ve dahi resm-i âli olan cemiyyât-ı muhtelife reis ve âzası ve tabiiyyyet-i Osmaniye
hazir müessaf-ı maliye ve nafia ve ticariye müdiranı büyük üniforma iktizası ve nişan-ı âliler ve
kordon talikiye Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununda hazır bulunmaları tebliğ olunur.”
551
participated in the funeral ceremony, accompanying the cortege up to the Imperial
Gate of the Topkapı Palace.1121 According to an eyewitness’ account:1122
The new Sultan … came to the Chamber of Prophet’s Mantle on foot to visit
[the body]. And the coffin was placed on the funerary stone before the door
facing the garden of the Chamber of the Prophet’s Mantle. Outside, the
necessary preparations were made for the enthronement ceremony; the throne
had been installed and the notables, the grandees, the ministers, the
ambassadors, the military commanders and civilian officials, in short who
would be in attendance were ready. Many German and Austrian officers were
also there, as well as the princes, son-in-law, etc. … Once the new Sultan’s
enthronement ceremony was over, the funeral prayer was performed. The
body had been brought from inside and placed on the funeral stone before the
Imperial Gate where God knows how many members of the dynasty had been
placed before. … Following the prayer, the new Sultan accompanied the
procession up to the outer gate, and from there followed it with his eyes.
There exist some pictures and a short video recording the accession ceremony of
Mehmed VI Vahideddin, which give us firsthand information about the way the
accession ceremony was conducted1123 (Figure 348). The memoirs of an Ottoman
prince, Ali Vasıb Efendi, confirmed that Vahideddin was sitting “modestly” on the
throne during the ceremony but spoke to the grand vizier Talat Pasha and the
minister of war (Harbiye Nazırı) Ever Pasha several times during the ceremony,
which–according to Ali Vasıb Efendi–proved his close relations with the CUP.1124
The new sultan came to power under extremely hard conditions during the
most devastating days of the Great War. A couple months following his accession,
the Ottomans lost battles on all fronts and had to settle for an armistice with the
British. The treaty of Mondros, signed in October 1918 declared the unconditional
surrender of the empire and its occupation by the Allies of World War I. The CUP
1121 Ali Vâsıb and Osmanoğlu, Bir Şehzadenin hâtırâtı, 109.
1122 Eldem, Death in Istanbul, 104.
1123 The video of Vahideddin’s accession ceremony in the Topkapı Palace, reached 25.7.2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MVDrMc7vvY
1124 Ali Vâsıb and Osmanoğlu, Bir Şehzadenin hâtırâtı, 108.; Uşaklıgil, Saray ve Ötesi, 223–24.
552
was dismissed and its leaders fled to Germany. The path to the collapse of the empire
had then commenced.1125
Figure 348. Accession of Sultan Vahideddin, 1918 (Cengiz Kahraman Archive)
6.2 The occupation of Istanbul
On November 13, 1918 Istanbul was occupied by the British, French, and Italian
forces, which took control of the Bosphorus, all governmental institutions, postal
services, railroads, decks, harbors, barracks, military facilities, etc. Apart from this
military occupation and political control of the Ottoman state, the occupation forces
also showed their presence at highly symbolic places in the city, including the royal
palaces. Even though Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin and his new government
followed pro-British policies, this did not stop the occupational forces from
expressing their military presence and political dominance in full force. A French
battleship was anchored right across from the Dolmabahçe Palace and General
Franchet d'Esperey stated that he would reside in this palace, where Sultan
1125 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2005, 327; Zürcher and
Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 201–2.
553
Vahideddin was actually living.1126 A series of pictures taken by the Photographic
and Cinematic Services of the French Army (Le Service Photographique et
Cinématographique de l'Armée Française) during May and June 1919, show the
situation in Istanbul during the years of occupation. One of the photographs depicts
Italian troops training in the gardens of the Dolmabahçe Palace across from the
police station1127 (Figure 349).
Figure 349. Italian Mariners training in the garden of the Sultan's palace in
30.5.1909 / Occupation forces in front of the burned Çırağan Palace (Istanbul 1919:
Images d'Occupation)
The Topkapı Palace and its outer gardens were also taken under the control of the
Occupation forces. The political significance of the imperial complex had already
been lessened in recent decades, since the Topkapı Palace was already positioned as
a museum quarter. Thus, the imperial complex was not officially occupied by the
Allies or kept open for visits from the officers of the occupation forces or their
families. The aforementioned French army photograph album proves that visits to the
Topkapı Palace continued in line with the previous periods, with the same kind of
hosting rituals, such as serving coffee on the terrace of the Mecidiye Kiosk.
1126 Vardar, Eğribel, and Özcan, İstanbul’un İşgali 1918-1923, 92–93.
1127 İşgal İstanbul’undan fotoğraflar.
554
Apart from functioning as a museum site, the gardens and apartments of the
palace were used as a film set. For instance, in 1918 a historical film depicting the
Alemdar Mustafa Pasha incident was shot in the Topkapı Palace and the Ottoman
historical band was also used during this movie. This first historical movie, which
was based on Cemal Esat Arseven and Salah Cimcoz's novel of the same name, was
produced by Sedat Süleyman Simavi.1128 In 1919, another silent film titled
Mürebbiye (The Governess) was produced by Ahmet Fehim by the Society of Aid
for the Disabled Veterans Film Factory (Malulin-i Guzzata Muavenet Heyeti Sinema
Film Fabrikası) and some scenes took place in the Gülhane Park. This movie, based
on Hüseyin Rahmi Gürpınar's novel of the same name, is about a French woman
named Angèle, who came to Istanbul as a French teacher and became an object of
desire. It is also known as the first movie censored by the French occupation forces
with the excuse of insulting French women.1129
The same year the palace was used as a stage for a historic movie called
Binnaz. This movie, shot by Ahmet Fehim, one of the pioneering actors and directors
of the Ottoman empire, was adapted from Yusuf Ziya Ortaç's play of the same name.
The 45-minute-long movie was set in the Tulip Era and depicted a love triangle
between a celebrated concubine named Binnaz, a Janissary named Efe Ahmed, and
Hamza Bey from Danube1130 (Figure 350). The gardens, imperial gates, royal
kiosks, and apartments of the Harem were used as a stage, which were decorated
with seemingly original furniture, textiles, and accessories. It is quite likely that the
1128 Çeliktemel-Thomen, "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sinema ve Propaganda (1908-1922)".
1129 Çeliktemel-Thomen, “Mürebbiye/The Governess”, in: Directory of World Cinema: Turkey,
Eylem Atakav (ed.), Bristol: Intellect, 61-63, (2013).
1130 Tongo Overfield Shaw, "In Search of a New Past: Representation of the Tulip Period in a Late
Ottoman Film Binnaz (1919)" 26th Middle East History and Theory (MEHAT) Conference ,
University of Chicago, U.S., May 2011; Çeliktemel-Thomen, “Binnaz”, Directory of World Cinema:
Turkey, Eylem Atakav (ed.), Bristol: Intellect, 57-59, (2013).
555
live Janissary models and the historic Ottoman military band of the Military Museum
took part in the movie. Binnaz was also produced by the Society of Aid for the
Disabled Veterans Film Factory (Malulin-i Guzzata Muavenet Heyeti Sinema Film
Fabrikası) in order to generate income for the veterans of World War I.1131 This
silent movie is also known for its large budget, commercial success, and recognition
abroad. Some orientalist clichés were reproduced in the movie, which included a
belly-dancing scene shown for the first time on the silver screen.1132 Even though
Binnaz was produced with patriotic intent, the movie eliminated the last traces of
mystery and imperial aura that surrounded the ancient palace, since the royal
apartments and gardens of the sultans were used merely as a historic backdrop for
attracting the audience and satisfying their desire for visual authenticity. The rooms
and settings of the Topkapı Palace were used to represent the sensual pleasures,
ostentatious consumption habits, flamboyant life-style, and artistic delights of the
Tulip era (Figure 351). This was the first, but not the last, time that Topkapı Palace
was used as a scene for domestic and foreign movies.
1131 Çeliktemel-Thomen, "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sinema ve Propaganda (1908-1922)", Kurgu
Online International Journal of Communication Studies, vol.2, June 2010,
http://www.kurgu.anadolu.edu.tr; Özde Çeliktemel-Thomen, "Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives:
Inventory of Written Archival Sources for Ottoman Cinema History", Tarih, Issue 3: 17-48, Boğaziçi
University, 2013.
1132 Kayserili, "World War I and Reflection Turkish War of Independence to the Silver
Screen", Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi;
Zafer Algan, "Binnaz", Sinema Türk. http://www.sinematurk.com/film/2265-binnaz/ (reached
31.7.2017)
556
Figure 350. The movie Binnaz, 1919
Figure 351. Scenes from the movie Binnaz showing the military band and belly
dancing, 19191133
Apart from the Topkapı Palace, the Imperial Museum and the Military Museum were
kept open during the Occupation and systematic guidebooks for both museums were
published in this period. In 1920 Sermet Muhtar Alus, the son of Muhtar Pasha,
director of the museum and acknowledged author, prepared a three-volume
guidebook, which introduced the history of the Military Museum and its collections.
The guidebook was published both in Ottoman Turkish and in French (Figure 352).
The French guidebook was titled: Musée Militaire Ottoman Situé à Ste. Irene, Place
1133 I am grateful to Gizem Tongo Overfield Shaw for sharing this video with me.
557
de Top-Kapou-Serail, Guide, 1920. The Ottoman version was titled Topkapı Sarayı
Hümayunu Meydanında Kain Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani Züvvarına Mahsus Rehber,
1920 - 1336. The guidebook starts with a preface by the author, who was the history
secretary of the Military Museum and continues with the history of the Military
Museum’s foundation. The publication also provides a detailed description of the
entire military collection, including explanatory pictures, illustrations, and also plans
of St. Irene. The Ancient Costumes collection was also classified and numbered with
the title and the duty of each soldier explained.1134
Figure 352. Guidebooks for the Military Museum published in French and in
Ottoman
A year later, in r.1338 (1921), a guidebook was published for the Imperial Museum
as well. The Imperial Museum Guide written in Ottoman Turkish gives a detailed
depiction of the artifacts displayed in each hall of the Museum. The publication
1134 Alus, Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu Meydanında Kain Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani Züvvarına Mahsus
Rehber 1. 1; Alus, Musee Militaire Ottoman, Situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-Serail.
558
states that only selected visitors who were qualified enough to appreciate the
historical and aesthetic significance of the collection were allowed to visit the
Imperial Museum. The antiquities displayed outside of the building, on its façade,
and in the gardens of the Imperial Museum were also described, however no
information was given regarding the Tiled Pavilion. A lexicon for the foreign and
technical vocabulary was also attached to the guidebook. The first page titled
"warning" (ihtar-ı mahsus) declares that the visitors should leave their walking
sticks, umbrellas, bags and cameras at the door before entering the museum. It was
forbidden to smoke in the museum and to touch or to write on the artifacts, and
whoever wanted to make a drawing or copy of the objects displayed should contact
the museum administration. It is also mentioned that museum catalogues and
photographs could be purchased at the museum entrance.1135 It could be said that the
Ottoman Imperial Museum imposed the "civilized rituals" of behavior codes to its
visitors and acted as a modernizing agent 1136 (Figure 353). A picture from 1920
shows the Ottoman police in civilian clothing in front of the Imperial Museum,
indicating that the museum was being visited by Ottoman officers. The caption on
the photograph states the identity of the group as: "1920 Detectives of Istanbul in the
Topkapı Palace" (338 İstanbul taharri memurları Topkapı Sarayı'nda) (Figure 354).
1135 Müze-i Hümayun: Rehnümâ, Istanbul, (1337 / 1921)
"İhtar-i Mahsus
Müze-i Hümayun'un eyyam ve sa'at-i küşadı kapıya mu’allak levhada muharrerdir. Müzelerde mahfuz
asar-ı atikayı temaşa idecek zevat, salonlara kabûlü’d-duhûl ellerindeki baston veya şemsiyeyi, ve
şayed çanta ve fotoğraf aleti gibi şeyler taşımakda iseler onları kapıcıya bırakmağa mecburdurlar.
Müze devairinde tütün içmek, asar-ı atikadan herhangi birine dokunmak veya üzerlerini yazılarla
telvis etmek memnu'dur. Asar-ı atikanın kurşun kalemle veya vesait-i saire ile resimlerini almak
veyahud yazılarını istinsah etmek arzusunda bulunanlar, müze müdüriyetine müraca'at ve istihsal-i
mezuniyet etmeğe mecburdurlar. Asar-ı atikanın kataloglarıyla fotoğrafları müzenin medhalinde
satılmaktadır."
1136 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals : Inside Public Art Museums.
559
Figure 353. The guidebook for the Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümayun: Rehnümâ,
1338)
Figure 354. Detectives of Istanbul in front of the Imperial Museum (1338/1920,
Cengiz Kahraman Collection)
Apparently, the museum function of the palace grounds was confirmed and both the
inner courts of the Topkapı Palace, the Military Museum, and the Imperial Museum
were kept open for visits during the occupation of Istanbul (Figure 355). However,
the outer gardens of the Topkapı Palace, especially the military facilities, depots and
560
transportation hubs including the Sirkeci station and the harbor, were of critical
importance for the occupation forces and immediately taken under military control.
Figure 355. Constantinople, M. Defrance, Haut Commissaire de France et le Général
Barthélémy sur le terasse de Vieux Sérail, Juin 1919 (Istanbul 1919: Images
d'Occupation)
The military facilities, ammunition depots, barracks, and drill fields were occupied
by French forces. The Demirkapı barracks were also employed by the French forces
and renamed "Commandement de l'Orient Corps d'Armée Caserne Gouraud / Doğu
Kolordu Komutanlığı Gouraud Kışlası”. A coal depot was initiated close-by and
grounds for the cavalry horses were also assigned.1137 According to a letter sent on
April 4, 1921 from the "Corps d'Occupation de Constantinople" to the Ottoman
liaison officer colonel Nadji (Naci) Bey, a manège was to be established within the
Gülhane Park for the exercise of the horses of the occupation forces: "Le Général
Commandant le C.O.C. voulant faciliter aux officiers de Stamboul l'exercice du
cheval, a pensé transformer en piste cavaliére certaines allées du jardins de la
1137 Düzalan, “Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi,” 19.
561
Pointe du Sérail." (Figure 356) Lieutenant Colonel Karcher also added that the
envisaged project would contribute to the elegance of the park of the palace and
attached a plan for the proposed transformation to the document1138 (Figure 357).
The response of the Ottomans again reflected the priorities of various institutions and
the heterogeneity of the Ottoman bureaucratic system. In the first place, the Ministry
of War accepted the proposal put forward by the French forces1139, however the
municipality apologetically rejected the project stating that the park was designated
for the people of Istanbul to have some fresh air, plus it was forbidden to drive
automobiles and to ride horses or bicycles within the city except for on the main
arteries. Thus the proposed manège would ruin both the beauty of the park and the
health of the citizens.1140 Eventually, the Ministry of the Interior sent a firm rejection
letter to the French Occupation forces stating that approval of the project was beyond
discussion (bu proje gayr-ı kabil-i tecviz olduğu izahtan müstağnidir) and the Veli
Efendi manège was suitable for horse training.1141
1138 BOA DH.UMVM.97.42_01 (4.4.1921)
1139 BOA DH.UMVM.97.42_04 (30 B 1339 / 9.4.1921)
"Gülhane parkında mevcud bir muhit yolun at yoluna tahvili muvaffakat olunması hakkında iltiması
havi Fransız karargahı riyaset-i saniyesinden konaklar müfettişliğine gönderilip tevdi olunan tezkire
ile merbut bulunan kroki leffen takdim kılınmış ve bu hususa muvaffakat park için dahi bir hatfe-i
terakki olunacağı cümle-i işardan bulunmuş olmasına nazaran icabının ifa ve emr-i inba buyrulması
menut-ı müsade-i celile-i daverileridir."
1140 BOA DH.UMVM.97.42_06 (18 Ş 1339 / 27.4.1921)
"Letterhead: Şehremaneti
Dahiliye Nezaretine
Cevabiyedir: Padişahın ahalisinin teneffüs ve istirahatine tahsisi ferman buyurulan Gülhane parkının
hin-i küşadında bu maksadın temini için tanzim edilmiş nizamnameye "umumi caddelerden gayrı
diğer yollarda araba otomobil ve hayvan ve bisiklet ile dolaşmak memnu olduğuna" dair bir madde
derc edilmiş ve elyevm hayvanlarla çayırlardan mürurun men’i pek güçlükle temin edilmekte olup
ber-vech-i talep Düvel-i İtilafiye süvari zabitanının manej yapmaları zımnında yollarda tadilat icrası
halinde ise parkın tahdiri tabi olduktan başka hayvanların caddelerden mürur ve uburu dolayısıyla
hasıl olacak tozlardan halkın sıhhati muhattal? ve istirahati münselib olacağı şübhesiz bulunmuş
olduğundan parkın idame-i mamureti ve halkın muhafaza-ı sıhhati için taleb-i vakıanın tervici minküll-
i vücuh muvafık olmayacağının arz ve iblağına içtisar..."
1141 DH.UMVM.97.42_14 (19 Mayıs 1337 / 19.5.1921)
"Gülhane Parkı İstanbul ahalisinin saglık sıhhatı için padişah tarfından tahsis edilmiştir. . . . Bu proje
gayr-i kabil-i tecviz olduğu izahtan müstağnidir. . . . Fransız zabitanının manej yapmaları için Veli
Efendi Koşu yeri de gayet müsait bir mahal olup at ile manej edecek olan zabitanın mahal-i mezkurda
manej yapmaları kabil bulunduğundan o surette temin-i maksad edilerek Gülhane Parkından tadilat
562
On the same day, May 19, a second letter carrying an explicitly arrogant tone
was sent to the Ottoman authorities. The document insisted on the conversion of the
Gülhane Park into a horse training area and also stated that the first letter was written
to the Ottoman authorities as a matter of courtesy to inform them about the ongoing
developments and added that uniquely a positive response was being accepted.1142
Ottoman archival sources do not provide information regarding the conclusion of the
crisis, yet as understood from the memoirs of Cemil Topuzlu, the French forces kept
their horses in the Gülhane park,ruining the landscaping of the gardens, and did not
leave the area until the Turkish resistance forces took control of the city.1143
Figure 356. Letters regarding the transformation of the Gülhane Park into a manège
(DH.UMVM.97.42_01 (4.4.1921) / DH.UMVM.97.42_15 (19.5.1921))
icrasından sarf-ı nazar olunması zımnında Fransız irtibat zabitliği nezdinde teşebbüsat-ı lazıme ifa ve
neticesinin su-yı aciziyede malumat itasına müsade buyrulması...
Dahiliye Nazırı Vekili namına müsteşar"
1142 BOA DH.UMVM.97.42_15 (19.5.1921)
1143 Topuzlu, Hâtemi, and Kazancıgil, İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet Devirlerinde 80 Yıllık
Hatıralarım, 219–20.
563
Figure 357. The plan for the transformation of Gülhane Park into a manège
(DH.UMVM.97.42_03)
The French forces conducted archeological excavations at various parts of the empire
including Adana, Gallipoli, Bakırköy, and the gardens of the Topkapı Palace.
Excavations took place especially within the area located at the east side of the
Topkapı Palace along the Sea of Marmara during the occupation. The palace
grounds, including the area between Demirkapı and Ahırkapı, known as the
Manganes quartier, were excavated in three phases: 1) June - August 24, 1921; 2)
February 1 - December 8, 1922; 3) December 8, 1922 - September 25, 1923.
Apparently, the archeological excavations continued until the end of the occupation
and R. Demangel was sent from France to investigate the findings mostly of
Byzantine origin. Ernest Mamboury from Galatasaray high school also joined the
archeological team to make archeological drawings. During the French excavations
564
the palace of Mangana and its convent, the arsenal of Mangana and its walls were
discovered.1144 The monastery of Hagia Maria Hodigitria, its environs and its
baptistery, the church and holy springs of St. Sauveur, and the monastery and church
of St. Georges were also discovered and the location of Khristos Soteros tou
Philantropou church was also defined in the Manganes quartier.1145 The excavations
were left unfinished due to the changing political situation1146 and the French
occupation forces covered the findings before they left the city. The archeological
research continued after the declaration of the Republic and the findings were
published in 1939 by R. Demangel and E. Mamboury1147 (Figure 358).
Figure 358. The map of the Byzantine remains discovered by the French forces in
the East gardens of the Topkapı Palace (Demangel and Mamboury, Pl.I)
The excavations during the occupation of Istanbul created unrest within Ottoman
circles, especially for the director of the Imperial Museum Halil Bey. Under the
difficult conditions of the occupation, the Imperial Museum could not enforce full
1144 Demangel and Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople.
1145 Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, 78.
1146 Tezcan, 26.
1147 Demangel and Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople.
565
control over the archeological excavations held by the occupation forces but the
museum administration stayed in close contact with the French forces and sometimes
collaborated with them to remain aware of the ongoing archeological research.1148 In
1921, during the first phase of the excavations, the Sublime Porte declared their
concern about the ongoing work and asked the French to terminate the excavations
and to submit their findings to the Imperial Museum.1149 A series of correspondences
took place between the Imperial Museum and the French occupation forces between
1919 and 1923 regarding the archeological activities held within the empire.1150 On
January 26, 1922 a letter was sent to the director of the Imperial Museum Halil Bey,
asking his consent for the archeological work held at Gülhane gardens and
Makriköy. Halil Bey's response was positive but demanded that Macridy Bey and
Aziz Bey from the Imperial Museum attend the excavations in the name of the
Ottoman government. According to the agreement, the library of the Imperial
Museum would be at the disposal of the archeological team as well.1151
Against the demand of the Ottoman authorities the findings were kept in a
small museum established in Gülhane under the control of the French forces1152
(Figure 359). The second phase came to end by the end of 1922 due to political
tensions and on December 12, 1922, French General Charles Antoine Charpy wrote a
letter to Halil Bey, stating that occupation forces not only contribute to the
beautification of the city but also "used the means which it had at its disposal for
excavations, for the supplementation of the patrimony of art, which constitutes the
1148 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed, 213.
1149 Demangel and Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople, 2.
1150 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed, 212–16.
1151 Demangel and Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople, 3–
4.
1152 Demangel and Mamboury, 5.
566
fame of your capital".1153 The third phase continued until September 1923 and only
by the end of the occupation period as the balance of power turned in favor of the
Turkish resistance forces, could the Imperial Museum enforce legal sanctions
regarding the archeological excavations and eventually the French forces agreed to
submit their findings to the Imperial Museum.1154 A drafted letter sent to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs informed its readers that the director of the Imperial Museum
Halil Bey realized that the French forces were conducting excavations in the gardens
of the Topkapı Palace since last year and with the demand of Halil Bey, French
colonel agreed to keep a representative from the Imperial Museum to accompany the
archeological work and to submit all the findings to the museum. According to the
document, some findings and ancient coins found at the Bakırköy excavations were
already given to the Imperial Museum with the efforts of Halil Bey and archeological
excavations continued until the French forces evacuated the city in October 1923.1155
The occupation of Istanbul fostered the national feelings of the Ottomans and
intensified the National Resistance Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and his friends.
The Topkapı Palace in this context was positioned as a major museum site and an
archeological park. The palace was accepted as a significant representative of
Ottoman—and later Turkish— architectural and artistic patrimony and believed to
lose the dynastic significance it represented. However, as I will try to explain in the
1153 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed, 216.
1154 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 332.
1155 BOA HR.İM.235.80 (22.1.1339 / 22.3.1923)
“Topkapı Sarayı dâhilinde Fransızların hafriyat icra ettiklerine dair mebus arkadaşlardan birinin
bendenize vaki olan ihbarı üzerine vilayetçe tahkikat icra ettirmiş idim. Netice-i tahkikatta hafriyatın
vaki olduğu taayyün eden mülahaza icra ettiğim tahkikatta hafriyata bir seneden beri başlanmış
olduğu müze müdürü Halil Bey tarafından anlaşılarak derhal müracaat edildiği ve Fransız
kumandanı tarafından vaki olan istizan üzerine ta o vakit bir vakt-i mahsus-ı hafriyatın başında
bulunması ve çıkan bütün asar-ı atikanın bize teslim olunması şartıyla muvafakat edilmiş olduğunu
anladım. Fi'l-vaki çıkan bazı taşlar müzeye teslim olunduğu gibi Bakırköy’de Fransızlar tarafından
bulunan bazı meskukat dahi Halil Bey’in teşebbüsatı üzerine müzeye teslim edilmiştir. Hafriyat
şimdiki halde devam etmektedir. 22/ 1/ [13]39 Şifreye gitmek üzere”
567
following section, during the times of political instability and ongoing power
struggle between the Ottoman dynasty, the forces of the national resistance, and the
occupation forces, the historic importance of the Topkapı Palace as a tool for
dynastic and imperial legitimization was once again unveiled. Especially the royal
and sacred collections kept in the Imperial Treasury and the Chamber of Sacred
Relics were of critical importance during these times of intense power struggles and
wars of legitimization.
Figure 359. The small museum established in the Gülhane gardens by the French
forces (Demangel and Mamboury, 147)
6.3 The War of Independence: The power struggle between Istanbul and Ankara
After the Mondros Armistice, the national resistance movement was mobilized in
Anatolia. The occupation of Izmir and Istanbul triggered the resistance and a large
variety of heterogeneous groups gathered under the flag of patriotic Ottoman officers
and community leaders. After the arrival of Mustafa Kemal at Samsun on May
1919, the movement soon found its leader and a Representative Committee
568
organized National Congresses in Erzurum and Sivas. As the Ottoman deputies
supported the resistance movement led by Mustafa Kemal, the Istanbul parliament
abolished itself and approximately 100 of its members escaped to Ankara joining the
190 deputies selected by the resistance forces to establish the Grand National
Assembly (Büyük Millet Meclisi) in Ankara on April 23, 1920. The Assembly
selected Mustafa Kemal as its first president and the Ankara regime revolted against
the Istanbul government in the name of the nation. After the Istanbul government
accepted the harsh conditions of the Sevres Treaty in August 1920, the Ankara
regime rigorously cut its ties with Istanbul. During the period between 1920 and
1922, the country was ruled under three distinct power groups that were all
struggling against each other: The Istanbul government together with the sultanate,
the occupation forces, and the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal and
his friends.1156
During this turbulent era, the royal collections—especially the sacred relics
kept in the Topkapı Palace—became a subject of political struggle. The possession
and protection of these holy relics, which were accepted as the most sacred heritage
of the Islamic world, was a question of controversy. According to the
historiographical narrative, the possessor of these sacred relics was regarded as the
caliph of the Muslims and believed to hold political and religious authority over
them. The caliphat, as an institution was promoted as a political agent especially
during the reign of Abdülhamid II and utilized during World War I to mobilize the
Muslim world against the Allies. The security of the imperial collections became a
serious concern during and after World War I. During the war, the most precious and
significant pieces of the treasury collection were sent to Konya as a precaution
1156 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2005, 340–65; Zürcher and
Gönen, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, 221–27; Akşin, Türkiye tarihi.
569
against the threat of invasion. After World War I, during the War of Independence,
protection of the sacred relics in the Topkapı Palace and the Islamic arts collection in
the Museum of Pious Foundations, became a serious concern for the Ankara
government.
In August 2, 1922, Commander in Chief Mustafa Kemal sent a letter from
Ilgın to Rauf Bey, head of the ministers of the Ankara government, stating that the
transfer of all valuables and treasures kept at the "Grand Museum" of the Topkapı
Palace and at the Museum of Pious Foundations to Anatolia should be demanded
from the Istanbul government. He warned that one of the motivating factors for the
Greek forces to invade Istanbul was to capture this treasury of great value and added
that if this scenario would happen, the Istanbul government would bear a great
financial and emotional responsibility.1157 The next day, the Great National
Assembly drafted a declaration that repeats the concerns of Mustafa Kemal and
demanded the transfer of the sacred relics kept as the treasuries of the Topkapı
Palace to Anatolia together with the servants of these valuables. If the Istanbul
government failed to accept this proposition, in case of a possible Greek occupation,
all the responsibility would be on their shoulders.1158 The Istanbul government did
1157 BCA, 30.18.1.1.13. 13.20; Dosya No: 149-14 (51) (2.8.1338 / 2.8.1922) cited in Karaduman,
Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 219.:
“İcra Vekilleri Hey'eti Re'isi Ra'uf Bey Efendi'ye
İstanbul'daki emanat-ı mukaddesenin ve Topkapu'da Büyük Müze'de ve Evkaf Müzesi'nde zi-kıymet
bi'l-'umum asar ve eşyanın her dürlü ihtimale karşı salimen Anadolu'ya nakl edilmesi lüzumunun
İstanbul hükümetine tebliği muvafık olur. Yunanlıları İstanbul'a sa'ik esbabdan biri de bu gibi
kıymetdar haza'ine malik olmaktır. İstanbul hükümetine bu hususatın ifasıyla mezkur haza'inin Yunan
eline geçmesine sebebiyet verirse maddi, manevi pek ağır mes'uliyyet altında kalacağının 'ilavesi
lazımdır.
Baş Kumandan Mustafa Kemal"
1158 BCA, 30.18.1.1.13. 13.20; Dosya No: 149-14 (54) (3 Ağustos 1338 / 3.8.1922) cited in
Karaduman, 220.
"Yunanlıl arı İst anbul' u i şgal e t eşebbüse sa’i k ol an esbabdan bi ri -de Topkapu'da ve Hazine'de bulunan
emanat-ı mukaddesenin ve diğer müzelerdeki kıymetdar asar-ı 'atika-i nefisenin elde edilmesi
olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Alem·i İslam'a vedi'a olan bu emanat-ı mübareke ile 'Osmanlı tarihinin ve
tarih-i 'alemin en kıymetdar asar-ı mühimmesinin bu suretle düşman eline geçmesinin dünya ve
'ukbada mucib olacağı mes'uliyyet-i maddiyye ve ma'neviyye-i 'azimeyi İstanbul hey'etinin de kabul
edemiyeceğini kaviyyen zann etdiğimizden eşya-yı kıymetdarın me'murlarıyla beraber vesait-i
570
not respond to the bold and daring proposition of the Ankara government and the
sacred relics continued to be kept at the Topkapı Palace under the possession of the
sultanate a while longer.
In the meantime, the armies of the national resistance gained military
victories in the eastern and western fronts against the occupation forces under the
command of Mustafa Kemal, İsmet [İnönü], Kazım [Karabekir], Fevzi [Çakmak],
and other military leaders. The Allies proposed a peace agreement and invited both
the Istanbul and Ankara governments to Lausanne. For the victorious Ankara
government it was the right time to eliminate Istanbul, and on November 1, 1922 the
Grand National Assembly enacted a legislation separating the caliphate and sultanate
and abolishing the latter. Immediately after, Mustafa Kemal ordered the utmost
protection of the Sacred Relics and the Imperial Treasury in the Topkapı Palace as a
precaution against their being smuggled abroad by the deposed sultan or by the
British.1159 Soon after, Mehmed VI Vahideddin escaped from Istanbul and the next
day, on November 19, 1922, heir apparent Abdülmecid was chosen as the caliph of
all Muslims by the Grand National Assembly.1160
On November 24, 1922 a biat ceremony was held in the Topkapı Palace. The
ceremony, according to the traditions, started in the Chamber of Sacred Relics and
continued in front of the Gate of Felicity, yet the prayers were conducted in Turkish
instead of Arabic.1161 A commission of deputies from the Grand National Assembly
was also present in the ceremony and it was declared by the assembly that the
münasebe ile Anadolu'ya nakline teşebbüs olunması lüzümünu tavsiye-i mecburiyet-i vicdaniyesini
hiss ediyoruz. Bu teklifimizin 'adem-i kabulu halinde ve ma'azallah böyle bir hal vuku'unda tahaddüs
edecek mes'uliyyetin tamamen İstanbul hey'etine 'a'id olacağının tebliği ile alınacak cevabın iş'arı
zımnında...
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi"
1159 Karaduman, 62.
1160 Küçük, "Abdülmecid Efendi" TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, cilt 1, s.263-64.
1161 Ibid.
571
official attire of the caliph during the ceremony would be a frock coat, rather than a
military uniform1162 (Figure 360). This unusual ceremony was also filmed and
preserved at the Albert Kahn Archives in Paris.1163 According to this very short film,
the last caliph appeared behind the gate with his quite crowded entourage and took
his position by the golden ceremonial throne (Figure 361). This last biat ceremony
held at the Topkapı Palace, although it was conducted under extreme political and
military conditions, mimicked the traditional rituals of accession and the last caliph
Abdülmecid referred to dynastic traditions to claim his legitimacy and authority in
the making of the new power structure within the region.
Figure 360. The allegiance ceremony of Caliph Abdulmecid, 1922 (Cengiz
Kahraman Archive)
1162 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 469.
İ"nti habı nı n ert esi günü halif eni n resmi kı yaf eti redi ngot ol acağı Ankara’dan bil di rilmi şti r. . . Büyük
Millet Meclisinin gönderdiği bir hey’et de hazır olduğu halde Topkapu sarayındaki Hırka-i-Şerif
dâiresinde yeni halifeye biat edilmiş ve Fatih camiinde de hutbe okunmuştur. Bu münasebetle halife
Abdülmecid-ibni-Abdül’Aziz İslâm âlemine hitaben bir beyannâme neşretmiş ve kendisini intihâb eden
Meclis’e de teşekkürlerini bildirmiştir.”
1163 "Aspects de la ville et arrivée du Calife au Selamlik", No. AI90579, Albert Kahn Archives de la
Planète, Mission Frédéric Gadmer et Camille Sauvageot en Turquie, December 1922.
572
Figure 361. Ceremonial throne in front of Bab-üs Saade on the day of Caliph
Abdülmecid's biat ceremony (Frédéric Gadmer, Albert Kahn Archives de la Planète,
A36610, 24.11.1922)
The abolishment of the sultanate but preservation of the post of caliphate was a
political maneuver by Mustafa Kemal to repulse the criticisms directed towards the
Ankara regime and to convince the supporters of the sultanate. The Ankara
government hoped for the cooperation of Abdülmecid Efendi to legitimize their
political authority. However, the struggle for power between the two parties was
unveiled after a while. The transfer of the treasures and antiquities from the Topkapı
Palace to Anatolia epitomized this tension. After taking full control of the political
scene, on January 4, 1923 the Grand National Assembly ordered the transfer of
valuable items kept at the [Imperial] Museum, Imperial Treasury, and at the
Chamber of Sacred Relics to Anatolia.1164 Following this order 103 chests of
valuables from the Chamber of Sacred Relics, the Imperial Treasury, and from
Museum of Pious Foundations were shipped from Istanbul to Izmit and from there
were sent to Ankara by train. Later a second party of 60 chests, and a third party of
1164 BCA, 30.18.1.1.13.13.20; Dosya No: 149-14(17), (4.1.1339 / 4.1.1923) cited in Karaduman,
Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 223.
573
209 chests were also transferred and placed at Cenabi Ahmet Pasha Mosque in
Ankara.1165 The transfer of the archeology museum collection was rejected by the
museum director Halil Bey, who rightfully claimed that their relocation would
damage the collection and it was especially not possible to move the sarcophagi from
the Imperial Museum. Thus the relocation of the archeological collection and the
libraries was postponed for the time being.1166
Caliph Abdülmecid approved the transfer of the royal collections from the
Topkapı Palace to Ankara but requested that some significant pieces, including the
Holy Mantle of the Prophet (Hırka-i Saadet) and the Holy Flag (Sancak-ı Şerif), be
left under his possession.1167 He claimed the possession of the relics, which had the
utmost political significance, for his legitimacy. Even though, the last caliph
criticized Vahideddin and supported the national resistance during the War of
Independence, some of his symbolic acts (Figure 362) and difficulty cooperating
with the new regime created unrest among the Ankara government, especially after
the foundation of the Turkish Republic. His attitude proved that Abdülmecid Efendi
would not meet the expectations of the Ankara government in keeping the caliphate a
symbolic institution, but would claim political and dynastic rights among his power.
This duality in the head of the state was believed to strengthen the hands of the
conservative opponents supporting the sultanate and the caliphate.1168 Eventually, on
March 3, 1924, the caliphate was abolished; the caliph and the members of the
Ottoman dynasty were expelled from the country.1169 The claim of Abdülmecid to
1165 Karaduman, 67–70; Öz, Hayatım.
1166 Karaduman, Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze, 69–70.
1167 BCA, 30.18.1.1.13.13.20; Dosya No: 149-14 (19) (7.1.1339 / 7.1.1923) cited in Karaduman, 225.
“Halife ile mülakatdan sonra bu sabah Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası Refik Bey nezd-i 'acizaneme
gelerek Halife Hazretleri'nin emanat-ı mukaddeseden Hırka-i Sa'adet ve Sancak-ı Şerif gibi birkaç
parçanın kendi yanında bırakılması arzusunu izhar eylediğini ve nezdlerinde taht-ı emniyyetde
olacağını beyan eylemişdir.”
1168 Küçük, "Abdülmecid Efendi" in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi., v.1, 263-64.
1169 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4, 470.
574
take the sacred relics with him was also rejected by the governor of Istanbul, who
stated that these relics belonged to the Turkish nation. According to the decree issued
by the parliament, the royal collections, possessions, properties, furniture, art works,
and real estate belonging to the Ottoman dynasty were inherited by the Turkish
nation.1170 With the order of Mustafa Kemal, the Directorate for National Palaces
(Milli Saraylar Müdürlüğü) was founded under the Ministry of Finances and royal
properties including the Yıldız, Dolmabahçe, Beylerbeyi Palaces and the
Aynalıkavak and Küçüksu Kiosks were appropriated under the directorate.1171
Figure 362. Caliph Abdülmecid's Friday Procession to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque on
a white horse (İstanbul Research Institute Photography Collection, 1922-24)1172
1170 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 145.
"341 sayılı kanun 9. maddesinde ''Mülga padişahlık sarayları, kasırları ve emakin-i sairesi
dahilindeki mefruşat, takımlar, tablolar asar-ı nefise ve sair bilimum emval-i menkule millete intikal
etmiştir."
1171 Gerçek, 382.
1172 Cited in Pitarakis, Hippodrom/Atmeydanı, N.96.
575
6.4 Topkapı Palace as a "national" museum
According to a decree issued on April 3, 1924, the Topkapı Palace was established as
a museum and was placed under the Directorate of the Museum of Antiquities (Asarı
Atika Müzesi Müdiriyeti). This decree, signed by Mustafa Kemal and by the council
of ministers, marked a major turning point in the history of the Topkapı Palace:1173
(Appendix A.13)
The Topkapı Palace has witnessed numerous historical moments and carries a
great significance for our national history and for our history of architecture
and the preservation of the palace with all its valuable decorations, fixtures,
and appurtenances is essential, as it would naturally be a major touristic site
for the visitors of Istanbul. To maintain the arrangement of its apartments for
visits and to secure its preservation, in accordance with the Law of
Antiquities, it should be placed under the Directorate of Istanbul Museum of
Antiquities. According to the memorandums of the Ministry of Education
dated March 15, 320 and of the Directorate of Culture numbered 4260/153,
and after the investigation of the proposal of the Board of Ministers date
3/4/320, to execute the transfer and admission of the aforementioned
building, its state of belonging to the Museum was declared to the Ministry of
Interiors and to the Ministry of Finances.
President of the Republic of Turkey
Gazi Mustafa Kemal
The official museumification of the Topkapı Palace, declared only five months after
the foundation of the Republic and only one month after the abolishment of the
caliphate, was surely a political act, suggesting not only the nationalization of the
imperial properties and collections, but relegating its imperial legacy into the distant
past as well. In fact, the palace had already been converted unofficially into a
touristic site during the reign of Abdülhamid II and reconfigured as a museum during
the Second Constitutional period. Additionally, the most significant items of the
Imperial Treasury and Sacred Relics had already been transferred to Anatolia, yet
with the aforementioned declaration, the Topkapı Palace lost the last traces of its
imperial identity and prestige.
1173 BCA, 30-18-1-1_9-20-17 (3.4.1924). See, Appendix A.13.
576
On the other hand, the internal functioning of the palace did not abruptly
change, and an apparent institutional continuity took place between the Ottoman and
post-Ottoman eras. The Chamberlainship of the Imperial Treasury (Hazine-i
Hümayun Kethüdalığı), an invented office taking over the Enderun system after the
palatial reforms of Mahmud II, had already become more effective in the running of
the palace throughout the 19th century, and the Chief Treasurer (Hazine-i Hümayun
Kethüdası) became responsible for the inner mechanisms of the palace. With the
increasing touristic significance of the palace, parallel to its diminishing political
weight, especially by the second half of the nineteeth century, the Chief Treasurer, in
practice, acted almost as a museum director. After 1924, the Chief Treasurer, Refik
Bey, was appointed as the Director of the Treasury and he later received the title of
the Director of the Topkapı Palace Museum.1174 According to the memoirs of Tahsin
Öz, other palace servants kept their positions and titles as well. These servants,
whose number exceeded a hundred, were mostly raised in the palace and included
mutes, eunuchs, Chinese, and many others.1175 Öz also mentioned that even though
the palace was renamed as a museum, it was run and managed to sustain the
mentality and institutional mechanisms of the imperial era. The officers were still
living in the palace and kept their traditional palatial rituals and responsibilities.1176
In practice, the director of the Museum of Antiquities, Halil Bey, acted as the
director of both institutions and as his nephew Galip Bey was appointed to the head
of the Directorate of Culture (Hars Müdürlüğü); both maintained close relations with
Ankara. As of 1925, all six museums within Istanbul, the Archeology Museum, the
Museum of the Ancient Orient, the Tiled Pavilion, the Museum of the Pious
1174 Gerçek, Türk müzeciliği, 376.
1175 Öz, Hayatım, 9.
1176 Öz, 17. "Bu müessesenin adı Müze idi. Fakat idare şekli tamamen Saray zihniyeti ile dönüyor,
aynı anane devam ediyordu."
577
Foundations, Yedikule, and the Topkapı Palace Museum, were administratively
placed under the Istanbul Museums of Antiquities. The back cover of the guidebook
for the Topkapı Palace listed these museums and their entrance fees.1177 While
entrance fees for all other museums were 10 piasters, the Topkapı Museum cost 50
piasters, five times as much, confirming its popularity and prestige among other
institutions (Figure 363).
Figure 363. The 1925 guidebook of the Topkapı Palace (Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri,
Topkapı Sarayı, Muhtasar Rehber, 1341)
After its museumification, the Topkapı Palace went through some basic repairs and
the Council Hall, the Audience Hall, the Mustafa Pasha Kiosk, and the Baghdad
Kiosk opened for visits. In fact, these halls and kiosks were already being visited
during the Ottoman era. A while later, the apartments of the Black Eunuchs in the
1177 Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber (1341). See, Appendix A.14.
578
Harem section were opened for visits, thus the Harem section that was closed for
many centuries became a part of the touristic tour. After the return of the treasury
collection from Ankara, the apartments of the Imperial Treasury were reorganized
together with the Çini collection displayed in the Seferli apartments and opened for
visits. Mustafa Kemal personally ordered the return of the collections of the Topkapı
Palace Museum and the Museum of Pious Foundations to Istanbul, stating that their
preservation in Ankara under unhealthy conditions might damage these national
treasures.1178
The guidebook for the Topkapı Palace published in 1925 under its new
management included a map of the palace grounds (Figure 364) and marked the
buildings that were open to visit. The guidebook provides short architectural and
historical information on significant buildings in each successive courtyard. The text
was a summary of Abdurrahman Şeref Bey's detailed survey of the palace and
provided a brief introductory summary of the museumification of the palace
emphasizing that the doors of the Topkapı Palace had been closed to the Turkish
nation during the Ottoman era:1179 (Appendix A.14)
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, the Topkapı Palace was merely closed to
Turkish people. Only foreigners, facing great bureaucratic difficulty to get a
decree through their embassies, could visit the palace. A large group was
accompanied by a palace servant during their visit and could only see the
Treasury, Baghdad Kiosk, and the New [Mecidiye] Kiosk. After the
declaration of the Second Constitution, it was possible to visit the palace two
days a week with a recorded permit taken from the Sublime Porte or from the
palace. After the abolishment of the sultanate and the caliphate, the
1178 BCA, 30-18-1-1_12-62-9
"Ankara'da Cenabi Ahmet Paşa Camii'nde muhafaza edilen hazine eşyası meyanında Topkapı ve
Evkaf Müzelerine ait pek eski yazma müzehheb ve minyatürlü mushaflar ile bir takım kütüb-i nefise ve
kıymetdar kumaşlar ve buna mümasil bir çok eşya-ı nadirenin senelerden beri havasız ve kapalı bir
halde taht-ı muhafazada bulunduklarından kıymetlerine haleli tari olarak harab olmaları kuvvetle
muhtemel ve bu keran-baha eşyanın oldukları yerde çürümeye mahkum bırakılması servet-i milliye
namına gayr-i kabil-i telafi büyük bir bir ziya’ olmakla eslafın tedariki mahali birer yadigar-ı
kıymettdarı bulunan iş bu asarın hazine eşyası meyanında bit-tefrik aid oldukları müzelerde hıfz
edilmek üzere biran evvel İstanbul'a gönderilmesi hakkında bir karar ittihazı ...
Türkiye Reis-i Cumhuru Gazi M. Kemal"
1179 Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber (1341). See, Appendix A.14.
579
management of this historic monument was given to the General Directorate
of Istanbul Museums in April 3, 1924. The post of Chief Imperial Treasury
was first converted into the Directorate of the Treasury and later to the
Directorate of the Topkapı Palace Museum. Believing that the Turkish nation
should benefit from this palace, which is fundamental for Turkish art and
history, it is opened for public visits as of October 9, 1924.
Figure 364. The map of the Topkapı Palace from the guidebook of 1925 (Asar-ı
Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber, 1341)
The institutionalization of the Topkapı Palace as a museum and as a separate legal
entity was accelerated after the appointment of Tahsin Öz as the museum director in
1928. Halil Bey was a great supporter of this promotion as indicated by the
Republican archives1180 and from the memos of Tahsin Öz.1181 The Topkapı Palace
Museum remained under the direction of the Museum of Antiquities until the
retirement of Halil Bey, who was very fond of the palace and its collections.
1180 BCA, 180_09_31_168_1_222 (12 Teşrinisani 1928 / 12.11.1928)
"Hülasa: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Müdürlüğüne Tahsin Bey’in tayini hakkında
Görülmüş lüzum üzerine Topkapı Sarayı müzesi müdürü Refik Beyin tekaüde sevkiyle yerine muavin-i
acizisi Tahsin Bey’in tayini 7 Teşrinievvel 1928 tarihinde 611/12319 nolu tahrirat-ı aciziyle rica
eylemiş idim. Mir-i mümaileyhin bir an evvel tasdik-i memuriyetine muntazır bulunduğumu ve pek
mühim olan mezkur müzenin reis-karında müdürü olmaksızın devam-ı idaresinden dolayı hiç bir
mesuliyet kabul edemeyeceğimi . . . arz eylerim efendim.
İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri Müdürü Halil"
1181 Öz, Hayatım, 16.
580
However, after his retirement, with the efforts of Tahsin Öz, the palace was separated
from the Directorate of the Museum of Antiquities and placed directly under the
Ministry of Education in 1938. Raising considerable funding from the government, a
series of comprehensive restorations were implemented by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi
between 1940-44 under the direction of Tahsin Öz.1182 It could be argued that current
architectural and institutional structure of the Topkapı Palace Museum was shaped
during the early Republican era. The restorations aimed at bringing the apartments of
the palace to their "most authentic state" by eliminating the nineteenth and early
twentieth century architectural modifications and decorative additions.
6.5 Multiple narratives
On October 3, 1926, the Seraglio witnessed another historic moment, the unveiling
ceremony of the statue of Gazi Mustafa Kemal took place at the tip of the Historic
Peninsula. The erection of this significant monument, the first public statue of the
country and of Mustafa Kemal, at the Northeastern edge of the Gülhane Park was a
highly symbolic political act, which attracted great attention. Newspapers of the era
covered this significant event in the headlines with photographs1183 (Figure 365). A
video screening captured the unveiling of the monument, where people took off their
hats after seeing the heroic figure of the founding president of the young Republic. It
was, in fact, the Istanbul municipality that decided to place a monumental statue of
Mustafa Kemal close to the historic dock of the Seraglio on the point where he left
Istanbul for Samsun on May 1919.
1182 Öz, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Onarımları”; Ayverdi, Osmanlı miʻmarisinde Fatih devri, 855-886
(1451-1481); Karahasan, “Topkapı Sarayı Cumhuriyet Dönemi Restorasyonları.”
1183 Servet-i Fünun, 7 Teşrinievvel 1926, cilt 62, no. 1573-99 "Gazi Paşa hazretlerinin bu hafta
Sarayburnu'nda rekz olunan heykelleri"
581
Austrian sculptor Heinrich Krippel was appointed for the project, and he
depicted Mustafa Kemal standing in civilian attire, facing Anatolia. Hence, the statue
commemorated the inauguration of the War of Independence, which was believed to
begin with the arrival of Mustafa Kemal at Samsun according to official
historiography.1184 Apart from celebrating the victories of the great commander and
reproducing the myth of the national resistance, the location and the position of the
statue is also quite telling. The statue of Mustafa Kemal was erected at the tip of the
Seraglio, within the imperial gardens of the previous sultans and his depiction as a
modern and noble statesman who challenged the Ottoman dynastic past. While he
conquered the most prestigious location of the imperial precinct and marked his
undeniable presence at the gardens of the Topkapı Palace, he turned his back to the
"Old Palace" that represented the ancien régime and directed his gaze towards
Anatolia, where he established his new capital and the young Republic. The statue
was also a challenge to Islamic dogma, which prohibits figural representations
especially in public places. It thus promoted the modern and Westernized face of the
Turkish Republic, based on the ideology of laicism. The statue of Mustafa Kemal
acted as a landmark indicating the geographical and historical particularity of the
place and was located at the point where the historic Canon Gate and the Seaside
Palace of Topkapusu (Topkapusu Sahilsarayı) once stood, the place that named the
imperial complex. It was also an embodiment of the modernization narrative and a
glorious commemoration of the nationalization of the imperial palace.
1184 "Sarayburnu", İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, v.6, 460-461.
582
Figure 365. The statue of Mustafa Kemal at the Seraglio point (Servet-i Fünun, 7
Teşrinievvel 1926, cilt 62, no. 1573-99 "Gazi Paşa hazretlerinin bu hafta
Sarayburnu'nda rekz olunan heykelleri")
Hence, the political and the symbolic significance of the Topkapı Palace were
sustained even after the foundation of the republic. In fact, during the post-imperial
period the palace became a place of contestation and encounter. The republic had to
deal with the imperial Ottoman past and its military, dynastic, religious, and
architectural heritage. With the museumification of the Topkapı Palace, the ultimate
representation of Ottoman patrimony was nationalized; the collection of sacred relics
was secularized; the great warrior sultans were Turkified; and the legacy of the
palace was associated with the victorious distant past of a great nation.
"Founding a new Republic from the ashes of an old empire" was the leitmotif
of early Republican discourse, which rejected and condemned the late-Ottoman era
as a period of decline, corruption, and of military and financial decadence. On the
other hand, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of the Ottoman past were glorified
583
and accepted as an idealized Golden Age.1185 Thus the classical Ottoman legacy was
nationalized and Turkified and the Topkapı Palace was accepted as a unique yet
distinctive representative of this glorious past and an embodiment of the Turkish
architectural patrimony. As the memory of the recent Ottoman past was being erased
from the public scenery during the early-Republican era, the Topkapı Palace was
positioned as the reminiscent of the long-gone "golden age" but it was also
blemished as a representation of the backwardness of the pre-modern regime.
1185 Kafadar, “The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the Post-
Süleymanic Era”; Kafadar, "The Question of Ottoman Decline".
584
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
My research started with the question "What happened to the Topkapı Palace after it
was abandoned?" Even though the question was quite simple and straightforward,
the answer was rather tangled, multlayered, and complex. As my research
progressed, the question itself brought new questions, new problems, and new
interrogations:
What is abandonment? When and how was the Topkapı Palace actually
abandoned by the Ottoman rulers? Why did the nineteenth century of the palace not
provoke any scholarly or popular interest?
How was the imperial palace transformed into a museum? Who visited the
palace before and after its abandonment? Which parts were opened for visits? What
was being displayed, when and how?
What was the role of the Topkapı Palace in Ottoman modernization? How did
the "ancient palace" function as an agent of modernity?
To answer these questions, the dissertation was built around a number of
themes that could facilitate our understanding of the transformations of the Topkapı
Palace during the long nineteenth century: Tourism and museumification, rituals and
ceremonials, memory and identity. These concepts reflected and defined the gradual
modification of the imperial palace into a museum. Hence, in the beginning of this
research, I was eager to understand, document, and depict the dynamics of constant
formations, transformation, and deformations of the Topkapı Palace during Ottoman
modernization. Thus, I directed my attention to the physical, institutional, and
symbolic changes that took place during the long nineteenth century, trying to prove
585
that the palace was not frozen in time, but that it constantly changed, even after it
was abandoned.
However, as I progressed in my research, I came across a certain kind of
continuity that was shaping the architectural, institutional, and ceremonial layout of
the Topkapı Palace during this era. Certain rituals, inner mechanisms, and
architectural programs of the palace, despite their constant transformation, persisted
and were embedded in its physical, ceremonial, and organizational structure. The
palace and its rooted traditions were positioned as symbols of dynastic longevity and
legitimacy and were reinvented as anchors of permanence during this traumatic
period. Ottomans selectively interpreted and utilized the past, including the royal
collections, the imperial kiosks, and the royal ceremonies of the Topkapı Palace, as a
representation of self-imagery and self-identity.
Therefore, in this research I tried to reveal the tension between continuity and
change and scrutinize the internal mechanisms of the Topkapı Palace in response to
Ottoman modernization and reforms. To better entertain the concept of continuity
and change in relation to the themes of tourism and museumification, rituals and
ceremonials, memory and identity, I have chosen to adopt a chronological structure.
In this respect, while presenting the deconstruction of the palace during the long
nineteenth century, I pondered upon the idea of persistence that was rooted in the
palace. The reflections of this dialectic of continuity and change are decisive even
until today, shaping the multiple and sometimes conflicting discourses of the
Topkapı Palace Museum.
In this respect, I categorized and organized my major sources under three
main groups following a chronological outline. In the first group, my findings, major
events, fires, earthquakes, political incidents, change of rulership, royal visits,
586
foundation and closure of new of existing institutions, major architectural
modifications, etc. were chronologically listed based on archival documents, primary
and secondary sources, newspaper and journal articles. This accumulation of
multiple sources briefly answers the question of what happened to the Topkapı
Palace during the period from 1808 to 1924.
As mentioned before, travel accounts, memoirs, and guidebooks of the time
were another major source for this research, which helped me to hear the
contemporaries' perception of the palace and to understand the nature of their visits.
Needless to say, these travel accounts and guidebooks were written by Western
travelers, and for fellow foreigners, thus hardly reflecting Ottoman concerns and
impressions. I went through some 150 travel accounts and guidebooks and
chronologically listed almost a hundred of them, in which the Topkapı Palace, its
royal gardens, or the Imperial Museum are depicted. The year of the visit, the places
being visited, and the subjective reflections of the travellers are recorded to give a
clear understanding about the nature of these visits. These travel accounts also
present the various strategies developed by Ottomans to meet the increasing and
changing demands of the Western travelers hoping for an authentic and oriental
experience.
Another set of documents from the Ottoman Archives and from the Archives
of the Topkapı Palace Museum were compiled and again chronologically listed.
These documents are composed of the petitions made for palatial visits by foreign
travelers via their embassies and the permissions granted by the Ottoman authorities.
By analyzing the nature of these hundreds of repetitive documents and scrutinizing
the minor transformations –in content and in form– that took place within years, I
tried to hear an Ottoman voice. Especially the visiting permits mirror the internal
587
mechanisms and policies of Ottomans in response to the persistent and ever
increasing demand of Western travelers and also reflected the institutional continuity
embedded in bureaucratic and palatial organizations.
To reflect the chronological structure of the dissertation based on the abovementioned
sources, the chapters are organized in chronological order, starting from
the reign of Mahmud II extending until the republican era. Within the scope of each
chapter, together with the reigns of nineteenth century rulers, one or two of the
aforementioned themes–tourism and museumification, rituals and ceremonials,
memory and identity–are elaborated and certain architectural, institutional, and
symbolic changes and continuities are emphasized and discussed.
The chapter focusing on the reigns of Mahmud II and Abdülmecid inquires
the impacts of the Ottoman reforms on the physical and institutional structure of the
Topkapı Palace, in line with the changing Ottoman visual ideologies. I argue that
rather than being abandoned, the Topkapı Palace was restructured and reconfigured
as a venue for implementing and testing numerous reforms and modernization
attempts of the reforming rulers. It was, in fact, Abdülaziz, who actually abandoned
and underestimated the imperial significance of the palace grounds that were
dilapidated due to the Seraglio fire of 1863 and the crossing of the Rumeli Railroad
through the palace gardens. During this period of late Tanzimat, a new kind of
ambiguous and disputed relationship with the past arose. In this respect, the past was
reinvented and several representations of this past were rediscovered and reused for
self-identification as a response to the increasing interaction with the West.
The complex and tense relation with the past continued during reign of
Abdülhamid II and the past was utilized to confirm the legitimacy, visibility, and
control of this authoritative ruler. Imperial and dynastic rituals and ceremonials were
588
reinvented and positioned as urban spectacles and the Topkapı Palace was positioned
as the locus of dynastic legitimization and adorned with numerous police stations
that symbolized the controlling power of the modern state. However, with the
declaration of the Second Constitution, the role of the sultanate and the imperial
palaces and collections were redefined, in line with the nationalist and militaristic
ideologies of the CUP. The Topkapı Palace and its royal collections were
reformulated and detached from their imperial and dynastic connotations. Eventually
the Topkapı Palace was positioned as a national heritage site that needs to be
preserved and finally opened for Ottoman citizens historic monument, public park
and as a museum.
In fact, the foundations of the institutional, discursive, and physical
museumification of the Topkapı Palace were laid during the course of the nineteenth
century, as a response to the constantly increasing demands of the foreign travellers.
The palace grounds were gradually opened first to diplomatic envoys, then to
distinguished visitors with a royal permit during the first half of the nineteenth
century. The double collection of arms and antiquities established at St. Irene were
shown to foreign travelers as a part of the palatial tour and the Imperial Treasury was
opened for visits during the same period. Janissary costumes, royal treasuries, and
antique arms collections were in fact the main attractions that the European visitors
were demanding to visit, as representations of an "exotic and authentic Orient".
Renaming and reconfiguration of the antiquities collection in St. Irene in
1869, underlined the distinction between the arms and antiquities collection during
this period. During the reign of Abdülhamid II, two parallel yet diverse collections
were institutionalized in the palace grounds: The Imperial Museum and the Imperial
Treasury, which communicated diverse narratives of Ottoman modernity and
589
identity. The Topkapı Palace and the Imperial Treasury were shown to foreign
visitors following a certain route and with a standardized palace tour. Certain kind of
exclusiveness and imperial aura was consciously created during this performative
display of the royal collections to meet the Orientalist expectations of Western
visitors craving for an exotic and authentic experience in the mysterious house of
Osman.
This research offers a new perspective regarding the foundation of museums
in the Ottoman empire and positions the Topkapı Palace and its royal collections as
the pioneer of museums in the Ottoman empire. Rather than the archeological
collections, which had almost no organic or historical relationship with the Topkapı
Palace and did not evoke almost any interest among Europeans, it was the Topkapı
Palace itself and its imperial collections that were sought after and visited. Plus,
genuine strategies for displaying the royal collections and presenting the authentic
Ottoman-self were formulated. Therefore, it could be argued that the museums in the
Ottoman empire was established with the display of the armory, Janissary costumes,
and the treasury at the Topkapı Palace, not with the collection of Greco-Roman
antiquities.
During the Occupation of Istanbul and the War of Independence, the future of
the royal collections and the palace grounds became an issue of struggle between
occupation forces, Ankara, and Istanbul governments. With the foundation of the
Turkish Republic and inauguration of the Topkapı Palace as a state museum in 1924,
the Topkapı Palace and the display of the royal collections became an ideological
tool symbolizing the end of the empire and the birth of the nation state and reflected
the changing socio-political dynamics of the country. The Topkapı Palace Museum
still communicated multiple narratives and contrasting discourses and I argue that
590
how we perceive the Topkapı Palace today is an outcome of the developments of the
long nineteenth century.
As explained above, this research attempts to shed light on my initial
question, "what happened to the Topkapı Palace after its abandonment?" and to
scrutinize multiple layers of transformations and continuities that shaped the
architectural, institutional, and ceremonial layout of the palace during the long
nineteenth century. A closer reading of the last century of the Topkapı Palace, gives
us a brief understanding of the social, political, ideological, technological, and
bureaucratic developments in the Ottoman empire. In this respect, I suggest that the
Topkapı Palace could be defined and analyzed as a microcosm that reflects the
internal dynamics, conflicts, and struggles of the long nineteenth century and even
today.
The transformation of the Topkapı Palace from an imperial palace into a
museum during this turbulent era is accepted as a reflection of reforms and
modernization endeavors of the Ottoman state and an indication of nationalization of
the privy lands and properties in line with the changing political context of the era.
However, the palace itself also acted as an agent of modernity and positioned as a
representation of an invented and rediscovered past. Thus, I challenge the idea that
the traditional Topkapı Palace was abandoned, desolated, and stayed intact, frozen in
time during this period. While the center of gravity of the capital shifted towards the
northern parts of the city, along the Bosphorus, the Topkapı Palace maintained its
significance and symbolic role, adopting new meanings and functions as a
ceremonial venue, museums quarter, historical monument, national heritage site, and
as a public park. The palace grounds were used as test grounds for military and
591
bureaucratic reforms and reflected the changing visual ideologies and selfrepresentation
strategies of the empire.
While the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries can be defined as the
"construction" period of the Topkapı Palace, the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries could be read as the "deconstruction" of the palace, during when the palace
rituals and institutions were reformulated. It could be stated that two major factors
triggered the two-fold deconstruction of the palace during the nineteenth century:
External demands and internal mechanisms. As explained above, as a response to the
increasing and persistent demand of the foreign travellers to visit the palace and the
royal treasuries, Ottomans developed different strategies for presenting the palace
grounds, displaying the royal collections, and for representing their own distinctive
identity and past. The palace lost its holistic imperial meaning and some specific
parts were remodeled and reconfigured for displays, responding to the Orientalist
expectations of the foreign gaze. Thus, the touristic ambitions of the Western
travellers prompted the museumification of the palace grounds.
Outer and inner organizations (birun ve enderun teşkilatı) of the palace
adapted to this functional shift as well. Traditionally, the palace functioned as the
main seat of the empire and the main residence of the Ottoman household, thus the
internal structure of the palace was organized accordingly, to serve the needs of the
royal family and to support the governmental functions such as council meetings,
audience ceremonies, and other royal rituals. Following the reforms of Mahmud II
and the Tanzimat, the Sublime Porte took over the already diminishing functions of
the state council that used to gather in the Council Hall at the second court of the
Topkapı Palace. The audience ceremonies were also held at the new palaces built on
592
the shores of the Bosphorus; hence the diplomatic role of the Topkapı Palace
gradually reduced.
In a similar manner, with the abolition of Janissaries the birun, enderun, and
bostancı (royal gardeners) organizations were restructured. Instead of the gardener
corps, police organization were initiated and institutionalized during the course of the
nineteenth century. As the residential function of the Topkapı Palace came to an end,
some outer services, like royal stables or royal artisans were transferred to new
palaces and completely left for decay; while several institutions such as the palace
kitchens, Harem services, and enderun wards remained. However, with the relocation
of the royal family, the function of the palace pages, who were in direct service of
the sultan, had to be redefined as well. In fact, it was again Mahmud II, who
restructured the enderun organization and abolished some of the traditional wards
such as the Kilerli and Seferli organizations. Some significant posts of the Privy
Chamber pages (Hasodalılar), who were in direct service of the sultan, were also
terminated and the head of the Enderun was appointed as the Chief Treasurer
(Hazine Kethüdası). Following the reforms of Mahmud II, only the Treasury Ward
and the Ward of the Privy Chamber remained; the pages of the former being in
charge of the Imperial Treasury and the latter taking care of the Sacred Relics. Thus,
after the relocation of the sultan, enderun organization was reformulated to be
responsible from the two major royal collections of the Topkapı Palace.
These two collections had crucial significance in the configuration of the
Topkapı Palace as a touristic site and as a ceremonial venue during the nineteenth
century. The Chief Treasurer was responsible from the royal collections and the
palatial visits. The archival documents reflect the position and responsibilities of the
Chief Treasurer, who was in charge of the maintenance and control of the third court
593
and granted entrance permits for the foreign visitors. During the architectural
modifications held in the enderun court during the reign of Abdülmecid, the
apartments of the Kilerli corps were terminated and converted into the apartment of
the Chief Treasurer. The Chief Treasurer acted as the museum director, responsible
from the preservation and display of the royal collections and actually appointed as
the director of the Topkapı Palace Museum after its declaration as a state museum
during the republican era. Today the apartment of the Chief Treasurer is still used as
the directorate of the Topkapı Palace Museum.
In this respect, I argue that the current physical and institutional structure of
the Topkapı Palace was laid during the course of the nineteenth century. During this
period, the holistic approach towards Sur-i Sultani came to an end and the palace
grounds were occupied, utilized, and redefined by several institutions with diverse
agendas. The crossing of the Rumeli Railroad bisected the outer imperial gardens of
the palace and the remaining area was partially converted into a public park and the
remaining areas were occupied by the military. The Archeological Museum was
established as a showcase of modernity and positioned as an autonomous island
physically and discursively detached from the Topkapı Palace. The inner courts of
the palace were museumified and opened for touristic visits as a representation of
Ottoman imperial past and oriental self. Thus the fragmented nature of the palace
grounds today is an outcome of the developments that took place during the longnineteenth
century.
In fact, not only different institutions within the palace grounds but the
Topkapı Palace Museum itself also convey multiple narratives. The palace-museum
communicates the conflicting ideas of glory and decline, connection and detachment
with the past, secularism and religiosity, tradition and modernity, continuity and
594
change simultaneously. These diverse and multi-layered discourses were embedded
in the palace during the long nineteenth century as a reflection of multiple
modernities that shaped the late Ottoman and early republican realms. Today the
Topkapı Palace Museum is still a place for encounter with multiple pasts and a venue
for conflicting ideologies.
As explained above, a wide variety of sources were scanned and thousands of
archival documents were utilized within the scope of this research, which took
almost eight years to complete. However, in no terms I can argue that this research is
complete. There is virtually infinite number of sources, archival documents, visuals,
articles, journals, movies, maps, etc. on the Topkapı Palace. On top of this, new
archives are opening and digital sources are coming into daylight systematically,
making new data available for researchers. Additionally recent findings based on the
archeological excavations, site research, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) scans in
the Topkapı Palace reveal new findings about the history, physicality, and
construction technologies of the palace. Thus, in the future, this research will be
improved and developed under the light of recent discoveries and new sources.
The newspaper scanning is one of the major shortcomings of this research.
The period I am focusing on is way too long for a detailed survey of local and
foreign newspapers. Furthermore, the number of Ottoman and foreign language
journals and newspapers increased incrementally during this period, many of them
interrupted due to the state censorship or financial crises, which makes it harder to
conduct a systematic research. Hence, there still exists a great deal of newspapers
from the period, which waits for further research and analysis.
Another major drawback of this research was the lack of or inaccessibility of
sources revealing the Ottoman perspective except for the archival documents. The
595
memoirs, travel accounts, and guidebooks of the era were mostly written by foreign
authors and for Western audience. It was particularly harder to hear the voice of the
Ottomans and especially the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish populations due to
language barriers. I am hoping that with the opening and digitalization of new
personal archives and with a more detailed newspaper scan, it will be possible to
have a better understanding of the Ottoman's perspective regarding the Topkapı
Palace.
The Harem section of the Topkapı Palace and the harem household was
intentionally excluded from this research. Due to its complex architectural and
organizational structure, secluded character, and semi-autonomous configuration
Ottoman Harem is a wide and complicated topic that deserves to be elaborated in a
separate research. Furthermore, the lack of primary and secondary sources regarding
the harem during the nineteenth century is a major drawback. This research focuses
on the transformation of the imperial palace into a museum, thus the transformation
and reconfiguration of the harem in the Topkapı Palace during the period in question
remains outside the boundaries of this dissertation.
One of the major challenges of this research is the length of the period, which
roughly covers 116 years, from 1808 to 1924. Thus each chapter faces the challenge
of being relatively superficial, especially in terms of covering the socio-political
developments of the era. In the near future, I aim to pursue a more period specific
research and conduct a deeper investigation of particular limited time frames. This
will give me the chance to position the Topkapı Palace in a better-defined sociopolitical
context and to make comparative analyses with other imperial palaces and
urban developments that were carried out during the same period. Such an in depth
596
research will help me to address the stylistic and technological developments and
significant actors and agents of the era as well.
The last but not the least, in the short run, I am hoping to pursue a
transnational comparative research to position the Topkapı Palace in a global
perspective. Such a research could address the questions: how royal palaces at
various parts of the world responded to the collapse of the monarchies; how they
were museumified approximately during the same period; and what were the
similarities and discrepancies in this dynamic process of socio-political
transformation. I believe the transformation of the Hofburg Palace in Vienna and the
Kremlin Palace in Moscow could be comparable cases to that of Topkapı during the
long nineteenth century. These three imperial palaces of the Ottoman Empire,
Habsburg Empire, and Russian Empire went through similar phases of
transformation, redefinition, reconstruction, reuse, and museumification during this
turbulent period. Such comparative research could help us to understand the
particularities, similarities, and commonalities of the Topkapı Palace in an
international context and to develop a better understanding of the period from
multiple perspectives.
597
CHAPTER 8
EPILOGUE
Today the Topkapı Palace is still a locus of struggle, conflict, and encounter with the
past. Thus, the Topkapı Palace Museum, with its liminal and ambiguous standing in
the contemporary moment, proclaimed multiple legacies while simultaneously
confirming the discursive distance of modern Turkey from the archaic and traditional
Ottoman past. In addition to the discrepancies of the museal narrative, the multiple
institutions located within the walls of the Topkapı Palace also communicated
diverse discourses and adopted various functions. By the twentieth century, the
fragmented nature of the Topkapı Palace, composed of multiple diverse institutions,
was crystalized. The Topkapı Palace Museum, the Istanbul Archeological Museums,
the Military Museum (St. Irene), the Imperial Mint, the Gülhane Park, and military
zones coexisted within the same historical complex. Each institution, despite
physical connection with one another, was discursively separated, communicating
different yet interrelated narratives of modernity, identity, and patrimony. The
historical roots of these diverse institutions were laid during the course of the
nineteenth century, as I presented in earlier chapters. In this respect, it can be stated
that the history, evolution, and transformation of the Topkapı Palace during the long
nineteenth century portray the fragmented nature of both Ottoman and Turkish
modernities. The legacy of the Topkapı Palace is still quite decisive in the
contemporary socio-political scene epitomizing the tension between the Ottoman
past and the Republican present.
Today, these institutions remain within the historic walls of the palace, and
they remain the most visited museums in Turkey. The Istanbul Archeological
598
Museums and the Topkapı Palace Museum attract thousands of visitors with
different agendas and interests each day.1186 The palace is positioned as a national
monument and as a major touristic site, not only to be visited but also to be
contemplated, marking the iconic silhouette of the city of Istanbul. Even though it is
perceived as frozen reflection of the Ottoman era, the physical, symbolic, and
discursive transformation of the palace-museum continued during the republican era,
and this transformation still continues today.
After the official museumification of the Topkapı Palace in 1924, the
archeological collections and the royal collections were finally unified under a single
roof. The Topkapı Palace Museum, together with several other museums of the city,
was placed under the Directorate Istanbul Museum of Antiquities (Istanbul Asar-ı
Atika Müzeleri), whose director was Halil Edhem. Refik Bey, the former Chief
Treasurer of the Topkapı Palace was appointed as the museum director, who was
followed by Tahsin Öz. The superficial unification of the two institutions, the
Archeological Museum and the Topkapı Palace Museum, did not last long and these
diverse museums with completely different narratives, display strategies, and
historical backgrounds were separated in 1938. Then, the Topkapı Palace Museum
was placed directly under the Ministry of Culture in Ankara.
During the directorship of Tahsin Öz (1928-1952), the Topkapı Palace went
through numerous repairs, restorations, and modifications. Following the urgent and
superficial repairs that took place during the 1920's and 1930's, a comprehensive
restoration project was implemented with a larger budget from Ankara. The
restorations undertaken by architect and restoration expert Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi
1186 According to the Minister of Culture and Tourism, as of 2015, approximately 4 million people
visited the Topkapı Palace Museum (3.252.524) and the Harem section (877.331). The Istanbul
Archeological Museums, on the other hand attracted only 411.797 visitors, being the 5th most visited
museum in Turkey. http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,43336/muze-istatistikleri.html (5.8.2017)
599
between 1940 and 1944 reshaped the significant sections of the palace, particularly
the Middle Gate, the Imperial Kitchens, the Council Hall, the Tower of Justice, the
Gate of Felicity, the Outer Treasury, the Audience Hall, and the Imperial Treasury.
The purpose of these early republican restorations was primarily to save the
collapsing buildings from further damage that occurred due to natural causes and
secondly to detect and eliminate the later additions to the complex. The aim was to
restore the buildings into their "original" forms and especially to discard the
nineteenth century additions or modifications. In a similar fashion, the restorations
conducted in the Harem by Mualla Anhegger-Eyüboğlu during the 1960's aimed to
rediscover the "authentic" state of the imperial kiosks and apartments of the Harem.
Both major restorations excluded the modifications and additions held during the
late-Ottoman era by defining them as "muhdes" (added later) and strove to eliminate
them without any systematic research or documentation.
Apart from the restorations, the royal collections and their display also
communicated the ideologies of the time. For instance, the Enderun mosque located
at the third court of the palace went through extensive repairs and was converted into
a library, in which the royal collection of books and manuscripts were collected,
preserved, and opened for scholarly researh (Figure 366). The use of the palace
mosque as a scientific research library was a powerful manifestation of the new
secular regime. However as the religious ideologies gain strength, counter proposals
for revitalizing the original function of the building began to appear.1187
1187 A specific case epitomizing such agenda was the use of the Enderun Library as a prayer hall
during the opening ceremony of the Kazasker Mustafa İzzet Efendi exhibition in the Topkapı Palace,
in December 2014. I am thankful to İrvin Cemil Schick for referring to this incident.
600
Figure 366. Remodeling the Enderun mosque as the palace library (TSMA)
The collection of Sacred Relics and its display was also of critical importance in the
museumification of the palace, creating a fertile ground for ideological debates. The
Sacred Relics collection was kept in the Topkapı Palace, away from the public gaze,
during the first couple years after its museumification and was transferred to Ankara
in 1927. Kept in Ankara away from public gaze for several decades, the Sacred
Relics were eventually sent back to the Topkapı Palace as late as 1962 and this
section finally opened for touristic visits.1188 For the first time in its history, the
Sacred Relics became accessible to foreign and domestic visitors as a part of the
museum tour.1189 The museumification of the collection could be considered a strong
political and ideological manifestation of the regime. However, its religious
significance was revealed soon after and non-stop recital of the Quran began to take
place in the Chamber of Sacred Relics. Even though it is claimed that the recital of
1188 Sakaoğlu, The Imperial Palace: Topkapı Palace, 212.
1189 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 377–78.
601
the Quran was a five-century old tradition of the Ottoman palace, this practice could
be defined as a text-book example for the "invention of tradition".1190
A similar situation took place for the Imperial Treasury collection as well.
The most valuable 86 pieces from the Imperial Treasury were transferred to Ankara
in 1928 and kept in the vaults of the Central Bank. There were several rumors about
the acquisition of some pieces by European states, yet the collection remained intact
and returned to the Topkapı Palace on August 1963.1191 The Imperıal Treasury
continues to be one of the major highlights of the Topkapı Palace Museum.
Throughout the republican era, various parts of the Topkapı Palace were
renovated, modified, and reconstructed to convert the various apartments and kiosks
of the imperial palace into a museum and to maintain the required conditions for the
display, storage, conservation, and restoration of the royal collections. These projects
still continue today and remain a point of discussion among museum professionals,
art historians, and restoration experts. The future of the Topkapı Palace Museum, its
collections, display strategies, and museal narratives has always been far from
consistent and conveys multiple, liminal, and ambiguous messages to its visitors.
Additionally, the Topkapı Palace Museum was shaped, both physically and
discursively, according to the changing political agendas of the government,
conveying various discourses ranging from nationalism to neo-Ottomanism, from
modernization to heroic patriarchy. In fact, not only the museum itself but also the
outer gardens and precincts of the palace have also faced continuous transformations.
During the early republican era, archeological excavations and historical
research took place at Hagia Sophia and the monument was closed for prayers
1190 Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition. No evidences or documents proving a
continuous recital of Quran in the Chamber of Sacred Relics during the Ottoman era could be found in
the archives so far.
1191 Gerçek, Türk müzeciligi, 377–78.
602
between 1930 and 1934, until it was reopened as a museum in 1935, on the order of
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. During the same period, with the rising interest in the pre-
Ottoman and Byzantine heritage of the city, St. Irene was also dedicated to
archeological research, and the Military Museum was moved to its current location
in Harbiye in 1930. Following various archeological excavations and restoration
works, St. Irene was assigned to the Ministry of Culture in 1978 for housing special
events and concerts. The Byzantine edifice was placed under the direction of the
Istanbul Hagia Sophia Museum and kept closed to touristic visits except for special
events or concerts until recently. St. Irene became part of the Topkapı Palace
Museum and was reopened for touristic visits in 2014 and could be visited with a
separate ticket. Thus both the institutional identity and the function of the monument
has changed several times during the republican era.
The Imperial Mints are another autonomous entity within the palace. After
remaining intact for many years, some parts of the Imperial Mints were restorated by
the History Foundation (Tarih Vakfı) and housed the Habitat II International
Conference in 1996. The attempts of the History Foundation to convert the building
complex into a city museum did not come into realization after a long yet ultimately
unsuccessful legal struggle.1192 While some parts of the mints are managed by the
Istanbul Archeological Museums, other parts are under the direction of the Topkapı
Palace Museum. Today, the Imperial Mints are under restoration and will adopt
various functions for the two institutions mentioned above.
The military zones concentrated around the area between Demirkapı and
Otlukkapı still maintain their military function, yet the military docks and depots by
the Golden Horn are now used for civilian purposes serving as the pier of the
1192 Özlü, "Kentin Çeperinde Bir Kent Müzesi", 77.
603
Sirkeci-Harem ferryboats. The southern outskirts of the palace gardens (Hassbahçe)
by the Sea of Marmara, is currently used by the military, the museum, and by the
directorate of Survey and Monuments (İstanbul Rölöve ve Anıtlar Müdürlüğü).
French Urban planner Henri Prost proposed to convert this area into an archeological
park in conjunction with the Topkapı Palace Museum and the Gülhane Gardens.
However, this proposal was never realized, and the area kept its complex and
ambiguous state until today.
In 1995, the whole area located within the palace walls (Sur-i Sultani) was
declared as a first-degree archeological site and as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
A recent proposal of the Fatih municipality to decrease the archeological
preservation code of the palace gardens from "first degree to third degree
archeological site" was interpreted as an attempt to open the palatial lands for
construction and caused great public sensation and criticism.1193
Today, the Gülhane Park, mostly stripped of its imperial past, is still one of
the most popular public parks of the Historic Peninsula. However, the park lost its
connection with the sea after the construction of the coastal highway in 1957, which
destroyed the integrity of the landscape and cut the historic connection of the palace
and the Byzantine walls with the sea. This project reflected similar discourses of
modernization with construction of the Orient Express railway, which took place
during the era of Abdülaziz. Both projects sacrificed the historic gardens of the
Topkapı Palace for the sake of modernization, transportation, and public use. Within
this new setting, the statue of Mustafa Kemal, which was completely detached from
the palace and from the Gülhane Park, is now standing in solitude encircled by
1193 Ömer Erbil, "Topkapı Sarayı'nın Hasbahçe'si 'denetimli inşaat'a açılıyor,"13.10.2017,
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/hasbahceye-imar-40608750
604
construction works, watching over the wild urban transformation of the metropolis,
which is reckoning with its Ottoman and early Republican past (Figure 367 -Figure
368).
Figure 367. The statue of Mustafa Kemal at Seraglio in 1926 (Cengiz Kahraman
collection)
Figure 368. A critical artwork showing the statue of Atatürk (Ali Taptık, Galata
Greek School, Istanbul Biennial 2017)
605
APPENDIX A
TRANSLITERATIONS
Figure A1. Documents ordering the reorganization of St. Irene as a museum (BOA
İ.MSM.17.387_01 (14 S 1262 / 11.2.1846) / BOA İ.MSM.17.387_02 (15 S 1262 /
12.2.1846)
606
İ.MSM.17.387_01 (14 S 1262 / 11.2.1846)
Hak-pay-ı aliyelerine maruz-ı bende-i kemineleridir ki;
Malum-ı aliyeleri buyrulduğu üzere bi’l-cümle Avrupa devletlerinde antika yani
tasavir-i mücesseme ve temasil-i saireden ibaret olan asar-ı antika cihat-ı malumeye
mebni pek muteber ve müstesna tutularak bunlar için bi't-teklif müze namıyla mahali
mahsus tertib ve tayin olunmuş ve el-haletü-hazihi Darphane-i Amire civarında
vaki Harbiye Anbarında zikr olunan asar-ı atikadan çend aded mevcud olup ara sıra
memalik-i mahruse-i şahanede dahi zuhur etmekte bulunmuş olduğuna binaen anbarı
mezkurun vera tarafında kain mahal Müze ittihaz olunarak icabına göre tanzim ve
tesviye ve şimdilik mevcud-ı mezkurun vazıyla bundan böyle ol makule asar-ı atika
zuhurunda celb ve mahal-i mezburde cem ve tabiyye olmasını akdemce şeref-südur
buyurulan emr ü ferman-ı hazret-i şehinşahi icab-ı aliyyesinden olmağla mucibince
mahal-i mezburun tanzim ve tesviyesiyle masarıfının icmale ithalen ifası muvafık-ı
irade-i aliyeleri buyurulur ise icra-ı iktizası babında emr ü ferman hazret-i menlehü'lemrindir.
14 Safer 1262
İ.MSM.17.387_02 (15 S 1262 / 12.2.1846)
Saniyyü'l himema, devletlu, inayetlu, atufetlu, efendim hazretleri,
Malum-ı ali buyurulduğu üzere bazı asar-ı atikanın derkar olan itibaratına mebni
iktiza-i şan-ı ali saltanat-ı seniyeden ve muhsenat-ı asriyeden olarak Harbiye
Anbarında kain mahal müze ittihaz olunup icabına göre tanzim ve tesviye ve şimdilik
mevcud bulunan bazı asar-ı atikanın vazıyla bundan böyle zuhur idenlerin dahi celb
ve cem kılınıp mahal-i mezkurda muhafaza olunması mukaddemce şerefsünuh
buyurulan emr ü ferman-ı isabet nişan-ı cenab-ı cihanbani mantuk-ı münifinden
bulunduğuna mebni mahalli mezburun olvechile tanzim ve tesviyesiyle
masarifinin icmale dhalen ibkası Tophane-i Amire Müşiri devletlu Paşa hazretleri
taraflarından batezkire inha ve istizan olunmuş ve vakıa bu misillü asar-ı atikanın
zuhur eyledikçe celb olunarak böyle bir mahale vaz ve tabiye ve bazı ecnebi
memurlarına irae ve muayene ittirilmesi muhsenattan ve evvel ve ahir tasmim
tezekkür olunan keyfiyatdan olmak hasebiyle bermucib-i tezkire
Tesviye-i iktizası yolunda görünmüş olmağla muvafık irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i
şehriyari buyrulduğu halde mahal-i mezbur müşir-i müşarünileyh hazretleri
taraflarından tesviye ve tanzim olunmak üzere muamelat-ı lazımesinin icrası Maliye
Nezaret-i celilesine havale olunacağı beyanıyla tezkire-i senaveri terkim kılındı
efendim.
15 Safer [12]62
607
Maruz-ı çakeri musadakat güsterleridir ki,
Reside-i dest-i tefhim olan işbu tezkire-i samiye-i sadaret penahileriyle zikr olunan
tezkire manzur-ı ali-i hazret-i padişahi buyrulmuştur. İşar ve istizan olunduğu vecihle
mahal-i mezkur müşiri müşarünileyh hazretleri taraflarından tesviye ve tanzim
olunmak üzere muamelat-ı lazımesinin icrası nezaret-i müşarünileyha canibine
havale olunması şeref feza-yı sünuh-ı sudur buyrulan irade-i seniyye-i cenab-ı
şehriyari iktiza-ı celilinden bulunmuş ve tezkire-i mezkure yine savb-ı savabnümayı
asafanelerine iade ve tesyar kılınmış olmağla olbabda emr ü ferman hazret-i veliyyü'l
emrindir.
18 Safer [12]62 (15.2.1846)
608
Figure A2. Renovation registers for the works at the third and fourth courts of the
Topkapı Palace (BOA TS.MA.d.4613, 21 Ca 1272 / 12.8.1856)
609
1272 senesinin Cemaziyelevvelinin 21. günü tarihiyle daire-i hümayun dahilinde
vaki Hazine-i Hümayun-ı Şahanenin birinci hanesi tamiriyle camlı dolapların
masarıfa[fa]ratı ve Hırka-i Şerif civar-ı aliyyesinde bazı mahal-i âlîlerin tamiri ve
Hırka-i Saadet hademelerinin müceddeden yapılmış olan koğuş masarıfatıyla
ittisalinde vaki’ camii şerifin tamir ve termimi ve yollarının tesviyesi ve demir
tulumba masraflarıyla sair iktiza eden masarıfatın kaffesi taşçı Aron Kalfa yediyle
olarak 34 yük 92.326 kuruş eylemiş olduğu tanzim ve terkim olunmuş olan
defterlerden tebeyyün imiş olduğu vechile beher haftanın ayrıca masarıfat-ı icmalleri
gösterilerek dahil defter olan eşyalara nazaran ashab-ı matlub yalnız Aron Kalfa
olup ve masarıfatlara mahsub olarak mütesellimat dahi bütün bütün Gorki Kalfanın
üzerine mahsub olunarak baki kalan alacağı dahi selef-i çakeri Mehmed Beyin şerh
ile işaret eylediği teslimat Defterinden anlaşılmış olduğu vechile kalfa-i merkumun 7
yük 26.990 kuruş matlubu bulunmuş ise de kalfa-i merkum meflucen esir-firaş olup
ifade-i hale kudreti olmadığı cihetle tahcizi dahi mümkün olmadığından mecluliyet?
üzere icmalen tebeyyün eden kalfanın matlubu: 726.990
1272 senesi Zilhicce’nin 10. günü tarihiyle Çadır Kasr-ı Hümayunu Şahane ve Sofa
Camii Şerifi ve Sofalı Ocağının hedmiyle sabıkda Kilerli Koğuş tabir olunan mahal
yapılmış olan Ağa Dairesinin masarıfatları olarak yedi mahda sarf olunan eşya-ı
malzeme ve amele yevmiyelerinin masarıfatları kaffesi Arakil Kalfa yediyle olduğu
silk-i tasdir kılınmış olan defterden anlaşıldığı vechile yalnız ashab-ı matlub Arakil
Kalfa olup ve masarıfatlara mahsub teslimat dahi bütün bütün kalfa-i merkumun
üzerine yazılacağı defterce olan usulden ma’lum olmuş ise de istediği hesaba
mahsuben cebe-i vahide? olduğu tebeyyün etmiş olmağla kalfanın işbu yeni
sahiplerinden dolayı Mehmed Bey'den 17 yük 77.171 kuruş matlubu olmağla
icmalen işbu mahalle terkim kılındı
Mehmed Bey'in temhiriyle yedinde bulunan temessüke nazaran hızarcıbaşı Ağanın
...? mümaileyhe verdiği 2 yük 70 bin kuruş matlub eylemiş olmağla icmalen kayd
olundu.
270,000
Ebniye-i aliyelere sarf olunan demir şike ve sair için Zeytinburnunda vaki demir
fabrikasından gelen bir kıta defter mucibince verilecek akçenin miktarı
260,200.
Aron kalfanın matlubu
Arakil Kalfanın matlubu
Hızarcıbaşı Ağanın matlubu
Demir bahaları
3,007,261
Ebniye-i aliyelerin masarıfatından baki kalıp mir-i mümaileyhin ashab-ı matluba
vereceği meblağdır.
610
Hesap
Hırka-i Şerif civar-ı aliyesinde tesis ve tamir olunan mahallerin ve Hazine-i
Hümayun-ı Şahanenin masarıfatları olarak Aron Kalfa yediyle sarf olunan,
muahırran hedm olunan ile müceddeden yapılmış olan Ağa Dairesinin masarıfatı
olarak Arakil Kalfa yediyle sarf olunan işbu iki takım yapılmış olan ebniyelere sarf
olunan demir şebeke saire için bir kıta defter mücibince verilecek demir bahaları.
Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahaneden Hazine-i Hümayuna gelen nakit akçeden ifraz ederek
ashab-ı matluba tevzi eylediği Kurşunlu Handa Andon nam pazargan Hazine-i
Hassadan gelen 23 yük 60,286 kuruşluk sergiyi verip ale'l-hesap olduğu ve tevzi
eylediği.
Tertibat-ı şahaneden olarak ve yeni hesaba mahsub Hazine-i Hassa-i Şahaneden
ashab-ı matluba tevzi edildiği yukarıda zikr olunan Andon nam bazarganda sergiden
baki kalıp ashab-ı matluba verilecek meblağdır. İş bu mebla Hazine-i Hümayundan
ashab-ı matluba vereceği akçedir.
TOPLAM SONUÇ: 1.781.237
Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüda-i Esbak Mehmed Bey'in zaman-ı aliyelerinde Daire-i
Hümayun-ı Şahanede icra buyurulan ebniye-i aliyelerinin tamir ve termimiyle ve
bazı mahallerin müceddeden inşasına dair evrak-ı perakendedir.
611
Figure A3. A permit given to the Russian ambassador to visit the palace grounds
(BOA HAT.167.7039, 29 Z 1219 / 31.03.1805)
612
Müsaade oluna
Topkapı Bahçesini dahi gezsinler
Şevketli, kerâmetli, mehâbetli, kudretli veli-ni‘metim efendim
Rusya Beyzâdelerinden General İsbirinodit'in bundan akdem evâil tarihde elçilik ile
França'da ve muahhıran İtalya'da meks etmiş olup bu defa yine İtalya tarafında geşt ü
güzâr etmek niyetiyle iki direkli bir kıta mektub gemisine râkiben Dersaadet'e vurud
etmiş olup ve çend rûz bu tarafda ikamet ve badehû İtalya semtine teveccüh ve
hareket edeceği beyanıyla mersum ve yanında olan beyzâdelerin Ayasofya-i kebir ve
sâir selâtîn-i izâm cevâmi‘-i şerîfesini temaşalarına ruhsat verilmesini Rusya elçisi
Bâbıali'ye bâ-takrir inhâ etmekle mersum General ve beyzâdelerin maiyyetlerine
adamlar tayiniyle cevâmi-i mezkûreyi temaşaları ve haklarında lâzime-i mihmannüvâzînin
icrası hususuna ibtidar ve çend rûz sonra İtalya tarafına teveccühü için
iktizâsı üzre bir kıta yol emri ısdâr olunacağı muhât-ı ilm-i âlem-i âlîleri
buyuruldukda emr ü ferman şevketli kerâmetli mehâbetli kudretli veli-ni‘metim
efendim padişahım hazretlerinindir.
Geçen sene Topkapı Bahçesi'ni temaşa için França elçisine ruhsat verildiği vakit
isterler ise Rusya ve İngiltere elçileri dahi temaşa eylemeleri karîn-i müsaade-i
şahaneleri idiği ol vakit sudur eden emr ü ferman-ı şahanelerinden müsteban olmakla
li-ecli't-taltif Rusya elçisine ifade olundukda izhâr-ı memnuniyet ve teşekkür etmiş
olup ihtiyarlığı ve ol zaman mizacı dürüst olmaması cihetiyle temaşa-yı kasr-ı
şahanelerinden mahrum olmuş olduğunu bu defa elçî-i mersum tezkir edip işbu
müsaade-i sabıkanın icrasına bu defa ruhsat-ı aliyyeleri erzânî buyurulur ise general-i
mersum ile bi'l-maiyye azimet ve temaşa edeceğini ifade ve istida etmekden nâşî
mersûmânın bu defa Topkapı bahçesini temaşalarına ruhsat-ı seniyyeleri sezavâr olur
ise hem elçî-i mersum ve hem general-i merkûmun celb ve taltifleri mucib olacağı
malum-ı hümayunları buyuruldukda emr ü ferman hazret-i men lehü'l-emrindir.
613
Hafız Hızır İlyas, Osmanlı Sarayında Gündelik Hayat, 143–44.
"Şâh-ı âdil yedi göz hazine içinde olan eşyâ-yı bî- muadili keyfe mâ-yeşâ temâşâ ve
husûsiyle, ibtidâki gözde mahfuz mülûk-ı Âl-i Osman tasvirleri, efendimizin câlis-i
evreng-i istirahat oldukları yere bir hiza rast gelmesi güya cümlesiyle hem-bezm-i
âlem-i mânâ gibi göründüğü vesîle-i duâ vü sena olduktan sonra, ikinci gözde duran
taht-ı Keykâvus'ı da ayn-ı ibret ile seyre rağbet ve ânın gibi bazı eşya-yı zî-kıymet
zamîme-i zîb ü ziynet kılındığı hazineli hakkına nimet olup, el-hâsıl her gözde olan
esliha ve akmişeden mâada, lâ-yü'add ve lâ-yuhsâ rızâyı, şâlî ve hesabsız malı lâubâli
seyrettiklerinin hitâmına karib, dışarıda muntazır-ı iltifât-ı mülûkâneleri olan arz
ağalarnı dahi içeri celb ettirdikleri vesîle-i tatyîb olup, onlar da her gözde açılmış
şeyleri gözleri gördüğü kadar seyrettiklerinden sonra..."
614
Figure A5. A document explaining the visiting procedure of the Imperial Treasury
(BOA Y.PRK.HH.30.37, 2 Z 1315 / 4.5.1898)
615
Karin-i sani-i hazret-i şehriyarileri tarafından iki kıta tezkere ile tebliğ edilen emr ü
ferman-ı hümayun-ı mülükaneleri mucib-i alisi üzre bu günkü cumartesi günü dört
defa Hazine-i Hümayunları açılarak seyyahin-i ecnebiyeye ziyaret ettirilmiş ve
Hazine-i Hümayunları huzuru lazım gelen kethüda bey ile sair zabitan ve hademe
efendiler kulları hazır ve mevcut bulundukları halde açılıp kapatılmış ve Hazine
derununda bulunan eşyanın hiç birisine dokunulmamış ve yerinden kımıldatılmamış
olduğunu ve derun-ı Hazineden hiçbir nesnenin harice çıkarılmadığını ve Hazine
kapısının haricindeki iki taraf camekanlar derununda bulunan silahlar tozlanmış ve
camlar kirlenmiş ve bu da gelen misafirlerin gözü önünde olarak o hal üzere durması
çirkin bulunmuş olduğundan ve zaten maruz camekanlardaki esliha ve edevat
kıymettar olmamakla beraber bunların lüzum görüldükçe temizlettirilmesi muktezayı
irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahilerinden bulunup bundan mukaddemleri de açılıp
tathir edilmiş olduğundan bu gün dahi mezkur camek[an]lar Hazine-i Hümayunları
Kethüdası Bey kullarının emriyle emsali misüllu Beşinci Katip Rıza Bey ve
Güğümbaşı Muavini ve Seferli Koğuşu Nöbetçi Başısı Şakir Efendi ve daha beş on
hademe efendi kulları taraflarından açılarak süpürge ve tüylerle silahların üzerindeki
tozlar alınmış ve camlar silinmiş ise de silahlardan hiçbir tanesi yerinden
oynatılmamış ve harice bir şey çıkarılmamış velhasıl muğayir-i rıza-yı hümayunları
hiçbir hal vuku bulmamış olduğunu Vallahülazim ve billahilkerim arz ve temin
ederiz her halde ferman.
2 Zilhicce Sene 1315
Seferli Koğuşunda kulları Mehmed Hayri (Mühür)
Nöbetçibaşı Vekili kulları Ali (Mühür)
Seferli Koğuşu Nöbetçibaşısı kulları Şakir (Mühür)
Güğümbaşı Muavini kulları Esseyyid Yusuf Ziyaeddin (Mühür)
Beşinci Katip kulları Ali Rıza (Mühür)
Hazine-i Hümayun Kethüdası kulları Hasan Şevki (Mühür)
Hademeler: Mehmet Celalettin, Mehmet Cemil, Mehmet Ziyaettin ve Recep
616
Figure A6. A document regarding the reorganization and cataloging the Imperial
Treasury collection (BOA İ.HUS.178.33, 22 B 1327 / 09.08.1909)
617
Mabeyn-i Hümayun-ı Mülükahne Başkitabeti
275
Hazine-i Hümayunda mevcud olup birincisi kıymeti maliyesinden kat-ı nazar tarihen
ehemmiyet-i mahsusayı, ikincisi bir nefaset-i sınaiyeyi ve üçüncüsü sırf bir kıymet-i
maddiyeyi haiz olmak üzre başlıca üç sınıfa münkasım olan ve diğer bir kısmı da
hazine-i müşarün-ileyhada hıfza şayan bir değeri olmamakla beraber nasılsa vaktiyle
diğerleri meyanına konulmuş bulunan eşya şimdiki dairenin bir iki misli vüsatinde
bir mahali işgal ve tezyin edecek miktarda olduğu halde icabı vechle tasnif ve tertib
edilmemiş olduğundan yerli ve ecnebi birçok züvvar tarafından ziyaret edilmekte
olan Hazine-i mezkürenin hususi bir müze haline ifrağ idilecek yolda tanzimi nezd-i
ma’ali vefir-i Hazret-i padişahide arzu buyrulmaktadır. Binaenaleyh Müze-i
Hümayun müdürü Hamdi Bey hazretlerinin taht-ı riyasetinde sair erbab-ı ihtisasdan
bir heyet teşkiliyle bir taraftan mevcud eşyanın lüzumuna göre batasnif münasip
suretle yerleştirilmesi ve her birinin evsaf-ı tarihiye ve kıymet-i sınaiyye veya
maliyesine natık bir fihrist tanzımiyle beraber üzerlerine numero vazı ve diğer
taraftan maddi ve manevi bir kıymeti haiz olmayan eşyanın tefrik ve ihracı
hususunun bu heyete havalesi ve bir de ber-minval-i muharrer tasnif edilecek
eşyadan ziyafet-i senniyelerde resmi kabullerde veya hükümdarın esna-yı
misafiretlerinde kabil-i istimal olan yemek kahve tatlı şerbet vesaire takımları
kabilinden evaninin lede’l-hâce aldırılmak ve akıben iade edilmek üzre ayrıca bir
mahalde hıfzıyla bunların da bir cedvelin arz ve takdimi şerefsudur buyrulan irade-i
senniye-i hazret-i padişahi iktiza-i aliyesinden olmağla ol babda emr ü ferman
hazret-i menlehü'l-emrindir.
Serkatip-i Hazreti Şehriyari
Halit Ziya
27 Temmuz 1325
22 Recep 1327
(9 Ağustos 1909)
618
Figure A7. The decree ordering the organization of the Imperial Treasury as a
museum (BOA MV.132.50, 1 Ş 1327 / 18.8.1909)
619
Meclis-i Vükela Müzakeratına Mahsus Mazbata Varakasıdır
Tarihi: Fî Gurre [1] Şaban Sene 327 (18.8.1909)
Hulasa-i Meali
Hazine-i Hümayunda mevcut olup, birincisi kıymet-i maliyesinden kat-ı nazar
tarihiyyen ehemmiyet-i mahsusayı, ikincisi bir nefaset-i sınaiyeyi ve üçüncüsü dahi
sırf bir kıymet-i maddiyeyi haiz olmak üzere başlıca üç sınıfa münkasım olan ve
diğer bir kısmı da hazine-i müşarün-ileyhada hıfza şayan bir değeri olmamakla
beraber vaktiyle diğerleri meyanına konulmuş bulunan eşyanın şimdiki dairenin bir
iki misli vüsatinde bir mahali işgal ve tezyin edecek miktarda olduğu halde icabı
vechle tasnif ve tertip edilmemiş olduğundan bir takım ecnebi bir çok züvvar
tarafından ziyaret edilmekte olan hazine-i mezkurenin hususi bir müze haline ifrağ
edilecek yolda tanzimi nezd-i mealiden Hazret-i Padişahide arzu buyurulmakta
olduğu cihetle erbab-ı ihtisastan bir heyet teşkili ile mevcut eşyanın lüzumuna göre
bi’t-tasnif münasip surette yerleştirilmesi ve her birinde evsaf-ı tarihiye ve kıymet-i
sınaiyye veya maliyesini natık bir fihrist tanzimi ile üzerlerine numara vazı ve maddi
ve manevi bir kıymeti haiz olmayan eşyanın dahi tefrik ve ihracı hususunun bu
heyete havalesi ve ber-minval-i muharrer tasnif edilecek eşyadan ziyafet-i
seniyelerde resmi kabullerde veya hükümdaranın esna-yı misafiretlerinde salihu’listimal
olan yemek kahve tatlı şerbet ve saire takımları misillü evaninin lede’l-hâce
aldırılmak ve akiben iade edilmek üzere ayrıca bir mahalde hıfzıyla bunların da bir
cetvelinin arz ve takdimi şerefsudur buyurulan irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padişahi
iktiza-i alisinden bulunduğunu mübelliğ Mabeyn-i Hümayun-ı Cenab-ı Mülükane
Baş Kitabetinden varid olan tezkere-i hususiye mütalaa olundu. Ber mantuk-ı irade-i
seniyye-i mülükane Hazine-i Hümayunun hususi bir müze haline ifrağıyla eşya-yı
mevcudenin tasnif ve tertibi esbabının teemmül ve istikmali için Maarif Nazırı
Beyefendinin riyasetinde olarak Vakanüvis Abdurrahman ve Şehremini Halil Bey
Efendilerden ve tensip edilecek erbab-ı ihtisas ve malumattan mürekkeben bir
komisyon teşkili ve mefad-ı emr ü ferman-ı hümayun ve izahat-ı vakıaya nazaran
Hazine-i Hümayun dairesinin heyet-i hazırası eşya-yı mevcudenin bir tarz-ı nüvin ve
dil-nişinde tasnif ve teşhirine müsait vüsati haiz olmasına ve evvelce ser mimar-ı
hazret-i şehriyari Vedad Bey tarafından keşfi icra ve irade-i seniyyeye iktiran
eylemesiyle ifa-yı muktezası Maliye Nezaretine tebliğ ve inba olunduğu
anlaşılmasına mebni mir-i mumaileyhin dahi celbiyle kendisinden bu babda malumat
ve izahat alınarak nezaret-i müşarunileyha ile bi’l-muhabere daire-i mezkurenin bir
an evvel tevsi’ ve tadili esbabının istikmali hususunun nazır-ı müşarunileyhe tavsiye
ve işarı tezekkür kılındı.
(İmzalar)
620
Figure A8. A document explaining the procedure for visiting the Imperial Treasury
(BOA DH.MKT.2901.3_01, 26 B 1327 / 13.8.1909)
621
Bab-ı Ali
Daire-i Sadaret-i Uzma
Mektubi Kalemi
Dahiliye Nezaret-i Aliyyesine
Saadetlü Efendim Hazretleri
Enderun-ı Hümayun Tensikat Komisyonu’nca tanzim olunup meriyyet ahkamına
bi’l-istizan İrade-i Seniyye-i Cenab-ı Padişahi şeref-müteallik buyurulmuş olan
kararnamenin on sekizinci maddesi mucebince Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki Hazine-i
Hümayunun Pazar ve Salı günleri züvvara küşadı ve züvvarın gerek tebea-i
Osmaniye’den olsun gerek ecnebi bulunsun Divan-ı Hümayundan bir mezuniyet
varakası ahz etmeleri lazım gelip ancak bu müsaadenin her sınıf halka itasından ise
Hazine-i Hümayunun muhtevi olduğu eşyanın ehemmiyet ve kıymet-i tarihiyesini
taktir edebilecek zevata tahsisi mukteza olduğuna ve ziyaretin öğle ile ikindi arasına
hasrı cihetiyle yüzlerce adede baliğ olacak züvvar için emr-i ziyaretin icrası müşkil
olacağına binaen evvela ziyarete mahsus günlerin her birinde nihayet altmış
mezuniyet varakası verilmesi ve bu varakaların üzerinde hamilinin nam ve şöhretiyle
ziyaretin tarihi mukayyit bulunmadığı taktirde başkalarına satılabilmesi gibi su-i
istimal vukuu melhuz bulunduğundan her varakaya hamilinin namıyla tarih-i
ziyaretin tahriri keyfiyetinin ve memurinden bulunan ziyaretçiler için ait oldukları
devairden ve sair zevat için de şehremanetinden taleb-i resmi vukuunun ve teba-i
ecnebiyeye gelince onlar için dahi mensup oldukları sefaretler vesatatııyla müracaat
olunmasının usul ittihazı Teşrifat-ı Umumiye Nazırı ve Divan-ı Hümayun Tercümanı
devletlü paşa hazretlerinin işarı üzerine bit- tensip keyfiyet tamimen devair-i
merkeziyeye tebliğ edilmiş ve haftada yüz yirmişer mezunin varakasından bir
seneliğin mecmuu olan üç bin adedinin melfufen nümune vechle tabıyla Divan-ı
Hümayuna teslimi cümle-i işardan bulunmuş olmakla nezaret-i aliyyelerince de ona
göre mukteziyatının ifasına ve emanet-i müşarun-ileyhe dahi tebligat icrasına
himmet olunması siyakında tezkire-i mahlas terkim olundu.
FÎ 26 Recep Sene 1327 ve Fî 30 Temmuz Sene 1325
Sadrazam (İmza)
622
Figure A9. A document regarding the construction work held during the making of
the Gülhane Park (BOA DH.İD.153.10_67, 9 Kanunievvel 1329 / 22.12.1913)
623
Harbiye nezareti
Dahiliye Nezareti Celilesine
Sarayburnundaki parkın ikinci kısmındaki su haznesi hakkında
Devletli efendim hazretleri
2 Kanunievvel 1329 tarihli ve 86316/793 nolu tezkire-i valaları cevabıdır. Saray
burnunda inşa edilmekte olan parkın ikinci kısmında vaki olup bade tathir ve depo
ittihazı mutassavver bulunan şehremaneti heyet-i fenniyesi tarafından hedm ve
büyük kanalizasyonu sed ve imla olunan 3-4 bin lira kıymetli Ahmet Han-ı Salis
hazretlerinin binakerdesi olan cesim su haznesi hakkında emanet-i müşarünileyhadan
alınan tezkire-i cevabiyeden mahal-i mezkurda vaki ahşab ve kargir bir kışlanın
ref'iyle duvarlarının inşası için akdemce birinci kolordu-yı hümayun kumandanı
vekili ve İstanbul muhafızı Cemal Beyefendi ile mahal-i mezkura azimet olunduğu
sırada mezkur mahzenin lüzumsuzluğundan bahisle setr ve imlası mir-i müşarülileyh
tarafından beyan edilmiş olduğu işar kılındığı ityan? buyurulursa da mezkur hazne
gerek cihet-i askeriyenin ve gerek saray-ı hümayunun mutasarrıf olduğu bentler
sularının hıfsına mahsus olup taht-ı elzemat mevcud yollar vasıtasıyla civarda kain
saraçhane ambarı, misafirhane-i askeri, erzak ambarı, sevkiyat binası ve ecza ...? su
isaline isaline hizmet etmekte olduğu ve zaten parkın tnazimine fevkal azimet bir
araz teşkil etmediği ancak bir kenarının bir metre kadar olan irtifa-ı zeminin şekil ve
haliyle telif ve civardaki yüksek mahalleri çimento ile tezyin edildiği gibi tanziminde
mümkün olduğundan derununun tathir-i ameliyesini mümanaat edilmemesinin iktiza
edenlere tebliği ile inbası 9 Teşrininevvel 1329 tarihli tezkire ile emanet-i
müşarülileyhaya izbar kılındığı halde henüz cevap verilmeyerek tarih-i işardan 36
gün mürurundan sonra 19 Teşrinisani 1329 tarihli teskire-i aziciyle bab-ı aliyi cenabı
samisine arz ve beyan olunduğu üzere ahiren nısfının hedm ve nısf-ı mütebakisinin
molozla imla olunduğu anlaşılmış ve salüf-ül beyan mebaniyenin birinci kolordu-yu
hümayun kumandanlığıyla istanbul muhafızlığına taaliki olmayıp ancak mahal-i
mezkura karip iki bab karakolhanenin hedm ve ref'i için Cemal Beyefendinin vuku
bulan beyanatının su haznesine de teşmili hiç vechile muvafık olmayıp keyfiyetin
taalik-i hakikisi ve merci-i resmisi olan ve buna dair muamelatı takib ve icra eden
daire-i aciziyle bil muhabere verilecek karar üzerine icabının icrası....
9 Kanunievvel 1329
Yaver-i kiram-ı hazret-i şehriyari ve harbiye nazırı namına
Fuat
624
625
Figure A10. Pages from an educational journal (İhsan, "Silah Müzesi", Tedrisat-ı
İbtidaiye Mecmuası, 1:4 (15.5.1326 / 28.5.1910)
626
Tedrisat-ı İbtidaiye Mecmuası
Ders Numuneleri
Silah Müzesi
"- Muallim: Dün hep birlikte nereye gittik oğlum?
- Şakird: Efendim eski silahları görmeye gittik.
. . .
. . .
. . .
- Peki oğlum bu silahlar hep kimlerin silahı...
- Muharebelerde bizim dedelerimizin kullandığı silahlar.
- Orada yalnız bizim dedelerimizin kullandığı silahlar mı vardı, başkalarının silahı
yok muydu?
- Vardı efendim düsmanların silahı da vardı.
- Ya düşmanların silahı nasıl olmuş da bizim elimizde kalmış, biliyor musunuz?
- Efendim muharebe etmişiz. Düşmanları yenmişiz. Onlar kaçmış ellerindeki silahlar
hep bizim olmuş.
- Aferim oğlum. Düşmanlardan aldığımız bu silahları acaba niçin böyle saklıyoruz?
- Efendim ibret-i alem diye saklamışlar. Biz bu silahlara baktık mı dedelerimiz nasıl
çalışmışlar, ilerlemişler, düşmanı nasıl yenmişler, silahlarını nasıl almışlar göreceğiz
biz de onlar gibi kutlu olmağa çalışacağız.
- İşte böyle eski adamların yapdıkları ibret-i alemdir. Koydukları yerlere ne derler
biliyor musunuz?
- Efendim müzehane derler.
- Aferim oğlum müzehane derler, müze derler. Siz yalnız müze diye öğreniniz."
627
Figure A11. Advertisement for the Military Museum (Harb Mecmuası 1:4, 15 Mayıs
1326 / 28.5.1910)
628
Harb Mecmuası
Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu Meydanında Müze-i Askeri-i Osmani
Evvelce Sultan Ahmed Meydanında bulunan "Yeniçeri Müzesi" ile tevhid edilmiştir.
"Askeri Müzesi" perşembe, pazar, salı günleri vasati saat 10'dan 4'e kadar yerli ve
ecnebi umuma ve muhadderat-ı Osmaniyeye açıkdır.
Duhuliye ücreti: Cuma günleri 100 para, eyyam-ı sairede 4 guruşdur.
"Askeri Müzesi": Devlet-i Osmaniyenin bunca asırlık mefahir-i askeriye ve
harbiyesini, selatin-i izam ve namdar-ı serdar ve kumandanlarımız ve guzzat ve
şuhedamızın şanlı kılıçlar ve silahlar ve kıymetdar zırhlar, miğferler ve kalkanlarını
ve sair yadigarlarını, ordu-yı Osmaniyenin mamulat-ı milliye ve iğtinamat-ı
harbiyeden eski ve yeni her nev top ve tüfenk ve mermiyatı ve esliha-i sairesi
kolleksiyonlarıyla tabl, gürs ve tuğ ve alemlerini ve sair eşya-i muhtelife-i
askeriyesini ve bilhassa ehl-i salib muherabatıyla ve muharebat-ı sairedeki iğtinamat
mütenevviasını ve her türlü sancak ve bayraklarını, muharebat ve padişahan ve
meşahir-i askeriyemizin tablo ve resimlerini ve her devre aid Osmanlı kıyafet-i
askeriyesiyle asakir-i ecnebiye-i esliha ve kıyafetlerini ve harb-i hazır-ı umumiye aid
hatırat ve yadigarları, iğtinamatı ihtiva etmektedir. Şan ve satvet, kudret ve
mehabbetleriyle nice iklimler feth edilerek bütün cihan-ı askeriyeyi heyretlere
uğratmış ecdadımızın hevas-ı merdane ve cengaveranesine varis Osmanlılar bu
müessese-i cedide-i milliyemizin ziyaretine şitab buyurarak orada kahraman
babalarının asar-ı celadet ve şevketinden ibret almalıdır.
Ahiren müze medhali civarında tertib ve küşad edilen endaht salonunda hava
tüfekleri, tabancaları ve harb tüfekleri ile oda endahatları icra edilir.
Müze-i Askeri Sineması
Elektirikle tenvir edilen Askeri Müzesi Sinemasında her türlü harb kordelaları
gösterilir.
"Mehterhane-i Hakani" öğle vakti müze pişgahında ve bade müze ve müze sineması
dahilinde terrennüm ve teganni (çalıp söylemek) ider.
Sinema duhuliyesi: Birinci mevki 8, ikinci mevki 6, üçüncü mevki 4 guruştur.
629
Figure A.12 Pages from the report of the Council submitted to the government
(Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayununun Ta’miratı Münasebetiyle Encümenin Hükümet-i
Senniyenin Nazar-i Dikkatine Arz İttiği Rapor Suretidir, 10.Teşrinevvel.1333 / 10.
Ekim.1917)
Mukaddime:
Altı asırdan fazla pür şa’şaa bir hayat-ı siyasiye yaşamış olan Osmanlı heyet-i
muazzamasının tarihin şahid olduğu azametini istihsal için ist'imal eylediği vesait
elbette bi-nihaye bir kudret-i ilmiye ve medeniyenin mahsulü olacağına göre, bu
iktidar ile husule gelmiş olan asarında bir çok metrukat ve mahfuzatı olacağında
şübhe yoktur. Osmanlı vatanı, bidayet-i akvameden beri cihan temeddünün saha-i
inkişafı olmak hasebiyle sine-i asarında edvar-ı muhtelife-i tarihine aid kim bilir
neler saklamaktadır. Daha evvelki devirlerin asar-ı kadimesinden ele geçenlerini
kıymetlerine layık bir ihtimam ile saklamak, temeddünün kıymet şinaslık bahsine aid
bir fasl-ı celil olan ilm-i asar-ı atika nokta-i nazarından bir borç olduğu ve bu
hususda edilecek dikkat ve itinalar liyakat-ı medeniyemizin berahininden bulunduğu
aşikar ise de, bunlara malik olmak beka ve inkişaf vadisindeki mesai nokta-i
nazarından asar-ı hususiyemiz derecesinde kuvetli ve makbul olamaz."
630
page 5:
Velhasıl karun ve sultanın hayat-ı ictima’iyesinde nazar-ı dikkate alınan her ihtiyaca
fazlasıyla kafi teferrua’tı havi mu’azzam ve mustahkim bir şato halinde bulunan bu
saray-ı aliyenin maksad-ı tesisi bir ikametgah olmaktan ibaret iken, zamanın tecdidi
bu mahali o vaziyetten uzaklaştırarak elyavm Osmanlılığın i’sar-ı kadimedeki
teccelliyatının nadir bir timsali olmak mahiyetinde bırakmış, ve ba-husus mi’mari-yi
hususiye a’id asar-ı saire memleketin her tarafında ma’dum haline geldiğinden bu
bina-yı azim yegane bir numune olarak kalmış olduğu halde, buraya a’tf edilecek
enzar, bu asrın hatta tek bir çivisine varıncaya kadar muhafazası lazım gelir iken,
bahs olunan ta’mirat süresinde bu cihetler asla nazar-ı dikkate alınmayıp ikametgah
olacak imiş gibi heryerde zaman-ı hazrın ihtiyacına göre bir eser tanzim göstermek
suretiyle hareket edildiği görülmüştür.
Bunun neticesi olarak ta’mir diye yapılan herşey tagyir ve tahribe sebeb olmuş ve
a’sırların ihzar eylediği a’tikayata a’id güzellikler bir takım tecdidat ile imha
olunmuştur.
631
Figure A13. Declaration of the Topkapı Palace as a museum (BCA.30-18-1-1_9-20-
17, 3.4.1924)
632
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti
Baş Vekâlet
Kalem-i Mahsus Müdüriyeti
Kararname
Asırlardan beri bir çok tarihi vakalara sahne olmuş tarih-i millimiz ve tarih-i
mimarimiz nokta-i nazarından büyük bir kıymeti haiz bulunmuş olan ve zî kıymet-i
mefruşat ve müştemilatıyla muhafazası lazım gelen Topkapı Sarayının atiyyen
İstanbul’a gelecek züvvar için başlıca bir ziyaret mahalli teşkil edeceği tabii
olduğundan bu mahalleri bilahere züvvara küşade edilmesi ihzar ve hüsn-i
muhafazası temin edilmek üzere Asar-ı Atika Nizamnamesi mucebince şimdilik
İstanbul Asar-ı Atika Müzesi Müdüriyeti emrine verilmesi tabii havi Maarif
Vekalet-i Celilesinin 15 Mart 320 tarih ve Hars Müdüriyeti 4260/ 153 numaralı
tezkeresi ile vaki teklifi icra vekilleri heyetinin 3/ 4/ 320 tarihli içtimaından lede'ttetkik
mezkur binanın devr ü teslim muamelesi ale'l-usul ifa olunmak üzere müzeye
aidiyeti tezekkür edilmiş ve keyfiyetin vekalet-i müşarun-ileyha ile Dahiliye ve
Maliye vekalet-i celilelerine tebliği tekarrur etmiştir.
3/ 4/ 320
Türkiye Reis-i Cumhuru
Gazi [Mustafa Kemal]
633
Figure A14. A page from the guidebook (Asar-ı Atika Müzeleri Muhtasar Rehber,
1341)
634
Topkapı Sarayı
Memleketimizde Cumhuriyet'in tesisi üzerine emval-i milliye meyanına intikal eden
Topkapı Sarayı, Abdülhamit sani devrinde Türkler için adeta mesdud idi. Yalnız
ecnebiler, o da kemal-i müşkülatla ve sefaretlerinin delaleti üzerine irade-i mahsusa
ile ziyaret edebilirlerdi. Mabeyn yaverlerinden birinin refakatinde olarak bir çok
züvvarın müçtemian gezmeleri meşrut idi. Ancak Hazine dairesi ile Bağdad Köşkünü
ve Yeni Köşkü görürlerdi. İlan-ı Meşrutiyeti müteakib, yine bazı kuyud tahtında
olarak haftada iki gün mülga Bab-ı Ali teşrifatcılığından ve eyyam-ı sairede ziyaret
için de mabeynden alınan mezuniyet ile münferiden gezilebildi. Saltanat ve bade
hilafetin ilgası üzerine abidat-ı tarihiyemiz meyanında bulunan mezkur sarayın
idaresi 3 Nisan 1340 (1924) tarihinde İstanbul Müzeleri Müdüriyeti Umumiyesine
rabt edilmiştir. Hazine Kethüdalığı ünvanı da ibtida Hazine Müdüriyetine bilahare
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Müdüriyetine tahvil olunmuştur. Türk sınaat-ı nefisesi ve
tarihiyesi için pek mühim olan bu saraydan umumun istifadesi elzem ve matlub
olmakla 9 Teşrinievvel 1340 (1924) tarihinden itibaren eyyam-ı muayyenede küşade
bulundurulmaktadır.
635
APPENDIX B
MAP OF INSCRIPTIONS, MONOGRAMS, AND MODIFICATIONS
Figure B1. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Selim III
636
Figure B2. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Mamud II
637
Figure B3. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülmecid
638
Figure B4. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülaziz
639
Figure B5. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Abdülhamid II
640
Figure B6. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of Mehmed V
641
Figure B6. Map of inscriptions, monograms, and modifications of the nineteenth
century rulers
642
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1910). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 5 (1 Kanunievvel 1326).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 6, (1 Şubat 1326).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 7, (1 Nisan 1327).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 8, (1 Haziran 1327).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 9, (1 Ağustos 1327).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 10, (1 Teşrinievvel 1327).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1911). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 11, (1 Kanunievvel 1327).
Abdurrahman Şeref. (1912). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu. Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni
Mecmuası, 12, (1 Şubat 1327)
Abdurrahman Şeref & Ahmet Refik (1918). Sultan Abdülhamid-i sâni’ye dair.
İstanbul: Hilal Matbaası.
Abdurrahman Şeref & Balcı, R. (2009). Sarayın Sırları (Abdurrahman Şeref Bey).
İstanbul: Elit.
Abdurrahman Şeref & Duman, M. (2005). Osmanlı devleti tarihi: Tarih-i Devlet-i
Osmaniyye. İstanbul: Gökkubbe.
Abdurrahman Şeref, Kodaman, B., & Ünal, M. A. (1996). Son vak’anüvis
Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi tarihi: II. Meşrutiyet olayları, 1908-1909.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Ahmet Refik (1917). Topkapı Sarayında: Bağdad Köşkü. Yeni Mecmua, 1 (15), 159-
161.
Ahmet Refik (1926). Topkapı Sarayında: Kubbealtı. Hayat, 1(2), 16-18.
643
Ahmet Refik (1927). Topkapı Sarayında: İncili Köşk. Milli Mecmua, 4(74), 281-282.
Ahmet Refik (1927). Topkapı Sarayı: Bayezid Köşkü. Güneş, 1(1), 8.
Ahmet Refik (1927). Topkapı Sarayı: Yalı Köşkü. Güneş, 1(2), 19.
About, E. (1884). De Pontoise à Stamboul. Paris: Hachette.
Açıkgöz, Ü. F. (2014). On the uses and meanings of architectural preservation in
early Republican Istanbul (1923-1950). Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish
Studies Association, 1(1–2), 167–185.
Adorno, T. W. (2007). Prisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ahmet Cevdet Paşa. (2011). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu tarihi (Vol. 1). Cağaloğlu,
İstanbul: İlgi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık.
Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, & Baysun, C. (1991). Tezâkir. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi.
Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, & Halaçoğlu, Y. (2010). Sultan Abdülhamid’e arzlar
(Maʻrûzât). İstanbul: Babıali Kültür Yayıncılığı.
Ahmet, L., & Aktepe, M. M. (1984). Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi tarihi. İstanbul:
İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi.
Akın, N. (1998). 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Galata ve Pera. Beyoğlu, İstanbul:
Literatür.
Akpınar, İ., (2010). İstanbul’u (yeniden) inşa etmek: 1937 Henri Prost Planı. In E.
Ergut & B. İmamoğlu (Eds.), 2000’den kesitler II: Cumhuriyet’in
mekanları/zamanları/insanları, Doktora araştırmaları sempozyumu kitabı
(pp. 107-124). Ankara: Dipnot yayınları ve ODTÜ Yayınevi.
Akpolat, M. S. (1991). Fransız kökenli Levanten mimar Alexandre Vallaury
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Akşin, S. (1997). Türkiye tarihi. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
Akyıldız, A. (2004). Osmanlı bürokrasisi ve modernleşme. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul:
İletişim.
Akyıldız, A. (2016). Müsrif fakat hayırsever: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan. Osmanlı
Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XLVII, 307–352.
644
Akyürek, G. (2011). Bilgiyi yeniden inşa etmek: Tanzimat döneminde mimarlık, bilgi
ve iktidar. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Alexander, E. P., & Alexander, M. (2008). Museums in motion : An introduction to
the history and functions of museums. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Ali Seydi Bey & Banoğlu, N. A. [197?]. Teşrifat ve teşkilatımız = Teşrifat ve
teşkilat-ı kadimemiz. İstanbul: Tercüman.
Ali Ufki, Bobovius, A., Yerasimos, S., Berthier, A., & Berktay, A. (2002). Topkapı
Sarayı’nda yaşam: Albertus Bobovius ya da Santuri Ali Ufki Bey’in anıları.
İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Ali Vâsıb, & Osmanoğlu, O. S. (2004). Bir şehzadenin hâtırâtı: Vatan ve menfâda
gördüklerim ve işittiklerim. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Altındağ, Ü. (1985). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi. In Osmanlı arşivleri ve Osmanlı
araştırmaları sempozyumu: Mustafa Reşit Paşa, Hazine-i Evrak (1846) (pp.
117–120). İstanbul: Türk-Arap İlişkileri İncelemeleri Vakfı Yayınları.
Altınyıldız, N. (2007). The architectural heritage of Istanbul and the ideology of
preservation. Muqarnas, 24, 281–305.
Alus, S. M. (1920). Musee militaire Ottoman, situe a Ste-Irene, Place de Top-Kapou-
Serail: guide. Constantinople: Imprimerie Nedjmi-Istikbal.
Alus, S. M. (1920). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu meydanında kain Müze-i Askeri-i
Osmani züvvarına mahsus rehber (Vol. 1–2). İstanbul: Necm-i İstikbal
Matbaası.
Anhegger-Eyüboğlu, M. (1986). Topkapı Sarayıʼnda padişah evi: (Harem). İstanbul:
Sandoz Kültür Yayınları.
Aoki, M. (2002). Léon Parvillée: Osmanlı modernleşmesinin eşiğinde bir Fransız
sanatçı. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul.
Ar, B. (2013). Osmanlı döneminde Aya İrini ve yakın çevresi. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Tarihi Anabilim Dalı,
İstanbul.
Artan, T. (1989). Architecture as a theatre of life: Profile of the eighteenth century
Bosphorus. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Boston.
Artun, A., & Akman, R. (2006). Tarih sahneleri - Sanat müzeleri. İstanbul: İletişim.
645
Atasoy, S., & Çakmakoğlu Barut, N. (1996). Müzeler ve müzecilik bibliografyasi
1977-1995. Istanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
Auldjo, J. (1835). Journal of a visit to Constantinople: and some of the Greek
islands, in the spring and summer of 1833. London: Longman, Rees, Orme,
Brown, Green, & Longman, Paternoster-Row.
Avcıoğlu, N. (2001).′David Urquhart and the role of travel literature in the
introduction of Turkish baths to victorian england. In eds. P. Starkey & J.
Starkey (Eds.) Interpreting the Orient: Travellers in Egypt and the Near East.
(pp. 69-81) Reading: Ithaca Press.
Ayık, M. S. (2012, Nisan). Topkapı Sarayı I. II. III. Avlu ve binalarında bulunan
kitabelerin bir coğrafi bilgi sistemine işlenmesi, harita üzerinde gösterimi ve
internet ortamında paylaşımı. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanliği İstanbul
Rölöve ve Anıtlar Müdürlüğü, İstanbul.
Aynur, H., Hayashi, K., & Karateke, H. Database for Ottoman inscriptions,
Retrieved from http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com
Ayverdi, E. H. (1953). Fâtih devri mimarisi. İstanbul: İstanbul Fethi Derneği.
Ayverdi, E. H. (1973). Osmanlı miʻmârı̂sinde Fâtih devri, 855-886 (1451-1481): III.
İstanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Ayyıldız, N. (2008). II. Abdülhamid dönemi saray merasimleri. İstanbul: Doğu
Kütüphanesi.
Baedeker, K. (1914). Baedeker’s Constantinople and Asia Minor. Leipzig: Baedeker.
Bahrani, Z. Çelik, Z., & Eldem, E. (2011). Scramble for the past : A story of
archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. Istanbul: SALT.
Bann, S. (1995). Romanticism and the rise of history. New York; Toronto; New
York: Twayne Publishers ; Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan
International.
[Baragnon] S. P., (1863). Coup d'oeil général sur l'exposition nationale à
Constantinople (1863). Constantinople.
Barillari, D. & Godoli, E. (1996). Istanbul 1900 : Art-nouveau architecture and
interiors. New York: Rizzoli.
Barringer, T. J., & Flynn, T. (1998). Colonialism and the object : Empire, material
culture, and the museum. London ; New York: Routledge.
646
Batur, A. (1995). 19. Yüzyıl Uluslaraası Sanayi Sergileri ve Osmanlı Sergi Yapıları.
In International Congress of Turkish Art, Turkey, and Kültür Bakanlığı / 9.
Milletlerarası Türk sanatları kongresi, (pp. 299–310). Ankara: Kültür
Bakanlığı.
Batur, A. (Ed.). (2003). M. Vedad tek kimliğinin izinde bir mimar. İstanbul: Yapı
Kredi Yayınları.
Baykal, İ. (1949). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi kitaplıkları. Güzel Sanatlar, 6, 75-90.
Bayraktar, N., & Delibaş, S. (2010). Sultan II. Abdülhamid dönemi Topkapı Sarayı
Müzesi 1294/1878 tarihli Hazine defteri. İstanbul: İslam Tarih, Sanat ve
Kültürünü Araştırma Vakfı.
Berman, M. (2010). All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity.
London: Verso.
Beşikçi, M. (2012). The Ottoman mobilization of manpower in the First World War:
between voluntarism and resistance. Leiden: Brill.
Bierman, I. A., Abou-El-Haj, R. A., & Preziosi, D. (1991). The Ottoman city and its
parts: Urban structure and social order. New Rochelle, N.Y: A.D. Caratzas.
Bikkul, A. U. (1949). Topkapı Sarayında Has Ahır. Güzel Sanatlar, 6, 118-131.
Bompard, G., & Kuneralp, S. (2016). Une ambassadrice de France à
Constantinople: Les souvenirs de Gabrielle Bompard de Blignières (1909-
1914). İstanbul: Isis Press.
Blanc, H. (1880). Journal de mon voyage a Constantinople (Du 24 Avril au 5 Juillet
1854). Marseille: Marseille, Imprimerie et Lithographie Marius Olive.
Bore, E. (1840). Correspondance et mémories d'un voyageur en Orient. Paris:
Olivier Fulgence.
Boyar, E. & Fleet, K. (2010). A social history of Ottoman Istanbul. Cambridge, UK;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boyer, M. (2005). Histoire générale du tourisme du XVIe au XXIe siècle. Paris:
L'Harmattan.
Bozdoğan, S., & Kasaba, R. (1997). Rethinking modernity and national identity in
Turkey. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Bozdoğan, S. (2001). Modernism and nation building: Turkish architectural culture
in the early Republic. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
647
Brooks, N. (1983). The Mediterranean trip: A short guide to the principal points on
the shores of the western Mediterranean and the Levant. New York: C.
Scribner’s Sons.
Broughton, J. C. H. (1813). A journey through Albania, and other provinces of
Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople, during the years 1809-1810.
London: Printed for J. Cawthorn.
Can, C. (1993). İstanbul’da 19. yüzyıl batılı ve Levanten mimarların yapıları ve
koruma sorunları. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Yıldız Teknik
Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Candemir, M. (2007). Yıldız’da kaos ve tasfiye. İstanbul: İlgi Kültür Sanat.
Cangül, C. Topkapı Sarayı'ndaki Hünkâr Köşkü. Retrieved from
http://www.istanbulium.net/2014/01/topkapi-sarayindaki-hunkar-kosku.html.
Celep, F. (1994). Deniz müzesinin tanıtılması. I. Müzecilik Sempozyumu: bildiriler
14-15 Ekim 1993. İstanbul: Deniz Müzesi.
Cerasi, M. (2005). The urban and architectural evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu:
Urban Aesthetics and Ideology in Ottoman Town Building. Muqarnas, 22,
189–232.
Cerasi, M., & Özdamar, A. (2006). Divanyolu. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Cervati, R.C. (1909). Guide horaire généraliInternational pour le voyageur en
Orient. Constantinople: R.C. Cervati.
Cezar, M. (1971). Sanatta Batıʼya açılış ve Osman Hamdi. İstanbul: Türkiye İş
Bankası Yayınları.
Choay, F. (2001). The invention of the historic monument. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Clarke, E. D. (1816). Travels in various countries of Europa, Asia and Africa, by
Edward Daniel Clarke. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies.
Coufopoulos, D. (1902). A Guide to Constantinople (Second Edition). London: A. &
C. Black.
Coufopoulos, D. (1910). A guide to Constantinople. London: A. & C. Black.
Çelik, Z. (1992). Displaying the Orient : Architecture of Islam at nineteenth-century
world’s fairs. Berkeley: University of California Press.
648
Çelik, Z. (1993). The remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the
nineteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Çelik, Z. (2016). About antiquities: Politics of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Çeliktemel-Thomen, Ö., (2010). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda sinema ve propaganda
(1908-1922). Kurgu Online International Journal of Communication Studies,
2.
Çeliktemel-Thomen, Ö. (2013a). Mürebbiye/The governess. In E. Atakav (Ed.)
Directory of World Cinema: Turkey. (pp. 61-63). Bristol: Intellect.
Çeliktemel-Thomen, Ö. (2013b). Binnaz. In E. Atakav (Ed.) Directory of World
Cinema: Turkey. (pp. 57-59). Bristol: Intellect.
Çeliktemel-Thomen, Ö. (2013c). Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives: Inventory of
written archival sources for Ottoman cinema history, Tarih: Graduate
History Journal, 3, 17-48.
Çetin, A. (1985). Osmanlı Arşivlerinin Tarihçesi. In Osmanlı arşivleri ve Osmanlı
araştırmaları sempozyumu: Mustafa Reşit Paşa, Hazine-i Evrak (1846) (pp.
63–71). İstanbul: Türk-Arap İlişkileri İncelemeleri Vakfı Yayınları.
Çiftçi, A. (2004). 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı devleti’nde askeri mimari ve İstanbul’da inşa
edilen askeri yapılar. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yıldız Teknik
Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Çiftçi, A. & Seçkin, N. (2005). 19. Yüzyılda İstanbul’da inşa edilen askeri yapıların
koruma sorunları. Megaron, 1(1), 51-66.
Dağdelen, İ. (2006). Alman mavileri: 1913-1914 : I. Dünya Savaşı öncesi İstanbul
haritaları. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı Kütüphane ve
Müzeler Müdürlüğü.
Danişmend, İ. H. (1972). İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi 4. İstanbul: Türkiye
Yayınevi.
De Amicis, E. (1878). Constantinople. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
De Beaumont, A. (1861). Les arts décoratifs en Orient et en France. Les Gobelins:
Au Bureau de la Revue des deux mondes.
De Beauregard, F. (1896). Aux rives du Bosphore. O'Netty: Vitte.
De Blowitz, H. (1884). Une course à Constantinople. Paris: Librairie Plon.
649
De Chambrier, J. (1873). Un peu partout. Du Danube au Bosphore, 2eme ed. Paris:
Librairie Academique.
De Fontmagne, M. C. D., (1902). Un séjour à l'ambassade de France à
Constantinople sous le second empire. Paris: Plon-Nourrit.
De Gasparin, V. B. (1867). A Constantinople. Paris: M. Lévy Frères.
Demangel, R. & Mamboury, E. (1939). Le quartier des Manganes et la première
règion de Constantinople. Paris, Boccard.
Demirel, F. (2007). Dolmabahçe ve Yıldız saraylarında son ziyaretler, son ziyafetler.
İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
Deringil, S. (1991). Legitimacy structures in the Ottoman state: The reign of
Abdulhamid II (1876-1909). International Journal of Middle East Studies,
23(3), 345–359.
Deringil, S. (1993). The invention of tradition as public image in the late Ottoman
Empire, 1808 to 1908. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 35(1), 3–
29.
Deringil, S. (1999). The well protected domains. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co.
Deringil, S. (2007). Simgeden millete : II. Abdülhamid’den Mustafa Kemal’e devlet
ve millet. İstanbul: İletişim.
Dethier, P. A. (1873). Le Bosphore et Constantinople: Description topographique et
historique. Vienne: Alfred Hölder.
Diehl, C. (1924). Constantinople. Paris: Renouard.
Duindam, J. F. J. (2016). Dynasties: A global history of power, 1300-1800.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duncan, C. (1995). Civilizing rituals: Inside public art museums. London ; New
York: Routledge.
Düzalan, N. (2011). Demirkapı Kışlası’nın tarihsel gelişimi, M.S.B İstanbul Tedarık
Bölge Başkanlığı binaları olarak kullanımı ve koruma sorunları.
(Unpublished master's thesis). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Ebersolt, J. (1924). Mission archéologique de Constantinople. Paris: E. Leroux.
Eldem, E. (2004). Pride and privilege: A history of Ottoman orders, medals and
decorations. İstanbul: Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre.
650
Eldem, E. (2005). Death in Istanbul: Death and its rituals in Ottoman-Islamic
culture. İstanbul: Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre.
Eldem, E. (2010). Osman Hamdi Bey sözlüğü. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
Eldem, E. (2014-2015). Elbise-i Osmaniye'yi tekrar ele almak 1-2-3-4. Toplumsal
Tarih, 248-250-252-253.
Eldem, E. (2015). Ayasofya: Kilise, cami, abide, müze, simge. Toplumsal Tarih,
254, 76-85.
Eldem, E. (2016a). The genesis of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts. In M.
Farhad & S. Rettig (Eds.), The art of the Qurʼan: Treasures from the Museum
of Turkish and Islamic Arts. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Eldem, E. (2016b). Osmanlı dönemi'nde arkeoloji, koruma ve müzecilik: İlk adımlar.
Retrieved from http://arsiv.mimarist.org/odadan/5073-prof-dr-edhem-eldemile-
osmanli-donemi-nde-arkeoloji-koruma-ve-muzecilik-ilk-adimlarkonferansi-
yapildi.html
Eldem, E. (2017). The (Still)Birth of the Ottoman “Museum”: A critical
reassessment. In M. Gahtan & E. Troelenberg (Eds.) Collecting and Empires:
An Historical and Global Perspective. Turnhout: Brepols.
Eldem, E., Goffman, D., & Masters, B. A. (1999). The Ottoman city between East
and West : Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Eldem, S. H. (1969). Köşkler ve kasırlar. İstanbul: Devlet Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi
Yüksek Mimarlık Bölümü Rölöve Kürsüsü.
Eldem, S. H. (1979). İstanbul Anıları - Reminiscences of Istanbul. İstanbul: Aletaş
Alarko Eğitim Tesisleri.
Eldem, S. H. & Akozan, F. (1982). Topkapı Sarayı: Bir mimari araştırma. İstanbul:
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
Elliot, F. (1893). Diary of an idle woman in Constantinople. London: John Murray
Elsner, J. & Rubiés, J. P. (1999). Voyages and visions: Towards a cultural history of
travel. London: Reaktion Books.
Engin, V. (1993). Rumeli demiryolları. Beyoğlu, İstanbul: Eren.
Ergin, O., & Galitekin, A. N. (2007). İstanbul şehreminleri: (Büyükşehir Belediye
Başkanları : 1855-1928). İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları.
651
Ergüney, Y.D. & Kara Pilehvarian N. (2015). Ottoman representation in nineteenth
century universal expositions. Megaron, 10(2): 224-240.
Erkmen, A. (2010). Geç Osmanlı dünyasında mimarlık ve hafıza: Arşiv, jübile,
âbide. İstanbul: Akın Nalça.
Ersoy, A. A. (2000). On the sources of the “Ottoman Renaissance”: architectural
revival and its discourse during the Abdülaziz era (1861-76). (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Boston.
Ersoy, A. (2003). A sartorial tribute to late Tanzimat Ottomanism: The Elbı̇se-ı̇
Osmanı̇yye album. Muqarnas, 20, 187–207.
Ersoy, A. (2015). Architecture and the late Ottoman historical imaginary:
reconfiguring the architectural past in a modernizing empire. Farnham
Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate.
Erünsal, İ. E. (2015). Osmanlılarda kütüphaneler ve kütüphanecilik. İstanbul: Timaş.
Esad Efendi. (1979). Osmanlılarda töre ve törenler (Teşrifat-ı kadime). İstanbul:
Tercüman.
Eyice, S. (1984). İstanbul'da ilk Telgrafhane-i Amire'nin Projesi (1855). Tarih
Dergisi, XXXIV, 72, 61-72.
Fesch, P. & Üyepazarcı, E. (1999). Abdülhamid’in son günlerinde İstanbul =
Constantinople au derniers jours d’Abdul-Hamid. İstanbul: Pera Turizm ve
Ticaret.
Fetvacı, E. (2013). Picturing history at the Ottoman court. Bloomington,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Findley, C. V. (2014). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda bürokratik reform: Bâbıâlî,
1789-1922. İstanbul : Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Fıratlı, N. (1964). İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yıllıǧı: Annual of the Archaeological
Museums of Istanbul 11/12 11/12. Istanbul.
Flaubert, G. & Nadeau, M. (1964). Voyage en orient 1849-1851. Lausanne: Éditions
Rencontre.
Fossati, G., Haghe, L. & Beaumont, A. de. (1852). Aya Sofia, Constantinople, as
recently restored by order of H.M. the Sultan Abdul-Medjid. London: R. & C.
Colnaghi & Co.
652
Frankland, C. C. (1829). Travels to and from Constantinople, in the years 1827 and
1828. London: Henry Colburn.
Freely, J. (1999). Inside the Seraglio: Private lives of the sultans in Istanbul.
London: Viking.
Gautier, T. (1856). Constantinople. Paris: Michel Lévy frères.
Gallois, E. (1903). Une croisière dans le Levant: Aux villes disparues de l'Asie-
Mineure. Paris: Impr. de la "Vérité française".
Georgeon, F. (2006). Sultan Abdülhamid. İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi.
Gerçek, F. (1999). Türk müzeciliği. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı.
Gharipour, M., & Özlü, N. (2015). The city in the Muslim world: Depictions by
Western travel writers. London, Routledge.
Girardelli, P. (2005). Architecture, identity, and liminality: On the use and meaning
of Catholic spaces in late Ottoman Istanbul, Muqarnas 22, 233-264.
Girardelli, P. (2013). Re-thinking architect Kemalettin. Abe ABE Journal.
Girardelli, P. (2015). Raimondo d’Aronco. In M. L. Çiçek, Ş. Torun (Eds.), Türk
mimarisinde iz bırakanlar I (pp. 251–266). İstanbul: Çevre ve Şehircilik
Bakanlığı.
Girouard, M. (1985). Cities and people: a social and architectural history. New
Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press.
Godard-Faultrier, V. (1858). D'Angers au Bosphore pendant la guerre d'Orient:
Constantinople, Athènes, Rome : Impressions, curiosités, archéologie, art et
histoire, établissements chrètiens, monuments byzantins : Souvenirs d'Anjou
à Malte, Naples. Paris: L. Maison.
Goodwin, G. (1999). Topkapi Palace: An illustrated guide to its life & personalities.
Al Saqi.
Choiseul-Gouffier, M.G.A.F. (1842). Voyage pittoresque dans l'empire Ottoman, en
Grèce, dans la Troade, les îles de l'archipel et sur les cotes de l'Asie-
Mineure. Paris: J.-P. Aillaud.
Göğüş, C. (2006). 19. yy. Avusturya gazeteleri ışığında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun
1873 Viyana Dünya Sergisine katılımı. (Unpublished master's thesis).
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
653
Göncü, C. (2015). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’nın inşa süreci, mekan ve teşkilat.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Grey, W. (1870). Journal of a visit to Egypt, Constantinople, the Crimea, Greece etc.
in the suite of the prince and princess of Wales. London.
Grosvenor, E. A. (1900). Constantinople. Boston: Roberts Bros.
Gültekin, T. (1994). Gülhane bahçesi 19. yy anıtları ve çevre değerlendirmesi.
(Unpublished master's thesis). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Gürkan, Ö. (2005). Gülhane Parkı içindeki yapılar ve Alay Köşkü. (Unpublished
master's thesis). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Gurlitt, C. (1905). Konstantinopel. Berlin: Marquardt & Co.
Gürol Öngören, P. (2012). Displaying cultural heritage, defining collective identity:
Museums from the late Ottoman Empire to the early Turkish Republic.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Habesci, E. (1784). The present state of the Ottoman Empire: Containing a more
accurate and interesting account ... of the Turks than any yet extant :
including a particular description of the court and seraglio of the Grand
Signor. London: R. Baldwin.
Hafız Hızır İlyas. (2011). Osmanlı sarayında gündelik hayat: letâif-i vekayi’-i
enderûniyye. İstanbul: Kitabevi.
Halil Edhem. (1909). Das osmanische Antikenmuseum in Konstantinopel. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs.
Halil Edhem. (1931). Topkapı Sarayı. İstanbul: Kanaat Kütüphanesi.
Hamadeh, S. (2004). Ottoman expressions of early modernity and the “inevitable”
question of Westernization. The Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, 63(1), 32–51.
Hamadeh, S. (2008). The city’s pleasures in istanbul in the eighteenth century.
Seattle ; London: University of Washington Press.
Hazerfen, A. (1985). Bir çavuşun Balkan Harbi anıları - I. Tarih ve Toplum, 21.
Hichens, R. (1913). The Near East. Dalmatia, Greece and Constantinople. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
Hisar, A. Ş., (2010). Türk müzeciliği, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
654
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1972). The social function of the past: Some questions.
Pastpresent Past & Present, (55), 3–17.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. London ; New
York: Routledge.
Hoyt, W. M. (1894). A cruise on the Mediterranean, or, Glimpses of the Old World
through the eyes of a business man of the New. Chicago: Poole Bros.
Hudson, R. (1993). The grand tour: 1592-1796. London: Folio Society.
İnalcık, H., & Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (2006). Tanzimat: değişim sürecinde Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
International Congress of Turkish Art (1995). 9. Milletlerarası Türk sanatları
kongresi: bildiriler, 23-27 Eylül 1991, Atatürk Kültür Merkezi-İstanbul = 9th
International congress of Turkish art, contributions : 23-27 September 1991,
Atatürk Cultural Center-Istanbul. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
İşgal İstanbul’undan fotoğraflar: Istanbul 1919, images d’occupation. (1996).
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfi.
İstanbul Asarıatika Müzeleri - Topkapı Sarayı müzesi rehberi. (1933). İstanbul:
Devlet Matbaası.
İyez, F., & Gezgör, V. (n.d.). Milli Saraylar arşivinde yer alan belgeler
doğrultusunda Topkapı Sarayı onarımları. İstanbul: Milli Saraylar.
Joanne, A., & Isambert, E. (1861). Itinéraire descriptif, historique et archéologique
de l'Orient. Paris: L. Hachette.
John Murray (Firm). (1840). A hand-book for travellers in the Ionian Islands,
Greece, Turkey, Asia Minor, and Constantinople: Being a guide to the
principal routes in those countries, including a description of Malta ; with
maxims and hints for travellers in the East. London: J. Murray.
John Murray (Firm) (1845). A hand-book for travellers in the Ionian Islands, Greece,
Turkey, Asia Minor, and Constantinople: Being a guide to the principal
routes in those countries, including a description of Malta ; with maxims and
hints for travellers in the East. London: J. Murray.
John Murray (Firm) & Playfair, R. L. (1882). Handbook to the Mediterranean: Its
cities, coasts, and islands: For the use of general travellers and yachtsmen.
London: J. Murray.
655
John Murray (Firm) & Playfair, R. L. (1890). Handbook to the Mediterranean: Its
cities, coasts, and islands: For the use of general travellers and yachtsmen.
London: John Murray.
Junod, B. (2013). Islamic Art and the museum: Approaches to art and archaeology
of the Muslim world in the twenty-first century. Saqi Books.
Kafadar, C. (1993). The myth of the golden age: Ottoman historical consciousness in
the post-Süleymanic Era. In H. İnalcık and C. Kafadar (Eds.) Süleyman the
Second and His Time. (pp. 37-48). İstanbul: ISIS Press.
Kafadar, C. (1997-98). The question of Ottoman decline. Harvard Middle East and
Islamic Review 4. 1-2; 30-75.
Kafescioglu, Ç. (2009). Constantinopolis/Istanbul : Cultural encounter, imperial
vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital. University Park, PA.:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kahraman, K. (2007). 150. yılında Dolmabahçe Sarayı uluslararası sempozyumu:
Bildiriler. İstanbul: TBMM Milli Saraylar.
Kahraman, K., Baytar, İ. (2015). Sultan Abdülmecid ve dönemi (1823-1861).
İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş. Yayınları.
Kara, H. (2015). Cemil [Topuzlu] Paşa’nın belediye başkanlıkları ve İstanbul’daki
imar faaliyetleri. (Unpublished master's thesis). Marmara Üniversitesi,
İstanbul.
Karacagil, Ö. K. (2013). Alman imparatoru İstanbul’da (1917). Gazi Akademik
Bakış, 6 (12), 111-133.
Karaduman, H. (2016). Ulus-devlet bağlamında belgelerle Ankara Etnoğrafya
Müzesi’nin kuruluşu ve Milli Müze. Ankara: Bilgin.
Karaer, N. (2003). Sultan Abdulaziz’in Avrupa seyahati ile Osmanlı ve batı
kamuoyundaki yankıları. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara
Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Karahasan, Ü. (2005). Topkapı Sarayı Cumhuriyet dönemi restorasyonları
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Karal, E. Z. (1988). Büyük Osmanlı tarihi III, Islahat Fermanı devri (1861-1876).
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Karal, E. Z. (1988). Büyük Osmanlı tarihi V, Nizam-ı cedid ve Tanzimat devirleri.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
656
Karateke, H. T. (2004). Padişahım çok yaşa! İstanbul: Kitap Yayinevi Ltd.
Karateke, H. T. (2007). An Ottoman protocol register: containing ceremonies from
1736 to 1808, BEO Sadaret defterleri 350 in the Prime Ministry Ottoman
State Archives, Istanbul. İstanbul ; London: The Ottoman Bank Archive and
Research Centre ; The Royal Asiatic Society.
Karateke, H. T. & Reinkowski, M. (2005). Legitimizing the order : the Ottoman
rhetoric of state power. Leiden ; Boston: Brill.
Kayserili, S. (2011) World War I and reflection Turkish War of Independence to the
silver screen. (Unpublished master's thesis) Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi.
Kayra, C. & Üyepazarcı, E. (1992). İkinci Mahmut’un İstanbul’u : Bostancıbaşı
sicilleri. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Dairesi
Başkanlığı.
Kilerci, B. (2013). Ottoman-Qajar realations through photography: Muzaffar al-Din
Shah's Istanbul visit (1900). (Unpublished master's thesis). Boğaziçi
University, İstanbul.
Koçu, R. E. (1960). Topkapu Sarayı : İçinde geçen vak’alar, eski saray hayatı ve
teşkilâtı ile beraber adım adım, köşe köşe. İstanbul: İstanbul Ansiklopeisi ve
Neşriyat Kollektif Şirketi.
Köseoğlu, C. (1980a). Hazine. İstanbul: Yapı ve Kredi Bankası.
Köseoğlu, C. (1980b). Topkapı Sarayı imparatorluk hazinesi: (Hazine-i Hümayun).
İstanbul: Akbank.
Küçükerman, Ö., & Konyalı, A. (2007). Sanayi ve tasarım yarışında bir
imparatorluk iki saray “Topkapı” ve “Dolmabahçe.” İstanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları.
Kula Say, S. (2014). Geç dönem Osmanlı mimarlığı’nda başlıca Beaux Arts okulu
temsilcisi olarak, Alexandre Vallaury’nin mimar ve eğitimci kariyerinin ve
mimari tavrının analizi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul Teknik
Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Kuehn, J., & Smethurst, P. (2012). Travel writing, form and empire: The poetics and
politics of mobility. New York, N.Y: Routledge.
Kutluoğlu, M. H., & Candemir, M. (2010). Bir cihan devletinin tasfiyesi: Yıldız
Sarayı Müzesi tasfiye komisyonu defteri. İstanbul: Çamlıca.
657
Lacroix, F. (1839). Guide du voyageur a Constantinople et dans ses environs:
Contenant : L'histoire de cette capitale depuis sa fondation jusqu'a sa
conquête par Mahomet II, l'indication et la description des localités les plus
remarquables ; des recherches historiques sur les principaux monuments, et
en général tout ce qui peut ètre utile au voyageur. Paris: Bellizard, Dufour.
Lamartine, M. A. (1835). Souvenirs impressions pensees et paysages pendant un
voyage en orient (1832-1833). Bruxelles: Louis Hauman et comp, libraires.
Larchey, L. (1857). Un mois à Constantinople. Décembre 1854. Paris: Just Rouvier.
Launay, M. de, & Vienna International Exhibition. (2010). Osmanlı mimarisi, Usûl-i
Mi'mar-i Osmani = L'architecture ottomane = Die OttomanischeBaukunst.
İstanbul: Çamlıca.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK; Cambridge, Mass.,
USA: Blackwell.
Lechavalier, J.-B. (1800). Voyage de la Propontide du Pont-Euxin. Paris: Dentu.
Léopold, Basch, S., Ferrier, C. M., & Janssens, G. (1997). Voyage à Constantinople:
1860. Bruxelles: Editions Complexe.
Lewis, B. (1961). The emergence of modern Turkey. London ; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lorenz, D.E. (1922). The new mediterranean traveler, seventh (post-war) edition.
New York , Chicago , London, Edinburgh:Fleming H. Revell Company.
Loti, P. (2005). Constantinople in 1890. Istanbul: Ünlem.
Maccannell, D. (2013). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class : with a new
introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Macdonald, S., & Fyfe, G. (1996). Theorizing museums : representing identity and
diversity in a changing world. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Macmillan & Co. (1904). Guide to the eastern Mediterranean: Including Greece and
the Greek islands, Constantinople, Smyrna, Ephesus, etc. London: Macmillan
and Co.
Madran, E. (1996). Cumhuriyetin ilk otuz yılında koruma alanının örgütlenmesi
(1920-1950). ODTÜ MDF, 16(1–2), 59–97.
Makdisi, U. (2002). Ottoman Orientalism. American Historical Review, 107(3), 768–
796.
658
Mamboury, E. (1925). Constantinople, guide touristique. Constantinople: Rizzo.
Max Müller, G. A. (1897). Letters from Constantinople. London: Longmans, Green
& C.
Mehmed Raif. (2010). Topkapı Sarayı ve çevresi. İstanbul: Okur Kitaplığı.
Mehmet Raif. (1913). Topkapı Saray-ı Hümayunu ve parkının tarihi. İstanbul:
Matbaa-i Hayriye.
Millaud, A. (1873). Voyages d'un fantaisiste: Vienne - Le Danube - Constantinople.
Paris.
Miller, B. (1931). Beyond the Sublime Porte, The Grand Seraglio of Stambul. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Mitchell, T. (1988). Colonizing Egypt. Cambridge ; New York ; Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press.
Mme X…, (1863). Une visite au sérail en 1860. In Le tour du monde. Paris: L.
Hachette.
Moltke, H. von, & Örs, H. (1999). Moltke’nin Türkiye mektupları. İstanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi.
Müller, M. (1897). Letters from Constantinople, by Mrs. Max Müller. London:
Longmans.
Müller-Wiener, W. & Sayın, Ü. (2001). İstanbul’un tarihsel topografyası: 17. yüzyıl
başlarına kadar Byzantion-Konstaninopolis-İstanbul. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları.
Murray, J. (1840). Hand-book for travellers in the Ionian islands, Greece, Turkey,
Asia Minor, and Constantinople. London: John Murray.
Nasir-ad-Din Shah & Redhouse, J.W. (1874). The diary of H.m. the Shah of of
Persia: During his tour through Europe in A.d. 1873 ; a Verbatim
Translation. London: Murray.
Necipoğlu, G. (1986). The Formation of an Ottoman Imperial Tradition: The
Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Boston.
Necipoğlu, G. (1986). Framing the Gaze in Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Palaces.
Ars Orientalis 23, 303–42.
659
Necipoğlu, G. (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power : the Topkapı Palace in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York, N.Y.; Cambridge, MA:
Architectural History Foundation; MIT Press.
Necipoğlu, G. (1997). “The suburban landscape of sixteenth-century Istanbul as a
mirror of classical Ottoman garden culture.” In Gardens in the time of the
great Muslim empires: Theory and design, edited by Attilio Petruccioli.
Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.
Necipoglu, G. (2013). "Virtual archaeology’’ in light of a new document on the
Topkapı Palace’s waterworks and earliest buildings, circa 1509. Muqarnas,
30, 315–350.
Nerval, G. (1851). Voyage en Orient. Paris: Charpentier.
Nietzsche, F. W. (1957). The use and abuse of history. New York: Liberal Arts
Press.
Nora, P., (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.
Representations. 26(1): 7-24.
Odabaşıoğlu, M. (2002). Emergence of Islamic department in the Müze-i Hümayun.
(Unpublished master's thesis). Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Ongun, Z. (1962). Alay Köşkü, Arkitekt. 04 (309),153-162.
Orhan, K. (2007). Abdülhamit gerçeği. İstanbul: Pozitif Yayınları.
Ortaylı, İ. (2007). Mekânlar ve olaylarıyla Topkapı Sarayı. İstanbul: Kaynak.
Ortaylı, İ. (2008). Osmanlı sarayında hayat. İstanbul: Yitik Hazine Yayınları.
Osman Hamdi Bey, de Launay, M., Üyepazarcı, E. (1999). 1873 yılında Türkiye’de
halk giysileri: Elbise-i Osmaniyye. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
Öğütmen, F. (1966). Topkapı Sarayı’nda kütüphaneler. Hayat Tarih Mecmuası, 12,
36.
Öz, T. (1938). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi arşivi kılavuzu. İstanbul.
Öz, T. (1948). Ahmet Fethi Paşa ve müzeler. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Öz, T. (1949). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi onarımları. Güzel Sanatlar Dergisi, 6(Ocak),
6–74.
660
Öz, T. (1953a). Hırka-i Saadet Dairesi ve Emanat-i Mukaddese. İstanbul: İsmail
Akgün Matbaası.
Öz, T. (1953b). Topkapı Sarayında Fatih Sultan Mehmet II'ye ait eserler. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Öz, T. (1991). Hayatım. İstanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi.
Özçelik, M. (2012). Avusturya-Macaristan imparatoru'nun 1918 İstanbul Ziyareti'nin
Türk Basınına Yansımaları, SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Journal of
Social Sciences, 27, 51-63.
Özlü [Kayaalp], N. (2009). Pera’nın yersizyurtsuz kahramanları: Vallouri Ailesi,
Edouard Lebon, Alexandre Vallauri ve M. Vedad Tek. (Unpublished master's
thesis). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Özlü, N. (2011). Merkezin merkezi: Sultan II. Abdülhamid döneminde Yıldız Sarayı.
Toplumsal Tarih, 206, 2-13.
Özlü, N. (2013). Kentin çeperinde bir kent müzesi. Istanbul Art News, 4/Aralık, 77.
Özlü, N. (2015a). Alexandre Vallaury, İstanbul’a damgasını vuran Levanten mimar.
In M. L. Çiçek, Ş. Torun (Eds.), Türk Mimarisinde İz Bırakanlar I (pp. 295-
310) İstanbul: Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı.
Özlü N. (2015b). Tanzimat’ın mimarları: Fossati biraderler. In M. L. Çiçek, Ş. Torun
(Eds.), Türk Mimarisinde İz Bırakanlar III (pp. 61-76). İstanbul: Çevre ve
Şehircilik Bakanlığı.
Özlü, N. (2015c). Single p(a)lace, multiple narratives: The Topkapı Palace in
Western travel accounts from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. In M.
Gharipour, N. Özlü (Eds.), The city in the Muslim world: Depictions by
Western travel writers (pp. 168-188). London: Routledge.
Özlü, N. (2016). Dolmabahçe Sarayı’ndan evvel Dolmabağçe... In B. Kaya (Ed.),
Dolmabahçe: Mekanın Hafızası (pp. 39-62). İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi
Yayınları.
Özlü N. (2017). Houses of Osman: Mobility and visibility in the Ottoman court from
15th to 19th centuries. In, A. Akçay Kavakoğlu, D. Güleç Özer, D.
Yorgancıoğlu (Eds.), AURUM Design Notes (pp. 286-294). İstanbul: İstanbul
Kemerburgaz University.
Öztuncay, B. (2006). Dersaadet’in fotoğrafçıları: 19 yüzyıl İstanbulunda fotoğraf:
Öncüler, stüdyolar, sanatçılar. İstanbul: AYGAZ.
661
Öztuncay, B. (2013). Robertson: Osmanlı başkentinde fotoǧrafçı hakkak =
photographer and engraver in the Ottoman Capital. İstanbul: Vehbi Koç
Vakfı.
Öztuncay, B., Eldem, E., Kuneralp, S., Akdemir, M., Yıldırım, B. (2014).
Propaganda and war: the Allied front during the First World War = 1.
Dünya savaşı’nda ittifak cephesinde savaş ve propaganda. İstanbul: Vehbi
Koç Vakfı.
Pakalın, M. Z. (1946). Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü 1. İstanbul: Milli
Eğitim Basımevi.
Pardoe, & Bartlett, W. H. (1839). The beauties of the Bosphorus. London: G. Virtue.
Penzer, N. M., & Şahin, D. (2000). Harem. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
Pertusier, C. (1820). Picturesque promenades in and near Constantinople, and on
the waters of the Bosphorus. London: Printed for Sir R. Phillips & Co.
Pitarakis, B. (Ed.). (2010). Hippodrom/Atmeydanı: İstanbulʹun tarih sahnesi =
Hippodrome/At Meydanı, a stage for Istanbul’s history (2nd ed). İstanbul:
Pera Müzesi Yayınları.
Playfair, R. L., & John Murray. (1882). Handbook to the Mediterranean: Its cities,
coasts, and islands: For the use of general travellers and yachtsmen.
London: John Murray.
Porter, D. (1835). Constantinople and its environs: In a series of letters, exhibiting
the actual state of the manners, customs, and habits of the Turks, Armenians,
Jews, and Greeks, as modified by the policy of Sultan Mahmoud. New York:
Harper & Bros.
Pratt, M. L. (2008). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation (2nd ed.).
London ; New York: Routledge.
Preziosi, D., & Farago, C. J. (2004). Grasping the world: The idea of the museum.
Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.
Preziosi, D. (1991). Introduction: The mechanisms of urban meaning, in Irene A.
Bierman, Rifaat A. Abou-El-Haj, Donald Preziosi (Eds.), The Ottoman city
and its parts: urban structure and social order (pp. 3-11). New Rochelle,
N.Y: Caratzas.
Quataert, D. (1997). Clothing laws, state, and society in the Ottoman Empire, 1720–
1829. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 29(3), 403–425.
662
Quataert, D. (2000). The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Raby, J. (1982). A sultan of paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts.
The Oxford Art Journal, 3–8.
Raby, J. (1983). Mehmed the Conqueror’s Greek scriptorium. Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 37, 15–34.
Raczyński, E., Turan, K. (1980). 1814'de İstanbul ve Çanakkale'ye seyahat. İstanbul:
Tercüman Gazetesi.
Ran, N. H. (2016). Üç şiir: Yaşamaya dair, ceviz ağacı, masalların masalı. İstanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Renda, G. (1977). Batılılaşma döneminde Türk resim sanatı 1700-1850. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Riegl, A. (1982). The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rona, Z. (1993). Osman Hamdi Bey ve dönemi sempozyumu, 17-18 Aralik 1992.
Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Russell, William H. (1869). A diary in the East during the tour of the Prince and
Princess of Wales. London: G. Routledge.
Şahin, S., Kutluay, S., & Çelen, M. (2014). Türk ve İslam eserleri müzesi 100 yıl
önce, 100 yıl sonra. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Knopf : Distributed by
Random House.
Sakaoǧlu, N. (2002). Tarihi, mekanları, kitabeleri ve anıları ile Saray-ı Hümayun:
Topkapı Sarayı. İstanbul: Denizbank.
Sakaoğlu, N. (2002). The Imperial Palace with its history, locations, inscriptions and
memoirs: Topkapı Palace. İstanbul: Denizbank Publications.
Sakaoğlu, N., & Akbayar, N. (2001). Avrupalılaşmanın yol haritası ve Sultan
Abdülmecid. İstanbul: DenizBank.
663
Salkımlı, M., & Örsel, Y. Osmanlı Devleti emniyet-i umumiye 10 Nisan 1845:
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti polis tarihi. İstanbul: Siyasi ve Mesleki Sorunlar
Dergisi.
Saner, T. (1995, September) A nineteenth century interpretation of Çinili Köşk
(Istanbul) in an Orientalist manner. Proceedings of Art Turc / Turkish Art:
10th International Congress of Turkish Art (pp.617-623). Geneva,
Fondation Max Van Berchem.
Saris, M. (2010). İstanbullu Rum ressamlar = Greek painters of Istanbul. İstanbul:
Birzamanlar Yayıncılık.
Schick, İ. C. (1999). The erotic margin: sexuality and spatiality in alteritist
discourse. London: New York: Verso.
Schick, İ. C., & Anadol, A. (2004). Çerkes güzeli: bir şarkiyatçı imgenin serüveni.
İstanbul: Oğlak.
Schiele, R., Müller-Wiener, W. (1988). 19. yüzyılda İstanbul hayatı. İstanbul: Roche.
Sezer, Y. (2016). The architecture of bibliophilia: Eighteenth-century Ottoman
libraries. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston.
Shaw, S. J., & Shaw, E. K. (1976). History of the Ottoman Empire and modern
Turkey (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, S. J., & Shaw, E. K. (2005). History of the Ottoman Empire and modern
Turkey. Reform, revolution, and republic: the rise of modern Turkey, 1808-
1975, II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, W. M. K. (2003). Possessors and possessed : museums, archeology, and the
visualization of history in the late Ottoman empire. Berkeley; Los Angeles;
London: University of California Press.
Shaw, W. M. K. (2007). Museums and narratives of display from the late Ottoman
Empire to the Turkish Republic. Muqarnas, 24, 253–79.
Shaw, Wendy M.K. (2012). Ottoman painting: Reflections of Western art from the
Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. London; New York: I. B. Tauris,
Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa (1966). Nusretnâme c.II (İ. Parmaksızoğlu,
Sadeleştiren). İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
664
Slade, A. (1833). Records of travels in Turkey, Greece, and of a cruise in the Black
Sea, with the capitan pasha, in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831. London:
Saunders and Otley.
Somel, S. A. (2010). The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. Lanham, Toronto,
Plymouth: Scarecrow Press.
Stephanov, D. (2014). Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) and the first shift in modern
ruler visibility in the Ottoman Empire. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish
Studies Association, 1(1–2), 129–148.
Şapolyo, E. B. (1936). Müzeler tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
Şehsuvaroğlu, H. Y. (1949). Sultan Aziz: Hususî, siyasî hayatı, devri ve ölümü.
İstanbul: Hilmi Kitapevi.
Şehsuvaroğlu, B. N. (1972) Alman imparatoru II. Wilhelm’in yurdumuzu Ziyaretleri.
Hayat Tarih Mecmuası, 6, 20-27.
Şimşirgil, A. (2005). Taşa yazılan tarih Topkapı Sarayı. İstanbul: Tarih Düşünce
Kitapları.
Talbot, M. (2016). Accessing the shadow of God: Spatial and performative
ceremonial at the Ottoman Court. In The key to power? : The culture of
access in princely courts, 1400-1750 (pp. 103–123). Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Tanyeli, G. (1996). Darphane-i Amire bir Habitat II mekanı. Arredemento Mimarlık,
82, 92-95.
Tanyeli, U. (1990). Topkapı Sarayı Üçüncü Avlusu’ndaki Fatih Köşkü ve tarihsel
evrimi üzerine gözlemler. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık-4.
Tanzimat'tan Cumhuriyet'e Türkiye ansiklopedisi. (1985). İstanbul: İletişim
Yayınları.
Taşdan, H. (2004). Türkiye’de mülki idare akademisi. (Unpublished master's thesis).
Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Tavernier, J.-B. (1675). Nouvelle relation de l’interieur du serail du grand seigneur.
Paris: O. de Varennes.
Tavernier, J.-B., Tunçdogan, T., & Sakaoglu, N. (2007). 17. yüzyılda Topkapı
Sarayı. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Tayyarzade Ata Bey, & Arslan, M. (2010). Osmanlı Saray tarihi Tarih-i Enderun
(Târih-i Atâ) (Vol. I). İstanbul: Kitabevi.
665
Tekeli, İ. (2006). 19. yüzyılda İstanbul metropol alanının dönüşümü. In H. İnalcık &
M. Seyitdanlıoğlu (Eds.). Tanzimat: değişim sürecinde Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu. (pp. 525-540). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
Teule, J.C. (1842). Pensées et notes critiques extraites du journal de mes voyages
dans l'empire du sultan de constantinople, dans les provinces russes,
géorgiennes et tartares du Caucase et dans le royaume de Perse. Paris:
Bertrand.
Tezcan, H. (1989). Topkapı Sarayı ve çevresinin Bizans devri arkeolojisi. İstanbul:
Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu.
The Encyclopedia of Islam. (1965). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Tongo Overfield Shaw, G. (2011, April) In search of a new past: Representation of
the Tulip Period in a late Ottoman film Binnaz (1919). Paper presented at
26th Middle East History and Theory (MEHAT) Conference. University of
Chicago, IL.
Topuzlu, C., Hâtemî, H., & Kazancıgil, A. (2010). İstibdat, Meşrutiyet, Cumhuriyet
devirlerinde 80 yıllık hatıralarım. İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları.
Tuğlacı, P. (1990). The role of the Balian family in Ottoman architecture. İstanbul:
YÇK Yayınları.
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. (1989). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi.
Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı. (1993). Dünden bugüne İstanbul
ansiklopedisi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
Ubicini, A. (1855). La Turquie actuelle. Paris: L. Hachette.
Uşaklıgil, H. Z. (1965). Saray ve ötesi. İstanbul: İnkılap ve Aka Kitabevleri.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1945). Osmanlı devletinin saray teşkilâtı. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1984). Osmanlı devletinin saray teşkilâtı (2nd edition). Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Ürekli, F. (1997). Sanayi-i nefîse mektebi’nin kuruluşu ve Türk eğitim tarihindeki
yeri. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Ürekli, F. (2012). Osmanlı’nın Çanakkale 1915 panorama tarih müzesi projesi.
İstanbul: Çamlıca.
666
Vardar, D., Eğribel, E., & Özcan, U. (2011). İstanbul’un işgali 1918-1923, İstanbul:
Doğu Yayınevi.
Wallace, S. E. (1898). Along the Bosphorus, and other sketches. Chicago: Rand,
McNally & Company.
Waters, C. E. C. (1895). Constantinople: The city of the sultans. Boston: Estes and
Lauriat.
Wharton, A. (2015). The architects of Ottoman Constantinople. The Balyan family
and the history of Ottoman architecture. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
White, C. (1845). Three years in Constantinople: Or, domestic manners of the Turks
in 1844. United States: Kessinger Publishing.
Yanatma, S. (2007). The deaths and funeral ceremonies of Ottoman sultans
(Unpublished master's thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Yavuz, Y. (2009). İmparatorluktan Cumhuriyete Mimar Kemalettin 1870-1927.
Ankara: TMMOB - Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü.
Yazıcı, N. (2003). Bilinmeyen yönleriyle mimar Montani Efendi. Arkitekt, 495, 42-
47.
Yerasimos, S. (2006). Tanzimat'ın kent reformları üzerine. In H. İnalcık & M.
Seyitdanlıoğlu (Eds.). Tanzimat: Değişim sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu.
(pp. 505-524). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
Yıldız, G. (2008) Yeniçerisiz tahta çıkmak: Kadim ve cedid arasında sultan
Abdülmecid'in cülusu. Türklük Araştırma Dergisi, 20. 329-353.
Yıldız, G. (2016). İranlı hacıların gözüyle İstanbul'u temaşa. Marmara Üniversitesi
İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 51, 135-160.
Yılmaz, C. (2010). II. Abduülhamid: Modernlesşme suürecinde İstanbul = Istanbul
during the modernization process. İstanbul: İstanbul Avrupa Kültür Başkenti.
Yılmaz, C. (2010). II. Mahmud: Yeniden yapılanma sürecinde İstanbul = Istanbul in
the process of being rebuilt. İstanbul: İstanbul Avrupa Kültür Başkenti.
Zürcher, E. J. (1993). Turkey : A modern history. London, New York: I.B. Tauris..
Zürcher, E. J., & Gönen, Y. S. (2000). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin tarihi (7th edition).
İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder