3 Ağustos 2024 Cumartesi

344

 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