The Invention of ‘National Antiquities’ in the Late Ottoman Empire. Archaeological Interrelations between Discourses of Appropriation, Preservation and Heritage Construction

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: DIYÂR Volume 2 (2021), Edition 2
Full access

DIYÂR

Volume 2 (2021), Edition 2

Authors:
Publisher
Ergon, Baden-Baden
Copyright year
2021
ISSN-Online
2942-3155
ISSN-Print
2625-9842

Chapter information

Full access

Volume 2 (2021), Edition 2

The Invention of ‘National Antiquities’ in the Late Ottoman Empire. Archaeological Interrelations between Discourses of Appropriation, Preservation and Heritage Construction

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2625-9842
ISSN-Online
2942-3155
Preview:

In the late 19th century, the German Empire intensified its economic, military, and cultural activities on Ottoman territory. Within the field of archaeology, the Royal Museums in Berlin endeavoured to demonstrate their hegemony. Thus, they focused particularly on the acquisition of ancient objects from the Ottoman territory. The Ottoman authorities’ responses differed between political and cultural actors: While Sultan Abdülhamid II used Hellenistic and Byzantine antiquities as diplomatic gifts to improve his foreign relations to Berlin, the Müze-i Hümayun (Imperial Museum) appeared as an antagonist to foreign claims in the Ottoman Empire. Its directors, Osman Hamdi and Halil Edhem, aimed to rectify the discrepancy between political concerns and the will to preserve antiquities within the Ottoman realm. However, German archaeologists, museum representatives and diplomats strived to benefit from this discrepancy to obtain cultural objects for Berlin. The article argues that Prussia’s strategies of appropriating ancient objects for the Royal Museums correlated and entangled with the valorisation of antiquities in Istanbul.

Bibliography

  1. Primary Sources: Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  2. Becker, Carl Heinrich. 1905/1906. ‘Rezension von Mschatta II. Kunstwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen von Josef Strzygowski’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete. 19. 419-432. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  3. Halil Edhem Eldem. 1327/1911. ‘Asar-ı Atika: Asar-ı Atika Milliyemiz Nasıl Mahvoluyor?’ Şehbal 2.36. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  4. Halil Edhem. 1328/1912. ‘Asar-ı Atika: Yine Konya’. Şehbal 4.59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  5. Reinach, Salomon. 1908. ‘Règlement sur les Antiquités en Turquie.’ Revue archéologique. Quatrième Série.11. 405-412. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  6. Strzygowski, Josef. 1901. ‘Das Petrus-Relief aus Kleinasien im Berliner Museum’. In Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen. Vol. 22. Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 29-34. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  7. Strzygowski, Josef. 1903. Kleinasien. Ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  8. Strzygowski, Josef. 1904. ‘Mschatta. II: Kunstwissenschaftliche Untersuchung’. In Bode, Wilhelm; Tschudi, Hugo von and Wölfflin, Heinrich (eds.). Jahrbuch der Königlich Preußischen Kunstsammlungen. Band 25. Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 225-373. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  9. Watzinger, Carl. 1944. Theodor Wiegand. Ein deutscher Archäologe, 1864-1936. München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  10. Wiegand, Theodor and Schrader, Hans. 1904. Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895-1898. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  11. Unpublished Primary Sources: Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  12. Archiv der Zentrale, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DE DAI-Z-AdZ), Berlin, Germany Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  13. DE DAI-Z-AdZ NL-WieT, Nachlass Wiegand, Theodor. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  14. Bundesarchiv (BArch), Berlin-Lichterfelde, Germany Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  15. R 901/37702, Wissenschaftliche Erforschung von Klein-Asien, Bd. 15, April 1903-Juni 1903. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  16. R 901/37703, Wissenschaftliche Erforschung von Klein-Asien, Bd. 16, Juni 1903-August 1903. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  17. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSUJ), Jena, Germany Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  18. Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities (HSN) 00031. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  19. Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes (PA-AA), Berlin, Germany Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  20. RZ 503/64440, Kunstnachrichten aus der Türkei, Januar 1903–Januar 1916. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  21. RZ 503/64603, Ausgrabungen in Priene und Milet, August 1899–September 1925. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  22. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivler (Osmanlı Arşivi), Istanbul, Turkey Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  23. Bab-ı Âlî Evrâk Odası (BEO) 1431/107262. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  24. Dahiliye İdare (DH.İD.) 129/12. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  25. Dahiliye Mektub-i Kalemi (DH.MKT.) 725/67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  26. Hariciye Nezareti İdare (HR.İD.) 1446/33, 1446/52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  27. Hariciye Nezareti Tahrirtat (HR.TH.) 273/41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  28. Maarif Nezareti Mektub-i Kalemi (MF.MKT.) 479/41, 661/24. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  29. İrade Maarif (İ. MF.) 5/91. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  30. Yıldız Perakende Askeri Maruzat (Y. PRK. ASK.) 163/11. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  31. Zentralarchiv der Staatlichen Museen (SMB-ZA), Berlin, Germany Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  32. I/IM 006, Mschatta-Ruine, Vol. 01. 1902-1903. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  33. I/ANT 050, Geheime Verhandlungen zum Museumsverkauf Konstantinopel. 1901-1912. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  34. Secondary Sources: Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  35. Altınyıldız, Nur. 2007. ‘The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of Preservation’. In Muqarnas. History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the “Lands of Rum”. Vol. 24. 281-305. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  36. Anonymous. n.d. Petrus in einer Wunderszene. Schrankenplatte. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz. http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=1408936&viewType=detailView (accessed 16 August 2021). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  37. Bahrani, Zainab. 2011. ‘Untold Tales of Mesopotamian Discovery’. In Bahrani, Zainab and Çelik, Zeynep and Eldem, Edhem (eds.). Scramble for the Past. A story of Archeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. İstanbul: SALT. 125-155. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  38. Cezar, Mustafa. 1995. Sanatta Batı’ya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi. Vol. I. İstanbul: Erol Kerim Aksoy Kültür Eğitim Spor ve Sağlık Vakfı. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  39. Çelik, Zeynep. 2016. About Antiquities. Politics of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire. Austin: University of Texas Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  40. Çelik, Zeynep. 2011. ‘Defining Empire’s Patrimony: Late Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities’. In Bahrani, Zainab and Çelik, Zeynep and Eldem, Edhem (eds.). Scramble for the Past. A story of Archeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. Istanbul: SALT. 443-477. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  41. Deringil, Selim. 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  42. Deringil, Selim. 2011. The Well-Protected Domains. Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909. London/New York: IB Tauris. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  43. Díáz-Andreu, Margarita. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  44. Effenberger, Arne. 1989. ‘Studien zu den Bildwerken der Frühchristlich-byzantinischen Sammlung III: Das Petrusrelief von Alaçam.’ In Forschungen und Berichte. Vol. 27. 129-154. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  45. Eldem, Edhem. 2011. ‘From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities, 1799-1869’. In Bahrani, Zainab and Çelik, Zeynep and Eldem, Edhem (eds.). Scramble for the Past. A story of Archeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. Istanbul: SALT. 281-329. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  46. Eldem, Edhem. 2015. ‘Cultural Heritage in Turkey: An Eminently Political Matter’. In Haller, Dieter and Lichtenberger, Achim and Meerpohl, Meike (eds.). Essays on Heritage. Tourism and Society in the MENA Region. Proceedings of the International Heritage Conference 2013 at Tangier, Morocco (Mittelmeerstudien Band 9). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. 67-91. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  47. Eldem, Edhem. 2016. ‘The Genesis of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts’. In Farhad, Massumeh and Rettig, Simon (eds.). The Art of the Qur’an: Treasures from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts. Washington: Smithsonian Books. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  48. Eldem, Edhem. 2020. ‘A new look at an ancient city: Thessaloniki in Ottoman archaeology, 1832-1912’. In Keridis, Dimitris and Kiesling, John Brady (eds.). Thessaloniki. A City in Transition, 1912-2012. London, New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  49. Enderlein, Volkmar. 2008. ‘Die Erwerbung der Palastfassade von Mschatta. Ein kaiserliches Geschenk’. In Trümpler, Charlotte (ed.). Das Grosse Spiel. Archäologie und Politik zur Zeit des Kolonialismus (1860-1940). Essen: Dumont. 410-419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  50. Grabar, Oleg. 1987. ‘The Date and Meaning of Mshatta’. In Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 41. Studies on Art and Archaeology in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. 243-247. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  51. Grabar, Oleg. 1978. The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  52. Gürpınar, Doğan. 2013. Ottoman/Turkish Visions of the Nation, 1860-1950. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  53. Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. 2008. A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  54. Hourani, Albert. 2013. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  55. Kieser, Hans-Lukas. 2018. Talaat Pasha. Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  56. Koçak, Alev. 2011. The Ottoman Empire and Archaeological Excavations. Ottoman Policy from 1840-1906, Foreign Archaeologists, and the Formation of the Ottoman Museum. İstanbul: The İsis Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  57. Kröger, Jens. 2004. ‘Vom Sammeln islamischer Kunst zum Museum für Islamische Kunst’. In Kröger, Jens (ed.). Islamische Kunst in Berliner Sammlungen. 100 Jahre Museum für Islamische Kunst. Berlin: Parthas. 32-55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  58. Makdisi, Ussama. 2011. ‘The “Rediscovery” of Baalbek: A Metaphor for Empire in the Nineteenth Century’. In Bahrani, Zainab; Çelik, Zeynep and Eldem, Edhem (eds.). Scramble for the Past. A story of Archeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753–1914. İstanbul: SALT. 257-279. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  59. Malley, Shawn. 2011. ‘The Layard Enterprise: Victorian Archaeology and Informal Imperialism in Mesopotamia’. In Bahrani, Zainab; Çelik, Zeynep and Eldem, Edhem (eds.). Scramble for the Past. A story of Archeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. İstanbul: SALT. 99-123. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  60. Marchand, Suzanne. 1996. Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  61. Özel, Sibel and Karadayi, Ayhan. 1998. ‘Laws regarding the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Turkey’. In Phelan, Marilyn and Bean, Robert H. (eds.). The Law of Cultural Property and Natural Heritage: Protection, Transfer and Access, Evanston: Kalos Kapp Press, 20/1-20/14. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  62. Pabstmann, Sven. 2019. ‘Vöges Reise ins Osmanische Reich. Die Erwerbungspolitik der Berliner Museen um 1900 im Spiegel der Korrespondenz Wilhelm Vöges mit Wilhelm von Bode’. In Helten, Leonhard; Hubert, Hans W.; Peters, Olaf; Siebert, Guido (eds.). Kontinente der Kunstgeschichte. Der Kunsthistoriker Wilhelm Vöge (1868-1952) (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Sachsen-Anhalts, Bd. 19). Halle (Saale): Mitteldeutscher Verlag. 154-200. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  63. Papatheodorou, Artemis. 2020. ‘Photography and other Media at the Service of Ottoman Archaeology’. Diyâr 1.1. 108-128. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  64. Parla, Taha. 1985. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp: 1876-1924. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  65. Şenişik, Pınar. 2011. The Transformation of Ottoman Crete. Revolts, Politics and Identity in the Late Nineteenth Century. London, New York: I.B. Tauris. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  66. Schildkrout, Enid and Keim, Curtis A. 1998. ‘Objects and Agendas: Re-Collecting the Congo’. In Schildkrout, Enid and Keim, Curtis A. (eds.). The Scramble for Art in Central Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-36. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  67. Shaw, Wendy M.K. 2003. Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  68. Shaw, Wendy. 2017. ‘The Valorization of Antiquities in the Late Ottoman Empire: Hüseyin Zekai’s Discussion of Troy, Baalbek, and the Scholarship of Antiquities in Holy Treasures (1913)’. In Ritter, Markus; Sturkenboom, Ilse and Valdéz Fernández, Fernando (eds.). Beiträge zur Islamischen Kunst und Archäologie. Band 5. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 167-184. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  69. Treue, Wilhelm. 1957. Kunstraub. Über die Schicksale von Kunstwerken in Krieg, Revolution und Frieden. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  70. Troelenberg, Eva-Maria. 2016. Mshatta in Berlin. Keystones of Islamic Art. Dortmund: Verlag Kettler. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  71. Üçer, Müjgân. 2017. Güldeste-i Sıvas: Mekânlar ve insanlar. İstanbul: Sivas Şehrengizi. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  72. Üre, Pınar. 2020. Reclaiming Byzantium: Russia, Turkey, and the Archaeological Claim to the Middle East in the 19th Century. London: I. B. Tauris. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  73. Uslu, Günay. 2013. ‘Homer, Troy and the Turks’. In Şerifoğlu, Ömer Faruk (ed.). Türkiye’de Arkeoloji ve Kültürel Mirasa Yeni Bakışlar/New Perspectives on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage in Turkey (ST Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları 2 Özel Sayısı/Special Edition). İstanbul: Sezer Tansuğ Sanat Vakfı. 47-58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  74. Uslu, Günay. 2017. Homer, Troy and the Turks. Heritage and Identity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1870-1915. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  75. Winter, Petra. 2014. ‘Inter arma silent musae? Die Königlichen Museen zu Berlin im Ersten Weltkrieg’. In Winter, Petra and Grabowski, Jörn (eds.). Zum Kriegsdienst einberufen. Die Königlichen Museen zu Berlin und der Erste Weltkrieg (Schriften zur Geschichte der Berliner Museen Band 3). Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau. 9-50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  76. Willert, Sebastian. 2021a. ‘Ein Reisender vor dem ›Geist‹ Mschattas. 1914’. In Lagatz, Merten; Savoy, Bénédicte and Sissis, Philippa (eds.). Beute. Ein Bildatlas zu Kunstraub und Kulturerbe. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz. 228-231. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  77. Willert, Sebastian. 2021b. ‘Geburtsmoment der osmanischen Archäologie. 1892’. In Lagatz, Merten; Savoy, Bénédicte and Sissis, Philippa (eds.). Beute. Ein Bildatlas zu Kunstraub und Kulturerbe. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz. 46-49. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  78. Willert, Sebastian. 2021c. ‘»Osman Hamdi hat hier gewütet & da gewühlt.« – Perspektiven deutscher Forschungsreisender auf die Anfänge der osmanischen Archäologie, 1881–1892’. In Lohmann, Ingrid and Böttcher, Julika (eds.). Türken- und Türkeibilder im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Pädagogik, Bildungspolitik, Kulturtransfer. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. 249-274. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  79. Willert, Sebastian. [forthcoming]. ‘“This would seriously damage Germany’s reputation.” Berlin Museums, German Diplomacy and the Ottoman Antiquity Law of 1906’. In Savoy, Bénédicte and Lagatz, Merten (eds.). Translocations. Histories of Dislocated Cultural Assets. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304
  80. Zelepos, Ioannis. 2002. Die Ethnisierung griechischer Identität 1870-1912. Staat und private Akteure vor dem Hintergrund der »Megali Idea« (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten 113). München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/2625-9842-2021-2-304

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media