[Bilimsel Haber] HISTORIOGRAPHY AND IDEOLOGY: ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THE "LANDS OF RUM", Harvard University, 11-13 May 2006

Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:08:51 +0200

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C631CC.62304DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND IDEOLOGY:
ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THE "LANDS OF RUM"

Symposium
Harvard University, 11-13 May 2006

History of architecture constitutes a major ingredient in the making of =
modern nationalist narratives everywhere, and modern Turkey is no =
exception to this. Yet few other modern nations exhibit the historical =
and cultural complexity of Turkey, with its tangled and difficult =
dilemma of identity resulting from the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural =
legacy of the Ottoman Empire, "caught between two worlds," as Cemal =
Kafadar has put it.  The medieval Islamic dynasties of Anatolia were =
equally complex polities, whose monumental heritage is often =
problematically treated as a precursor of the Ottoman period in linear =
constructions of regional architectural history. Consequently, both =
Western and native scholars are faced with a distinct problem in writing =
the history of "Turkish" architecture in the "Lands of Rum" (lit. Roman =
domains, commonly designating Anatolia and the Balkans), and their work =
often reflects the ideological and/or methodological biases with which =
they approach this topic.

On the one hand, the histories of Ottoman and "pre-Ottoman" architecture =
sit rather uncomfortably in the general surveys of "Islamic =
architecture" within which Westerners have traditionally classified =
these traditions. In the classical texts on Islamic architecture (most =
of them produced at the height of Western colonial ambitions in the =
Middle East, during the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire), the =
monuments of these "Turkish" dynasties are often relegated to a lesser =
status than those of the "Persians" and "Arabs," which, for many Western =
Orientalists, represent the "purer" and "sedentary" architecture of =
authentic Muslim cultures, before they were overtaken by the "nomadic" =
Turks. On the other hand, Turkish scholars' efforts to counter this =
Orientalist view have frequently been compromised by equally problematic =
nationalist biases, leading them, for example, to highlight the ethnic =
"Turkish" element in Seljuk, Beylik, and Ottoman architectures at the =
expense of the "Islamic" component, or to negate any formative inputs =
from the many centuries of cross-cultural exchanges with =
Anatolian/Balkan Christendom and Europe.  Another bias of nationalist =
paradigms is their anachronistic focus on the present borders of modern =
Turkey, to the exclusion of parallel developments in neighboring Islamic =
regions such as Iran, Iraq, Syria-Palestine, or Egypt, which have their =
own exclusivist traditions of Orientalist and nationalist =
historiography.

The premise of this symposium is our conviction that the tendency to =
read the past through the optics of present-day national boundaries has =
long obscured the synchronic unities and complex cultural exchanges =
across the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Middle East prior to the advent of =
modern nationalisms, and that without considering these unities and =
exchanges, talking about the history of exclusive categories like =
"Turkish," "Arab,"  and "Persian" architecture is highly problematic. =
With recent critical theories challenging not only the Orientalist =
biases of Western scholarship about Islamic cultures but also the =
nationalist biases of most modern local scholarship in these societies =
themselves, we believe the time is ripe for a more nuanced, critical =
assessment of the historiography of architecture in non-Western contexts =
in general, and the case of the "Lands of Rum" is a fertile starting =
point for productive discussion.  Focusing on the historical, =
ideological, and methodological questions pertaining to how the =
architectural history of Islamic dynasties in this multi-cultural region =
has been written in the modern period, the Symposium intends to raise an =
open debate on a
number of issues with broader implications for other Islamic regions.

Thursday May 11:
Welcoming Remarks: Sibel Bozdogan and Gulru Necipoglu

Keynote Lecture: Cemal Kafadar
State Building, Globalization, and History in the Lands of Rum

Friday May 12
MORNING SESSION (Chair: David Roxburgh)
ARAB, PERSIAN, OR TURKISH? SCHOLARSHIP ON THE LANDS OF RUM AND BEYOND

Heghnar Watenpaugh
The Legacy of Ottoman Architecture in the Former Arab Provinces

Abstract: Since the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state and its legacy =
- architectural or otherwise - has been contested, erased, revived, and =
reviled in the former Arab provinces. In the historiography of the =
visible past of these regions, the Ottoman period occupies an ambiguous =
position at the intersection of European Orientalist narratives of Arab =
civilization and medieval greatness, nationalist narratives of the =
rebirth of the Arab nation, and Islamist narratives of Islamic =
civilization. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Ottoman =
architecture was both reviled as imported and inauthentic, and prized as =
a marker of imperial prestige and Islamic legitimacy.

This paper explores the complexity of such discourses by examining two =
key moments: Egypt under Muhammad Ali and 1930s Syria. Both moments =
dramatize the different values given to the medieval period (embodied in =
Mamluk architecture)  and the early modern/modern (Ottoman). Under =
Muhammad Ali, despite the emerging popularization of Mamluk forms, a =
version of an Ottoman style was preferred for the mosque of the viceroy =
on the citadel. The key texts here include Orientalist narratives of =
Arab art, such as that of Pascal Coste, and local =
responses/appropriations, such as Ali
Pasha Mubarak's. In 1930s Syria, then under French Mandate, local =
intellectuals and colonial scholars struggled to define a history for =
the architecture of a new nation-state. In this context, the Ottoman =
heritage was denied just as it was systematically documented. Key texts =
here include those of Jean Sauvaget and Ren=E9 Dussaud, among others, as =
well as those of Muhammad Kurd Ali, and Kamil al-Ghazzi.

In the cases of both Egypt and Syria, Western or colonial as well as =
nationalist actors struggled to narrativize the visual past of new =
states. The location or elision of the Ottoman moment in these =
narratives reveals the hidden assumptions and aims of their positions.

Kishwar Rizvi
Arthur Upham Pope and the Survey of Persian Art:  Exploring the =
Discourses on Iranian Art and Architecture in the Early Twentieth =
Century

Abstract: In a speech delivered in 1925, Arthur Upham Pope situated the =
art and culture of Iran within the framework of an ancient civilization =
deserving of the world's attention and admiration.  The art of Iran was =
characterized as its "greatest asset" and the source of inspiration for =
myriad others, from China to Europe.  The arts of South Asia and Turkey =
were declared to be mere derivations and deemed inferior to the =
"original."  Pope's audience included Crown Prince Muhammad Reza =
Pahlavi, who took up the American's challenge to invest heavily in the =
culture of "Persia" by recognizing its political and propagandist =
potential. The speech was soon published in both Iran (1925) and London =
(1928), thereby launching a national and international discourse on the =
history of Persian art.  The aim of this paper is to explore the varied =
modes and motivations for the construction of this discourse, within =
both the art historical and the nationalist rhetoric employed by A. U. =
Pope.

A. U. Pope organized the First World Congress on Persian Art in =
Philadelphia in 1926 and founded the American Institute of Persian Art =
and Archaeology in 1928 in New York.  A number of subsequent congresses =
and related exhibitions would follow, to be memorialized in the Survey =
of Persian Art which began being published in 1938.  In this monumental =
tome (1938-1939, six volumes) the superiority of Persian art and culture =
was further reiterated through a dense and complicated documentation =
that spanned two and a half millennia.  At stake were the racial, =
linguistic, and national identities of the newly modern state.  In =
contrast to earlier Orientalist scholars like F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, =
whose association with German museums and academic institutions brought =
them access to Iranian archaeological sites, A. U. Pope's primary patron =
was the Shah of Iran.  The exhibitions and congresses, underwritten by =
both the American and Iranian governments, were thus a platform for a =
re-conceptualization of history in which the artifacts of the past were =
seen as evidence of Iran's greatness - present and future.

Just as the country was referred to both by its native name, Iran, and =
the Hellenized version, Persia, the valuation of its art and =
architecture was presented to both a local and a Western audience.  =
Likewise, the discourse on Persian art was situated simultaneously in =
the academies and museums of Europe and America and in the Iranian =
Parliament.  The goal of the former was to place these cultural =
artifacts within the broader realm of "Islamic art," a problematic term =
itself, while the latter aimed to situate them within the ideals of =
nationalist identity formation. What were the paradigms within European =
art history that supported these fundamentally different approaches?  =
Persian art's value was augmented at the cost of other historical and =
regional entities, whose heterodox and multi-ethnic reality was =
suppressed.  As the structures of patronage show, it is necessary to =
unearth the ideological motifs that informed Pope and the authors of the =
Survey of Persian Art.  What, ultimately, was the legacy of A. U. Pope =
and the Survey in the construction of an Iranian-centered history of =
Islamic art?

Oya Pancaroglu
Gateways to Medieval Anatolia: Crossing the Impasses of Architectural =
Historiography

Abstract: Modern study of the architectural history of late medieval =
Anatolia between the initial formation of Turkish principalities (ca. =
1100) and the establishment of Ottoman hegemony (ca. 1500) has been =
shaped by both ideological boundaries and methodological entrenchments. =
Twentieth-century academic approaches to research and interpretation may =
be linked in part to the connections forged with the influential Vienna =
School of art history and the formalism espoused by such imposing =
figures as Riegl and Strzygowski.  The establishment of departments of =
art history in Istanbul (1943) and Ankara (1954)  was led, respectively, =
by Diez and Otto-Dorn (both former students of Strzygowski), who =
strengthened the quest for a national Turkish art (as distinct from =
Persian and Arab art) with its primary roots in Asia.  This idea had =
already been proclaimed by Ottoman-trained art historian Arseven (Turk =
Sanati, 1928; French trans. 1939) and formed the interpretive foundation =
of twentieth-century scholarship both within and outside Turkish =
academia.

In the subsequent generations of formalist academic writing on art and =
architecture, the complex and variable political, social, and =
ethnic-religious configurations of late medieval Anatolia have been =
glossed over with such wholesale categories as "pre-Ottoman," "Turkish =
Islamic," "Anatolian Turkish," "Seljuk," and "Beylik." Furthermore, the =
objective of taxonomic manageability has cast buildings into typological =
pigeonholes so that historical and local contexts have been neglected, =
obscuring the evidence they may provide for cultural and aesthetic =
continuities within and beyond Anatolia.  The rudimentary utilitarian =
value of books cataloguing mosques, madrasas, tombs, and caravanserais =
is not to be doubted.  However, the enduring typological overdrive of =
architectural historiography has muted the voice of buildings that sit =
uncomfortably in rigid categories, allowing ideological frameworks such =
as modern national borders and ethnic-national identities to fill the =
resulting semantic gap. This adherence to formalism is not limited to =
modern Turkish scholarship but is also evident in some recent Western =
studies of Islamic architecture (e.g. Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic =
Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning [Edinburgh & New York, 1994]).

This paper will conclude with a look at the historiography of the Mosque =
of Ilyas Bey in Miletus/Balat (1404) as a case study illuminating the =
restrictive effect of considering buildings primarily from the vantage =
point of typology while failing to tap the potential of dynastic and =
regional contexts. When regarded outside of the framework of terms and =
types, the contextualization of such buildings can reveal significant =
synchronic and diachronic connections with traditions that are =
ordinarily excluded from historiography by modern mental and political =
boundaries. Recognizing the methodological impasses of modern =
historiography constitutes a necessary first step in reversing the =
marginalization and introversion of late medieval Anatolia's complex =
architectural legacy.

Barry Flood
Lost in Translation? Architectural Historiographies of the Eastern =
"Turks"

Abstract: Generally identified as Turks (regardless of their ethnic =
origins), the Persianized elites of the Ghaznavid, Ghurid, and Delhi =
sultanates existed between and within multiple worlds. The process of =
negotiating these worlds is highlighted in their architectural legacy =
and replicated in its inscription into the canons of colonial and =
postcolonial art histories. Contributing to this ongoing process, the =
paper analyzes the ways in which disciplinary and political boundaries =
have set the parameters of architectural analysis, focusing on the =
historical relationships between architecture and the =
construction/representation of ethnic, regional, and religious =
identities. It addresses the omission or marginalization of relevant =
monuments in survey texts on Islamic art, relating the phenomenon to =
their stylistic heterogeneity and perceived dilution or distortion of =
the 'pure' Persianate forms and media privileged in existing =
architectural histories. The issue is also relevant to the reception and =
evaluation of Rum Seljuk and early Ottoman monuments; the paper =
therefore assumes a comparative approach to the explanatory tropes =
(acculturation, hybridity, translation, etc.)  that have been deployed =
to account for these deviations from an assumed norm. Finally, it =
considers recent shifts in interpretive paradigms, the emergence of the =
monuments as highly politicized sites for the articulation of notions of =
identity emphasizing cultural purity, and the ways in which =
architectural histories have been implicated in these developments.

AFTERNOON SESSION (Chair: Zeynep Celik)
ISLAMIC, TURKISH, OR MODERN? HISTORIOGRAPHIES OF OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE

Ahmet Ersoy
Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Late Tanzimat =
Period

Abstract: Following the European pattern, the development of the =
discipline of art history in the Ottoman Empire was largely concomitant =
with the rise and modification of a nationalist ideology in the late =
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The definition of an Ottoman =
artistic/architectural heritage and its preservation and representation =
were significant assets in the process of inculcating a national =
consciousness, for they helped authenticate a unified vision of Ottoman =
society and firmly embedded its means of collective cultural expression =
in the distant past.

This paper centers on a discussion of the Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani =
[Fundamentals of Ottoman Architecture] (Istanbul, 1873), - henceforth =
referred to as the Usul: the earliest comprehensive study on the history =
and theory of Ottoman architecture. The authors of the Usul were the =
first to locate Ottoman architecture within the broader context of =
cultural history and examine its course with respect to long-term =
changes in the history of the Ottoman state. The paper particularly aims =
to concentrate on the historical discourse formed in the Usul concerning =
the earlier monuments of the Ottoman dynasty. The formative stages of =
the Ottoman architectural tradition were significant for the authors of =
the Usul because they were believed to yield to the analytical eye the =
very fundamentals of the Ottoman system of building.  The early =
Ottoman/late medieval synthesis could work as a model for contemporary =
architects who were striving to devise a new synthetic idiom for late =
Ottoman architecture. Furthermore, the pre-classical monuments of Bursa =
became an indispensable locus of interest for late Ottoman intellectuals =
as they helped reconstitute and envisage the remote historical milieu =
within which the Ottoman state was created, hence forming a major site =
for celebrating the myth of "founding a nation from a clan."

In embarking upon a close reading of the text, this paper aims to =
delineate how the late Ottoman image of the period of architectural =
"origins"  was articulated through a complex negotiation with European =
strategies of analysis, and in response to the predominant Orientalist =
biases embedded in mainstream architectural discourse.  Here, the Usul =
will be assessed in line with other comparative works (especially by =
Viollet-le-Duc students) such as Parvill=E9e's L'Architecture et =
d=E9coration turque, and with the hindsight provided by early republican =
histories of architecture. The paper also aims to investigate how the =
Usul's historical image of early Ottoman architecture was informed by =
and contributed to the late Ottoman politics of identity by examining =
the text against the background of the history books, popular novels, =
and plays of the period.

Gulru Necipoglu
The Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of =
"Classical" Ottoman Architecture

Abstract: The classification of Sinan's multi-cultural legacy in such =
categories as "Islamic" or "Turkish" has hindered a fuller understanding =
of his oeuvre, which uniquely bridges the Ottoman-Islamic, =
Romano-Byzantine, and Italian Renaissance architectural traditions. =
Moreover, his legacy falls between the cracks of the conventional =
East-West divide in global architectural history because the =
"Renaissance" has traditionally been defined as an exclusively "Western" =
category. This paper focuses on the dominant narratives of Sinan =
scholarship, both Turkish and international, that have contributed to =
such an impasse: the preoccupation with defining Sinan's architecture as =
a reflection of national "character," the anachronistic assessment of =
his legacy through the lens of modernism, the formalist emphasis on his =
stylistic evolution and typological schemes divorced from historical =
context, the controversy over his ethnic identity (Greek, Armenian, or =
Turkish), the debate on the origin of his style (multi-cultural =
Anatolian synthesis, or pan-Turkic), and the question of his originality =
(revolving around the "influence" of Hagia Sophia).

Beginning with the emergence of these narratives in the late Ottoman =
Empire, when the originality of Sinan's style (distinct from Arab and =
Persian styles) was promoted as a reflection of proto-national dynastic =
"character," the paper will trace their subsequent reformulation in the =
early republican literature (1923-1950s), when the search for a =
fully-fledged national architecture was conflated with the question of =
Sinan's ethnic identity and the Turkish origins of his style. Following =
the lead of German scholars, who in the second decade of the twentieth =
century hailed Sinan as the grand master of the "Turkish Renaissance," =
nationalist scholarship turned the "Turkish Michelangelo"  into the =
proud symbol of a newly born nation's creative genius. The paradigmatic =
texts that have contributed to the construction of this "national =
genius" will be reviewed under two narrative genres,
often with overlapping discourses. The first genre comprises the =
writings of architects:  Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani (1873), Mimar Kemaleddin =
(1905,
1917), Taut (1938), Eldem (1939), Egli (1954). The second genre is the =
work of historians and historians of art/architecture:  Cevdet (1897), =
Gurlitt (1907-12), Babinger (1914, 1927), Agaoglu (1926), Otto-Dorn =
(1937), Gabriel (1926, 1936), Arseven (1939), Osman (1927), Meric =
(1938), Afet Inan (1949, 1956).

The paper will conclude with a brief overview of historiography during =
the second half of the twentieth century, represented by a new =
generation of art/architectural historians (Unsal, Aslanapa, Arik, =
Kuban, Kuran, Sozen, Goodwin).  In these more recent narratives, earlier =
ideological controversies were often perpetuated in studies =
characterized by formalist paradigms (stylistic evolution, typological =
schemes), and biologically inspired evolution narratives =
(rise-and-decline) were employed to affirm Sinan's "classical" style as =
the undisputed zenith of Ottoman architectural creativity. The linear =
evolution from Seljuk to Beylik to Ottoman became normative, to the =
exclusion or marginalization of exchanges with non-Islamic architectural =
traditions in Anatolia, the Balkans, and Europe.

Shirine Hamadeh
Westernization, Decadence, and the Ottoman Baroque: Modern Constructions =
of the Eighteenth Century

Abstract: In the Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani (The Fundamentals of Ottoman =
Architecture, 1873), the first treatise to promote before a Western =
audience Ottoman architecture as a rational and universal language, the =
ornate and hybrid vocabulary of the eighteenth century was put forth as =
representative of the rich Ottoman decorative tradition.  This was the =
first examination of the architectural heritage of this era and it =
remains one of its most favorable interpretations until today.  With the =
gradual shaping of a modern discourse between the 1950s and the 1980s, =
the eighteenth century became increasingly regarded as an era of =
decline, fallen prey to Western influence.  Until recently, the =
historiography of the period, consisting largely of formalist studies =
and based mostly on European visual and textual sources, has hinged on =
three paradigms: rise-and-decline, Westernization, and the Ottoman =
Baroque.

Through a close reading of the main texts that have shaped the =
historiography, this paper aims to offer a critical analysis of these =
paradigms and other recurrent themes that took part in the modern =
construction of the eighteenth century.  The analysis begins with the =
isolated work of Dogan Kuban in the 1950s, in which the concepts of =
decline, Ottoman Baroque, and Batililasma (Westernization) first =
emerged. The paper then explores the way in which the notion of Ottoman =
Westernization gradually became the focus of all interpretations, as =
interest in the period picked up in the 1970s and the 1980s. By =
examining the works of Ayda Arel (1975), Aptullah Kuran (1977), Ulku =
Bates (1979), Semavi Eyice (1980), Serim Denel (1982), and Emel Esin =
(1986), the paper then attempts to uncover some of their ideological =
assumptions and investigate the relative role of eighteenth-century =
narratives (Montagu, Pardoe, Walsh, Yirmisekiz Mehmed Efendi) and visual =
sources (Melling, Bartlett) in providing fertile grounds for their =
interpretations.

The analysis will extend to such paradigmatic works of Ottoman history =
as Ahmet Refik's Lale Devri, and important architectural studies like =
those of Sedad Hakki Eldem and Aptullah Kuran from the 1970s, and =
Maurizio Cerasi and Tulay Artan from the late 1980s, that do not fully =
partake of the dominant narrative.  The interest of these studies is =
that while they offer new insights they also rely on a set of =
unquestioned concepts and assumptions that have played a consistent part =
in the modern discourse on the eighteenth century.  Such pervasive =
notions as the Tulip Period, ephemeral pleasures, decadence and =
mannerism, influence, and nationalism (or proto-nationalism) will be =
examined from both a historical and a critical perspective.

Sibel Bozdogan
Reading Ottoman Architecture through Modernist Lenses: Nationalism and =
the "New Architecture" in the Early Republic

Abstract: Architectural culture in the early republican period is marked =
by a conspicuous split between nationalist historiography and modernist =
practice. While nationalist narratives celebrated the classical Ottoman =
heritage as the zenith of Turkish creativity, the professional discourse =
of early republican architecture strongly rejected any formal and =
iconographic references to that heritage, turning instead to an imported =
Central European modernism, embraced under the rubric of "New =
Architecture." In many cases, the same authors who wrote extensively on =
the merits of Ottoman architecture also promoted (and designed with) the =
abstract modern forms of New Architecture as the most appropriate =
expression of the Kemalist Revolution.  Nationalist reverence for =
Ottoman architecture existed side by side with arguments about the =
necessity of radically dissociating the modern Turkish architecture of =
the new Republic from the country's Ottoman/ Islamic past.

Through a study of representative early republican texts by influential =
art/architectural historians and cultural critics (Celal Esat Arseven =
and Ismail Hakki Baltacioglu in particular) and prominent architects =
(like Behcet Unsal, Sedad Cetintas and Sedad Hakki Eldem), this paper =
examines how these authors sought to reconcile such seemingly =
contradictory premises and argued that Ottoman architecture and European =
modernism were in fact two different historical manifestations of the =
same underlying rationality that distinguishes Turks from other Islamic =
cultures. In particular, the paper focuses on their rationalist, =
functionalist, and secular readings of Ottoman architecture: their =
emphasis on "tectonics" at the expense of decorative programs; on "human =
geography" rather than religion as the determinant of cultural identity; =
 on houses as a major component of Ottoman heritage
hitherto overshadowed by monumental architecture; and on "formal/ =
typological evolution" as the main explanatory framework, at the expense =
of historical, cultural, and contextual particularities. The main point =
of the paper is that in spite of their now-transparent ideological =
biases and shortcomings, these texts contain important critical =
insights, as well as some profound contradictions endemic to Turkish =
modernity, such as the unresolved tension between positivism and =
(Bergsonian) spiritualism or the oscillation between evolutionary and =
revolutionary models in imagining what the desired modern/ national =
Turkish architecture of the twentieth century could be.

The paper concludes with the observation that in spite of all the =
nationalist arguments regarding the rationality and "inherent modernity" =
of classical Ottoman forms (and hence, their implied potential as =
legitimate models for republican architects), modern Turkish =
architecture has largely failed in establishing meaningful continuities =
with the Ottoman architectural heritage. Rather than the gradual =
re-configuration of Ottoman spatial, structural, and aesthetic =
sensibilities into a uniquely Turkish modernism as the early republican =
authors had hoped, the conspicuous revival of interest in the Ottoman =
heritage since the 1980s seems to be unfolding as a postmodern "return =
of the repressed" epitomized by the increasingly numerous replicas of =
classical Ottoman mosques or the increasingly fashionable =
"Ottoman/Turkish house" -style villas in exclusive suburbs.

Saturday May 13
MORNING SESSION (Chair: Renata Holod)
IMPACT OF HISTORIOGRAPHIES ON INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES: ARCHAEOLOGY, =
MUSEOLOGY, AND PRESERVATION IN MODERN TURKEY

Can Bilsel
"Our Anatolia": the Making of the "Humanist Culture" in Turkey

Abstract: The organization of archaeology in the 1930s in Ankara was =
guided by the "Turkish History Thesis," which sought to prove that the =
"Turkish race" was the founder of the Neolithic cultures of the ancient =
Near East, and of Western civilization. The centrality of pre- and =
proto-historic archaeology in the Turkish humanities, the invention of =
the disciplines of "Hititology" and "Sumerology," and the formulation of =
an outlandish theory about the Turkic origin of all languages =
("Gunes-Dil") - borrowing the paradigms of the relativist German =
pre-history - served the Republic's double project of nation-building =
and Westernization (Aydin, 2002). Beginning in 1938, however, a new =
generation of cultural theorists sought to revise the official =
historiography, rejecting the ethnocentric "origins" and demanding =
instead the institution of a "humanist culture." Turkish "humanism" was =
made manifest in a variety of fields including the introduction of a =
classical Greek and Latin curriculum in public education, the =
translation of ancient Greek and French classics into Turkish (Berk, =
2002), the reorganization of classical archaeology under the traditional =
rubric of German philhellenism under Ekrem Akurgal (Aydin, 2002), and, =
finally, the reinvention of ancient "Anatolia" in modern Turkish =
literature as the "cradle" of civilization (Akyildiz, 2002).

This paper examines the construction "Anatolia"  in the writings of its =
most prominent theorists, Sabahattin Eyuboglu, "Halikarnas Balikcisi" =
(Cevat Sakir Kabaagacli), and Azra Erhat, as well as in the histories of =
art, architecture, and culture of Turkey written under their influence. =
Seeking to establish continuity between the ancient and modern =
inhabitants of Anatolia, the Turkish humanists documented the =
similarities between the culture narrated in the Homeric legends and a =
highly selective and often anecdotal account of Turkish folklore. Hence =
the education of the Turkish halk (people) in the classics was presented =
as the people's return to its native Anatolian/"Troyan" (Trojan) =
identity.

In the final analysis, the construction of "Anatolia" in Turkish =
historiography consisted in the conflation of a nativist identity =
(Anatolia)  with a "universal" ideal (Hellas), not unlike the =
construction of the "Hellenic" (as opposed to "Rumeic") identity in the =
nineteenth-century Greece. This required, on the one hand, internalizing =
nineteenth-century philhellenism - Mediterranean/Aegean culture as the =
epitome of civilization - and, on the other hand, rejecting the =
political implications of such ideology:  European imperialism or the =
Greek invasion of 1919-22. Hence, as a rhetorical
device, "Anatolia"  both established the rootedness of the Turkish State =
in its present territories and demanded its inclusion in the West.

Scott Redford
Islamic Archaeology in Turkey

Abstract: The elites of the early Turkish Republic were ambivalent =
towards their Islamic heritage. This ambivalence expressed itself, for =
instance, in nationalistic ideologies focusing on Anatolia as a center =
of (mostly non-Islamic)  cultures even as a neo-Ottoman architectural =
style was employed to build prominent buildings of the new capital of =
Ankara. Ideological concerns were born of the conflation of race and =
language common at the time in France and Germany, the two main sources =
of education for the new republican elite.

The Turkish Historical Society was the center of early republican =
intellectual developments involving history and archaeology. This paper =
takes as its departure Remzi Oguz Arik, a prominent member of the =
Society and Director of the Ankara Ethnographic Museum, trained in =
classical archaeology but also in Arabic, and the first Turkish =
professor of Turkish art.  It then traces another kind of ambivalence in =
Turkish Islamic archaeology, its disciplinarily intermediate or =
subordinate status relative to Bronze Age and Classical archaeology on =
the one hand, and to Turkish/Islamic architectural and art history on =
the other.

Wendy Meryem Shaw
Preservation/Projection:  Museums and National Identity in the Republic =
of Turkey

Abstract: Museums preserve the past in order to project the future. Yet =
what they designate as past, what they choose to preserve as historical =
as opposed to forgotten or ongoing, is intimately linked to how that =
future is to be imagined.  As the Ottoman Empire was transformed into =
the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and the decades thereafter, old museums =
reconfigured for new needs, and the multitude of new museums established =
throughout the country faced a double bind: not only were new museums =
designed to frame the past as a unitary and glorious heritage for the =
young nation, they were also to function within a system that imagined =
the multi-ethnic Ottoman, Islamic, imperial, Eastern past as radically =
divorced from the ethnically Turkish, secular, republican, and Western =
future.

Museums in Turkey were not designed simply to preserve heritage; they =
were to define heritage, both as a uniform past for a young nation and =
as a past to be left behind as part of the projects of modernization, =
equated with Westernization.  This paper will examine how the primary =
museums of the early republican period - Topkapi Palace Museum, Museum =
of Classical Archaeology, Museum of Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, =
Hagia Sophia Museum, Museum of Turkish and Islamic Art in Istanbul; =
Ethnographic Museum and Hittite Museum in Ankara; and local =
archaeological, ethnographic, and dervish lodge museums throughout the =
country - produced a system of memorial where preservation has been =
embedded in a system of forgetting, making museums at once central to =
the republican project and yet also perenially on the fringes of public =
consciousness.  It will also attempt to consider how this paradoxical =
relationship between remembering the past and projecting the future may =
have affected the institutionalization of museums in the region.

Nur Altinyildiz
Contextualizing the Byzantine and Ottoman Architectural Legacy: Istanbul =
in the 1920s and 1950s

Abstract: Preservation in Turkey, introduced as a modern Western =
practice during the late Ottoman Empire, seemingly established =
"international standards" in legislation and education while =
conveniently overlooking the complex ideological load of the heritage =
itself.  Preservation never became a consistent effort nor was its =
object a coherent whole. Pristine planning and preservation principles =
were largely ignored in the continuous shaping and reshaping of cities.

Acts of construction and conservation became powerful visual =
manifestations of cultural politics, particularly those of early =
republican politicians as they dealt with the legacy of the past. =
Foremost, interventions in Istanbul provide insight into their adverse =
policies and preferences as they objectified, contextualized, and =
presented the Byzantine and Ottoman heritage of the city. Priorities =
were continuously changed, choices made, and biases manifested as =
history was played off against modernity, discourse against practice. =
Istanbul became a stage set where thorny issues of modernization were =
masked by intricate operations of restoration and painful absences =
covered up by glorified presences.  National and religious sentiments of =
the local public were addressed as well as the presumed expectations of =
Western parties.  Halil Edhem, Sedat Cetintas, and Ali Saim Ulgen stand =
out as critics of preservation policies while republican administrators =
orchestrated urban development, veiling or highlighting selected =
specimens of the patrimony.  Paradoxically, republican reformists of the =
1920s preserved the legacy of Istanbul in ruins as they constructed =
modern Ankara, while their conservative successors in the 1950s =
destroyed that same legacy in a quest for sublimating it through =
modernization.

AFTERNOON SESSION: OPEN DISCUSSION

*************************************************************************=
*********

SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS

NUR ALTINYILDIZ
Born in 1955 in Istanbul, Nur Altinyildiz studied architecture and =
restoration at Istanbul Technical University.  She spent a year in Rome, =
ICCROM, taking a course in architectural conservation.  Back in =
Istanbul, she worked at the Central Laboratories for Restoration and =
Conservation. In 1990, she began teaching at Bilkent University's =
Department of Interior Architecture in Ankara and consequently started =
her Ph.D. at Istanbul Technical University.  Her dissertation, titled =
"Circumstances Specific to Turkey in the Conservation of the Historical =
Environment: Istanbul 1923-1973," was completed in 1998.  She moved back =
to Istanbul in 2002 and is currently working as part-time Assistant =
Professor at Bahcesehir University and Kadir Has University in Istanbul.

CAN BILSEL
S. M. Can Bilsel is an architectural critic and cultural historian and =
is Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego. Having received a =
professional degree in architecture from Middle East Technical =
University in Ankara, Bilsel completed his graduate work at =
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University.  His =
Ph.D. dissertation, titled "Architecture in the Museum: Displacement, =
Reconstruction, and Reproduction of the Monuments of Antiquity in =
Berlin's Pergamon Museum," investigates the problems of historic =
representation and modern ideology in the German reconstruction and =
display of antiquity. In addition to his work on the history of modern =
architecture and the theory of historic preservation, Bilsel has also =
written about the history of twentieth-century urbanism, particularly in =
France. He has received a number of awards and fellowships, including =
the Whiting Fellowship in the Humanities and a two-year residential =
grant from the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. Bilsel is the =
author of Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Restitution as Politics of =
Memory (Princeton, 2000).

SiBEL BOZDOGAN

Sibel Bozdogan holds a professional degree in architecture from Middle =
East Technical University in Ankara (1976) and a Ph.D. from the =
University of Pennsylvania (1983). She has taught architectural history =
and theory courses at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1986-1991), MIT =
(1991-1999) and as a visitor at the GSD, Harvard University =
(1999-present). Her interests range from cross-cultural histories of =
modern architecture in Europe, the US, the Mediterranean, and the Middle =
East to critical investigations of technology, modernity, and national =
identity as they have informed the culture and production of =
architecture in Turkey and across the globe.  She has published articles =
on these topics, has coauthored a monograph on the Turkish architect =
Sedad Hakki Eldem (1987)  and coedited an interdisciplinary volume, =
Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (1997).  Her =
Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the =
Early Republic (Washington, 2001) won the 2002 Alice Davis Hitchcock =
Award of the Society of Architectural Historians and the Koprulu Book =
Prize of the Turkish Studies Association.

ZEYNEP CELIK
Zeynep Celik is Distinguished Professor of Architecture at the New =
Jersey Institute of Technology. Her publications include The Remaking of =
Istanbul(Washington, 1986; California, 1993), Displaying the Orient =
(California, 1992), Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations (California, =
1997), and (as coeditor) Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public Space =
(California, 1993), as well as articles on cross-cultural topics. She =
served as the editor of the Journal of the Society of Architectural =
Historians (2000-2003) and is currently completing a book, titled Public =
Space, Modernity, and Empire Building: Ottoman Syria, French Maghrib, =
1830-1914, and coediting an interdisciplinary collection of essays, =
Walls of Algiers: Artistic, Cultural, and Urban Forms in the Colonial =
and Postcolonial City. She has recently been granted a Guggenheim =
Fellowship and an American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship.

AHMET ERSOY
Ahmet Ersoy received his B.A. (1988) and M.A.  (1991) from the =
Department of Architecture at Middle East Technical University, Ankara. =
In 2000 he completed his Ph.D. degree at the Department of the History =
of Art and Architecture, Harvard University, with a dissertation titled, =
"On the Sources of the 'Ottoman Renaissance':  Architectural Revival and =
Its Discourse During the Abdulaziz Era (1861-76)." His work mainly deals =
with the transformations of Ottoman culture in the nineteenth century, a =
period of intense modernization. He particularly focuses on questions =
related to the late Ottoman politics of identity, and examines the =
various visual and scholarly forms of representation it engendered.  =
Since 2002 he has been an Assistant Professor at the History Department =
at Bogazici University, Istanbul; he formerly taught at Sabanci =
University, Istanbul.=20

FINBARR BARRY FLOOD
Finbarr Barry Flood is Assistant Professor in the Department of Fine =
Arts, New York University. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, =
and completed his Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh in 1993. From =
1993 to 1995 he was Nasser D. Khalili Research Fellow in Islamic Art and =
Architecture at the University of Oxford. In the United States, he has =
held research fellowships at the Aga Khan Program at Harvard University, =
the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Gallery of Art in =
Washington, DC. His research interests include Islamic architectural =
history and historiography, cross-cultural dimensions of Islamic art, =
iconoclasm, technologies of representation, and Orientalism - topics on =
which he has published in a range of academic journals in Europe, the =
US, the Middle East, South Asia, and Australasia. In 2001 he published =
his first book: The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies on the Making of =
an Umayyad Visual Culture (Leiden, 2001). He is currently completing his =
second book, Objects of Translation: Artifacts, Elites and Medieval =
Indo-Persian Encounters, while working on a wide-ranging study of =
iconoclastic practice in the Islamic world.

SHIRINE HAMADEH
Shirine Hamadeh is Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History =
at Rice University, where she began teaching in 2003.  As a recipient of =
a 2005-06 postdoctoral Getty grant, she is currently on leave to conduct =
research on her new project on Ottoman public spaces in the eighteenth =
and nineteenth centuries. She holds a Ph.D. from MIT (History, Theory, =
and Criticism, 1999) and has published in Muqarnas and the Journal of =
the Society of Architectural Historians. Her forthcoming book, The =
City's Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century, to be published by =
the University of Washington Press, is based on her dissertation, which =
was awarded the 1999 Malcom Kerr Dissertation Award in the Humanities by =
the Middle East Studies Association.  Her interests range from Ottoman =
architectural and urban culture and processes of Ottoman modernity to =
artistic exchanges between the Muslim world and Europe, and =
nineteenth-century colonial cities.

RENATA HOLOD
Renata Holod is Professor of the History of Art, Director, Program for =
Visual Studies, and Curator, Near East Section, Museum of Archaeology =
and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. She carried out =
archaeological and architectural fieldwork in Syria, Iran, Morocco, =
Central Asia and Turkey, and an archaeological/ethno-historical survey =
on the island of Jerba, Tunisia.  She was Convenor, Steering Committee =
Member, and Master Jury Chair of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. =
She served as consultant to Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), Arthur =
Ericson Architects, and Venturi Scott-Brown Architects. The Islamic =
Environmental Research Centre honored her in 2004 with an Award for =
outstanding work in Islamic Architectural Studies.  She has co-authored =
the following works: City in the Desert: an account of the =
archaeological expedition to Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi, Syria; Architecture =
and Community:  Building in the Islamic World Today; Timurid =
Architecture of Iran and Central Asia; The Mosque and the Modern World.  =
She is co-editor of Modern Turkish Architecture. Jerba Studies, the =
account of the Jerba Project is currently in preparation.

CEMAL KAFADAR
Cemal Kafadar is Vehbi Koc Professor of Turkish Studies in the History =
Department at Harvard University.  His study of early Ottoman history, =
Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, has been =
translated into Arabic, Greek, and Turkish (all of them forthcoming). =
Ever in search of fun in the archives and libraries, his serendipitous =
discoveries there have led to works on autobiographical writing and to =
the editing of a Sufi lady's mid-seventeenth-century dream log. He is =
pursuing his interest in the narratives of modernity and tradition =
through research projects related to Ottoman social and cultural life in =
the late medieval and early modern era.  He plans to publish a book on =
one of his central concerns, the politics of crowds and rebellions in =
Istanbul from the late sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. He =
continues to work on what he considers to be related topics, including =
the history of coffeehouses, uses of the night, communities of dissent, =
and early history of Bektashism.

GULRU NECiPOGLU
Gulru Necipoglu has been the Aga Khan Professor of Islamic Art and =
Architecture at Harvard University and the Editor of Muqarnas and =
Supplements to Muqarnas since 1993. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard =
University in 1986 and began teaching there in 1987. Her articles =
include comparative studies on early modern Islamic art and architecture =
(Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal), and deal with cross-cultural exchanges =
between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. She has published Architecture, =
Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth =
Centuries (Cambridge, MA, 1991), The Topkapi Scroll: Geometry and =
Ornament in Islamic Architecture (Santa Monica, CA, 1995), and The Age =
of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London, =
Princeton, 2005). Her Topkapi Scroll, winner of the Albert Hourani Book =
Award of the Middle East Studies Association and the Spiro Kostoff Book =
Award of the Society of Architectural Historians, has recently been =
translated into Persian (Iranian Academy of Art, Tehran, 2003).

OYA PANCAROGLU
Oya Pancaroglu is currently Departmental Lecturer in Islamic Art and =
Architecture in the Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. She =
received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2000 with a dissertation =
on the transformation of figural art in the late Seljuk period. Her =
research interests include the cultural context of figural =
representation in medieval Islamic art and various aspects of =
cross-cultural exchange and overlap in medieval Anatolia.  Her recent =
publications include "Caves, Borderlands and Configurations of Sacred =
Topography in Medieval Anatolia," M=E9sogeios 25-26 (2005), "The =
Emergence of Turkic Dynastic Presence in the Islamic World:  Cultural =
Experiences and Artistic Horizons, 950-1250" in Turks: A Journey of a =
Thousand Years, 600-1600 (London, 2005), and "The Itinerant Dragon =
Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity in Medieval Anatolia," Gesta =
43/2 (2004).

SCOTT REDFORD
Scott Redford is the author of articles and two books on the archaeology =
and architecture of medieval Anatolia: The Archaeology of the Frontier =
in the Medieval Near East: Excavations at Grittile (Philadelphia, 1998) =
and Landscape and the State in Medieval Anatolia (Oxford, 2000). He =
received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1989 with a dissertation =
titled "The Ceramic Sequence from Medieval Gritille, SE Turkey." His =
present research interests include the publication of the medieval =
levels from the site of Kinet Hoyuk, Hatay, Turkey, and of the =
inscriptions on the city walls of Antalya.  He currently divides his =
time between Georgetown University's McGhee Center for Eastern =
Mediterranean Studies, in Alanya, and Koc University's Anatolian =
Civilizations Institute, in Istanbul.

KISHWAR RIZVI
Kishwar Rizvi teaches the history of Islamic art and architecture at =
Barnard College, Columbia University.  Her primary research is on =
representations of religious and imperial authority in the art and =
architecture of Safavid Iran.  She is finishing work on her book, The =
Safavid Dynastic Shrine: Architecture, Piety, and Power in Sixteenth and =
Seventeenth -Century Iran.  She also writes on issues of gender, =
nationalism, and religious identity in the contemporary art and =
architecture of Iran and Pakistan. With Sandy Isenstadt, she has edited =
a forthcoming book, Modernism and the Middle East: Politics of the Built =
Environment.

DAVID ROXBURGH
David J. Roxburgh received his Ph.D. in the History of Art at the =
University of Pennsylvania in 1996. He started teaching at Harvard =
University the same year and was promoted to Professor of History of Art =
and Architecture in 2003. He is the author of two books, Prefacing the =
Image: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth-Century Iran (Leiden, =
2001) and The Persian Album 1400-1600: From Dispersal to Collection (New =
Haven, 2005), and has published articles on the history of the Islamic =
book, painting, and calligraphy. Recent research projects include =
studies on pilgrimage and Ibn Razzaz al-Jazari's book on automata in =
addition to an exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, titled =
Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years 600-1600 (2005). He edited the =
exhibition catalogue and with Nazan Olcer and Filiz Cagman was a =
co-curator of the exhibition.

WENDY MERYEM KURAL SHAW
Wendy Meryem Kural Shaw is interested in the visual effects of cultural =
adaptation during the modern and contemporary periods, with a primary =
focus on Turkey in its relationship both with its own past and with the =
European Other. She is the author of Possessors and Possessed: Museums, =
Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the Late Ottoman Empire =
(California, 2003), as well as articles concerning contemporary art and =
modern ideologies surrounding archaeology as part of nationalist =
discourse production.  After having taught as Associate Professor in =
Bilgi University, Istanbul, she has recently moved to Kadir Has =
University, Istanbul.

HEGHNAR WATENPAUGH
Heghnar Watenpaugh is an Associate Professor of the History of =
Architecture and the Aga Khan Career Development Professor in the =
History, Theory and Criticism section of the Department of Architecture =
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  She is the author of The =
Image of an Ottoman City: Imperial Architecture and Urban Experience in =
Aleppo in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Leiden, 2004), as =
well as articles on early modern and modern Islamic architecture and =
urbanism. She has been awarded numerous fellowships including the J. =
Paul Getty Post-doctoral Fellowship in the History of Art and the =
Humanities; the National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Grant; the =
President's Faculty Research Award in the Humanities, Rice University =
and the Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in =
the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art. Her ongoing research addresses =
issues of gender and space, as well as the preservation and =
commodification of architecture in the era of colonialism and =
nationalism in modern Middle Eastern societies.

Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture
Harvard University
Sackler Museum, Room 412
485 Broadway Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: 617-495-2355
Fax: 617-496-8389
Email: agakhan@fas.harvard.edu

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C631CC.62304DA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-9">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1522" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV align=3Djustify>HISTORIOGRAPHY AND=20
IDEOLOGY: ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THE "LANDS OF=20
RUM" Symposium Harvard University, 11-13 May=20
2006 History of architecture constitutes a major =
ingredient in=20
the making of modern nationalist narratives everywhere, and modern =
Turkey is no=20
exception to this. Yet few other modern nations exhibit the historical =
and=20
cultural complexity of Turkey, with its tangled and difficult dilemma of =

identity resulting from the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural legacy of =
the=20
Ottoman Empire, "caught between two worlds," as Cemal Kafadar has put =
it.&nbsp;=20
The medieval Islamic dynasties of Anatolia were equally complex =
polities, whose=20
monumental heritage is often problematically treated as a precursor of =
the=20
Ottoman period in linear constructions of regional architectural =
history.=20
Consequently, both Western and native scholars are faced with a distinct =
problem=20
in writing the history of "Turkish" architecture in the "Lands of Rum" =
(lit.=20
Roman domains, commonly designating Anatolia and the Balkans), and their =
work=20
often reflects the ideological and/or methodological biases with which =
they=20
approach this topic. On the one hand, the histories of Ottoman =
and=20
"pre-Ottoman" architecture sit rather uncomfortably in the general =
surveys of=20
"Islamic architecture" within which Westerners have traditionally =
classified=20
these traditions. In the classical texts on Islamic architecture (most =
of them=20
produced at the height of Western colonial ambitions in the Middle East, =
during=20
the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire), the monuments of these =
"Turkish"=20
dynasties are often relegated to a lesser status than those of the =
"Persians"=20
and "Arabs," which, for many Western Orientalists, represent the "purer" =
and=20
"sedentary" architecture of authentic Muslim cultures, before they were=20
overtaken by the "nomadic" Turks. On the other hand, Turkish scholars' =
efforts=20
to counter this Orientalist view have frequently been compromised by =
equally=20
problematic nationalist biases, leading them, for example, to highlight =
the=20
ethnic "Turkish" element in Seljuk, Beylik, and Ottoman architectures at =
the=20
expense of the "Islamic" component, or to negate any formative inputs =
from the=20
many centuries of cross-cultural exchanges with Anatolian/Balkan =
Christendom and=20
Europe.&nbsp; Another bias of nationalist paradigms is their =
anachronistic focus=20
on the present borders of modern Turkey, to the exclusion of parallel=20
developments in neighboring Islamic regions such as Iran, Iraq, =
Syria-Palestine,=20
or Egypt, which have their own exclusivist traditions of Orientalist and =

nationalist historiography.<BR><BR>The premise of this symposium is our=20
conviction that the tendency to read the past through the optics of =
present-day=20
national boundaries has long obscured the synchronic unities and complex =

cultural exchanges across the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Middle East =
prior to=20
the advent of modern nationalisms, and that without considering these =
unities=20
and exchanges, talking about the history of exclusive categories like =
"Turkish,"=20
"Arab,"&nbsp; and "Persian" architecture is highly problematic. With =
recent=20
critical theories challenging not only the Orientalist biases of Western =

scholarship about Islamic cultures but also the nationalist biases of =
most=20
modern local scholarship in these societies themselves, we believe the =
time is=20
ripe for a more nuanced, critical assessment of the historiography of=20
architecture in non-Western contexts in general, and the case of the =
"Lands of=20
Rum" is a fertile starting point for productive discussion.&nbsp; =
Focusing on=20
the historical, ideological, and methodological questions pertaining to =
how the=20
architectural history of Islamic dynasties in this multi-cultural region =
has=20
been written in the modern period, the Symposium intends to raise an =
open debate=20
on a<BR>number of issues with broader implications for other Islamic=20
regions.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DSylfaen>
<DIV align=3Djustify><BR>Thursday May 11:<BR>Welcoming Remarks: Sibel =
Bozdogan and=20
Gulru Necipoglu<BR><BR>Keynote Lecture: Cemal Kafadar<BR>State Building, =

Globalization, and History in the Lands of Rum Friday May =
12 MORNING=20
SESSION (Chair: David Roxburgh) ARAB, PERSIAN, OR TURKISH? =
SCHOLARSHIP ON THE=20
LANDS OF RUM AND BEYOND Heghnar Watenpaugh The Legacy of =
Ottoman=20
Architecture in the Former Arab Provinces Abstract: Since the =
nineteenth=20
century, the Ottoman state and its legacy - architectural or otherwise - =
has=20
been contested, erased, revived, and reviled in the former Arab =
provinces. In=20
the historiography of the visible past of these regions, the Ottoman =
period=20
occupies an ambiguous position at the intersection of European =
Orientalist=20
narratives of Arab civilization and medieval greatness, nationalist =
narratives=20
of the rebirth of the Arab nation, and Islamist narratives of Islamic=20
civilization. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Ottoman =

architecture was both reviled as imported and inauthentic, and prized as =
a=20
marker of imperial prestige and Islamic legitimacy. This paper =
explores=20
the complexity of such discourses by examining two key moments: Egypt =
under=20
Muhammad Ali and 1930s Syria. Both moments dramatize the different =
values given=20
to the medieval period (embodied in Mamluk architecture)&nbsp; and the =
early=20
modern/modern (Ottoman). Under Muhammad Ali, despite the emerging =
popularization=20
of Mamluk forms, a version of an Ottoman style was preferred for the =
mosque of=20
the viceroy on the citadel. The key texts here include Orientalist =
narratives of=20
Arab art, such as that of Pascal Coste, and local =
responses/appropriations, such=20
as Ali Pasha Mubarak's. In 1930s Syria, then under French Mandate, =
local=20
intellectuals and colonial scholars struggled to define a history for =
the=20
architecture of a new nation-state. In this context, the Ottoman =
heritage was=20
denied just as it was systematically documented. Key texts here include =
those of=20
Jean Sauvaget and Ren=E9 Dussaud, among others, as well as those of =
Muhammad Kurd=20
Ali, and Kamil al-Ghazzi. In the cases of both Egypt and Syria, =
Western=20
or colonial as well as nationalist actors struggled to narrativize the =
visual=20
past of new states. The location or elision of the Ottoman moment in =
these=20
narratives reveals the hidden assumptions and aims of their=20
positions. Kishwar Rizvi Arthur Upham Pope and the Survey of =
Persian=20
Art:&nbsp; Exploring the Discourses on Iranian Art and Architecture in =
the Early=20
Twentieth Century Abstract: In a speech delivered in 1925, Arthur =
Upham=20
Pope situated the art and culture of Iran within the framework of an =
ancient=20
civilization deserving of the world's attention and admiration.&nbsp; =
The art of=20
Iran was characterized as its "greatest asset" and the source of =
inspiration for=20
myriad others, from China to Europe.&nbsp; The arts of South Asia and =
Turkey=20
were declared to be mere derivations and deemed inferior to the=20
"original."&nbsp; Pope's audience included Crown Prince Muhammad Reza =
Pahlavi,=20
who took up the American's challenge to invest heavily in the culture of =

"Persia" by recognizing its political and propagandist potential. The =
speech was=20
soon published in both Iran (1925) and London (1928), thereby launching =
a=20
national and international discourse on the history of Persian =
art.&nbsp; The=20
aim of this paper is to explore the varied modes and motivations for the =

construction of this discourse, within both the art historical and the=20
nationalist rhetoric employed by A. U. Pope. A. U. Pope organized =
the=20
First World Congress on Persian Art in Philadelphia in 1926 and founded =
the=20
American Institute of Persian Art and Archaeology in 1928 in New =
York.&nbsp; A=20
number of subsequent congresses and related exhibitions would follow, to =
be=20
memorialized in the Survey of Persian Art which began being published in =

1938.&nbsp; In this monumental tome (1938-1939, six volumes) the =
superiority of=20
Persian art and culture was further reiterated through a dense and =
complicated=20
documentation that spanned two and a half millennia.&nbsp; At stake were =
the=20
racial, linguistic, and national identities of the newly modern =
state.&nbsp; In=20
contrast to earlier Orientalist scholars like F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, =
whose=20
association with German museums and academic institutions brought them =
access to=20
Iranian archaeological sites, A. U. Pope's primary patron was the Shah =
of=20
Iran.&nbsp; The exhibitions and congresses, underwritten by both the =
American=20
and Iranian governments, were thus a platform for a re-conceptualization =
of=20
history in which the artifacts of the past were seen as evidence of =
Iran's=20
greatness - present and future. Just as the country was referred =
to both=20
by its native name, Iran, and the Hellenized version, Persia, the =
valuation of=20
its art and architecture was presented to both a local and a Western=20
audience.&nbsp; Likewise, the discourse on Persian art was situated=20
simultaneously in the academies and museums of Europe and America and in =
the=20
Iranian Parliament.&nbsp; The goal of the former was to place these =
cultural=20
artifacts within the broader realm of "Islamic art," a problematic term =
itself,=20
while the latter aimed to situate them within the ideals of nationalist =
identity=20
formation. What were the paradigms within European art history that =
supported=20
these fundamentally different approaches?&nbsp; Persian art's value was=20
augmented at the cost of other historical and regional entities, whose =
heterodox=20
and multi-ethnic reality was suppressed.&nbsp; As the structures of =
patronage=20
show, it is necessary to unearth the ideological motifs that informed =
Pope and=20
the authors of the Survey of Persian Art.&nbsp; What, ultimately, was =
the legacy=20
of A. U. Pope and the Survey in the construction of an Iranian-centered =
history=20
of Islamic art? Oya Pancaroglu Gateways to Medieval =
Anatolia:=20
Crossing the Impasses of Architectural Historiography Abstract: =
Modern=20
study of the architectural history of late medieval Anatolia between the =
initial=20
formation of Turkish principalities (ca. 1100) and the establishment of =
Ottoman=20
hegemony (ca. 1500) has been shaped by both ideological boundaries and=20
methodological entrenchments. Twentieth-century academic approaches to =
research=20
and interpretation may be linked in part to the connections forged with =
the=20
influential Vienna School of art history and the formalism espoused by =
such=20
imposing figures as Riegl and Strzygowski.&nbsp; The establishment of=20
departments of art history in Istanbul (1943) and Ankara (1954)&nbsp; =
was led,=20
respectively, by Diez and Otto-Dorn (both former students of =
Strzygowski), who=20
strengthened the quest for a national Turkish art (as distinct from =
Persian and=20
Arab art) with its primary roots in Asia.&nbsp; This idea had already =
been=20
proclaimed by Ottoman-trained art historian Arseven (Turk Sanati, 1928; =
French=20
trans. 1939) and formed the interpretive foundation of twentieth-century =

scholarship both within and outside Turkish academia. In the =
subsequent=20
generations of formalist academic writing on art and architecture, the =
complex=20
and variable political, social, and ethnic-religious configurations of =
late=20
medieval Anatolia have been glossed over with such wholesale categories =
as=20
"pre-Ottoman," "Turkish Islamic," "Anatolian Turkish," "Seljuk," and =
"Beylik."=20
Furthermore, the objective of taxonomic manageability has cast buildings =
into=20
typological pigeonholes so that historical and local contexts have been=20
neglected, obscuring the evidence they may provide for cultural and =
aesthetic=20
continuities within and beyond Anatolia.&nbsp; The rudimentary =
utilitarian value=20
of books cataloguing mosques, madrasas, tombs, and caravanserais is not =
to be=20
doubted.&nbsp; However, the enduring typological overdrive of =
architectural=20
historiography has muted the voice of buildings that sit uncomfortably =
in rigid=20
categories, allowing ideological frameworks such as modern national =
borders and=20
ethnic-national identities to fill the resulting semantic gap. This =
adherence to=20
formalism is not limited to modern Turkish scholarship but is also =
evident in=20
some recent Western studies of Islamic architecture (e.g. Robert =
Hillenbrand,=20
Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning [Edinburgh &amp; New =
York,=20
1994]). This paper will conclude with a look at the =
historiography of the=20
Mosque of Ilyas Bey in Miletus/Balat (1404) as a case study illuminating =
the=20
restrictive effect of considering buildings primarily from the vantage =
point of=20
typology while failing to tap the potential of dynastic and regional =
contexts.=20
When regarded outside of the framework of terms and types, the =
contextualization=20
of such buildings can reveal significant synchronic and diachronic =
connections=20
with traditions that are ordinarily excluded from historiography by =
modern=20
mental and political boundaries. Recognizing the methodological impasses =
of=20
modern historiography constitutes a necessary first step in reversing =
the=20
marginalization and introversion of late medieval Anatolia's complex=20
architectural legacy. Barry Flood Lost in Translation?=20
Architectural Historiographies of the Eastern "Turks" Abstract: =
Generally=20
identified as Turks (regardless of their ethnic origins), the =
Persianized elites=20
of the Ghaznavid, Ghurid, and Delhi sultanates existed between and =
within=20
multiple worlds. The process of negotiating these worlds is highlighted =
in their=20
architectural legacy and replicated in its inscription into the canons =
of=20
colonial and postcolonial art histories. Contributing to this ongoing =
process,=20
the paper analyzes the ways in which disciplinary and political =
boundaries have=20
set the parameters of architectural analysis, focusing on the historical =

relationships between architecture and the construction/representation =
of=20
ethnic, regional, and religious identities. It addresses the omission or =

marginalization of relevant monuments in survey texts on Islamic art, =
relating=20
the phenomenon to their stylistic heterogeneity and perceived dilution =
or=20
distortion of the 'pure' Persianate forms and media privileged in =
existing=20
architectural histories. The issue is also relevant to the reception and =

evaluation of Rum Seljuk and early Ottoman monuments; the paper =
therefore=20
assumes a comparative approach to the explanatory tropes (acculturation, =

hybridity, translation, etc.)&nbsp; that have been deployed to account =
for these=20
deviations from an assumed norm. Finally, it considers recent shifts in=20
interpretive paradigms, the emergence of the monuments as highly =
politicized=20
sites for the articulation of notions of identity emphasizing cultural =
purity,=20
and the ways in which architectural histories have been implicated in =
these=20
developments. AFTERNOON SESSION (Chair: Zeynep =
Celik) ISLAMIC,=20
TURKISH, OR MODERN? HISTORIOGRAPHIES OF OTTOMAN =
ARCHITECTURE Ahmet=20
Ersoy Architecture and the Search for Ottoman Origins in the Late =
Tanzimat=20
Period Abstract: Following the European pattern, the development =
of the=20
discipline of art history in the Ottoman Empire was largely concomitant =
with the=20
rise and modification of a nationalist ideology in the late nineteenth =
and early=20
twentieth centuries. The definition of an Ottoman artistic/architectural =

heritage and its preservation and representation were significant assets =
in the=20
process of inculcating a national consciousness, for they helped =
authenticate a=20
unified vision of Ottoman society and firmly embedded its means of =
collective=20
cultural expression in the distant past. This paper centers on a=20
discussion of the Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani [Fundamentals of Ottoman =
Architecture]=20
(Istanbul, 1873), - henceforth referred to as the Usul: the earliest=20
comprehensive study on the history and theory of Ottoman architecture. =
The=20
authors of the Usul were the first to locate Ottoman architecture within =
the=20
broader context of cultural history and examine its course with respect =
to=20
long-term changes in the history of the Ottoman state. The paper =
particularly=20
aims to concentrate on the historical discourse formed in the Usul =
concerning=20
the earlier monuments of the Ottoman dynasty. The formative stages of =
the=20
Ottoman architectural tradition were significant for the authors of the =
Usul=20
because they were believed to yield to the analytical eye the very =
fundamentals=20
of the Ottoman system of building.&nbsp; The early Ottoman/late medieval =

synthesis could work as a model for contemporary architects who were =
striving to=20
devise a new synthetic idiom for late Ottoman architecture. Furthermore, =
the=20
pre-classical monuments of Bursa became an indispensable locus of =
interest for=20
late Ottoman intellectuals as they helped reconstitute and envisage the =
remote=20
historical milieu within which the Ottoman state was created, hence =
forming a=20
major site for celebrating the myth of "founding a nation from a=20
clan." In embarking upon a close reading of the text, this paper =
aims to=20
delineate how the late Ottoman image of the period of architectural=20
"origins"&nbsp; was articulated through a complex negotiation with =
European=20
strategies of analysis, and in response to the predominant Orientalist =
biases=20
embedded in mainstream architectural discourse.&nbsp; Here, the Usul =
will be=20
assessed in line with other comparative works (especially by =
Viollet-le-Duc=20
students) such as Parvill=E9e's L'Architecture et d=E9coration turque, =
and with the=20
hindsight provided by early republican histories of architecture. The =
paper also=20
aims to investigate how the Usul's historical image of early Ottoman=20
architecture was informed by and contributed to the late Ottoman =
politics of=20
identity by examining the text against the background of the history =
books,=20
popular novels, and plays of the period. Gulru =
Necipoglu The=20
Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of =
"Classical"=20
Ottoman Architecture Abstract: The classification of Sinan's=20
multi-cultural legacy in such categories as "Islamic" or "Turkish" has =
hindered=20
a fuller understanding of his oeuvre, which uniquely bridges the=20
Ottoman-Islamic, Romano-Byzantine, and Italian Renaissance architectural =

traditions. Moreover, his legacy falls between the cracks of the =
conventional=20
East-West divide in global architectural history because the =
"Renaissance" has=20
traditionally been defined as an exclusively "Western" category. This =
paper=20
focuses on the dominant narratives of Sinan scholarship, both Turkish =
and=20
international, that have contributed to such an impasse: the =
preoccupation with=20
defining Sinan's architecture as a reflection of national "character," =
the=20
anachronistic assessment of his legacy through the lens of modernism, =
the=20
formalist emphasis on his stylistic evolution and typological schemes =
divorced=20
from historical context, the controversy over his ethnic identity =
(Greek,=20
Armenian, or Turkish), the debate on the origin of his style =
(multi-cultural=20
Anatolian synthesis, or pan-Turkic), and the question of his originality =

(revolving around the "influence" of Hagia Sophia). Beginning =
with the=20
emergence of these narratives in the late Ottoman Empire, when the =
originality=20
of Sinan's style (distinct from Arab and Persian styles) was promoted as =
a=20
reflection of proto-national dynastic "character," the paper will trace =
their=20
subsequent reformulation in the early republican literature =
(1923-1950s), when=20
the search for a fully-fledged national architecture was conflated with =
the=20
question of Sinan's ethnic identity and the Turkish origins of his =
style.=20
Following the lead of German scholars, who in the second decade of the =
twentieth=20
century hailed Sinan as the grand master of the "Turkish Renaissance,"=20
nationalist scholarship turned the "Turkish Michelangelo"&nbsp; into the =
proud=20
symbol of a newly born nation's creative genius. The paradigmatic texts =
that=20
have contributed to the construction of this "national genius" will be =
reviewed=20
under two narrative genres, often with overlapping discourses. The =
first=20
genre comprises the writings of architects:&nbsp; Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani =
(1873),=20
Mimar Kemaleddin (1905, 1917), Taut (1938), Eldem (1939), Egli =
(1954). The=20
second genre is the work of historians and historians of =
art/architecture:&nbsp;=20
Cevdet (1897), Gurlitt (1907-12), Babinger (1914, 1927), Agaoglu (1926), =

Otto-Dorn (1937), Gabriel (1926, 1936), Arseven (1939), Osman (1927), =
Meric=20
(1938), Afet Inan (1949, 1956). The paper will conclude with a =
brief=20
overview of historiography during the second half of the twentieth =
century,=20
represented by a new generation of art/architectural historians (Unsal,=20
Aslanapa, Arik, Kuban, Kuran, Sozen, Goodwin).&nbsp; In these more =
recent=20
narratives, earlier ideological controversies were often perpetuated in =
studies=20
characterized by formalist paradigms (stylistic evolution, typological =
schemes),=20
and biologically inspired evolution narratives (rise-and-decline) were =
employed=20
to affirm Sinan's "classical" style as the undisputed zenith of Ottoman=20
architectural creativity. The linear evolution from Seljuk to Beylik to =
Ottoman=20
became normative, to the exclusion or marginalization of exchanges with=20
non-Islamic architectural traditions in Anatolia, the Balkans, and=20
Europe. Shirine Hamadeh Westernization, Decadence, and the =
Ottoman=20
Baroque: Modern Constructions of the Eighteenth Century Abstract: =
In the=20
Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani (The Fundamentals of Ottoman Architecture, 1873), =
the=20
first treatise to promote before a Western audience Ottoman architecture =
as a=20
rational and universal language, the ornate and hybrid vocabulary of the =

eighteenth century was put forth as representative of the rich Ottoman=20
decorative tradition.&nbsp; This was the first examination of the =
architectural=20
heritage of this era and it remains one of its most favorable =
interpretations=20
until today.&nbsp; With the gradual shaping of a modern discourse =
between the=20
1950s and the 1980s, the eighteenth century became increasingly regarded =
as an=20
era of decline, fallen prey to Western influence.&nbsp; Until recently, =
the=20
historiography of the period, consisting largely of formalist studies =
and based=20
mostly on European visual and textual sources, has hinged on three =
paradigms:=20
rise-and-decline, Westernization, and the Ottoman =
Baroque. Through a=20
close reading of the main texts that have shaped the historiography, =
this paper=20
aims to offer a critical analysis of these paradigms and other recurrent =
themes=20
that took part in the modern construction of the eighteenth =
century.&nbsp; The=20
analysis begins with the isolated work of Dogan Kuban in the 1950s, in =
which the=20
concepts of decline, Ottoman Baroque, and Batililasma (Westernization) =
first=20
emerged. The paper then explores the way in which the notion of Ottoman=20
Westernization gradually became the focus of all interpretations, as =
interest in=20
the period picked up in the 1970s and the 1980s. By examining the works =
of Ayda=20
Arel (1975), Aptullah Kuran (1977), Ulku Bates (1979), Semavi Eyice =
(1980),=20
Serim Denel (1982), and Emel Esin (1986), the paper then attempts to =
uncover=20
some of their ideological assumptions and investigate the relative role =
of=20
eighteenth-century narratives (Montagu, Pardoe, Walsh, Yirmisekiz Mehmed =
Efendi)=20
and visual sources (Melling, Bartlett) in providing fertile grounds for =
their=20
interpretations. The analysis will extend to such paradigmatic =
works of=20
Ottoman history as Ahmet Refik's Lale Devri, and important architectural =
studies=20
like those of Sedad Hakki Eldem and Aptullah Kuran from the 1970s, and =
Maurizio=20
Cerasi and Tulay Artan from the late 1980s, that do not fully partake of =
the=20
dominant narrative.&nbsp; The interest of these studies is that while =
they offer=20
new insights they also rely on a set of unquestioned concepts and =
assumptions=20
that have played a consistent part in the modern discourse on the =
eighteenth=20
century.&nbsp; Such pervasive notions as the Tulip Period, ephemeral =
pleasures,=20
decadence and mannerism, influence, and nationalism (or =
proto-nationalism) will=20
be examined from both a historical and a critical =
perspective. Sibel=20
Bozdogan Reading Ottoman Architecture through Modernist Lenses: =
Nationalism=20
and the "New Architecture" in the Early Republic Abstract: =
Architectural=20
culture in the early republican period is marked by a conspicuous split =
between=20
nationalist historiography and modernist practice. While nationalist =
narratives=20
celebrated the classical Ottoman heritage as the zenith of Turkish =
creativity,=20
the professional discourse of early republican architecture strongly =
rejected=20
any formal and iconographic references to that heritage, turning instead =
to an=20
imported Central European modernism, embraced under the rubric of "New=20
Architecture." In many cases, the same authors who wrote extensively on =
the=20
merits of Ottoman architecture also promoted (and designed with) the =
abstract=20
modern forms of New Architecture as the most appropriate expression of =
the=20
Kemalist Revolution.&nbsp; Nationalist reverence for Ottoman =
architecture=20
existed side by side with arguments about the necessity of radically=20
dissociating the modern Turkish architecture of the new Republic from =
the=20
country's Ottoman/ Islamic past. Through a study of =
representative early=20
republican texts by influential art/architectural historians and =
cultural=20
critics (Celal Esat Arseven and Ismail Hakki Baltacioglu in particular) =
and=20
prominent architects (like Behcet Unsal, Sedad Cetintas and Sedad Hakki =
Eldem),=20
this paper examines how these authors sought to reconcile such seemingly =

contradictory premises and argued that Ottoman architecture and European =

modernism were in fact two different historical manifestations of the =
same=20
underlying rationality that distinguishes Turks from other Islamic =
cultures. In=20
particular, the paper focuses on their rationalist, functionalist, and =
secular=20
readings of Ottoman architecture: their emphasis on "tectonics" at the =
expense=20
of decorative programs; on "human geography" rather than religion as the =

determinant of cultural identity;&nbsp; on houses as a major component =
of=20
Ottoman heritage hitherto overshadowed by monumental architecture; =
and on=20
"formal/ typological evolution" as the main explanatory framework, at =
the=20
expense of historical, cultural, and contextual particularities. The =
main point=20
of the paper is that in spite of their now-transparent ideological =
biases and=20
shortcomings, these texts contain important critical insights, as well =
as some=20
profound contradictions endemic to Turkish modernity, such as the =
unresolved=20
tension between positivism and (Bergsonian) spiritualism or the =
oscillation=20
between evolutionary and revolutionary models in imagining what the =
desired=20
modern/ national Turkish architecture of the twentieth century could=20
be. The paper concludes with the observation that in spite of all =
the=20
nationalist arguments regarding the rationality and "inherent modernity" =
of=20
classical Ottoman forms (and hence, their implied potential as =
legitimate models=20
for republican architects), modern Turkish architecture has largely =
failed in=20
establishing meaningful continuities with the Ottoman architectural =
heritage.=20
Rather than the gradual re-configuration of Ottoman spatial, structural, =
and=20
aesthetic sensibilities into a uniquely Turkish modernism as the early=20
republican authors had hoped, the conspicuous revival of interest in the =
Ottoman=20
heritage since the 1980s seems to be unfolding as a postmodern "return =
of the=20
repressed" epitomized by the increasingly numerous replicas of classical =
Ottoman=20
mosques or the increasingly fashionable "Ottoman/Turkish house" -style =
villas in=20
exclusive suburbs. Saturday May 13 MORNING SESSION (Chair: =
Renata=20
Holod) IMPACT OF HISTORIOGRAPHIES ON INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES: =
ARCHAEOLOGY,=20
MUSEOLOGY, AND PRESERVATION IN MODERN TURKEY Can Bilsel "Our=20
Anatolia": the Making of the "Humanist Culture" in =
Turkey Abstract: The=20
organization of archaeology in the 1930s in Ankara was guided by the =
"Turkish=20
History Thesis," which sought to prove that the "Turkish race" was the =
founder=20
of the Neolithic cultures of the ancient Near East, and of Western =
civilization.=20
The centrality of pre- and proto-historic archaeology in the Turkish =
humanities,=20
the invention of the disciplines of "Hititology" and "Sumerology," and =
the=20
formulation of an outlandish theory about the Turkic origin of all =
languages=20
("Gunes-Dil") - borrowing the paradigms of the relativist German =
pre-history -=20
served the Republic's double project of nation-building and =
Westernization=20
(Aydin, 2002). Beginning in 1938, however, a new generation of cultural=20
theorists sought to revise the official historiography, rejecting the=20
ethnocentric "origins" and demanding instead the institution of a =
"humanist=20
culture." Turkish "humanism" was made manifest in a variety of fields =
including=20
the introduction of a classical Greek and Latin curriculum in public =
education,=20
the translation of ancient Greek and French classics into Turkish (Berk, =
2002),=20
the reorganization of classical archaeology under the traditional rubric =
of=20
German philhellenism under Ekrem Akurgal (Aydin, 2002), and, finally, =
the=20
reinvention of ancient "Anatolia" in modern Turkish literature as the =
"cradle"=20
of civilization (Akyildiz, 2002). This paper examines the =
construction=20
"Anatolia"&nbsp; in the writings of its most prominent theorists, =
Sabahattin=20
Eyuboglu, "Halikarnas Balikcisi" (Cevat Sakir Kabaagacli), and Azra =
Erhat, as=20
well as in the histories of art, architecture, and culture of Turkey =
written=20
under their influence. Seeking to establish continuity between the =
ancient and=20
modern inhabitants of Anatolia, the Turkish humanists documented the=20
similarities between the culture narrated in the Homeric legends and a =
highly=20
selective and often anecdotal account of Turkish folklore. Hence the =
education=20
of the Turkish halk (people) in the classics was presented as the =
people's=20
return to its native Anatolian/"Troyan" (Trojan) identity. In the =
final=20
analysis, the construction of "Anatolia" in Turkish historiography =
consisted in=20
the conflation of a nativist identity (Anatolia)&nbsp; with a =
"universal" ideal=20
(Hellas), not unlike the construction of the "Hellenic" (as opposed to =
"Rumeic")=20
identity in the nineteenth-century Greece. This required, on the one =
hand,=20
internalizing nineteenth-century philhellenism - Mediterranean/Aegean =
culture as=20
the epitome of civilization - and, on the other hand, rejecting the =
political=20
implications of such ideology:&nbsp; European imperialism or the Greek =
invasion=20
of 1919-22. Hence, as a rhetorical device, "Anatolia"&nbsp; both =
established=20
the rootedness of the Turkish State in its present territories and =
demanded its=20
inclusion in the West. Scott Redford Islamic Archaeology in=20
Turkey Abstract: The elites of the early Turkish Republic were =
ambivalent=20
towards their Islamic heritage. This ambivalence expressed itself, for =
instance,=20
in nationalistic ideologies focusing on Anatolia as a center of (mostly=20
non-Islamic)&nbsp; cultures even as a neo-Ottoman architectural style =
was=20
employed to build prominent buildings of the new capital of Ankara. =
Ideological=20
concerns were born of the conflation of race and language common at the =
time in=20
France and Germany, the two main sources of education for the new =
republican=20
elite. The Turkish Historical Society was the center of early =
republican=20
intellectual developments involving history and archaeology. This paper =
takes as=20
its departure Remzi Oguz Arik, a prominent member of the Society and =
Director of=20
the Ankara Ethnographic Museum, trained in classical archaeology but =
also in=20
Arabic, and the first Turkish professor of Turkish art.&nbsp; It then =
traces=20
another kind of ambivalence in Turkish Islamic archaeology, its =
disciplinarily=20
intermediate or subordinate status relative to Bronze Age and Classical=20
archaeology on the one hand, and to Turkish/Islamic architectural and =
art=20
history on the other. Wendy Meryem =
Shaw Preservation/Projection:&nbsp;=20
Museums and National Identity in the Republic of Turkey Abstract: =
Museums=20
preserve the past in order to project the future.&nbsp;Yet what they =
designate=20
as past, what they choose to preserve as historical as opposed to =
forgotten or=20
ongoing, is intimately linked to how that future is to be =
imagined.&nbsp; As the=20
Ottoman Empire was transformed into the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and =
the=20
decades thereafter, old museums reconfigured for new needs, and the =
multitude of=20
new museums established throughout the country faced a double bind: not =
only=20
were new museums designed to frame the past as a unitary and glorious =
heritage=20
for the young nation, they were also to function within a system that =
imagined=20
the multi-ethnic Ottoman, Islamic, imperial, Eastern past as radically =
divorced=20
from the ethnically Turkish, secular, republican, and Western=20
future. Museums in Turkey were not designed simply to preserve =
heritage;=20
they were to define heritage, both as a uniform past for a young nation =
and as a=20
past to be left behind as part of the projects of modernization, equated =
with=20
Westernization.&nbsp; This paper will examine how the primary museums of =
the=20
early republican period - Topkapi Palace Museum, Museum of Classical=20
Archaeology, Museum of Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, Hagia Sophia =
Museum,=20
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Art in Istanbul; Ethnographic Museum and =
Hittite=20
Museum in Ankara; and local archaeological, ethnographic, and dervish =
lodge=20
museums throughout the country - produced a system of memorial where=20
preservation has been embedded in a system of forgetting, making museums =
at once=20
central to the republican project and yet also perenially on the fringes =
of=20
public consciousness.&nbsp; It will also attempt to consider how this=20
paradoxical relationship between remembering the past and projecting the =
future=20
may have affected the institutionalization of museums in the =
region. Nur=20
Altinyildiz Contextualizing the Byzantine and Ottoman Architectural =
Legacy:=20
Istanbul in the 1920s and 1950s Abstract: Preservation in Turkey, =

introduced as a modern Western practice during the late Ottoman Empire,=20
seemingly established "international standards" in legislation and =
education=20
while conveniently overlooking the complex ideological load of the =
heritage=20
itself.&nbsp; Preservation never became a consistent effort nor was its =
object a=20
coherent whole. Pristine planning and preservation principles were =
largely=20
ignored in the continuous shaping and reshaping of cities. Acts =
of=20
construction and conservation became powerful visual manifestations of =
cultural=20
politics, particularly those of early republican politicians as they =
dealt with=20
the legacy of the past. Foremost, interventions in Istanbul provide =
insight into=20
their adverse policies and preferences as they objectified, =
contextualized, and=20
presented the Byzantine and Ottoman heritage of the city. Priorities =
were=20
continuously changed, choices made, and biases manifested as history was =
played=20
off against modernity, discourse against practice. Istanbul became a =
stage set=20
where thorny issues of modernization were masked by intricate operations =
of=20
restoration and painful absences covered up by glorified =
presences.&nbsp;=20
National and religious sentiments of the local public were addressed as =
well as=20
the presumed expectations of Western parties.&nbsp; Halil Edhem, Sedat =
Cetintas,=20
and Ali Saim Ulgen stand out as critics of preservation policies while=20
republican administrators orchestrated urban development, veiling or=20
highlighting selected specimens of the patrimony.&nbsp; Paradoxically,=20
republican reformists of the 1920s preserved the legacy of Istanbul in =
ruins as=20
they constructed modern Ankara, while their conservative successors in =
the 1950s=20
destroyed that same legacy in a quest for sublimating it through=20
modernization. AFTERNOON SESSION: OPEN=20
DISCUSSION *******************************************************=
*************************** SYMPOSIUM=20
PARTICIPANTS NUR ALTINYILDIZ Born in 1955 in Istanbul, Nur =
Altinyildiz=20
studied architecture and restoration at Istanbul Technical =
University.&nbsp; She=20
spent a year in Rome, ICCROM, taking a course in architectural=20
conservation.&nbsp; Back in Istanbul, she worked at the Central =
Laboratories for=20
Restoration and Conservation. In 1990, she began teaching at Bilkent=20
University's Department of Interior Architecture in Ankara and =
consequently=20
started her Ph.D. at Istanbul Technical University.&nbsp; Her =
dissertation,=20
titled "Circumstances Specific to Turkey in the Conservation of the =
Historical=20
Environment: Istanbul 1923-1973," was completed in 1998.&nbsp; She moved =
back to=20
Istanbul in 2002 and is currently working as part-time Assistant =
Professor at=20
Bahcesehir University and Kadir Has University in Istanbul. CAN=20
BILSEL S. M. Can Bilsel is an architectural critic and cultural =
historian and=20
is Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego. Having received a =

professional degree in architecture from Middle East Technical =
University in=20
Ankara, Bilsel completed his graduate work at Massachusetts Institute of =

Technology and Princeton University.&nbsp; His Ph.D. dissertation, =
titled=20
"Architecture in the Museum: Displacement, Reconstruction, and =
Reproduction of=20
the Monuments of Antiquity in Berlin's Pergamon Museum," investigates =
the=20
problems of historic representation and modern ideology in the German=20
reconstruction and display of antiquity. In addition to his work on the =
history=20
of modern architecture and the theory of historic preservation, Bilsel =
has also=20
written about the history of twentieth-century urbanism, particularly in =
France.=20
He has received a number of awards and fellowships, including the =
Whiting=20
Fellowship in the Humanities and a two-year residential grant from the =
Getty=20
Research Institute, Los Angeles. Bilsel is the author of Zeus in Exile:=20
Archaeological Restitution as Politics of Memory (Princeton, =
2000). SiBEL=20
BOZDOGAN Sibel Bozdogan holds a professional degree in =
architecture from=20
Middle East Technical University in Ankara (1976) and a Ph.D. from the=20
University of Pennsylvania (1983). She has taught architectural history =
and=20
theory courses at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1986-1991), MIT =
(1991-1999)=20
and as a visitor at the GSD, Harvard University (1999-present). Her =
interests=20
range from cross-cultural histories of modern architecture in Europe, =
the US,=20
the Mediterranean, and the Middle East to critical investigations of =
technology,=20
modernity, and national identity as they have informed the culture and=20
production of architecture in Turkey and across the globe.&nbsp; She has =

published articles on these topics, has coauthored a monograph on the =
Turkish=20
architect Sedad Hakki Eldem (1987)&nbsp; and coedited an =
interdisciplinary=20
volume, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey =
(1997).&nbsp; Her=20
Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the =
Early=20
Republic (Washington, 2001) won the 2002 Alice Davis Hitchcock Award of =
the=20
Society of Architectural Historians and the Koprulu Book Prize of the =
Turkish=20
Studies Association. ZEYNEP CELIK Zeynep Celik is =
Distinguished=20
Professor of Architecture at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Her =

publications include The Remaking of Istanbul(Washington, 1986; =
California,=20
1993), Displaying the Orient (California, 1992), Urban Forms and =
Colonial=20
Confrontations (California, 1997), and (as coeditor) Streets: Critical=20
Perspectives on Public Space (California, 1993), as well as articles on=20
cross-cultural topics. She served as the editor of the Journal of the =
Society of=20
Architectural Historians (2000-2003) and is currently completing a book, =
titled=20
Public Space, Modernity, and Empire Building: Ottoman Syria, French =
Maghrib,=20
1830-1914, and coediting an interdisciplinary collection of essays, =
Walls of=20
Algiers: Artistic, Cultural, and Urban Forms in the Colonial and =
Postcolonial=20
City. She has recently been granted a Guggenheim Fellowship and an =
American=20
Council of Learned Societies Fellowship. AHMET ERSOY Ahmet =
Ersoy=20
received his B.A. (1988) and M.A.&nbsp; (1991) from the Department of=20
Architecture at Middle East Technical University, Ankara. In 2000 he =
completed=20
his Ph.D. degree at the Department of the History of Art and =
Architecture,=20
Harvard University, with a dissertation titled, "On the Sources of the =
'Ottoman=20
Renaissance':&nbsp; Architectural Revival and Its Discourse During the =
Abdulaziz=20
Era (1861-76)." His work mainly deals with the transformations of =
Ottoman=20
culture in the nineteenth century, a period of intense modernization. He =

particularly focuses on questions related to the late Ottoman politics =
of=20
identity, and examines the various visual and scholarly forms of =
representation=20
it engendered.&nbsp; Since 2002 he has been an Assistant Professor at =
the=20
History Department at Bogazici University, Istanbul; he formerly taught =
at=20
Sabanci University, Istanbul. </DIV>
<DIV align=3Djustify> FINBARR BARRY FLOOD Finbarr Barry Flood is =
Assistant=20
Professor in the Department of Fine Arts, New York University. He was =
educated=20
at Trinity College, Dublin, and completed his Ph.D. at the University of =

Edinburgh in 1993. From 1993 to 1995 he was Nasser D. Khalili Research =
Fellow in=20
Islamic Art and Architecture at the University of Oxford. In the United =
States,=20
he has held research fellowships at the Aga Khan Program at Harvard =
University,=20
the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Gallery of Art in =
Washington, DC.=20
His research interests include Islamic architectural history and =
historiography,=20
cross-cultural dimensions of Islamic art, iconoclasm, technologies of=20
representation, and Orientalism - topics on which he has published in a =
range of=20
academic journals in Europe, the US, the Middle East, South Asia, and=20
Australasia. In 2001 he published his first book: The Great Mosque of =
Damascus:=20
Studies on the Making of an Umayyad Visual Culture (Leiden, 2001). He is =

currently completing his second book, Objects of Translation: Artifacts, =
Elites=20
and Medieval Indo-Persian Encounters, while working on a wide-ranging =
study of=20
iconoclastic practice in the Islamic world. SHIRINE =
HAMADEH Shirine=20
Hamadeh is Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History at Rice=20
University, where she began teaching in 2003.&nbsp; As a recipient of a =
2005-06=20
postdoctoral Getty grant, she is currently on leave to conduct research =
on her=20
new project on Ottoman public spaces in the eighteenth and nineteenth =
centuries.=20
She holds a Ph.D. from MIT (History, Theory, and Criticism, 1999) and =
has=20
published in Muqarnas and the Journal of the Society of Architectural=20
Historians. Her forthcoming book, The City's Pleasures: Istanbul in the=20
Eighteenth Century, to be published by the University of Washington =
Press, is=20
based on her dissertation, which was awarded the 1999 Malcom Kerr =
Dissertation=20
Award in the Humanities by the Middle East Studies Association.&nbsp; =
Her=20
interests range from Ottoman architectural and urban culture and =
processes of=20
Ottoman modernity to artistic exchanges between the Muslim world and =
Europe, and=20
nineteenth-century colonial cities. RENATA HOLOD Renata Holod =
is=20
Professor of the History of Art, Director, Program for Visual Studies, =
and=20
Curator, Near East Section, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at =
the=20
University of Pennsylvania.&nbsp;She carried out archaeological and=20
architectural fieldwork in Syria, Iran, Morocco, Central Asia and =
Turkey, and an=20
archaeological/ethno-historical survey on the island of Jerba, =
Tunisia.&nbsp;=20
She was Convenor, Steering Committee Member, and Master Jury Chair of =
the Aga=20
Khan Award for Architecture. She served as consultant to Skidmore, =
Owings and=20
Merrill (SOM), Arthur Ericson Architects, and Venturi Scott-Brown =
Architects.=20
The Islamic Environmental Research Centre honored her in 2004 with an =
Award for=20
outstanding work in Islamic Architectural Studies.&nbsp; She has =
co-authored the=20
following works: City in the Desert: an account of the archaeological =
expedition=20
to Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi, Syria; Architecture and Community:&nbsp; =
Building in=20
the Islamic World Today; Timurid Architecture of Iran and Central Asia; =
The=20
Mosque and the Modern World.&nbsp; She is co-editor of Modern Turkish=20
Architecture. Jerba Studies, the account of the Jerba Project is =
currently in=20
preparation. CEMAL KAFADAR Cemal Kafadar is Vehbi Koc =
Professor of=20
Turkish Studies in the History Department at Harvard University.&nbsp; =
His study=20
of early Ottoman history, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the =
Ottoman=20
State, has been translated into Arabic, Greek, and Turkish (all of them=20
forthcoming). Ever in search of fun in the archives and libraries, his=20
serendipitous discoveries there have led to works on autobiographical =
writing=20
and to the editing of a Sufi lady's mid-seventeenth-century dream log. =
He is=20
pursuing his interest in the narratives of modernity and tradition =
through=20
research projects related to Ottoman social and cultural life in the =
late=20
medieval and early modern era.&nbsp; He plans to publish a book on one =
of his=20
central concerns, the politics of crowds and rebellions in Istanbul from =
the=20
late sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. He continues to work on =
what he=20
considers to be related topics, including the history of coffeehouses, =
uses of=20
the night, communities of dissent, and early history of =
Bektashism. GULRU=20
NECiPOGLU Gulru Necipoglu has been the Aga Khan Professor of Islamic =
Art and=20
Architecture at Harvard University and the Editor of Muqarnas and =
Supplements to=20
Muqarnas since 1993. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University in =
1986 and=20
began teaching there in 1987. Her articles include comparative studies =
on early=20
modern Islamic art and architecture (Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal), and deal =
with=20
cross-cultural exchanges between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. She has=20
published Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the =

Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge, MA, 1991), The Topkapi =
Scroll:=20
Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture (Santa Monica, CA, 1995), =
and The=20
Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London, =
Princeton,=20
2005). Her Topkapi Scroll, winner of the Albert Hourani Book Award of =
the Middle=20
East Studies Association and the Spiro Kostoff Book Award of the Society =
of=20
Architectural Historians, has recently been translated into Persian =
(Iranian=20
Academy of Art, Tehran, 2003). OYA PANCAROGLU Oya Pancaroglu =
is=20
currently Departmental Lecturer in Islamic Art and Architecture in the =
Oriental=20
Institute, University of Oxford.&nbsp;She received her Ph.D. from =
Harvard=20
University in 2000 with a dissertation on the transformation of figural =
art in=20
the late Seljuk period.&nbsp;Her research interests include the cultural =
context=20
of figural representation in medieval Islamic art and various aspects of =

cross-cultural exchange and overlap in medieval Anatolia.&nbsp; Her =
recent=20
publications include "Caves, Borderlands and Configurations of Sacred =
Topography=20
in Medieval Anatolia," M=E9sogeios 25-26 (2005), "The Emergence of =
Turkic Dynastic=20
Presence in the Islamic World:&nbsp; Cultural Experiences and Artistic =
Horizons,=20
950-1250" in Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600 (London, =
2005), and=20
"The Itinerant Dragon Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity in =
Medieval=20
Anatolia," Gesta 43/2 (2004).<BR><BR>SCOTT REDFORD<BR>Scott Redford is =
the=20
author of articles and two books on the archaeology and architecture of =
medieval=20
Anatolia: The Archaeology of the Frontier in the Medieval Near East: =
Excavations=20
at Grittile (Philadelphia, 1998) and Landscape and the State in Medieval =

Anatolia (Oxford, 2000). He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University =
in 1989=20
with a dissertation titled "The Ceramic Sequence from Medieval Gritille, =
SE=20
Turkey." His present research interests include the publication of the =
medieval=20
levels from the site of Kinet Hoyuk, Hatay, Turkey, and of the =
inscriptions on=20
the city walls of Antalya.&nbsp; He currently divides his time between=20
Georgetown University's McGhee Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, =
in=20
Alanya, and Koc University's Anatolian Civilizations Institute, in=20
Istanbul. KISHWAR RIZVI Kishwar Rizvi teaches the history of =
Islamic=20
art and architecture at Barnard College, Columbia University.&nbsp; Her =
primary=20
research is on representations of religious and imperial authority in =
the art=20
and architecture of Safavid Iran.&nbsp; She is finishing work on her =
book, The=20
Safavid Dynastic Shrine: Architecture, Piety, and Power in Sixteenth and =

Seventeenth -Century Iran.&nbsp; She also writes on issues of gender,=20
nationalism, and religious identity in the contemporary art and =
architecture of=20
Iran and Pakistan. With Sandy Isenstadt, she has edited a forthcoming =
book,=20
Modernism and the Middle East: Politics of the Built =
Environment. DAVID=20
ROXBURGH David J. Roxburgh received his Ph.D. in the History of Art =
at the=20
University of Pennsylvania in 1996. He started teaching at Harvard =
University=20
the same year and was promoted to Professor of History of Art and =
Architecture=20
in 2003. He is the author of two books, Prefacing the Image: The Writing =
of Art=20
History in Sixteenth-Century Iran (Leiden, 2001) and The Persian Album=20
1400-1600: From Dispersal to Collection (New Haven, 2005), and has =
published=20
articles on the history of the Islamic book, painting, and calligraphy. =
Recent=20
research projects include studies on pilgrimage and Ibn Razzaz =
al-Jazari's book=20
on automata in addition to an exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts, =
London,=20
titled Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years 600-1600 (2005). He edited =
the=20
exhibition catalogue and with Nazan Olcer and Filiz Cagman was a =
co-curator of=20
the exhibition. WENDY MERYEM KURAL SHAW Wendy Meryem Kural =
Shaw is=20
interested in the visual effects of cultural adaptation during the =
modern and=20
contemporary periods, with a primary focus on Turkey in its relationship =
both=20
with its own past and with the European Other. She is the author of =
Possessors=20
and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in =
the=20
Late Ottoman Empire (California, 2003), as well as articles concerning=20
contemporary art and modern ideologies surrounding archaeology as part =
of=20
nationalist discourse production.&nbsp; After having taught as Associate =

Professor in Bilgi University, Istanbul, she has recently moved to Kadir =
Has=20
University, Istanbul. HEGHNAR WATENPAUGH Heghnar Watenpaugh is =
an=20
Associate Professor of the History of Architecture and the Aga Khan =
Career=20
Development Professor in the History, Theory and Criticism section of =
the=20
Department of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of =
Technology.&nbsp;=20
She is the author of The Image of an Ottoman City: Imperial Architecture =
and=20
Urban Experience in Aleppo in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries =
(Leiden,=20
2004), as well as articles on early modern and modern Islamic =
architecture and=20
urbanism. She has been awarded numerous fellowships including the J. =
Paul Getty=20
Post-doctoral Fellowship in the History of Art and the Humanities; the =
National=20
Endowment for the Humanities Summer Grant; the President's Faculty =
Research=20
Award in the Humanities, Rice University and the Andrew W. Mellon =
Fellowship at=20
the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of =
Art. Her=20
ongoing research addresses issues of gender and space, as well as the=20
preservation and commodification of architecture in the era of =
colonialism and=20
nationalism in modern Middle Eastern societies. Aga Khan =
Program for=20
Islamic Architecture Harvard University Sackler Museum, Room =
412 485=20
Broadway Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: 617-495-2355 Fax:=20
617-496-8389 Email: <A =
href=3D"mailto:agakhan@fas.harvard.edu"><FONT=20
face=3DSylfaen>agakhan@fas.harvard.edu</A> </DIV></BODY></HTML>=

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C631CC.62304DA0--