The Idiosyncratic Case of Archaeology in Istanbul under Occupation

Abstract

The Idiosyncratic Case of Archaeology in Istanbul under Occupation Ceren Abi (bio) KEYWORDS Occupation of Istanbul, Archaeology, Allies, Ottoman Empire, International Laws In this article, I will focus on the archaeological activities of the Allied forces during the occupation of Istanbul after World War I. I will address three questions: Why did the Allies engage in archaeology? Why did the Allies not ship their archaeological finds in Istanbul to Europe, given that they did so from elsewhere in the empire? Indeed, all parties that fought on Ottoman lands carried out archaeological activities during the war.1 Lastly, why would they do this in the midst of a brutal global conflict and an occupation? I argue that we can answer these questions by looking at what they sought to gain. Firstly, to stake territorial claims or at least to delineate a zone of influence; secondly, to legitimize their occupation; and thirdly, to take advantage of an exceptional opportunity to produce knowledge and acquire antiquities. The Allies claimed to be the true successors of the ancient civilizations that had developed in the Ottoman lands, which provided an ideological rationale for the occupation. There was precedent for using the past to assert territorial claims, such as by the French in Egypt in the late eighteenth century, [End Page 255] and by France and Italy in North Africa in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.2 During the occupation of Eastern Asia Minor during the First World War, Russia also asserted its claim to be the legitimate heir of the Byzantine Empire and initiated excavations.3 In 1919, when the Greek Army occupied the Western coast of Asia Minor, they were similarly accompanied by archaeologists who collected antiquities with the intention of proving the essential "Greekness" of the lands. At the same time, the Italians, who had long had a cultural interest in the same territories, attempted to establish their own historical claims through archaeological studies into the Roman past.4 The Allies also tried to accomplish these same goals through the use of civilizing mission tactics. For example, the French military established a museum in Adana,5 while Italian forces established one in Antalya.6 These museums were presented as having civilized the occupied land and conspicuously displayed the importance of protecting local antiquities. The occupation was also framed as an "exceptional opportunity," in the words of Sir Frederic Kenyon, the director of the British Museum.7 By 1915, when the Allied armies began fighting in the Ottoman lands, the British were already conducting excavations and were shipping their finds back to Britain and France.8 The Ottoman Antiquities Law of 1884 declared all antiquities to be state property and strictly banned their exportation. Article 56 of the 1899 Hague Convention, which concerned the laws and customs of war, prohibited [End Page 256] the seizure of "historical monuments, works of art or science."9 Article 43 of the Hague Convention of 1907, likewise decreed that occupiers must respect the laws in force in the occupied country. Thus, theoretically the Allied archaeological activities were already legally questionable. In Istanbul, it was the French who conducted excavations, working in the Gülhane and Makriköy districts to uncover Byzantine remains.10 The Ottomans also attempted to maintain control of archaeological discoveries and the movement of finds during the occupation period. At the same time, however, officials from the Ottoman state and the occupying archaeologists maintained a scholarly relationship. For example, Theodor Makridy Bey, an archaeologist at the Ottoman Imperial Museum, co-authored articles with French archaeologists.11 The association of Makridy Bey and other Ottoman officials with French archaeologists predated the war. Furthermore, Ottoman officials engaged in civil gestures with the occupation forces.12 Nonetheless, during the occupation, the nature of French excavations became contentious. The French argued that the excavations were mutually agreed upon by General Charpy, the head of the French occupation forces in Istanbul, and Halil Edhem, the director of the Ottoman Imperial Museum, via an exchange of letters. However, Ottoman documents indicate that Halil Bey was upset about not being notified, to the extent that he brought the issue to General Charpy and demanded an explanation and cessation of the excavations...